On 8 May, 17:57, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe-
,
says...

On May 8, 12:22 pm, wrote:

....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next.

Your lack of imagination aught to have a bearing on your intestinal
fortitude.

I see. When someone says they "dare not imagine", you comprehend this as
meaning they admit to having no imagination? And then you insult them as
a result of your own comprehension issues.

However your greatest disability is the sheer volume of
ignorance you have so patiently stored between your ears.

Consider:

Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational
pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does
over the water)

Define gravity.

OK, that's an hard one for you. Let's try something easier:
Which orbits which? Does the moon go around the earth or the earth
around the moon?

The moon goes round the Earth.



In which case the attraction of the [blank] is [blanker] than that of
[blank].

Replace blank with ...

No, too difficult for you...
Let me see...

You obviously do not subscribe to Aristotle's theory of gravitational
attraction.
Where did you come up with your version of the alternative? No.. hang
on. I have got it..

Have you ever heard of a bloke called Galileo?

Ah forget it. Believe what you like.

What a large amount of condescending and unwarranted claptrap, just
because crazyh0rse made a small, and not necessary factual, error (or
was it because he made "suggestions" for you to peruse). It is quite
clear to me that your most favoured pursuit is the ego inflating rampage
that you embark upon every time anyone should make any sort of
percieved) error which allows you to expose your self inferred
intellectual superiority.

Your post did nothing for anyone else (it didn't even identify
crazyh0rses mistake let alone correct it), had no substance whatsoever,
and served only your own personal gratification. I'm sure you at least
felt really clever while you wrote it.

--
Alan LeHun

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I should really know better.

On May 8, 6:56*pm, wrote:
On 8 May, 17:57, Alan LeHun wrote:





In article 9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe-
,
says...

On May 8, 12:22 pm, wrote:

....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next.

Your lack of imagination aught to have a bearing on your intestinal
fortitude.

I see. When someone says they "dare not imagine", you comprehend this as
meaning they admit to having no imagination? And then you insult them as
a result of your own comprehension issues.

However your greatest disability is the sheer volume of
ignorance you have so patiently stored between your ears.

Consider:

Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational
pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does
over the water)

Define gravity.

OK, that's an hard one for you. Let's try something easier:
Which orbits which? Does the moon go around the earth or the earth
around the moon?

The moon goes round the Earth.

In which case the attraction of the [blank] is [blanker] than that of
[blank].

Replace blank with ...

No, too difficult for you...
Let me see...

You obviously do not subscribe to Aristotle's theory of gravitational
attraction.
Where did you come up with your version of the alternative? No.. hang
on. I have got it..

Have you ever heard of a bloke called Galileo?

Ah forget it. Believe what you like.

What a large amount of condescending and unwarranted claptrap, just
because crazyh0rse made a small, and not necessary factual, error (or
was it because he made "suggestions" for you to peruse). It is quite
clear to me that your most favoured pursuit is the ego inflating rampage
that you embark upon every time anyone should make any sort of
percieved) error which allows you to expose your self inferred
intellectual superiority.

Your post did nothing for anyone else (it didn't even identify
crazyh0rses mistake let alone correct it), had no substance whatsoever,
and served only your own personal gratification. I'm sure you at least
felt really clever while you wrote it.

--
Alan LeHun

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I should really know better.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You got abuse. Typical, but unfortunately the norm.

Now where's that 7.5+ Earthquake that this genius "predicted" would
happen in the next couple of days...... I forget how many days ago
now?

Of course, the last sentence would be interpreted as an unprovoked
attack on someone's views by a particular poster. The completely
unwarranted attack on crazy would be interpreted by the same person as
"perplexing". Funny how some people's world works.....especially W's.

On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote:

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I should really know better.

Don't apologize. Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more
appropriate. Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to
is a loon.

--mirage

On May 8, 9:05*pm, mirage wrote:
On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote:



Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I should really know better.

Don't apologize. *Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more
appropriate. *Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to
is a loon.

--mirage

Now that really is an unprovoked attack on someone's reasonable views.

Disgusted of Dawlish.

*))

Paul

On May 8, 6:56 pm, wrote:

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I should really know better.

That's the difference between us don't you know, I was being sarcastic
and I do know better. In fact, I know best.

Here is an example to tear you another place for you to put your head.

These quakes occur each time an High pressure area leaves North
America by way of the Carolinas.
5.0 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA.

Have fun children.

Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence?
http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...racknell+13 2
(55 N. 35 W.)

They think it's all over!

On May 8, 9:05 pm, mirage wrote:
On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote:

I should really know better.

Don't apologize. Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more
appropriate. Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to
is a loon.

Unappreciative loon. And... No gentleman.
I wonder why he writes to me? Maybe he needs help?
Glad to oblige.

Or not, as the case maybe.

On May 8, 10:57*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 8, 9:05 pm, mirage wrote:

On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote:

I should really know better.

Don't apologize. *Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more
appropriate. *Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to
is a loon.

Unappreciative loon. And... No gentleman.
I wonder why he writes to me? Maybe he needs help?
Glad to oblige.

Or not, as the case maybe.

So, earthquake of 7.5, or greater, W? You've gone very quiet on the
analysis of your predictions front. Or maybe that is a "not", as the
case may be?

On May 8, 10:53 pm, Weatherlawyer

Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence?http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br...

(55 N. 35 W.)

They think it's all over!

Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most
of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I
posted about on this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...4497819d93f17#

On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most
of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I
posted about on this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/f7644...

This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May
2008.
!8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is
certainly heading that way.

On May 9, 3:47*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 8, 10:53 pm, Weatherlawyer



Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence?http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br...

(55 N. 35 W.)

They think it's all over!

Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most
of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I
posted about on this thread:



http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...read/f7644...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text

OK, a major eruption at some time over a specified 2-day period. We'll
monitor that. You need this one to occur, to increase your forecast
accuracy to 33% over your last 3 forecasts. At the moment, your
percentage accuracy stands at zero (0/2) since April 24th.

If your definition of a "major" eruption would be "explosive" on the
VEI scale, one would expect one to happen weekly, on average. As one
hasn't happened since the 2nd May, another would be expected soon -
hence, probably, your forecast. The biggest one recently, Chaiten,
your methods patently failed to predict.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/eruption_scale.html

Also, you can't pull the wool over our eyes by quoting any of these,
unless there is a significant change in the output of any of them. All
these are ongoing.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/eruption_scale.html

Good luck. You'll need it.