General Banter

GreyBeard wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:

GreyBeard wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:

Bkdude wrote:Frank - I see you made it that one has to be a member now to view any if the threads? How come?

I wanted to encourage lurkers to sign up. During big storm threats they may have questions they wouldn't be able to ask as guests.

There are paid for graphics that are posted on the site on a daily basis. Weatherbell, StormVista, etc. Guests should not have the same privilege to view these graphics like registered members do. Also, you can remain signed in. It's not like you have to sign in everytime you visit the site. There's an option for that. I have no "numbers" to avhieve. There are no advertisements on this forum for registered users. It's as if you sound like I'm trying to profit from this website. I am not.

I had a feeling you were going to take this the wrong way. Just a little constructive criticism is all. Looks like I struck a nerve. You always point out when people try to put words in your mouth which is exactly what you are doing here."It's as if you sound like I'm trying to profit from this website. I am not." Never said that nor did I imply it. As for remaining signed in, well that is something I prefer not to do on any website. Also, the reason I posted here is because this is where it was started by someone,and  responded to by you.

Im Sorry Grey beard.  Although you didn't exactly come out and say it, statements like "This is the first time I've ever seen a forum use this tactic." certainly imply something.  That could have been interpreted many ways.  And to be honest your statement touched a nerve for me.  Frank busts his but for free week in and week out.  And if signing in is the only thing that you need to do to be a part of a great weather enthusiest community without ads and BS so be it.  We do post paid site info on here all the time.  I don't think its too much to ask to simply sign in to read about the weather.

GreyBeard wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:

GreyBeard wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:

Bkdude wrote:Frank - I see you made it that one has to be a member now to view any if the threads? How come?

I wanted to encourage lurkers to sign up. During big storm threats they may have questions they wouldn't be able to ask as guests.

 




There are paid for graphics that are posted on the site on a daily basis. Weatherbell, StormVista, etc. Guests should not have the same privilege to view these graphics like registered members do. Also, you can remain signed in. It's not like you have to sign in everytime you visit the site. There's an option for that. I have no "numbers" to avhieve. There are no advertisements on this forum for registered users. It's as if you sound like I'm trying to profit from this website. I am not.

I had a feeling you were going to take this the wrong way. Just a little constructive criticism is all. Looks like I struck a nerve. You always point out when people try to put words in your mouth which is exactly what you are doing here."It's as if you sound like I'm trying to profit from this website. I am not." Never said that nor did I imply it. As for remaining signed in, well that is something I prefer not to do on any website. Also, the reason I posted here is because this is where it was started by someone,and  responded to by you.

When you insist this is some sort of "tactic" or me trying to "push numbers up" I'm not sure how you expect me to respond. Bottom line, there are graphics I should not even be posting publicly that I am. There are guests, who in the past, try to take these graphics and spread them on social media. If anyone tries to do that I can at least tie it back to a registered member and let them know not to do it.

If I can make it so it's only one thread that gets blocked from guests I would. But this platform doesn't allow it.

Im Sorry Grey beard.  Although you didn't exactly come out and say it, statements like "This is the first time I've ever seen a forum use this tactic." certainly imply something.  That could have been interpreted many ways.  And to be honest your statement touched a nerve for me.  Frank busts his but for free week in and week out.  And if signing in is the only thing that you need to do to be a part of a great weather enthusiest community without ads and BS so be it.  We do post paid site info on here all the time.  I don't think its too much to ask to simply sign in to read about the weather


Apparently you, sroc, have misinterpreted what I was saying. Any forum I have seen allows you to browse it but you cannot post to it without signing up.The "tactic" I was referring to was that this site,all of a sudden, after 2 years, is no longer allowing you to read posts without first signing up. I guess you guys missed my post where I said :
"I enjoy this forum and all of the knowledgeable people on it, but this just rubbed me the wrong way." I realize Frank puts a lot of time and effort into the site and it is his site, and as jmanley pointed out he can do whatever he wants. I agree it's a great site, very informative and educational. But then again, I've seen where whole threads have been deleted because they were deemed "too political" even though they were here in the general banter section. To me that is akin to censorship and denying of one's freedom of speech.Why have a General Banter section if you are going to regulate what can or cannot be discussed according to whether or not it complies with your agenda. Again, it's your site and you will do what you want.

I know Frank that you like to run a tight ship, but you should also be open to some criticism if someone isn't 100% in agreement with you.

When you insist this is some sort of "tactic" or me trying to "push numbers up" I'm not sure how you expect me to respond. Bottom line, there are graphics I should not even be posting publicly that I am. There are guests, who in the past, try to take these graphics and spread them on social media. If anyone tries to do that I can at least tie it back to a registered member and let them know not to do it.

