Weather thread 2011

[jezzer]

This is another source of forecast, this will also be using the GFS runs so will chop and change with that particular model...

Forecast up until Thursday at the moment

[cejx]

Ladies and Gentlemen I present to you exhibit A (NSFW)

/index.php?showtopic=71287&view=findpost&p=2520151">http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=71287&view=findpost&p=2520151

[hannahlmoore]

Who is this bitch:

http://www.positiveweathersolutions.co.uk/Glastonbury-Festival---Wednesday-June-22nd-to-Sunday-June-26th.php

[boskobalaban]

Who is this bitch:

http://www.positiveweathersolutions.co.uk/Glastonbury-Festival---Wednesday-June-22nd-to-Sunday-June-26th.php

[Gnomicide]

Croissant Neuf weather update.

[ltfckimbo]

the internet turns people into dicks.

[ukslim]

No more than the modelling industry does, no more than the use of attractive women in advertising does, I could list so many examples. If it was, for example, pornography being posted, or pictures of women in degrading situations, then I would totally see the sexist viewpoint.

[beltin]

Who is this bitch:

http://www.positiveweathersolutions.co.uk/Glastonbury-Festival---Wednesday-June-22nd-to-Sunday-June-26th.php

[jezzer]

Don't even look at Positive Weather Solutions, they're certainly not the most reliable. Definite use of seaweed in their forecasts!

I've not known them to have any accuracy with forecasts. Yep Beltin, totally agree

Edited June 16, 2011 by jezzer

[jeffie]

Oh dear oh dear, am I the only one who read that as G spot?

[arcade fireman]

Who is this bitch:

http://www.positiveweathersolutions.co.uk/Glastonbury-Festival---Wednesday-June-22nd-to-Sunday-June-26th.php

[DJfunkymonk]

It’s a shame the way this thread has descended. Looking back over the last few pages there’s hardly any decent information on the weather.

Forums need some moderation to stay on topic for sure (especially when you end up at well in excess of 100 pages). Now, I can see the argument that scantily clad ladies has nothing to do with the weather and will be viewed as sexist by many, so fair play for anyone who makes their opinion known and backs it up with reasonable and rational argument. However, in this case while SOME of Neil’s arguments may have been sound in practice, they’re lost by the extremely aggressive manner in which they’ve been put across.

To be fair, there is a history of Neil shouting people down when he believes he’s right. One that springs to mind is when someone said there was going to be a resale of tickets and was absolutely shouted down (and I mean really chastised) for making this statement as it wasn’t true…….though, it turned out it was true.

It’s a great site Neil and that’s why it’s popular. However, your attitude towards people who aren’t in agreement with you is very poor. You talk down to people because you say they’re being sexist but your arguments are badly conceived and extremely poorly executed. You’re no better yourself with that attitude and language towards other people on this forum. You try to take the high ground but it’s hard to stand on a platform of morality when you make your points in such an abysmal and militant way.

Just my opinion.

[beltin]

Croissant Neuf weather update.

[eFestivals]

So you continually arguing with other posters and swearing at them is OK, but when people want to politely reply to your posts and tell you why you're wrong they're "not letting it go" and deserve a warning

Tell me I'm wrong all you like. I'm able to recognise my own wrongdoing - you are not.

You have been proven wrong that those pictures were not the "harmless fun" you claimed, by the posts by people saying they were offended by them.

Once again, you still have dodged the question about telling us all how it remotely classes as "sexism". I already debunked the "objectification of women" part. You can't use sexism in your argument continually without justifying it, it's a straw man argument.

Like your "harmless fun" argument, perhaps?

Just because you're unable to recognise sexism for what it is doesn't mean it's not sexism. Even some of the people who posted those photos have admitted they were posting them for sexist reasons. Were they wrong about their own actions just as you say I'm wrong in identifying it as sexism?

I suggest that you find your local feminist group and ask them to explain sexism to you, so you're able to recognise it for what it is. I'm not your teacher.

[arcade fireman]

I would say that the photo of the "football team" of body-painted girls, in which one's eye was drawn to the arse crack of the one bending over to pick up a ball, was in a quite different class to any pretty girl on a bus stop ad poster.

Maybe because I liked it - but that's not the point. I can like it and disapprove of it at the same time.

[strudders]

No more than the modelling industry does, no more than the use of attractive women in advertising does, I could list so many examples. If it was, for example, pornography being posted, or pictures of women in degrading situations, then I would totally see the sexist viewpoint. But as is, there is absolutely no difference between half naked pictures of men in magazines and those pictures posted in this thread.

[arcade fireman]

Tell me I'm wrong all you like. I'm able to recognise my own wrongdoing - you are not.

