Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" bit in
UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this as a
free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of a
prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a local
weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in
conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either
side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know where we stand and
don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked with these , shall we
politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit tongue in cheek and I
don't suppose this would work or help but just a thought.

Dave

On Jan 26, 1:19*pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" *bit in
UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this as a
free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of a
prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a local
weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in
conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either
side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know where we stand and
don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked with these , shall we
politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit tongue in cheek and I
don't suppose this would work or help but just a thought.

Dave

Hard to separate the two in my view. Where does weather become climate
and vice versa?

No offence Dave, but I personally detest the word "bickering". I'm
sure you mean well, but somebody's bickering can be someone else's
well presented arguments which are well challenged by a second party.
That can get heated, but the disagreement is often a good read and it
can be demeaned by the use of that word. You can bet that someone will
already be thinking that this difference of opinion is a bicker!
That's how it works. It's about perceptions. Awful word. Hate it. *))

I'm certainly not saying all these cross-posts from people like
Crunchy come into that "good read" category. Often some of the
respondees are then quite simply foul and abusive. Unfortunately the
first party here has simply trawled the Internet to find something
that backs their belief, spreading that post across 5, or 6,
newsgroups and finding only a few people that are interested. In this
case, both parties deserve what they get; to be either ignored, or
challenged. "Bickering" is also a word well loved by moderators on
Internet forums - of whom, thankfully, there are none here. I would
fight for the right for my stalker to put his point of view about my
forecasting and also the rights of other newsgroup members who have
used outright abuse in the past. I'd also reserve my right to tell
them my point of view, should I feel it would be fitting to do so. I
really do believe in freedom of speech and I practise what I preach on
that one; I would never killfile anyone (can't anyway on Google
groups, AFAIK) but anyone has the right to killfile others, of course.

In the case of regular contributors to this newsgroup, a foray into
climate science is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of
the other, I reserve judgement as to whether I ignore, or challenge.

Really what I'm saying is I can be an argumentative git and I don't
mind others being the same!

Good thread, BTW!

On 26 Jan, 15:04, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:19*pm, "Dave Cornwell"

wrote:
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" *bit in
UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this as a
free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of a
prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a local
weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in
conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either
side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know where we stand and
don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked with these , shall we
politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit tongue in cheek and I
don't suppose this would work or help but just a thought.

Dave

Hard to separate the two in my view. Where does weather become climate
and vice versa?

No offence Dave, but I personally detest the word "bickering". I'm
sure you mean well, but somebody's bickering can be someone else's
well presented arguments which are well challenged by a second party.
That can get heated, but the disagreement is often a good read and it
can be demeaned by the use of that word. You can bet that someone will
already be thinking that this difference of opinion is a bicker!
That's how it works. It's about perceptions. Awful word. Hate it. *))

I'm certainly not saying all these cross-posts from people like
Crunchy come into that "good read" category. Often some of the
respondees are then quite simply foul and abusive. Unfortunately the
first party here has simply trawled the Internet to find something
that backs their belief, spreading that post across 5, or 6,
newsgroups and finding only a few people that are interested. In this
case, both parties deserve what they get; to be either ignored, or
challenged. "Bickering" is also a word well loved by moderators on
Internet forums - of whom, thankfully, there are none here. I would
fight for the right for my stalker to put his point of view about my
forecasting and also the rights of other newsgroup members who have
used outright abuse in the past. I'd also reserve my right to tell
them my point of view, should I feel it would be fitting to do so. I
really do believe in freedom of speech and I practise what I preach on
that one; I would never killfile anyone (can't anyway on Google
groups, AFAIK) but anyone has the right to killfile others, of course.

In the case of regular contributors to this newsgroup, a foray into
climate science is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of
the other, I reserve judgement as to whether I ignore, or challenge.

Really what I'm saying is I can be an argumentative git and I don't
mind others being the same!

Good thread, BTW!

Can't argue with that, so I won't!

CK

On 26/01/2010 13:19, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" bit in
UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this as a
free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of a
prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a local
weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in
conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either
side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know where we stand and
don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked with these , shall we
politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit tongue in cheek and I
don't suppose this would work or help but just a thought.

Dave



Well, I for one like the idea of that. It would allow me to save the
killfile for those that really deserve it.


--
Howard Neil

Dave Cornwell wrote:
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering"
seems to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is
the "W" bit in UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this.
Now as I see this as a free group and am against censorship I was
wondering about the use of a prefix, like the [WR] which was to
notify (the disinterested?] about a local weather event or
observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in conspiracy
theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either side,
can ignore it or join in.

Sounds good to me...

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:52:05 -0000, Les Hemmings wrote in


Dave Cornwell wrote:
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering"
seems to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is
the "W" bit in UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this.
Now as I see this as a free group and am against censorship I was
wondering about the use of a prefix, like the [WR] which was to
notify (the disinterested?] about a local weather event or
observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in conspiracy
theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either side,
can ignore it or join in.

