On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

...
I am concerned about postings to deliberately highlight personal
identities to make a point.

But as it's already in the header of every post you make, no one has any
need to deliberately highlight it. It's obvious.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

On Jun 4, 10:22*pm, "JCW" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 4, 8:51 pm, Mike Tullett wrote:

Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 04/06/2008 19:51:35 GMT

Thanks for making that and my IP address clear Mike. I understand the
process now. It's my choice to use google, as many others do on usenet
(are they all wrong too). Paul

Dear god, Paul, will you please get a life!

I was happy to see you posting somewhere again after you left TWO and I
appreciated seeing your interpretation of the models. Heck, I even enjoyed
the banter with Weatherlawyer! However if Mike didn't highlight your
misunderstandings of how the thread title works then I would have.

Don't have a go at him just because he was showing up the weaknesses of
Google! It's not the first time I've seen you post recently where you seem
to challenge the intent of a post, intentional or not. These guys have been
posting here a very long time as you know and you're among the very few to
react this way... This isn't TWO thank god - far more civil...at least it
was until now and for me to become embroiled well, hey....

I had noticed he had left off his threat to dog my heels like the ****
he is, so I baited him a bit. Then I thought: "Well he might genuinely
be an half wit." So I binned the post and the follow up to his half
wit twin, too.

So is he a dick-head or what?

I hope he's not going to start spamming the group with inundations
about MI5. I get the impression he is only a Valium away from that,
sometimes. Poor bugger.

On Jun 5, 2:08*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:22*pm, "JCW" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 4, 8:51 pm, Mike Tullett wrote:

Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 04/06/2008 19:51:35 GMT

Thanks for making that and my IP address clear Mike. I understand the
process now. It's my choice to use google, as many others do on usenet
(are they all wrong too). Paul

Dear god, Paul, will you please get a life!

I was happy to see you posting somewhere again after you left TWO and I
appreciated seeing your interpretation of the models. Heck, I even enjoyed
the banter with Weatherlawyer! However if Mike didn't highlight your
misunderstandings of how the thread title works then I would have.

Don't have a go at him just because he was showing up the weaknesses of
Google! It's not the first time I've seen you post recently where you seem
to challenge the intent of a post, intentional or not. These guys have been
posting here a very long time as you know and you're among the very few to
react this way... This isn't TWO thank god - far more civil...at least it
was until now and for me to become embroiled well, hey....

I had noticed he had left off his threat to dog my heels like the ****
he is, so I baited him a bit. Then I thought: "Well he might genuinely
be an half wit." So I binned the post and the follow up to his half
wit twin, too.

So is he a dick-head or what?

I hope he's not going to start spamming the group with inundations
about MI5. I get the impression he is only a Valium away from that,
sometimes. Poor bugger.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's the difficulty above. There is no "banter" with W; just a
desire on my part to monitor his theories - which appears to have got
so far under his skin that abuse, maliciousness and perversity have
multiplied and I'm now a regular in some of his other posts! I don't
"banter" with people who abuse me and others (not everyone; I know he
is just "perplexing" to some) and I'll only reply to W on this group.
Following him across the Internet universe is the style of a stalker
and I know it also annoys him that I won't do that. Not my problem
there!

Many people use web-based access to usenet, instead of a newsreader
group. In the first instance, it is easier and many stick to that.
Others on here do. Are they stupid? No, They just use it because of
it's initial ease of access and stick with it. It's inertia, I know,
Joe, but no-one follows every perfect solution; there are too many in
this life. I honestly think that it is your good self that needs to
"get a life" having seen you post, in response to me, just this once
here and the post is simply a snipe and nothing to do with the
weather. Does everyone have the highest paying current account from a
high street bank? Do you?

One problem with using a web-based access to usenet google groups is
when others use it to mischievous, or malicious advantage. I expected
that response Alan, but you miss the point that there was no need to
highlight the IP address again. I'm aware of that content, but it's
something I'd personally not do. Neither would I ever reveal an email
address of someone who has contacted me through usenet either
(contacting through the "reply to author" button is considered "bad
netiquette" according to some - each to their own on that one; I was
contacted half a dozen times before I contacted anyone else). John is
right. We've encountered a quirk of Google groups, but Google groups
access appears to be functioning OK otherwise. The mischievous, or
malicious advantage will be seen in what happens in response to my
last paragraph and new thread.

