On Sep 14, 6:15*pm, Dawlish wrote:


Anyone know the success rate for W and his forecasts?-
- Show quoted text -

Nobody here either knows or cares. He is an amusement, to be
treasured as such.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

On Sep 15, 3:27*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sep 14, 6:15*pm, Dawlish wrote:



Anyone know the success rate for W and his forecasts?-
- Show quoted text -

* * * *Nobody here either knows or cares. *He is an amusement, to be
treasured as such.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

Science without any basis in objective reality should always be
challenged. There are people who view, creationists as "amusement"
There are others who are apolgists for people like W who have abusive
and threatening natures too. Maybe they should be "treasured".

On Sep 15, 7:56*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 15, 3:27*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Sep 14, 6:15*pm, Dawlish wrote:

Anyone know the success rate for W and his forecasts?-
- Show quoted text -

* * * *Nobody here either knows or cares. *He is an amusement, to be
treasured as such.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

Science without any basis in objective reality should always be
challenged. There are people who view, creationists as "amusement"
There are others who are apolgists for people like W who have abusive
and threatening natures too. Maybe they should be "treasured".

On Sep 15, 7:56*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 15, 3:27*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Sep 14, 6:15*pm, Dawlish wrote:

Anyone know the success rate for W and his forecasts?-
- Show quoted text -

* * * *Nobody here either knows or cares. *He is an amusement, to be
treasured as such.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

Science without any basis in objective reality should always be
challenged. There are people who view, creationists as "amusement"

Very few people have a problem in distinguishing between the
harmless nonsense of Weatherlawyer and the harmful nonsense of
creationism. Leave Weatherlawyer alone; he's ours; we love him, sort
of, mostly.

There are others who are apolgists for people like W who have abusive
and threatening natures too. Maybe they should be "treasured".

Oh, I am, and 'swonderful, 'smarvellous.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Sep 15, 3:48*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:

Very few people have a problem in distinguishing between the
harmless nonsense of Weatherlawyer and the harmful nonsense of
creationism. *Leave Weatherlawyer alone; he's ours; we love him, sort
of, mostly.

Or not as the case maybe, maybe?

Talking of creation I was thinking of the post earlier today, you know
the issue of dealing with radiation is a major problem for Satellite
and terrestrial TV and Radio companies earthwide.

But in all of phototropic creation, I can't think of any vegetables
having difficulty with transforming light into what, sugar and the ret
of it.

Transmutation or transformation or what is that word... when an energy
is transferred from one type to another...

Anyway the point is that when you have to rectify an energy source and
regulate it in such highly defined ideopathic ways and in such
countless variety, it is usually best to express the design in terms
of creation rather than accident.

Even though the design ethic permits the successful operation of
higher vegetation such as Dullish.

Still, never mind, eh?

Mustn't grumble.

(Anyone know if the term "Sport" has application to the noble art of
dropping newborn babies on their heads in pursuit of higher life
forms?)

On Sep 16, 3:42*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 15, 3:48*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:



Very few people have a problem in distinguishing between the
harmless nonsense of Weatherlawyer and the harmful nonsense of
creationism. *Leave Weatherlawyer alone; he's ours; we love him, sort
of, mostly.

Or not as the case maybe, maybe?

Talking of creation I was thinking of the post earlier today, you know
the issue of dealing with radiation is a major problem for Satellite
and terrestrial TV and Radio companies earthwide.

But in all of phototropic creation, I can't think of any vegetables
having difficulty with transforming light into what, sugar and the ret
of it.

Transmutation or transformation or what is that word... when an energy
is transferred from one type to another...

Anyway the point is that when you have to rectify an energy source and
regulate it in such highly defined ideopathic ways and in such
countless variety, it is usually best to express the design in terms
of creation rather than accident.

Even though the design ethic permits the successful operation of
higher vegetation such as Dullish.

Still, never mind, eh?

Mustn't grumble.

(Anyone know if the term "Sport" has application to the noble art of
dropping newborn babies on their heads in pursuit of higher life
forms?)

I wouldn't take much heart from that apologist Hughes' support.

Back to success outcomes. If you wish to talk about your theories, the
only judge of their worthiness is that.