You have been proven wrong that those pictures were not the "harmless fun" you claimed, by the posts by people saying they were offended by them.

Like your "harmless fun" argument, perhaps?

Just because you're unable to recognise sexism for what it is doesn't mean it's not sexism. Even some of the people who posted those photos have admitted they were posting them for sexist reasons. Were they wrong about their own actions just as you say I'm wrong in identifying it as sexism?

I suggest that you find your local feminist group and ask them to explain sexism to you, so you're able to recognise it for what it is. I'm not your teacher.

[poddingtonparr]

Not the best example - "phobia" is used in many contexts and doesn't always mean "frightened" - see "hydrophobia" in biochemistry contexts for example. It usually means "averse to" or "repelled by" - in which case "xenophobia" is entirely appropriate for people that you described. People using the word "sexism" really should know what it means before they use it - as I've said before it's an important cause and shouldnt be undermined by people who don't have a clue what they're on about.

No more than the modelling industry does, no more than the use of attractive women in advertising does, I could list so many examples. If it was, for example, pornography being posted, or pictures of women in degrading situations, then I would totally see the sexist viewpoint. But as is, there is absolutely no difference between half naked pictures of men in magazines and those pictures posted in this thread.

If a thread got infiltrated with pictures of men not wearing a great deal, would it be right for people to be told to cut things back? Yes - and I think this thread was getting too full of those pictures and it took away from the thread itself. That was fine. Would it be right for those girls to be labelled as posting sexist posts? No, it'd be absolutely ludicrous, and there's absolutely no difference between these two situations.

Of course, that didn't happen in this instance, for two main reasons. Firstly this forum has more males on - that's just a fact. Secondly society deems it more acceptable for men to openly display sexual desires than women (and deems it more acceptable for them to be sexually promiscuous) - this is a fault with society but hardly something which can be lumped on the posters concerned.

Was it going too off topic and filling this thread too much? Yes - I think if people posted the odd picture there'd be precisely nothing wrong with it, but it needed to be curbed. But saying those posts were remotely sexist is ludicrous.

And that's not even bringing up Neil's conduct since then...

[tinselmouse]

Croissant Neuf weather update.

[jeffie]

Can we have a weather forecast please

[ukslim]

That set of photos did cross that line, I agree.

Shame because I did enjoy them the most But yes, they were probably a bit much.

Edited June 16, 2011 by ukslim

[eFestivals]

It’s a shame the way this thread has descended. Looking back over the last few pages there’s hardly any decent information on the weather.

Forums need some moderation to stay on topic for sure (especially when you end up at well in excess of 100 pages). Now, I can see the argument that scantily clad ladies has nothing to do with the weather and will be viewed as sexist by many, so fair play for anyone who makes their opinion known and backs it up with reasonable and rational argument. However, in this case while SOME of Neil’s arguments may have been sound in practice, they’re lost by the extremely aggressive manner in which they’ve been put across.

Would I have had to resort to making aggressive responses if my original requests over two days had been respected?

A lack of respect for those requests led to a lack of respect for those who who had a lack of respect.

It’s a great site Neil and that’s why it’s popular. However, your attitude towards people who aren’t in agreement with you is very poor. You talk down to people because you say they’re being sexist but your arguments are badly conceived and extremely poorly executed. You’re no better yourself with that attitude and language towards other people on this forum. You try to take the high ground but it’s hard to stand on a platform of morality when you make your points in such an abysmal and militant way.

Just my opinion.

If people had respect for others then things would never have to reach that point.

My job is not to teach people right from wrong. If people had their own brains working properly then I wouldn't have to try to play teacher to them, done well or not.

But of course, shoot the messenger and ignore the message, cos there's where the brain dead find their own 'moral high ground'.

It's all too saddening.

[arcade fireman]

Page 118 is that acceptable in a weather thread?

[arcade fireman]

So there we are. It was alright when it was just frauleins in lacy tops. Then it crossed a line. Then Neil asked for it to stop. Then it didn't stop. Then Neil put a warn on someone, and all hell broke loose.

It really wouldn't have been practical to ask for things to get reined back to the lacy top stage (just as when my primary school banned British Bulldog, it wouldn't have worked for them just to ask us to play it less roughly).

I do agree that Neil could sometimes put his point across in a more polite manner. But on the other hand, I know what it's like to lose my patience.

[autoinflate]

I recommend that you don't pursue the debate with Neil unless you've got as much time to waste as he has and/or enjoy banging your head against a brick wall. The best you can hope for is illogical reasoning, convenient ignorance of your central arguments, tired repetition of irrelevant points, obfuscation, insults, mockery and an uneasy sense of psychological imbalance.