Dawlish wrote: snip Truly amazing
================================================== =============================

What's amazing is the self-indulgent capacity of you lot to continually go off-topic and ruin a ng set-up to talk about about weather.

Having to wade through it all, day-after-day, in the hope there might be something worth reading, has become a total pain in the arse.

Do us all a favour, either keep on-topic or bugger off elsewhere.

- Tom.

On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:31:22 +0100
"Col" wrote:


"Freddie" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately and on a slight tangent, I did not get away with a
late evening reference to "drizzly showers" (meaning occasional
light drizzle in a warm sector) because I was informed that "
drizzle has no convective element".

Which is silly, because I'm pretty sure that the average viewer
thinks of showers as "rain that doesn't last long" rather than
considering any atmospheric processes involved.

Or how about a fragmenting front that is giving intermitent periods
of rain, something that most people would think of as showers.

'Showery rain' perhaps?

But if there is no convective element it's not showers. People on here
complain often enough about dumbing-down of the weather forecasts and
here you seem to be advocating it. As for 'drizzly showers', I vaguely
recall complaining here and perhaps to the Met Office over that
particular one.

Anyway, that's my hard-line, pedantic attitude but I see the 1956
'Weather Map' has a little sympathy for your point of view.

================================================== ====================
Occasional rain, etc = Not continuous. The periods of rain, etc., are
relatively short and occupy only a small fraction of the total time.
During the periods without rain the sky remains overcast or nearly so.
If clearances are expected the term 'showers' is used.

Intermittent rain, etc. = Not continuous over a considerable period,
but the rainy periods are of substantial duration and the sky remains
overcast during the intervals.
================================================== ====================

Note, however, the point that there must be breaks expected in the
cloud cover for 'showers' to be used. 'Drizzly showers' wouldn't get
past the censor.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
Free office softwa http://www.libreoffice.org/
Carlos Seixas, Sonata nº 1 - best version of this I've found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXox7vonfEg

On 2013-05-26 19:08:27 +0000, Tom said:

Dawlish wrote: snip Truly amazing
================================================== =============================

What's amazing is the self-indulgent capacity of you lot to continually
go off-topic and ruin a ng set-up to talk about about weather.

Having to wade through it all, day-after-day, in the hope there might
be something worth reading, has become a total pain in the arse.

Do us all a favour, either keep on-topic or bugger off elsewhere.

- Tom.

No chance this week, it is school holidays.

All manner of nutjobs will be entombed in their bedrooms, spamming
everything possible - because they think they are funny and important.

Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:31:22 +0100
"Col" wrote:

Or how about a fragmenting front that is giving intermitent periods
of rain, something that most people would think of as showers.

'Showery rain' perhaps?

But if there is no convective element it's not showers. People on here
complain often enough about dumbing-down of the weather forecasts and
here you seem to be advocating it. As for 'drizzly showers', I vaguely
recall complaining here and perhaps to the Met Office over that
particular one.

Well I'm just trying to be realistic as to what Joe public thinks
of in terms of 'showers'. They don't think of convection, they
think of periods of rain interspersed with drier interludes.

Anyway, that's my hard-line, pedantic attitude but I see the 1956
'Weather Map' has a little sympathy for your point of view.

================================================== ====================
Occasional rain, etc = Not continuous. The periods of rain, etc., are
relatively short and occupy only a small fraction of the total time.
During the periods without rain the sky remains overcast or nearly
so. If clearances are expected the term 'showers' is used.

Intermittent rain, etc. = Not continuous over a considerable period,
but the rainy periods are of substantial duration and the sky remains
overcast during the intervals.
================================================== ====================

Note, however, the point that there must be breaks expected in the
cloud cover for 'showers' to be used. 'Drizzly showers' wouldn't get
past the censor.

So there doesn't have to be a convective element then?
In other words in my fragmenting front scenario it would be OK
as long as there were at least some brighter periods between the
rain, which is plausible.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

Joe Egginton wrote:

I'm afraid to say Dan, that you've been listening and believing to
many left wing teachers. The British Empire was largely a force for
good.

