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)

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)

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)

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
"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.

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.
I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen. Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
"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.

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.
I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen. Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
"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.

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.
I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen. Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
"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.

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.
I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen. Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Mark Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
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 :-))

I know, that didn't make any sense to me either, until I read the bit
immediately *after*

Ah well, it's been a trying day.
Sod winter, roll on spring

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Mark Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
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 :-))

I know, that didn't make any sense to me either, until I read the bit
immediately *after*

Ah well, it's been a trying day.
Sod winter, roll on spring

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Mark Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
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 :-))

I know, that didn't make any sense to me either, until I read the bit
immediately *after*

Ah well, it's been a trying day.
Sod winter, roll on spring

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html