Anyway, to finish this, I'll start a new thread. Same title as this
one was previously. If the title is changed, maybe the same few who
feel it is fine to descend from the trees to criticise someone using
web-based access to usenet and therefore not fully understanding
newsreader access, will feel similarly moved to criticise the one who
alters it - but why do I doubt that they will do that. This kind of
activity spreads. There will be others waiting to change the title of
other people's threads now, especially the one who started this. If
that happens, it will benefit no-one. I'd never do it, even if I had
the means. If you few wish to continue talking about google groups and
pointing out how much better your access to them is than those who use
web-based access, fine, but apologies if I leave this discussion.

If you wish to talk about conditions around next Tuesday on the new
thread; great. If you wish to criticise anything about methodology or
accuracy of these forecasts; great, I'll enjoy the debate. If you wish
to post outright abuse and tell everyone you've been "baiting"; fine,
I'll just ignore you and you'll cement your reputation further. If you
wish to change the thread title, that will say far more about the
person that does, than it would ever say about anyone else on here.

Here goes.

Paul

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

...and I'll only reply to W on this group.

But you've already replied to him in sci.geo.earthquakes,
sci.geo.geology, and sci.geo.satellite-nav in the thread 'Natural
Disasters and Their Root Cause'.

To avoid that you should either check for cross posting in the headers
or use a news reader that flags cross posting when you reply and gives
you the option to reply to the current group or to all groups.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

On Jun 5, 8:57*am, Dawlish Invitiation to dine
with the unclean snipped

Here goes.

Let's hope so. Please accept my invitation to never come back.

You posted something about what a computer model sad then credited
yourself with the utterance and then expected a fleet of admirers to
tell you what a clever lad you were.

Perhaps I aught to too, in the spirit of being nice. You poor drupe.
But I am not going to.

There are plenty of mummies on here and elsewhere to get your
breakfast from, champ.

I'm not one of them.

Some good may come of this. It would be nice to think that you have
learned something about making threats to violent and unpleasant
people you do not know.

Bigger ****s, as it were.

Now fijiq off!

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jun 5, 2:08 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
There is no "banter" with W; just a
desire on my part to monitor his theories - Paul

The big diff between you and the Perry Mason no life on here is thats he's
completely trounced off his bonks whilst you are, in the main, "all there"
Thats my view.

--
Dave R. [west London]

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jun 5, 2:08 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:22 pm, "JCW" wrote:
Dear god, Paul, will you please get a life!

based access to usenet, instead of a newsreader
group. In the first instance, it is easier and many stick to that.
Others on here do. Are they stupid? No, They just use it because of
it's initial ease of access and stick with it. It's inertia, I know,
Joe, but no-one follows every perfect solution; there are too many in
this life. I honestly think that it is your good self that needs to
"get a life" having seen you post, in response to me, just this once
here and the post is simply a snipe and nothing to do with the
weather.

Paul, I must reply.

I will accept that my 'get a life' remark was uncalled for and I take it
back. I did not intend any snipe, as you describe it.

I had been reading this thread out of content interest initially. The fact
that I posted this "once here" was a reaction to, what I considered, a rash
post of your own to Mike T. I've followed your posts, and others, for the
information they offer, the debates the provoke, the arguments they counter
however on this occasion I just thought your own response was
inappropriate...much as mine obviously is!

The point that was being made, intially, was that the headers of your post
were not being changed by an individual however the fact that usenet made it
appear so! (If I am wrong about this then I totally apologise for that
interpretation.) The fact that Mike tried to explain this seems lost
because, in my opinion, you perceived his post to be a deliberate(?) attempt
to make public your IP address and the possibility you felt his advice
patronising? Of course, I'm not a mind reader and can't read your thoughts
or intent but then neither are you and until, or if, Mike replies we are
only second-guessing the intent behind a few lines of text... I think you'd
agree that trying to do so is probably all, too commonly, a dangerous
mistake to make?

