On Mar 28, 5:12*pm, smallbabe wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:54*pm, wrote:





On Mar 28, 11:31*am, "Nick Gardner"

wrote:
Paul

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

* * * * It's very hard for some people, as we all know, and the
problem is that it infects the whole site, raises the temperature and
brings out the worst in everyone.

Welcome back anyway.

You cannot be serious. *This group will become fractious and ill-
tempered and no good will come of it.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Remember the "c" word you stooped to using Hughes? You could get
fractious and ill tempered and throw your toys out of the pram at a
cat crossing your lawn. I think you are most easily stirred
contributer to this group and you are certainly the most unpleasant to
deal with when you get angry - which happens unnecessarily often. You
are best ignored. There are other members of this group that,
fortunately, did not come out of the same mould as your foul-mouthed
self.

Hughes patently hasn't the wherewithal, but can anyone else point to a
single contributor, on here, or any other usegroup whose forecasts can
be decribed as being useful, on an outcome success basis? No-one yet
has and it is my standpoint that no-one can.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very amusing. Why don't you just go away and set fire to some
other group? Or you could set up a site called
totallybullyingandignorant where you and Alastair Campbell (say) could
snarl at each other. No light would be shed on anything worthwhile
but it would be a wonderful spectator sport. Evidence suggest few
would actually want to take part.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

"smallbabe" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, wrote:
On Mar 28, 11:31 am, "Nick Gardner"


This thread is one of the most surreal that I have read on here... bar any
that Weatherlawyer have been involved in.

Jim

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, wrote
On Mar 28, 5:12*pm, smallbabe wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:54*pm, wrote:





On Mar 28, 11:31*am, "Nick Gardner"

wrote:
Paul

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

* * * * It's very hard for some people, as we all know, and the
problem is that it infects the whole site, raises the temperature and
brings out the worst in everyone.

Welcome back anyway.

You cannot be serious. *This group will become fractious and ill-
tempered and no good will come of it.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Remember the "c" word you stooped to using Hughes? You could get
fractious and ill tempered and throw your toys out of the pram at a
cat crossing your lawn. I think you are most easily stirred
contributer to this group and you are certainly the most unpleasant to
deal with when you get angry - which happens unnecessarily often. You
are best ignored. There are other members of this group that,
fortunately, did not come out of the same mould as your foul-mouthed
self.

Hughes patently hasn't the wherewithal, but can anyone else point to a
single contributor, on here, or any other usegroup whose forecasts can
be decribed as being useful, on an outcome success basis? No-one yet
has and it is my standpoint that no-one can.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very amusing. Why don't you just go away and set fire to some
other group? Or you could set up a site called
totallybullyingandignorant where you and Alastair Campbell (say) could
snarl at each other. No light would be shed on anything worthwhile
but it would be a wonderful spectator sport. Evidence suggest few
would actually want to take part.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey


Oh do grow up, all of you.


--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...
Take this with a huge pinch of salt, but over the past week I have had an
increasing hunch that this summer is likely to be very dry with long warm
spells interspersed with a few very localised dramatic thunderstorms. Not
a record breaker in terms of temperature but notable for its dryness with
the Azores high closer than normal. Are my hunches worth anything? I'll
let you all be the judge of that :-)

Will
--



Will..I hope to goodness that your hunch is accurate! I had a hunch that
last year's was going to be pants, but that was based on nothing more than
the fact that the year ended in an 8. In the end it was a true '8 summer'!

After the past two letdowns, I think we deserve some decent summer weather
this year.

This will be the third summer that the Mrs and I have been together, I hope
to be able to show her around Dorset at it's best, at last.
Our wedding and honeymoon in July last year was a cool washout, as was our
holiday in the Lakes the previous summer. We're off to Cornwall this year in
the 2nd week of July, hope it is third time lucky!

Jim, Bournemouth

In article d37e5dd7-79e8-4914-837d-9399a0288324
@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...
"I'll bet you a pound to a penny that this, perfectly rational and
wholly accurate criticism, is met not with acceptance,

[...]


I couldn't have wished for a better response. Point completely proven.

Hardly. For a start, your post /was/ met with acceptance. I said it had
many valid points. You on the other hand, read what you wanted to read.


Your post does all of the above. Defends the "forecaster", attackes
the questioner. Ignores the requirement for analysis of any
forecasting. Goes off at a tangent making silly references to nothing
that's actually being said and tries to deflect the issue and take it
away from the pertinence of the point.

