On Sunday, 3 July 2016 09:45:10 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 04:17:38 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 11:51:56 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:

Dear All

Just to clarify something.

By all do you mean the people whose posts you have never seen or do you mean an elite that only thinks the way you do.
And is believing absolute nonsense a condition?

Bruce.

Just how many posts on here are you completely ignorant of?

Weatherlawyer

If you want to join thats fine, and as long as what you post is on topic (about the weather and climate) I'll let them through.

I know that you post frequently on this newsgroup, but personally I have never understood your methods or anything that you're trying to say and I think thats the view of most people.

If you don't mind me saying so, that can't possibly be true as they would have asked by now, unless of course they were too shy to admit that they couldn't do wha a wet sheep has no trouble with.

If you don't like the terms keep posting to UKSW.

Very kind of you but I am not interested in something set up for a bunch of lying crackpots. Sorry.
Don't get me wrong, I do hope you prosper but I can't see god blessing anything based on political lies.

In message ,
Weatherlawyer writes
Very kind of you but I am not interested in something set up for a
bunch of lying crackpots. Sorry. Don't get me wrong, I do hope you
prosper but I can't see god blessing anything based on political lies.

Based on political lies? It would probably be wiser of me not to ask,
but where on earth do you get that idea from? The only stipulations that
Bruce has made are that posts should be on-topic - i.e. about the
weather or climate - and should not be abusive. Both of those
requirements seem perfectly reasonable. Yes, they would exclude
discussion of politics, but why should a forum about the weather be a
suitable place for that?
--
John Hall
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin"
attributed to Sir Josiah Stamp,
a former director of the Bank of England

On 03/07/2016 18:10, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
Weatherlawyer writes
Very kind of you but I am not interested in something set up for a
bunch of lying crackpots. Sorry. Don't get me wrong, I do hope you
prosper but I can't see god blessing anything based on political lies.

Based on political lies? It would probably be wiser of me not to ask,
but where on earth do you get that idea from? The only stipulations that
Bruce has made are that posts should be on-topic - i.e. about the
weather or climate - and should not be abusive. Both of those
requirements seem perfectly reasonable. Yes, they would exclude
discussion of politics, but why should a forum about the weather be a
suitable place for that?

I despaired the same way I despaired when I saw this...
https://twitter.com/NORBET/status/749568078153912320

--
Keith (Southend)
"Weather Home & Abroad"
http://www.southendweather.net
Twitter:@SS9Weatherman

On Sunday, 3 July 2016 18:28:09 UTC+1, Keith (Southend)G wrote:
On 03/07/2016 18:10, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
Weatherlawyer writes
Very kind of you but I am not interested in something set up for a
bunch of lying crackpots. Sorry. Don't get me wrong, I do hope you
prosper but I can't see god blessing anything based on political lies.

Based on political lies? It would probably be wiser of me not to ask,
but where on earth do you get that idea from? The only stipulations that
Bruce has made are that posts should be on-topic - i.e. about the
weather or climate - and should not be abusive. Both of those
requirements seem perfectly reasonable. Yes, they would exclude
discussion of politics, but why should a forum about the weather be a
suitable place for that?

I despaired the same way I despaired when I saw this...
https://twitter.com/NORBET/status/749568078153912320

--
Keith (Southend)
"Weather Home & Abroad"
http://www.southendweather.net
Twitter:@SS9Weatherman

Keith I don't mean to be rude but as someone who is always eager to say how this newsgroup has deteriorated and indeed have expressed your enthusiasm for a 'moderated NG where only weather is raised, don't you think then that you should give some sort of a lead and stop going on about Brexit. Now you are perfectly entitled to go as OT as you want but please don't be so sanctimonious about it.
By the way BREXIT won REMAIN lost. We know have to get on with it . Markets have recovered and doomsday so far hasn't happened.


Sorry again if that seems a tad contentious but either you want to allow OT posts or not?

On Sunday, 3 July 2016 19:01:33 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 18:28:09 UTC+1, Keith (Southend)G wrote:
On 03/07/2016 18:10, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
Weatherlawyer writes
Very kind of you but I am not interested in something set up for a
bunch of lying crackpots. Sorry. Don't get me wrong, I do hope you
prosper but I can't see god blessing anything based on political lies.

Based on political lies? It would probably be wiser of me not to ask,
but where on earth do you get that idea from? The only stipulations that
Bruce has made are that posts should be on-topic - i.e. about the
weather or climate - and should not be abusive. Both of those
requirements seem perfectly reasonable. Yes, they would exclude
discussion of politics, but why should a forum about the weather be a
suitable place for that?

I despaired the same way I despaired when I saw this...
https://twitter.com/NORBET/status/749568078153912320

--
Keith (Southend)
"Weather Home & Abroad"
http://www.southendweather.net
Twitter:@SS9Weatherman

Keith I don't mean to be rude but as someone who is always eager to say how this newsgroup has deteriorated and indeed have expressed your enthusiasm for a 'moderated NG where only weather is raised, don't you think then that you should give some sort of a lead and stop going on about Brexit. Now you are perfectly entitled to go as OT as you want but please don't be so sanctimonious about it.
By the way BREXIT won REMAIN lost. We know have to get on with it. Markets have recovered and doomsday so far hasn't happened.


Sorry again if that seems a tad contentious but either you want to allow OT posts or not?

Are you absolutely sure it IS keith and not KNOW but now.

On Sunday, 3 July 2016 18:15:27 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
Weatherlawyer writes
Very kind of you but I am not interested in something set up for a
bunch of lying crackpots. Sorry. Don't get me wrong, I do hope you
prosper but I can't see god blessing anything based on political lies.

Based on political lies? It would probably be wiser of me not to ask,
but where on earth do you get that idea from? The only stipulations that
Bruce has made are that posts should be on-topic - i.e. about the
weather or climate - and should not be abusive. Both of those
requirements seem perfectly reasonable. Yes, they would exclude
discussion of politics, but why should a forum about the weather be a
suitable place for that?

I take it that you haven't read anything I have posted on here recently, because all my Youtube links have been about the abuse of science (and physics in particular) by the flowerpots of the IPCC. I would suggest that you go and read some of them or am I in your killfilters?

If I am then that is your problem not my problem. My problem is that I don't keep a score on posters I reply to. If they don't respond I think they don't respond because they don't want to, not because I am filtered out. If they want to do that I really don't mind.

The problem is I am supposed to know what they don't know?
They can **** off!
See if I care.

I can't imagine using a forum where anyone is filtered out. Why would you want to be a part of a fraction of a discussion?
Stupid or what?