In article ,
says...
I'm afraid your Haytor thread has been hijacked by bickerers


Sorry. I know how annoying it is for other people but I am not as strong
as I would like to be.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

In article ,
says...

It implies quite clearly that you will criticise the posting of personal

records although to be fair you probably meant only the personal records

of Mr Hand. It states that Mr Hand should put up with that criticism.

It does and he should when he adds things like; "cool eh" about achieving a "personal" record, with no expression of sympathy for others who really would not care, in a situation where those others are experiencing so much misery.


So your attack is against the man, then, and not the content? Your post
was due to a lack of empathy from Will rather than the weather related
content of the post. People in your group must always show a level of
character with which you approve.

Get a life, Paul!



Notice that, after reading everything he reads on this thread and somehow imagining that by saying he has left the group, he is beyond criticism, he's down exactly the same again.


Not sure what you are saying here. For a start, you have just admitted
that your criticism of Will is a personal one.

The man decides to leave the group, and then decides to come back. Why,
oh why, should that be of any concern to you? Who are you to criticise
another mans personal choices? Because you have made it personal, that's
why. And you simply /have/ to take every chance you can to try and
belittle the man. It is sad.




[...]

He is not "putting up with it quite well, as This is the first time for a year that I have criticised anything he has posted, as he said himself he's stopped posting, but can't actually resist.


The lack of resistance is clearly yours. There was absolutely no need to
attack the man for that post but /you/ could not resist.

John Hall managed to make the same point
with no animosity, no attack and no criticism.




How many acolytes are interested in your forecasts,

Paul[1]? Why do you post them?

The acolytes identify themselves by their words.

No answer. eh? But you believe you have a few?





[1] A little change in attitude, some humility perhaps, and you would

get a far better response to your forecasts. It's sad that after all

this time, you still haven't worked that out.

In your opinion - which is exactly what you don't like about mine. *))


It is not your opinion that is in question. It is your obnoxious
arrogance that generates so much animosity and the resultant critisim
against you.

The content of your posts is generally of interest. It's only when you
get obnoxious that threads like these begin.



It's not going well, is it?


I'm not sure what you consider "it" to be. I doubt very much that it has
any relation to the actual reality regarding these little flames that
have plauged this group since your arrival.

However, since you asked, no, it is not going well. You have recieved
bountiful quantities of clue since you arrived here and seem quite
incapabable, or perhaps completely unwilling, to absorb any of it.





--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

On Friday, February 14, 2014 4:18:32 PM UTC, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,

says...



It implies quite clearly that you will criticise the posting of personal



records although to be fair you probably meant only the personal records



of Mr Hand. It states that Mr Hand should put up with that criticism.



It does and he should when he adds things like; "cool eh" about achieving a "personal" record, with no expression of sympathy for others who really would not care, in a situation where those others are experiencing so much misery.





So your attack is against the man, then, and not the content? Your post

was due to a lack of empathy from Will rather than the weather related

content of the post. People in your group must always show a level of

character with which you approve.



Get a life, Paul!







Notice that, after reading everything he reads on this thread and somehow imagining that by saying he has left the group, he is beyond criticism, he's down exactly the same again.





Not sure what you are saying here. For a start, you have just admitted

that your criticism of Will is a personal one.



The man decides to leave the group, and then decides to come back. Why,

oh why, should that be of any concern to you? Who are you to criticise

another mans personal choices? Because you have made it personal, that's

why. And you simply /have/ to take every chance you can to try and

belittle the man. It is sad.









[...]



He is not "putting up with it quite well, as This is the first time for a year that I have criticised anything he has posted, as he said himself he's stopped posting, but can't actually resist.

The lack of resistance is clearly yours. There was absolutely no need to

attack the man for that post but /you/ could not resist.

The comment I made was in response to the question Will posed. It was apposite and well-made. Your obsequiousness is not.

Cool eh? Absolutely not.

The comment I made was in response to the question Will posed. It was apposite and well-made. Your obsequiousness is not.


I told you yesterday to re-read the question. You obviously haven't bothered, but you did not answer the question, you made a fatuous remark - as ever.

yttiw wrote:
On 2014-02-13 13:44:05 +0000, Dawlish said:


I don't think serious self publicists can ever leave the building
completely. They crave the adoration contained within.

(I expect a ban will be winging its way to me shortly, after this.)



Exactly, if he was genuine in his intention to leave he'd have said nothing
and just stopped posting. The ' flounce' said it all, he's a self obsessed
attention seeker. He needs his acolytes here, mind his gang of devotees are
even sadder than the blessed Willie.

No worries about a ban, it's Newsnet it won't happen.


--
Reg

David Mitchell wrote:


My interest in the weather is not scientific but emotional and it's just
a shame that you don't get that and feel the need to pick on someone who
shares my emotions.



Are you a smug, self satisfied git too ?


--
Reg

"Will Hand" wrote:
Up to 1800 10th my February total stands at 147.1mm .

My "winter" DJF total is now 923.1 mm.

A record metre (1000mm) of rain this winter is now certain, but how much more than a metre?

I must be the wettest place in England apart from a few higher spots on Dartmoor?
Cool eh? No problems with flooding either, free draining soil is still workable :-)

Will







Woo hoo good for you, really cool . . ?

Thing which puzzles me is that aren't you in deepest Arctic Devon
surrounded by six feet of level snow, outside in shorts and string vest
enjoying a barbie ? In between LEADING groups of less talented walkers over
the snow bound wastes of course ?


--
Reg

On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:03:15 PM UTC, David Mitchell wrote:
The comment I made was in response to the question Will posed. It was apposite and well-made. Your obsequiousness is not.





I told you yesterday to re-read the question. You obviously haven't bothered, but you did not answer the question, you made a fatuous remark - as ever.

You are heading again down the larry route, as you are struggling to support the OP writer. I suggest you actually read the thread again much more carefully.

Here's the clue to understanding my position and my reply *again*: "Cool eh?" No it most certainly isn't.

Are you a smug, self satisfied git too ?

Another very sad man, why the need for this?
Actually, no I'm not.

On 15 Feb 2014 04:45:25 GMT
Reverse Reg wrote:

David Mitchell wrote:


My interest in the weather is not scientific but emotional and it's
just a shame that you don't get that and feel the need to pick on
someone who shares my emotions.



Are you a smug, self satisfied git too ?



Just checked his postings for the past year and found he's contributed
nothing of use to the group in all that time so off he goes into my
file-13.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
"Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate."
- BBC News subtitle