On Sep 22, 8:55*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 22, 8:36*pm, Graham Easterling
wrote:





On 22 Sep, 20:28, Dawlish wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:50*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Sep 22, 10:44*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Sep 22, 10:35*am, Mike Tullett wrote:

Just remember (and I'm sure Philip wouldn't disagree) that the true
excellence of a forecast can only be judged at outcome - though the
delivery may certainly have been excellent!

It was the delivery I was commenting on, particularly when compared with
much of the rubbish we see on BBC TV forecasts. *You've stated your view on
"excellence" ad nauseum over the months.

Clear as mud. And your prejudice is showing again; to me and to the
general public who watch these BBC forecasts and are not trained
meteorologists like your good self - the fact that I'm not killfiled
for you shows that you must look forward to my occasional ditties.. I
must remember to state my views on the only way to judge forecasts
again (BTW, what's this "excellence" I've been supposedly commenting
on) and you might just get it next time and be clearer in your posts.
*))

* * * *The point of the thread was to comment on the delivery of the
forecast, not its correctness. *There is no point in having a good
forecast if listeners or viewers are confused or irritated by it and
it seems that at last the BBC is beginning to realise that.
* * * * Try not to be *quite* so rude to Mike Tullett, BTW. *It won't
do you a lot of good.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And exactly what "not a lot of good" will it do me? You must have
missed the little Tullet "ad nauseam" dig Hughes; quite obvious and
unnecessary it was too - nah! You just ignored the original dig and
tried (rather pathetically and predictably) to paint me black instead..
No other contribution to this thread, just a veiled threat. If you do
reply to this, you'll be ignored and receive no further reply. Mind
you, I'm sure you will reply because you can never resist an
opportunity, but whatever you say, try to reply without the foul
language and threats that so often punctuate your work.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tudor did contribute to the thread, and then simply pointed out that
personal attacks were not a good idea.
It does you 'not a lot of good' in the popularity stakes.

Graham
Penzance- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do I care about "popularity stakes"? Really, is that what its all
about Graham? Good grief.

I wish you luck in the race. I'm sure you'll do very well. I'm not
sure about Hughes!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hughes is doing all right, according to Easterling. So is
Tullet, and everybody else, it seems. Even Jenkins makes a few
appearances. But Garvey, entirely by his own hand, is the one horse
you would never put your money on.

Hughes, T.C., Warlingham, Surrey.

On Sep 22, 8:54*am, Mike Tullett wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:48:03 +0200, Colin Youngs wrote in


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ther-forecast-...

Last week (Friday?)I heard an excellent forecast on Radio 4, by Philip
Eden, on PM between 5-6pm. *My radio reception on Long Wave was poor but I
think there was even background music. *I think it was part of the series
referred to in your link.

I wonder if the BBC will repeat it?

Think of the money they could save if they did that with say a 30 year
interlude. (Not that I'd notice of course.)