Well, I could give certain examples of cases where certain people haven't been willing to follow certain rules (that's where Brexit comes from after all) but then, I shall leave that for discussion within the UIA forum rather than here.

 

As you say that's for another thread John. I'm glad we can now move on with no more 'sneaky peak' card showing in this little ole thread .

 

And proud of it as well, mate!!

 

You’re quite right John, there are no rules to say you can’t give a rough guide to your prediction.  It’s an agreement that those who take part in this thread have come to on GW’s suggestion, for reasons I explained in my earlier post.  That’s just how it works.

You’re also right that there are some experts who know more than you and I but we can’t just say that the experts can’t give clues and the rest of us can.  It has to be equal for everyone.  Nobody would want to copy my guesses either but I don’t give clues because I respect the way this thread works and I go with the flow.  I also think that if one person does it, others might follow and then we might as well not have that agreement at all.  

I know you like taking part in the CET competition and I enjoy your company because you make some good posts on here and you join in the fun.  All I’m asking is that you consider holding back with your clues until after the prediction close date next month, like the rest of us do.  It’s entirely up to you of course.  

You’re quite right John, there are no rules to say you can’t give a rough guide to your prediction.  It’s an agreement that those who take part in this thread have come to on GW’s suggestion, for reasons I explained in my earlier post.  That’s just how it works.

You’re also right that there are some experts who know more than you and I but we can’t just say that the experts can’t give clues and the rest of us can.  It has to be equal for everyone.  Nobody would want to copy my guesses either but I don’t give clues because I respect the way this thread works and I go with the flow.  I also think that if one person does it, others might follow and then we might as well not have that agreement at all.  

I know you like taking part in the CET competition and I enjoy your company because you make some good posts on here and you join in the fun.  All I’m asking is that you consider holding back with your clues until after the prediction close date next month, like the rest of us do.  It’s entirely up to you of course.  

Well, it won't be long before I get my own back here for all of that anyway. I  won't say any more than that here since this isn't the thread for that but if you need any clues to what I mean here, you only need to look no further than the latest post which I have just submitted to the International Football thread within the sports forum.

 Well, it won't be long before I get my own back here for all of that anyway. I  won't say any more than that here since this isn't the thread for that but if you need any clues to what I mean here, you only need to look no further than the latest post which I have just submitted to the International Football thread within the sports forum.

 

I've just read that John. What a nice calculated chap you are.

You’re quite right John, there are no rules to say you can’t give a rough guide to your prediction.  It’s an agreement that those who take part in this thread have come to on GW’s suggestion, for reasons I explained in my earlier post.  That’s just how it works.

You’re also right that there are some experts who know more than you and I but we can’t just say that the experts can’t give clues and the rest of us can.  It has to be equal for everyone.  Nobody would want to copy my guesses either but I don’t give clues because I respect the way this thread works and I go with the flow.  I also think that if one person does it, others might follow and then we might as well not have that agreement at all.  

I know you like taking part in the CET competition and I enjoy your company because you make some good posts on here and you join in the fun.  All I’m asking is that you consider holding back with your clues until after the prediction close date next month, like the rest of us do.  It’s entirely up to you of course.  

I'm not disputing anything here, but I have just thought of a question based on what you have said, and which I would like to ask.

If we take the hypothetical situation where this was the CET thread for the month of MMMM within the year YYYY, it has been established that until such time that the entries for that month's CET competition were submitted, no-one would be allowed to say in this thread that they thought that CET anomaly for that month would be roughly X.X°C above average as that would give too much away.

However, it is always possible that someone might have posted in a different thread on an earlier date (such as several months earlier) which could be the MO thread for that time for example, where they reckoned that the CET anomaly for the month of MMMM within the year of YYYY would be roughly X.X°C above average. If that was done on the basis of any sort of model output, that would be a perfectly appropriate thing to do since that doesn't go off-topic in any way for that particular thread.

At the time of that earlier MO thread post, it might not necessarily be known that there would later on, be a CET competition for that particular month. Yet, there would be nothing to stop anyone from looking back at that earlier MO thread post and using that as a possible clue for that particular month's competition. Based on that particular post on this thread creating an unfair advantage, you could therefore equally say this earlier MO thread post also created an unfair advantage for exactly the same reasons.