If I can make it so it's only one thread that gets blocked from guests I would. But this platform doesn't allow it. [/quote]


I can see your reasoning on this Frank,and thanks for explaining it. I'm not an unreasonable guy, but geez, lighten up a bit

When I first started reading your posts I knew exactly where you were coming from. In fact I can see your point on many levels. However certain comments implied an ulterior motive on Frank's part. Even if you did t mean it that way I read it in that way..sort of. I'm sure if we were face to face enjoying a cold beverage It would have been easier to understand your true meaning. Unfort I only had the words to read.
I'm not sure if you belong to any other weather boards, but The reason we run a tight ship is that things can get out of hand very fast if things go too far. Once that happens it's much harder to reign it all back in. Politics especially is an explosive topic and can get out of hand at the drop of the hat. There are plenty of political forums to enjoy, but this one is not one of them. Anyway no hard feelings my friend.

Changing up the topic here.....as a non football fan i find it completely appropriate that the Jets spit the bit today. Playing one of the worst teams in football that had 10 starters out injured and you come up small??????? Same Old Jets.

syosnow94 wrote:Changing up the topic here.....as a non football fan i find it completely appropriate that the Jets spit the bit today.  Playing one of the worst teams in football that had 10 starters out injured and you come up small???????  Same Old Jets.

I suggest you put that in the Sports Section of the forum, more specifically, under the NFL thread.

But yes, it must be tough if you are a Jet fan.

@docstox12, you are right about me being an "old head". I was not a member the old board, but I've read on here about how crazy it became. You bring up many valid points, and this being a weather board, weather should be the main focus. You have a Happy New Year too.

@sroc, no hard feelings here my friend. I look forward to reading your informative and educational posts. I know you, Frank,mugs,Dunzoo and many others put a lot of time and effort into this site and it is appreciated.

I'd just like to welcome one of my very "special" friends to the board Leftyc7. Not the brightest guy, but real passionate about the weather.

Welcome to him!

Also, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO OUR VERY OWN JANET AKA DUNNZOO

Didn't even get 1 lousy number on 10 quick picks

Early reports of winner in L.A

This is what's getting me through today. Coconut milk, Greek yogurt, strawberry, blueberry, mango, whey protein, banana, ginger root 
 
 

Jesus I though going to the bathroom would never be so exhilarating or special until you have surgery and have to go or else dr e needs to come along. My god what painkillers do to ones bowels!! Sorry but banter and I feel 100x better now.

How about dem Packers? Are u kidding me a duece on the HM pass? And then the toss of the coin - never flipped - that is nuts. You can make this stuff up!

Anyone need a girdle when I am done with mine?? Just asking.

docstox12 wrote:Well, I guess the old Italian Grandmothers who used to put all their cash in a mattress ( a deceased buddy of mine's Grandmother did.When she died she had 10,000 dollars in 1930's issued bills in her mattress) because they did not trust the banks after the bank runs in the Depression, are going to be proven right again.Japan goes to NEGATIVE interest rates joining Switzerland.In short, what this means is the banks CHARGE you 1 or 2 percent to keep your money there "safely".All the result of massive world Central Banks printing currency to try to stimulate world economies.Is it working.......NOT. USA growth last quarter .7%, almost a recession!!!

Investors take heed!!!!!

Great advice Doc. I totally agree, the chickens are about to come home to roost. 8 years of this stupid 0% interest rate policy and three QE's to boot and all its done is leave us in mountains of debt with an inflated market that's teetering towards the abyss.

docstox12 wrote:Passed a gas station on Route 4.  1.45 per gallon!  When I started driving in 1968, we had two cars in the family, a 1959 Ford Custom 300 with a 292 HP V-8 and a 1963 Grand Prix with a 389 4bbl V-* (same engine as the GTO), both gas guzzlers.I was able to get gas for 28 cents a gallon in 1968.All you needed to do was get your timing light out and tweak your timing to burn the crap gas without pings and pre-ignition,LOL.Those were the days a backyard mechanic like me could do any job on a car.Good luck with that today.Anyhoo, I'm willing to bet that 1.45 a gallon today adjusted for inflation is less than the 28 cents I paid in '68.

When I was flush from a part time job, I could fill up the '63 Grand Prix with Hi-Test (we called it Ethyl as in "fill it up with Ethyl,lol).That 389 4bbl really had guts with that top shelf gas!! Peeling rubber!!!!!

Anyway, a tip o' the hat to the dumbass Saudi's for starting an oil price war,LOL!

.28 cents is equivalent to $1.95 in 2016 dollars...$1.45 today was .21 cents in 1968. So you are certainly correct.