In trying to that that very thing here, I detect a certain grand
righteousness about a minority of your posts! I hope is nothing more than my
own mis-interpretation of your posts! We all make mistakes...well most of
us.

I won't get into your scientific challenges you make to Weatherlawyer
however the 'conversations' between you both do make interesting reading for
many reasons but maybe my description of 'banter' is not apt. Anyway W is
well ,well able to comment for himself!

Finally, with regard to "snipes", I would seem not to be alone in rising to
that particular behaviour as per your comment below?

"If the title is changed, maybe the same few who feel it is fine to descend
from the trees to criticise someone using web-based access to usenet and
therefore not fully understanding newsreader access, will feel similarly
moved to criticise the one who alters it - but why do I doubt that they will
do that."

I don't like being preached to; I am quite sure you are no different. I
don't want to persist with this off-topic posting however that decision is
as much your as mine. I'll try not to be so serious; so quick to judge; so
quick to respond without due consideration. It's difficult but I'll try!!

Regards,

Joe

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:42:56 +0100, JCW wrote in


The point that was being made, intially, was that the headers of your post
were not being changed by an individual however the fact that usenet made it
appear so! (If I am wrong about this then I totally apologise for that
interpretation.) The fact that Mike tried to explain this seems lost
because, in my opinion, you perceived his post to be a deliberate(?) attempt
to make public your IP address and the possibility you felt his advice
patronising? Of course, I'm not a mind reader and can't read your thoughts
or intent but then neither are you and until, or if, Mike replies we are
only second-guessing the intent behind a few lines of text... I think you'd
agree that trying to do so is probably all, too commonly, a dangerous
mistake to make?

Thanks for your post Joe and you are correct. I was trying to explain why
the headers were as they were when a newsreader is used to reply. Only when
someone deliberately changes the subject, do other posts in that part of
the thread take on the new subject. Other unrelated posts retain the
original subject as in the subject line.

I was also attempting to show, using the NNTP posting-host line, that there
is a good deal more to a Usenet post than at first appears. Even a one
line post will have between 15 and 20 extra lines in it, including the
email address we use. All newsreaders can show these "headers" but Google
doesn't - I think. By posting to Usenet, we reveal several things that
some may think are confidential.

BTW and OT - my daughter was married Monday of last week. If you still have
my website URL there are photos the-)

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 05/06/2008 21:55:56 GMT

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:42:56 +0100, JCW wrote
in


BTW and OT - my daughter was married Monday of last week. If you still
have
my website URL there are photos the-)


Indeed I do, Mike, and my congratulations and best wishes to C and P!
I can just imagine how proud you were leading her up the church aisle...nice
cake too!! ;-)

On Jun 5, 10:49*pm, "JCW" wrote:
"Mike Tullett" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:42:56 +0100, *JCW *wrote
in


BTW and OT - my daughter was married Monday of last week. If you still
have
my website URL there are photos the-)

Indeed I do, Mike, and my congratulations and best wishes to C and P!
I can just imagine how proud you were leading her up the church aisle...nice
cake too!! ;-)

Appreciated, Mike and Joe and apologies if I've got the wrong end of
the stick through my own ignorance. I'm learning too. The title of the
post was changed initially and mischievously, Joe and that caused the
problems and a host of misunderstandings due to my lack of knowledge
of google/newsreader groups (and others' innocent lack of
understanding). You've both helped my understanding and I'm sure
you've helped others'. However, I'll be what I want to be Joe and I'll
consider your closing advice, as it was expressed so unpatronisingly,
but you know me and you'll appreciate if I may decide to not follow
it!

Disagreements can be entertaining; I find them so too, but as long as
people don't get abusive, any scrap is valid. Unfortunately, as soon
as they do get abusive, the argument is quite obviously lost and
that's happened to a couple on here already.

Definitely my last comments on here, but I thought you both deserved
comment on your offered olive-branches!

Paul