Should we therefore stop that from happening as well?

 

I'm not disputing anything here, but I have just thought of a question based on what you have said, and which I would like to ask.

If we take the hypothetical situation where this was the CET thread for the month of MMMM within the year YYYY, it has been established that until such time that the entries for that month's CET competition were submitted, no-one would be allowed to say in this thread that they thought that CET anomaly for that month would be roughly X.X°C above average as that would give too much away.

However, it is always possible that someone might have posted in a different thread on an earlier date (such as several months earlier) which could be the MO thread for that time for example, where they reckoned that the CET anomaly for the month of MMMM within the year of YYYY would be roughly X.X°C above average. If that was done on the basis of any sort of model output, that would be a perfectly appropriate thing to do since that doesn't go off-topic in any way for that particular thread.

At the time of that earlier MO thread post, it might not necessarily be known that there would later on, be a CET competition for that particular month. Yet, there would be nothing to stop anyone from looking back at that earlier MO thread post and using that as a possible clue for that particular month's competition. Based on that particular post on this thread creating an unfair advantage, you could therefore equally say this earlier MO thread post also created an unfair advantage for exactly the same reasons.

Should we therefore stop that from happening as well?

 

you could, but surely you see that a guess made 2 seasons away and one made one week before would have far more pertinent information at hand, given what we know about long range forecasting. Anyway, more importantly, my wild ar$e guess is in

 

I'm not disputing anything here, but I have just thought of a question based on what you have said, and which I would like to ask.

If we take the hypothetical situation where this was the CET thread for the month of MMMM within the year YYYY, it has been established that until such time that the entries for that month's CET competition were submitted, no-one would be allowed to say in this thread that they thought that CET anomaly for that month would be roughly X.X°C above average as that would give too much away.

However, it is always possible that someone might have posted in a different thread on an earlier date (such as several months earlier) which could be the MO thread for that time for example, where they reckoned that the CET anomaly for the month of MMMM within the year of YYYY would be roughly X.X°C above average. If that was done on the basis of any sort of model output, that would be a perfectly appropriate thing to do since that doesn't go off-topic in any way for that particular thread.

At the time of that earlier MO thread post, it might not necessarily be known that there would later on, be a CET competition for that particular month. Yet, there would be nothing to stop anyone from looking back at that earlier MO thread post and using that as a possible clue for that particular month's competition. Based on that particular post on this thread creating an unfair advantage, you could therefore equally say this earlier MO thread post also created an unfair advantage for exactly the same reasons.

Should we therefore stop that from happening as well?

 

Oh give it a rest please!

It's a relatively minor point but it has been explained by several people as to why the CET predicitons should be PM'd only. It isn't a fprum rule as such (like not going OT) but a competition rule within that forum so I don't think your account would ever be deleted for breaking it. GW runs the comp so I guess he could ban you from it if you persist in doing it, and he saw fit.

 

Oh give it a rest please!

It's a relatively minor point but it has been explained by several people as to why the CET predicitons should be PM'd only. It isn't a fprum rule as such (like not going OT) but a competition rule within that forum so I don't think your account would ever be deleted for breaking it. GW runs the comp so I guess he could ban you from it if you persist in doing it, and he saw fit.

I wasn't intending to carry this on any further.

All I was looking for here was to get an answer to a question which cropped up, and I even explained that I wasn't then going to dispute that in any way.

It is after all by asking these questions and then getting the answers to them that I will then learn, or is that too much of a problem for you?

After the rather disgusting manner in which I've been treated by certain members over the last couple of days though on this thread, I don't now want anything more to do with this stupid competition ever again which is a real shame, because I was enjoying being part of it as Caz had said.

 

I wasn't intending to carry this on any further.

All I was looking for here was to get an answer to a question which cropped up, and I even explained that I wasn't then going to dispute that in any way.

It is after all by asking these questions and then getting the answers to them that I will then learn, or is that too much of a problem for you?

After the rather disgusting manner in which I've been treated by certain members over the last couple of days though on this thread, I don't now want anything more to do with this stupid competition ever again which is a real shame, because I was enjoying being part of it as Caz had said.

