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

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!

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
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!


So far I agree with everyone so maybe at 40 I have not quite gone through
the male menopause

A prefix to the subject line seems like a good idea to me.

Stan

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. *))

Have to disagree there. 'Bickering' is an excellent word, for that
is just what it is. it's not about well constructed argument, that is
possible without bickering.
It's when it becomes fractiuous, the constant sniping, the arguments
that just go round and round without resolve, that's bickering.
It's not a full-blown flame war of course, but it's pretty tiresome.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

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

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
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.


Indeed Mike. My killfile is bulging and thankfully it works except when
Dawlish, Lawrence or Natsman join in.
Most posts on GW are utterly boring and can be "safely ignored" LOL.

Will
--