I did not defend the forecaster. There was no forecaster.
I did not attack the questioner as such. You asked no questions (unless
you're going to insist that rhetorical questions count). I did attack
your premise that people are required to provide full statistical
analysis of their forecasts, so how can I not ignore a requirement that
is simply not required?
Why would I try to deflect from the "issue" when, by and large, I agree
with it. (Assuming that your issue is regarding the usefulness of LR
forecasts)

Please re-read my post. Slowly this time. Seek assistance if you need
to.


You certainly can't show me a single person who has had any success at
insertlong-range/insert
forecasting;

No! I can't. I don't pay them enough attention to form an opinion as to
their validity.

Your post is a confused ramble,
full of invective and little else and yet you defend the "forecaster".
Exactly what I said
would happen in my post and it backs my standpoint to perfection.
Anecdotal, qualitative, sycophantic rubbish, mixed with insult and
anger. A stereotypical response because the poster has upset you by
speaking about facts, which you would much rather ignore. Try posting
sense.

You most certainly did /not/ read my post. What little anger and insult
was there, was obviously in humour. It was a bit for bit, tounge-in-
cheek riposte of the quoted paragraph above. I am saddened that you
didn't see that. Again, I can only assume that you read what you wanted
to read.



Can anyone refute my statement that; "there isn't a single internet
weather forecaster, at any range over 1 week, who is of any use
whatsoever."

YES!!! People who forecast over 1 week provide me with much amusement
and merriment. Apart from that, no, I mostly agree with you. I am sure
most of the contributors here would mostly agree with you. I'm sure Will
Hand would mostly agree with you if you bothered to ask him nicely.



I very much doubt whether anyone can, yet like Alan continue to laud
the forecaster. Simply daft.


I fear I paid far less attention to the non-forecast than you did, until
your post in reply. All I did was defend the right of people to publish
unfounded, unwarranted, badly judged forecasts on usenet without your
ridiculous claim that they must first furnish you with full statistical
analysis of past performance. Hunches that are to be taken with a large
pinch of salt simply don't come into it.


--
Alan LeHun

On 28 Mar, 18:39, "Jim Smith" wrote:
"smallbabe" wrote in message

...
On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, wrote:

On Mar 28, 11:31 am, "Nick Gardner"

This thread is one of the most surreal that I have read on here... bar any
that Weatherlawyer have been involved in.

Jim

Dawlish is back, reincarnated as smallbabe admittedly, so what do you
expect?

Graham
Penzance

In article ,
Nick Gardner writes:
Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

"Hear, hear" to all of that.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

On Mar 28, 9:39*pm, John Hall wrote:
In article ,
*Nick Gardner writes:

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

"Hear, hear" to all of that.
--
John Hall * * * *"Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
* * * * * * * * * pays off now." *Anon

This group was quite harmonious until Dawlish turned up last
year and resumed its harmony when he left. It was nice; back to
normal. We forgot he ever existed. Now he has returned and
*immediately* causes mayhem with his ill-mannered aggressive
ignorance. So why the hell should we be nice to such a person? He
adds nothing, knows rather little and leaves a shambles. Ignore him -
let him start fights with himself alone.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Mar 29, 2:28*pm, wrote:
On Mar 28, 9:39*pm, John Hall wrote:

In article ,
*Nick Gardner writes:

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

"Hear, hear" to all of that.
--
John Hall * * * *"Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
* * * * * * * * * pays off now." *Anon

* * * * *This group was quite harmonious until Dawlish turned up last
year and resumed its harmony when he left. *It was nice; back to
normal. * We forgot he ever existed. *Now he has returned and
*immediately* causes mayhem with his ill-mannered aggressive
ignorance. *So why the hell should we be nice to such a person? *He
adds nothing, knows rather little and leaves a shambles. *Ignore him -
let him start fights with himself alone.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Let's hope he disappears again. Given that most forum moderators don't
take any decisve actions, that's the best hope.

In article 30394d03-e45b-4db6-8131-
, says...
This group was quite harmonious until Dawlish turned up last
year and resumed its harmony when he left. It was nice; back to
normal. We forgot he ever existed. Now he has returned and
*immediately* causes mayhem with his ill-mannered aggressive
ignorance. So why the hell should we be nice to such a person? He
adds nothing, knows rather little and leaves a shambles. Ignore him -
let him start fights with himself alone.


Well it's really only me that's snapping at him.

I'll stop now.

--
Alan LeHun