"Col" wrote in message
...

The saddest thing is, they 'got it wrong' not because of incompetence
but because of the usual hype. The comments on this ng last night
suggest the MO knew full well what the 'real' chances of that happening
were, but they decided to go into full 'panic mode' all the same.
Thing is, the public won't see it that way and will just put it down to
'oh they never get it bloody right' and will trust them just a little bit
less
next time.

Why can't they just 'tell it like it is'?

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen, it that
makes sense. There was no panic. Some accumulated snow (not necessarily
devastating amounts and note that flash warnings didn't go out for southern
areas, at least until this evening) was expected in areas where there hasn't
been any. That's it really. The variation in the reports in the ng alone
shows the difficulty of the situation.

I think the old chestnut of presentation is the most worrying aspect, plus
the sweeping statements in the media as they reported it. The snow depth
image that the was posted earlier was quite laughable.

Jon.

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:35:45 -0000, "Jon O'Rourke"
wrote:

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell if was told as if was seen,

oops :-))

Mark Chamberlain
Herne Bay, Kent

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:35:45 -0000, "Jon O'Rourke"
wrote:

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell if was told as if was seen,

oops :-))

Mark Chamberlain
Herne Bay, Kent

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:35:45 -0000, "Jon O'Rourke"
wrote:

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell if was told as if was seen,

oops :-))

Mark Chamberlain
Herne Bay, Kent

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:35:45 -0000, "Jon O'Rourke"
wrote:

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell if was told as if was seen,

oops :-))

Mark Chamberlain
Herne Bay, Kent

In article ,
Jon O'Rourke writes:
"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

I think you may be seeing an error that isn't there. It makes sense as
it was, but not if you replace either "it" by "if".
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)