As a result; your theories are very probably unworthy. Shame.

On 16 Sep, 21:28, Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 16, 3:42*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:





On Sep 15, 3:48*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:

Very few people have a problem in distinguishing between the
harmless nonsense of Weatherlawyer and the harmful nonsense of
creationism. *Leave Weatherlawyer alone; he's ours; we love him, sort
of, mostly.

Or not as the case maybe, maybe?

Talking of creation I was thinking of the post earlier today, you know
the issue of dealing with radiation is a major problem for Satellite
and terrestrial TV and Radio companies earthwide.

But in all of phototropic creation, I can't think of any vegetables
having difficulty with transforming light into what, sugar and the ret
of it.

Transmutation or transformation or what is that word... when an energy
is transferred from one type to another...

Anyway the point is that when you have to rectify an energy source and
regulate it in such highly defined ideopathic ways and in such
countless variety, it is usually best to express the design in terms
of creation rather than accident.

Even though the design ethic permits the successful operation of
higher vegetation such as Dullish.

Still, never mind, eh?

Mustn't grumble.

(Anyone know if the term "Sport" has application to the noble art of
dropping newborn babies on their heads in pursuit of higher life
forms?)

I wouldn't take much heart from that apologist Hughes' support.

Back to success outcomes. If you wish to talk about your theories, the
only judge of their worthiness is that.

As a result; your theories are very probably unworthy. Shame

Who have you been taking adjectivity lessons from, spot?

On Sep 17, 2:16*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On 16 Sep, 21:28, Dawlish wrote:





On Sep 16, 3:42*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Sep 15, 3:48*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:

Very few people have a problem in distinguishing between the
harmless nonsense of Weatherlawyer and the harmful nonsense of
creationism. *Leave Weatherlawyer alone; he's ours; we love him, sort
of, mostly.

Or not as the case maybe, maybe?

Talking of creation I was thinking of the post earlier today, you know
the issue of dealing with radiation is a major problem for Satellite
and terrestrial TV and Radio companies earthwide.

But in all of phototropic creation, I can't think of any vegetables
having difficulty with transforming light into what, sugar and the ret
of it.

Transmutation or transformation or what is that word... when an energy
is transferred from one type to another...

Anyway the point is that when you have to rectify an energy source and
regulate it in such highly defined ideopathic ways and in such
countless variety, it is usually best to express the design in terms
of creation rather than accident.

Even though the design ethic permits the successful operation of
higher vegetation such as Dullish.

Still, never mind, eh?

Mustn't grumble.

(Anyone know if the term "Sport" has application to the noble art of
dropping newborn babies on their heads in pursuit of higher life
forms?)

I wouldn't take much heart from that apologist Hughes' support.

Back to success outcomes. If you wish to talk about your theories, the
only judge of their worthiness is that.

As a result; your theories are very probably unworthy. Shame

Who have you been taking adjectivity lessons from, spot?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From a far better person that the one who told you that earthquakes
could be predicted by the position of the moon at various times of the
day........but forgot to mention how.

Try not to turn abusive in your reply.

On Sep 17, 5:10*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 17, 2:16*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Who have you been taking adjectivity lessons from, spot?

From a far better person that the one who told you that earthquakes
could be predicted by the position of the moon at various times of the
day........but forgot to mention how.

Try not to turn abusive in your reply.

It's difficult no to unless I ignore you.

I wasn't being abusive of course. But the way your cracked mind puts
things together and the way you hamper your overindulgences by your
overindulgence is, to say the least....

On Sep 18, 3:17*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:10*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:16*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Who have you been taking adjectivity lessons from, spot?

From a far better person that the one who told you that earthquakes
could be predicted by the position of the moon at various times of the
day........but forgot to mention how.

Try not to turn abusive in your reply.

It's difficult no to unless I ignore you.

I wasn't being abusive of course. But the way your cracked mind puts
things together and the way you hamper your overindulgences by your
overindulgence is, to say the least....

You've called me worse.....I suppose I should view that as an
improvement on previous. Pity that improvement doesn't extend to the
quality of the forecasting that you do as a result of your riven
theories, W.