 

 

That's called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'. Your loss.

 

I wasn't intending to carry this on any further.

All I was looking for here was to get an answer to a question which cropped up, and I even explained that I wasn't then going to dispute that in any way.

It is after all by asking these questions and then getting the answers to them that I will then learn, or is that too much of a problem for you?

After the rather disgusting manner in which I've been treated by certain members over the last couple of days though on this thread, I don't now want anything more to do with this stupid competition ever again which is a real shame, because I was enjoying being part of it as Caz had said.

 

 

That is completely unnecessary abusive language. Shame on you. Its a peerless competition and if people abide by the rules, even better.

 

I wasn't intending to carry this on any further.

All I was looking for here was to get an answer to a question which cropped up, and I even explained that I wasn't then going to dispute that in any way.

It is after all by asking these questions and then getting the answers to them that I will then learn, or is that too much of a problem for you?

After the rather disgusting manner in which I've been treated by certain members over the last couple of days though on this thread, I don't now want anything more to do with this stupid competition ever again which is a real shame, because I was enjoying being part of it as Caz had said.

A dignified deletion of your last line would be a good idea, John.

The "piranhas" of TWO thrive on spoiling the atmosphere to massage their self image and are best starved of responses. My policy is to use "hide user" and ignore them for a good while, only restoring them to view when they come to heel in a "Quote". It is only about 6 people who qualify, and on a good day some can show as bright and affable folks. Blood sugar levels perhaps? Surplus testosterone? It can't just be innate nastiness. Can it?

Roger

  Oh dear!  

 

A dignified deletion of your last line would be a good idea, John.

The "piranhas" of TWO thrive on spoiling the atmosphere to massage their self image and are best starved of responses. My policy is to use "hide user" and ignore them for a good while, only restoring them to view when they come to heel in a "Quote". It is only about 6 people who qualify, and on a good day some can show as bright and affable folks. Blood sugar levels perhaps? Surplus testosterone? It can't just be innate nastiness. Can it?

Roger

No!!

I've said my piece and I'm sticking by it.

Shame on you John.

Perhaps this isn't the right thread or forum for you after all ?

We are a friendly bunch with the competitions best intentions at heart.

Simply playing by these unofficial rules would have helped your case. 

You're a rebel and proud of it as you stated.

Bye.

No!!

I've said my piece and I'm sticking by it.

 

Up to you, John. 

Roger

I will now apologise for going over the top yesterday with some foul language on this thread.

What happened here was that I asked a certain question and then as it turned out, Wallaw then gave me the answer which I was actually looking for.

At that point in time, I was then fully prepared to leave it at that and say nothing more on this matter. However, I was still simmering from everything else which had happened here beforehand and when Col then opened his big mouth with the response which he gave, the very first sentence of that response was then enough to push me over the edge.

This doesn't mean that I'm blaming Col in any way here but had he not made that response in the manner in which he did in that particular sentence, I would have ended up saying nothing more on this matter and there would have been no abusive language from me as a result (I was after all, doing the very best that I can to avoid using such language and that was why I mentioned beforehand that what I had said until that point in time could easily have been a lot worse than what it was).

However, I also recognise that this still doesn't take anything away from the fact that I shouldn't have used such abusive language and that is why I have come on here to formally apologise for doing so. Having said though, my previous views which I had stated here remain unchanged. and because of that, I will continue to take no further part in the CET competition from now on.

Having said that though, there is a reason why the CET competition exists and regardless of what my own views on that competition and its rules actually are, it is still a good idea to have that competition and although I don't want to have anything to do with it myself from now on, I would not discourage anyone else in any way from playing their part in it.

For that reason, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone else all of the best of luck in the CET competition and so, let's hope that there are no hard feelings over this because as Caz said earlier on, we are all friends at the end of the day.

EDIT:

I have also just deleted the offending sentence where that abusive language was used to save Brian or any mod from having to do that instead.

Oh and while I'm at it, I'have also edited the initial comment which led to all of this happening by removing the initial temperature anomaly prediction which I gave there. I am of course, aware that there was at least one direct reply to that where this initial post is actually quoted so if whoever made such replies can then go back and remove my prediction from that quote, that should then at least minimize any unfair advantage which might have resulted from that.