Us Brits conducted ourselves around the globe better than most but
please don't tell me The Empire was intended to benefit those we
colonised. We did it to make ourselves rich.
However it was a trade empire, rather than merely one of conquest.


We opposed the slave trade in the 19th century

Indeed we did.
After benefiting from it massively of course.....
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

Tom wrote:
Dawlish wrote: snip Truly amazing
================================================== =============================

What's amazing is the self-indulgent capacity of you lot to
continually go off-topic and ruin a ng set-up to talk about about
weather.

Having to wade through it all, day-after-day, in the hope there might
be something worth reading, has become a total pain in the arse.

Do us all a favour, either keep on-topic or bugger off elsewhere.

There always has been a degree of off-topicness on this and every other
newsgroup I have posted to. As long as it doesn't get out of hand
(which it isn't) it's always been acceptable. There is plenty of weather
talk going on, even in this very thread.

You might prefer posting to a forum like TWO, where over-zealous
moderators stamp on the merest *hint* of off-topicness.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On 26/05/2013 15:54, Desperate Dan wrote:


You're a strange lot you English. You look down on everyone who isn't English and hate the Germans.
An anti immigration view is endemic

Having some of them start chopping up British soldiers in the streets is
supposed to *endear* them to us?

and now you have the nutters in UKIP as well as the Conservative
party to voice your narrow opinions.

All opinions are valid.


--
Regards,

Paul Hyett

On 27/05/13 07:36, Vidcapper wrote:
On 26/05/2013 15:54, Desperate Dan wrote:


You're a strange lot you English. You look down on everyone who isn't
English and hate the Germans.
An anti immigration view is endemic

Having some of them start chopping up British soldiers in the streets is
supposed to *endear* them to us?

Ah yes, the "them and us" mentality again. People are individuals, just
because someone does an act of atrocity supposedly in the name of some
religion does not mean everyone following that religion is going to
start chopping people up. This sort of tribal mentality really holds us
back as a species.


and now you have the nutters in UKIP as well as the Conservative
party to voice your narrow opinions.

All opinions are valid.


No they're not.

On Monday, 27 May 2013 10:21:24 UTC+1, Adam Lea wrote:
On 27/05/13 07:36, Vidcapper wrote:

On 26/05/2013 15:54, Desperate Dan wrote:





You're a strange lot you English. You look down on everyone who isn't

English and hate the Germans.

An anti immigration view is endemic



Having some of them start chopping up British soldiers in the streets is

supposed to *endear* them to us?



Ah yes, the "them and us" mentality again. People are individuals, just

because someone does an act of atrocity supposedly in the name of some

religion does not mean everyone following that religion is going to

start chopping people up. This sort of tribal mentality really holds us

back as a species.





and now you have the nutters in UKIP as well as the Conservative

party to voice your narrow opinions.



All opinions are valid.





No they're not.

Of course they are valid in the terms that everyone has a right to one. You're looking at the interpretation of an opinion which is very subjective, Oh I know you'll probably counter with

"There is only one true climate truth and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong so therefore their opinion is*not* valid"

But I and others don't agree with that opinion.

Just my opinion of course.

On 27/05/2013 10:21, Adam Lea wrote:
On 27/05/13 07:36, Vidcapper wrote:
On 26/05/2013 15:54, Desperate Dan wrote:


You're a strange lot you English. You look down on everyone who isn't
English and hate the Germans.
An anti immigration view is endemic

Having some of them start chopping up British soldiers in the streets is
supposed to *endear* them to us?

Ah yes, the "them and us" mentality again. People are individuals, just
because someone does an act of atrocity supposedly in the name of some
religion does not mean everyone following that religion is going to
start chopping people up. This sort of tribal mentality really holds us
back as a species.


and now you have the nutters in UKIP as well as the Conservative
party to voice your narrow opinions.

All opinions are valid.


No they're not.

Excuse me?!

Whether you personally agree with someone's opinion is one thing, but
that doesn't alter the fact that everyone is entitled to belive what
they like!

--
Regards,

Paul Hyett