Sounds good to me...

And to me, but there is a big "but". The majority of these posts are
coming from clowns in other newsgroups, who simply cross post to usw. Very
few start in usw thankfully.

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 1/26/2010 4:14:20 PM GMT

"Dave Cornwell" wrote:

Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" bit
in UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this
as a free group and am against censorship ....
snip

Dave, it's not anything to do with censorship, quite the contrary ...
it really is just a matter of each user showing courtesy to all other
users of the group by sticking to the charter. I suspect many recent
posters have not checked the group's charter, which has served us
well since u.s.w. was created 14 years ago, so here it is:

QUOTE
This group is essentially for the discussion of daily weather events,
chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past
and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on
a practical scientific level are encouraged. It may also contain postings
of observations during interesting weather episodes. The group is
expected to be patronised by both amateurs and professionals
(including academics), but it is primarily for weather enthusiasts
rather than research scientists. Any discussion of climate issues
should be from a scientific standpoint and not a political (or
environmental-activist) one.
UNQUOTE

It is interesting that environmental activists were seen as
most likely to hijack discussions of climate topics in 1996.

There are many, many other rooms in the usenet house where
discussion of the political aspects of climate change is within
their particular charters and is therefore welcomed. It is, as
I said, simply discourteous to deliberately pursue these lines
of debate when they are expressly discouraged in the charter.

Philip

"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" bit
in UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this
as a free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of
a prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a
local weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not
interested in conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it
all, on either side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know
where we stand and don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked
with these , shall we politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit
tongue in cheek and I don't suppose this would work or help but just a
thought.

Dave

I have to laugh though Dave, the leading weather forecasting agency in this
country is UKMO and they go under the name of ' Met Office: Weather and
Climate Change' and that's nothing to do with me. LOL

Rules Rules Rules


Top post. Bottom post, garden post.

I believe it was my post that caused the offence maybe I have post male
menopause I don't know.
Most of the climate posts are clearly marked or asceratined from the header
so I can only assume it's me. Time for the last post I think. However I'll
weather the storm in an obvious climate of hostility (can I say that?)

I'm going to kill file everyone PLONK








"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:19 pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" bit
in
UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this as
a
free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of a
prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a
local
weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in
conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either
side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know where we stand
and
don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked with these , shall
we
politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit tongue in cheek and I
don't suppose this would work or help but just a thought.

Dave

Hard to separate the two in my view. Where does weather become climate
and vice versa?

No offence Dave, but I personally detest the word "bickering". I'm
sure you mean well, but somebody's bickering can be someone else's
well presented arguments which are well challenged by a second party.
That can get heated, but the disagreement is often a good read and it
can be demeaned by the use of that word. You can bet that someone will
already be thinking that this difference of opinion is a bicker!
That's how it works. It's about perceptions. Awful word. Hate it. *))

I'm certainly not saying all these cross-posts from people like
Crunchy come into that "good read" category. Often some of the
respondees are then quite simply foul and abusive. Unfortunately the
first party here has simply trawled the Internet to find something
that backs their belief, spreading that post across 5, or 6,
newsgroups and finding only a few people that are interested. In this
case, both parties deserve what they get; to be either ignored, or
challenged. "Bickering" is also a word well loved by moderators on
Internet forums - of whom, thankfully, there are none here. I would
fight for the right for my stalker to put his point of view about my
forecasting and also the rights of other newsgroup members who have
used outright abuse in the past. I'd also reserve my right to tell
them my point of view, should I feel it would be fitting to do so. I
really do believe in freedom of speech and I practise what I preach on
that one; I would never killfile anyone (can't anyway on Google
groups, AFAIK) but anyone has the right to killfile others, of course.

In the case of regular contributors to this newsgroup, a foray into
climate science is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of
the other, I reserve judgement as to whether I ignore, or challenge.

Really what I'm saying is I can be an argumentative git and I don't
mind others being the same!

Good thread, BTW!

On 26 Jan, 17:29, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message

... Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" *bit
in UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this
as a free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of
a prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a
local weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not
interested in conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it
all, on either side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know
where we stand and don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked
with these , shall we politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit
tongue in cheek and I don't suppose this would work or help but just a
thought.

Dave

I have to laugh though Dave, the leading weather forecasting agency in this
country is UKMO and they go under the name of ' Met Office: Weather and
Climate Change' and that's nothing to do with me. LOL

Good point, Lawrence - you can't ignore the debate on climate change,
it's all interwoven with weather at either end of the scale, and it is
those who are allegedly driving the debate (UN, UKMO, IPCC, BBC,
Government) who have manipulated it into a political argument. You
just cannot discuss the subject without politics raising its ugly
head. Does that mean it shouldn't be discussed here at all? I hope
not...

CK