On Saturday, 18 February 2017 10:16:32 UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 09:27:24 UTC, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 6:55:35 AM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 03:34:21 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish' - as always.

Oh and w and hughes have decided to hop into bed together. That's nice. 😂😂😂😂 (Cue abuse)

Yes, it's a pretty eclectic mix of people you've managed to bring together in their condemnation of yourself. You manage to abuse people from across the spectrum. The only ones missing are the people that never read your posts.

Poor old Crusader, I bet he didn't expect this.

I did recommend, in a stupid & arrogant reply you gave to one of my posts, that you **** off and go back to Weather & Climate. Perhaps you could please, and we could get back to discussing the weather.

Graham
Penzance

Yes, After your foul mouthed outburst, 'poor old Crusader' eh?

I stick up for the MetO against people like this who feel they have a right to feel they are somehow better. They are not. That was the point of my original post. There are some who really detest the MetO and use this newsgroup to say so at every opportunity. That is their right and I don't tell them to 'please f*** off' to another newsgroup. I argue, strongly, but without abuse and foul language, that they are wrong. May I not do this?

Usually these people used to work at the MetO and have become very distant after leaving/retirement, bacause the MetO no longer has to listen to them and they can't believe the organisation is functioning so well without them. These people are critical of almost anything the MetO does. Will is an obvious example, but there are others too.


Crusader was very critical of the MetO but you said nothing until Will endorsed his view. You then used this to have a go at Will under the guise of supporting the MetO and you're still at it but very unconvincingly. You don't give tuppence about the MetO one way or the other but simply use it as a means of having a go at others as you do with a number of other topics. You can see what members think of that attitude.

In any interaction with other members nothing you say can be taken at face value - there is always an ad hominem factor. You are a walking compendium of falsehood and hypocrisy.

Tudor Hughes