Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) 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. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
UKSW or Net Weather? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
A polite request | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
UKSW Group Map | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
just now, it changes a pool too sour in back of her polite sign | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
well, farmers scold beneath rural planets, unless they're polite | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |