http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...wer;type=panel

I don't think I've seen such consistency at T+120 ~ T+240 (and beyond)
for high pressure to our NW and a steady run of north easterlies, with
all 19 runs more or less pointing to the same thing. Shame it's not a
month further ;-)

Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"

On Nov 15, 5:18*pm, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote:
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...wer;type=panel

I don't think I've seen such consistency at T+120 ~ T+240 (and beyond)
for high pressure to our NW and a steady run of north easterlies, with
all 19 runs more or less pointing to the same thing. Shame it's not a
month further ;-)

I wish I could understand these.

On Nov 16, 3:39*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:18*pm, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote:

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...wer;type=panel

I don't think I've seen such consistency at T+120 ~ T+240 (and beyond)
for high pressure to our NW and a steady run of north easterlies, with
all 19 runs more or less pointing to the same thing. Shame it's not a
month further ;-)

I wish I could understand these.


The way I understand it is that you click on a number in the double
line of boxes, and that represents the number of hours ahead the
charts below represent.

Then you look carefully at all the little pressure patterns in the
boxes below, and if they are all exactly the same then you can have
minimum confidence in that particular synoptic situation coming true.

If they are all different, you have no confidence in anything - and
need to go back to bed.

You will find that a number of people quote these charts on a regular
basis as a way improving their self importance, but as we all know
they are complete failures when it comes to the much more reliable
measurements, such as their skill in playing "Mornington Crescent".

On Nov 17, 11:05*am, "
wrote:

but as we all know
they are complete failures when it comes to the much more reliable
measurements, such as their skill in playing "Mornington Crescent".

The wisest words I've heard on here in many a year.

Are you straddling?

Richard

On Nov 17, 12:05*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Nov 17, 11:05*am, "

wrote:
but as we all know
they are complete failures when it comes to the much more reliable
measurements, such as their skill in playing "Mornington Crescent".

The wisest words I've heard on here in many a year.

Are you straddling?

Richard

Sorry no. I prefer the Allen and Marksfield revised rules which insist
on only adjacent play. Mind you, these revised rules were printed in
1973 and have since been superseded by the updated Carrington
Manoeuvers of 1992 but I am sure you are all aware of these.

Because of this I have to be very wary of who I play with.

On Nov 17, 4:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:05*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:

On Nov 17, 11:05*am, "

wrote:
but as we all know
they are complete failures when it comes to the much more reliable
measurements, such as their skill in playing "Mornington Crescent".

The wisest words I've heard on here in many a year.

Are you straddling?

Richard

Sorry no. I prefer the Allen and Marksfield revised rules which insist
on only adjacent play. Mind you, these revised rules were printed in
1973 and have since been superseded by the updated Carrington
Manoeuvers of 1992 but I am sure you are all aware of these.

Because of this I have to be very wary of who I play with.

Lisson Grove.

On Nov 17, 4:40*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:28*pm, "



wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:05*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:

On Nov 17, 11:05*am, "

wrote:
but as we all know
they are complete failures when it comes to the much more reliable
measurements, such as their skill in playing "Mornington Crescent".

The wisest words I've heard on here in many a year.

Are you straddling?

Richard

Sorry no. I prefer the Allen and Marksfield revised rules which insist
on only adjacent play. Mind you, these revised rules were printed in
1973 and have since been superseded by the updated Carrington
Manoeuvers of 1992 but I am sure you are all aware of these.

Because of this I have to be very wary of who I play with.

Lisson Grove.

Aha, do I detect an imposter in our midst?

According to Regina v Bettswood at the High Court as noted in the
Combined Law Chronicle 2006 vol 342 pages 97-98, this opening gambit
was not only declared competely invalid due to it being contrary to
the original spirit of the 1752 rule book (now almost impossible to
obtain), but also that the perpetrator must suffer the indignity of
two missed turns.

I do, however, have a near mint copy of said rules on Ebay at the most
reasonable "buy it now" price of £25,475 and if the above item was to
be purchased before the end of the week I would be prepared to turn a
blind eye to such an outrageous opening.

But I am forced to respond with the obvious - Queensbury.