I will now apologise for going over the top yesterday with some foul language on this thread.

What happened here was that I asked a certain question and then as it turned out, Wallaw then gave me the answer which I was actually looking for.

At that point in time, I was then fully prepared to leave it at that and say nothing more on this matter. However, I was still simmering from everything else which had happened here beforehand and when Col then opened his big mouth with the response which he gave, the very first sentence of that response was then enough to push me over the edge.

This doesn't mean that I'm blaming Col in any way here but had he not made that response in the manner in which he did in that particular sentence, I would have ended up saying nothing more on this matter and there would have been no abusive language from me as a result (I was after all, doing the very best that I can to avoid using such language and that was why I mentioned beforehand that what I had said until that point in time could easily have been a lot worse than what it was).

However, I also recognise that this still doesn't take anything away from the fact that I shouldn't have used such abusive language and that is why I have come on here to formally apologise for doing so. Having said though, my previous views which I had stated here remain unchanged. and because of that, I will continue to take no further part in the CET competition from now on.

Having said that though, there is a reason why the CET competition exists and regardless of what my own views on that competition and its rules actually are, it is still a good idea to have that competition and although I don't want to have anything to do with it myself from now on, I would not discourage anyone else in any way from playing their part in it.

For that reason, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone else all of the best of luck in the CET competition and so, let's hope that there are no hard feelings over this because as Caz said earlier on, we are all friends at the end of the day.

EDIT:

I have also just deleted the offending sentence where that abusive language was used to save Brian or any mod from having to do that instead.

Oh and while I'm at it, I'have also edited the initial comment which led to all of this happening by removing the initial temperature anomaly prediction which I gave there. I am of course, aware that there was at least one direct reply to that where this initial post is actually quoted so if whoever made such replies can then go back and remove my prediction from that quote, that should then at least minimize any unfair advantage which might have resulted from that.

 

OK, thanks John. No need for anyone to fall out over this.

It's a shame you still feel the need to leave the CET competition however if you disagree with how it is run, that is probably the best course of action to take.

I will now apologise for going over the top yesterday with some foul language on this thread.

What happened here was that I asked a certain question and then as it turned out, Wallaw then gave me the answer which I was actually looking for.

At that point in time, I was then fully prepared to leave it at that and say nothing more on this matter. However, I was still simmering from everything else which had happened here beforehand and when Col then opened his big mouth with the response which he gave, the very first sentence of that response was then enough to push me over the edge.

This doesn't mean that I'm blaming Col in any way here but had he not made that response in the manner in which he did in that particular sentence, I would have ended up saying nothing more on this matter and there would have been no abusive language from me as a result (I was after all, doing the very best that I can to avoid using such language and that was why I mentioned beforehand that what I had said until that point in time could easily have been a lot worse than what it was).

However, I also recognise that this still doesn't take anything away from the fact that I shouldn't have used such abusive language and that is why I have come on here to formally apologise for doing so. Having said though, my previous views which I had stated here remain unchanged. and because of that, I will continue to take no further part in the CET competition from now on.

Having said that though, there is a reason why the CET competition exists and regardless of what my own views on that competition and its rules actually are, it is still a good idea to have that competition and although I don't want to have anything to do with it myself from now on, I would not discourage anyone else in any way from playing their part in it.

For that reason, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone else all of the best of luck in the CET competition and so, let's hope that there are no hard feelings over this because as Caz said earlier on, we are all friends at the end of the day.

EDIT:

I have also just deleted the offending sentence where that abusive language was used to save Brian or any mod from having to do that instead.

Oh and while I'm at it, I'have also edited the initial comment which led to all of this happening by removing the initial temperature anomaly prediction which I gave there. I am of course, aware that there was at least one direct reply to that where this initial post is actually quoted so if whoever made such replies can then go back and remove my prediction from that quote, that should then at least minimize any unfair advantage which might have resulted from that.

 

John - If you're unhappy with the forum - feel free to leave. I've removed two of your quite offending posts. I'm issuing a ban warning to you.

Any more of those types of posts and you account will be locked for a number of days.