On Jun 8, 11:04*am, Dawlish wrote:

You've made that phrase up, haven't you? it's just two words sat next
to each other that doesn't actually mean anything isn't it?

You are a clot. Only the clotted effygialism you are decomposing of
isn't for strawberries.

Can you see how many regard this

No. How many?

Don't tell me; let me guess.

On Jun 8, 8:16*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:04*am, Dawlish wrote:



You've made that phrase up, haven't you? it's just two words sat next
to each other that doesn't actually mean anything isn't it?

You are a clot. Only the clotted effygialism you are decomposing of
isn't for strawberries.

Can you see how many regard this

No. How many?

Don't tell me; let me guess.

Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

On Jun 8, 8:56*pm, Dawlish wrote:

Is there any wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously

Not as much as there would be if nobody in their wrong mind took my
ideas seriously, no.

What was the question?

Is there any wonder, no body.

Nobody. Wondered off?

If a tree falls in a forest and there was nobody to see it, who else
wood. Suppose they all leaf?

What is nobody doing in the forest in the first place. Is nobody
responsible for the tree falling? What if nobody is crushed?

Who cant ell?
There was no body...
gorned.

On Jun 8, 11:18*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 8, 8:56*pm, Dawlish wrote:



Is there any wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously

Not as much as there would be if nobody in their wrong mind took my
ideas seriously, no.

What was the question?

Is there any wonder, no body.

Nobody. *Wondered off?

If a tree falls in a forest and there was nobody to see it, who else
wood. Suppose they all leaf?

What is nobody doing in the forest in the first place. Is nobody
responsible for the tree falling? What if nobody is crushed?

Who cant ell?
There was no body...
gorned.

Nobody, W. Just nobody.

PS Sorry Lawrence. I'll write out "must do better" a few hundred
times.

PS Sorry Lawrence. I'll write out "must do better" a few hundred
times.

Don't you mean you will write out "I won't do it again"?

And shouldn't that be 'one hundred times'? Clarity, dear fellow,
that's what scientific forecasting is all about :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

On Jun 9, 9:29*am, Alastair wrote:
PS Sorry Lawrence. I'll write out "must do better" a few hundred
times.

Don't you mean you will write out "I won't do it again"?

And shouldn't that be 'one hundred times'? Clarity, dear fellow,
that's what scientific forecasting is all about :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

You must have gone to a posher school than I did. Careful with your
choice of meal, dear fellow, that's what survival is all about :-)

Cheers, Paul

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jun 8, 8:16 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:04 am, Dawlish wrote:



You've made that phrase up, haven't you? it's just two words sat next
to each other that doesn't actually mean anything isn't it?

You are a clot. Only the clotted effygialism you are decomposing of
isn't for strawberries.

Can you see how many regard this

No. How many?

Don't tell me; let me guess.

Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

Another dropped apostrophe?

On Jun 9, 12:30*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

Another dropped apostrophe?

Such is his wont.

On Jun 9, 9:06*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:30*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:



Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

Another dropped apostrophe?

Such is his wont.

So; how about clarity with your forecasts, your theories, the
interpretation of your forecasts and especially the verification of
those forecasts. Lawrence's daft aside won't deflect the questions, W
and they need answers if anyone is to ever take you seriously.

On Jun 9, 9:12*am, Dawlish wrote:

So; how about clarity with your forecasts

Quite right about that. How about that?

Every fool should have one. Make yours a double.