On Dec 4, 7:20*pm, "Joe Whyte" wrote:
"Dawlish" *wrote in message

...

Hmmmmm. "I don't see the merit anymore of Paul constantly interjecting

into threads like this one you started": oddly; I do. And that right
will continue to be exercised when I see blatent exaggeration of
whatever cold situation happens to arise. It irritates some people and
others enjoy seeing people taken to task for doing the exaggeration
for effect.

I would never kill-file anyone; I like to be able to reply if someone
posts something foul about me, or others. I'll ignore the worst, but
I'll always reply if I wish to. That's what usenet is about. My
replies are never foul-mouthed, but I do ask awkward questions. Kill-
filing is as much of a right, however, as the right of reply and
however silly I think it may be (the three monkeys come to mind)
people have every right to do it. To say that one kill-files "to avoid
never ending discussions" is frankly ridiculous to me. Never-ending
discussions are again what usenet is about - see the one that Will
started himself on his picket line duty and then returned to many
times. Will actually kill files to try to avoid criticism of his weak
long-range record (it is - that's a fact and it's no different to
anyone else's, but it is no better than "weak") and the embarrassment
at being found wanting, on occasions, by a mere enthusiast. I'm no
respecter of "reputations"; a reoutation is not what makes a person,
for me, though I'm happy for others to feel whichever way they wish
about people's abilities in whatever sphere.

Enjoy Will's posts, but if they are, as I've said, blatant
exaggerratons to hope for cold, I'm likely to say something; fair
enough? *Time for me to move on to the 18z...........
================================================== ==

Paul, your response is as I had expected. Naturally you're entitled to reply
to anything...as we all are. My own opinion is that in your replies you
express the same things (to Will anyway) over and over and, rightly or
wrongly, it comes across almost as a form of harassment!!!

I do think though you give yourself too much credit if you think Will
kill-filed you to avoid criticism of "his weak long-range record" or that
he's embarrassed at being "found wanting"!!??? From reading Will's posts
from the time I've subscribed to this newsgroup many, many years ago(!), I
wouldn't think that's Will's reasoning to kill-file you...but then I can't
and don't speak for him. It seems to me that you do have a very high opinion
of yourself and your influence on the actions or behaviour of people on this
newsgroup. It's for others to judge of course whether that is merited or
not. As far as I'm concerned I don't think it is, Paul, but then as I'm sure
you'll ay my opinion counts for nought! *) ! *You contribute valuable posts
but the "badgering" of those you seem to have taken umbrage is taking away
from the social aspect of this newsgroup where mere enthusiasts like you
(and me) can engage with those more qualified in the field of meteorology
and learn at the same time.

I'll read Will's posts, Paul, and I'll make my own judgements and comment
back to Will as I see fit when there's something to query, challenge or
whatever.

Enjoy your 18z but remember it's only one run!!!! *;-

Any chance you might try a post to weatheraction.com and see if "yer man"
would reply!??? *I've given up there...

Joe
Dublin
28m AMSL

I've tried Joe. No response either. Points noted; not that it'll
change anything, or that I agree with you, but I respect your point of
view.

"Joe Whyte" wrote in message
...
From reading Will's posts
from the time I've subscribed to this newsgroup many, many years ago(!), I
wouldn't think that's Will's reasoning to kill-file you...but then I can't
and don't speak for him.

Hi Joe, I thought I did explain why. Basically I do not have the time to
argue. Dawlish seems to spends hours and hours on usenet. I simply don't
have that time, having to work and pursuing many other interests. It's as
simple as that! Always happy to expand on queries and questions.

OK looking at the 12Z runs the pattern is still the same with the very cold
wodge of air persisting over Greenland helping to maintain Atlantic mobility
but even at 3-4 days ahead the detailed outcomes are very uncertain due to
crtical timing of phasing in of upper troughs with the tight low-level
baroclinic zone. The pattern is too mobile for development of a block I'd
say and the solutions offered by ECM and JMA in my opinion look very
reasonable with deep lows moving towards UK introducing milder air with
colder air returning quickly. Obviously the coldest conditions will stay in
the north, especially Scotland where an occlusion on Wednesday morning could
give quite a bit of frontal snow to quite low-levels.

That's it now, beer this evening (not wine Dave), work tomorrow :-)

Cheers,

Will
--

"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...
And you are who? Why don't people use their real names. Looking at
your profile it would seem you come from the land of silly false ID's.
and you call me childish-bloody unbelievable!

I think you have just proved my point...

"Eskimo Will" wrote in message
...
"Gavino" wrote in message
...
Forecast, speculation and fantasy are all fine and worthy of discussion
here, but often they are mixed up and it's not always clear which
category some comments fall into. And something which originally looks
like a forecast is often recast after the event as mere speculation when
it doesn't happen.

It would be useful if people could give some indication of probability
when making statements about the future. I don't mean necessarily a
mathematical percentage, simply an informal expression like "likely",
"highly likely", "possible", etc, would do.

All my musings are a commentary on the situation indicating possibilities
and are not always model based (one can talk meteorology without
mentioning models). All commentaries are based on 40 years of professional
experience and are definitely not idle speculation.
[snip]
Goodness knows why I am now justifying what I say and do though? :-)

No need to justify yourself, Will - your experience is well-known and
respected, and my comments were not aimed at anyone in particular.

Perhaps "speculation" was the wrong word? I didn't mean 'idle' speculation
(although we get some of that too), simply that statements about future
weather are bound to be uncertain and it would be useful to know how much
confidence to attach to them. It's often unclear whether something is being
put forward as fairly likely to happen or simply as a possibility or just a
long-shot (a 'speculation', even if based on scientific grounds rather than
the tea leaves prepared by the famous MetO teaboy).

On Dec 3, 12:46*pm, Nick Humphries
wrote:
Howard Neil wrote:
I certainly would appreciate your musings, Will. Please just ignore the
destructive children that always think they are right and should have
their own way. The rest of us would like to see this newsgroup return to
what it once was and your musings are a wonderful way of achieving this..

Ditto - Will makes the Annual Snow Watch fun, whereas Dawlish just drains
all the fun out of an interesting hobby.

Ahh yes but he uses *)) all the time so he's only joking - no
really...

Richard

On Dec 4, 7:43*pm, "Gavino" wrote:
"Eskimo Will" wrote in message

...





"Gavino" wrote in message
...
Forecast, speculation and fantasy are all fine and worthy of discussion
here, but often they are mixed up and it's not always clear which
category some comments fall into. And something which originally looks
like a forecast is often recast after the event as mere speculation when
it doesn't happen.

It would be useful if people could give some indication of probability
when making statements about the future. I don't mean necessarily a
mathematical percentage, simply an informal expression like "likely",
"highly likely", "possible", etc, would do.

All my musings are a commentary on the situation indicating possibilities
and are not always model based (one can talk meteorology without
mentioning models). All commentaries are based on 40 years of professional
experience and are definitely not idle speculation.
[snip]
Goodness knows why I am now justifying what I say and do though? :-)

No need to justify yourself, Will - your experience is well-known and
respected, and my comments were not aimed at anyone in particular.

Perhaps "speculation" was the wrong word? I didn't mean 'idle' speculation
(although we get some of that too), simply that statements about future
weather are bound to be uncertain and it would be useful to know how much
confidence to attach to them. It's often unclear whether something is being
put forward as fairly likely to happen or simply as a possibility or just a
long-shot (a 'speculation', even if based on scientific grounds rather than
the tea leaves prepared by the famous MetO teaboy).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So Gavino is Gavino your real name?