WAAAAAAH-thering the Storm

*not only did I wind up with a second column from the alleged undergrad from MSU -- I won't name the prestigious institution misrepresented here, I'll leave that to a commenter later on -- but he kept it up in email, and later again in comments, getting increasingly irrelevant and personal...which merely gave me more to play with, as well as other commenters..again, from 2007*

Perhaps you'll remember back in early October, I had a column regarding how easy it was to start an argument, accidently or otherwise, by talking about politics, religion...or the weather. Well, a column written by Rick Rantamaki -- a tongue-in-cheeker about wishing his school guidance counselor had recommended he become weather forecaster -- got under the skin of one alleged-to-be undergrad in a college meteorological program. And when this character read my blog response to Rantamaki's critics, it got under his skin as well (to get an idea of how much, visit the column Politics, Religion....And the Weather? a few entries back, and look at the comments section).

Well, Mr. Alleged Undergrad finally quit leaving comments on the blog; instead, he continued his whining to me in email. And frankly, like my jousts with foreign email scammers, it got more and more amusing, in a "how LOW can we go" way, with each subsequent email he sent. Several times he pronounced that he was "done with this". At least until his next email tantrum, that is.

I didn't need to have kids; I've got all I can manage, dealing with 'kids' and their pouty peculiarities online (aka, scammers and one weather forecasting whaaaaaaaa-nabe). Though granted, I don't have to clean up after 'em this way. But I digress.

I'll at least do this individual the courtesy of not listing the name he went by or the email address he used; as you read his successive missives, I think you'll appreciate the courtesy this is. And yes, my regular blog readers...there is a bit of bad Skunk...bad, bad Skunk herein. Sometimes, the temptation to lower myself to the level of my opponent is just too strong to pass up. You women out there whom I know can appreciate that all of us males, at whatever level of 'adult' we achieve, retain the essence of a child in us; an essence that can resurface without too much encouragement.

Guess I should set the table as to why he left off in comments where he resumed in email: he had already assumed a faulty premise from Rick Rantamaki's column. That faulty premise: that Rick said or suggested that weather forecasters shouldn't interrupt his TV programming with storm warnings. Rick said no such thing in his column; and I asserted to the aggrieved party of the alleged forecasting whaaaa-nabe part, that he needed to go back and re-read the column and save himself the upset. Instead of doing that, he began a crusade to get me to declare -- with a simple "yes" or "no" -- if I thought weather forecasters should interrupt TV programming with storm warnings, especially tornado warnings.

Besides the fact the question was unnecessary, I reminded this alleged college undergrad that I had already answered his question on the subject. Early in our jousts in the comments on the blog, I wrote this: being an ex-farm boy from Iowa, weather jokes were rather common when a forecast went phfft. But even the most laughed-at forecaster back then got everyone's attention when they broadcast a tornado warning. I have never personally heard a living soul complain about having their TV programming pre-empted by a tornado warning for their area.

Last time I checked, I, too, am a "living soul". Far as I was and am concerned, the question was answered right then and there. I urged him to go back and re-read it for clarification. But that was, apparently, too tough an assignment for this lad of dubious reading comprehension: he kept up demanding, in various ways, a "yes" or "no" answer to an already discredited and frivolous question.

Please note for the reading sensitive and regular visitors hyar, that while I don't tend to use the language that this alleged college student did, I didn't edit out his use of it, either. Read it exactly as he wrote it. In fact, he insisted in one of his last salvos (after I closed out this entry) that I "quote him".

Careful what you wish for, Potty-Mouth; I did.

Thus he begins in email:

why can't you answer "yes" or "no"? That's all I want...as soon as you say one or the other, I will drop this whole thing (I have every reason to doubt that, especially if I'd tweaked him with a "no"). Why do you insist on beating around the bush and trying to make me look stupid by talking about some shit that is completely irrelevant? It's a simple question that just requires a yes or no answer. O.K....so evidently you answered the question already...well, tell me once again and use language that I can understand. Just say "yes, they do need to interrupt TV programming to save people's lives" or "no, they shouldn't interrupt TV programming to save people's lives". Is that so hard?

Bad Skunk...:

I'm just working with what you're giving me. As I have previously stated, your question is based on a false premise you incomprehensibly drew from Rantamaki's humor column (I've never met the guy, but he writes some rather funny stuff). Even after it was made clear to you he wrote no such thing about not wanting storm warnings to pre-empt his TV programming, you persisted in foolishly pursuing that line. First with him, and then with me. I answered your question in a manner that any literate college senior could and should be able to understand. I am not obligated to make it simple for you, merely because you insist it be so. The world doesn't make life simple merely because you insist it be so. Meteorology won't be simple merely because you insist it be so. All the technology of the day doesn't prevent occasional blown forecasts, and that should be very clear to any level of meteorologist, including you.

So choose, lad: focus on your chosen vocation, or on a silly argument that you lost with the first blog comment. Beyond my primary career, I have plenty of time to indulge in this for laughs and amusement. Do you? As a college senior, I would think not. But we are from different generations. Times and values change.

Like with some of my email scammers, I thought that might have put paid to it. Wrong:

Ok then...well, let's just imagine that I was a stranger on the street that you had never met and was conducting a survey, and I asked you "Do you think TV meteorologists should or should not interrupt TV programming to let people know about threatening weather?" You had to circle "yes" or "no"...what would you say? Fuck Rantamaki's column and everything else we've talked about...what would you say?

As others have learned with me, I treat the F-bomb as indication of a lost argument, and degradation of the validity of their point of view:

*Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*...employment of the F-bomb is indicative of a lost argument and the tactic of the last resort. If you were a stranger on the street and asked me what you just did, with the F-bomb qualifier, I'd give you no answer whatsoever, as you'd not be deserving of one.

That didn't go over well:

Jesus Christ, man...you have GOT to be kidding me. Ok...let's try this again then. Let's just imagine that I was a stranger on the street that you had never met and was conducting a survey, and I asked you "Do you think TV meteorologists should or should not interrupt TV programming to let people know about threatening weather?" You had to circle "yes" or "no"...what would you say?

Bad Skunk....baaaaad Skunk:

Yes, I suppose Jesus Christ was a man. No, I'm not kidding you. Now that we have that established, let's imagine that you're a stranger on the street that I never met, and you were conducting a survey, and the premise of your survey question was based on misunderstood original information -- due in no small part to reading miscomprehension on the part of the survey taker (aka, yourself) -- and I pointed this out to you. And despite having that pointed out, you continued to demand a yes or no answer to a question you've been told was, is, and will remain incorrectly concocted, as well as the fact that your question had been answered during the correction (by me) phase, and you were too obsessed at winning a silly argument, to grasp it. Would you be surprised if I just walked on and ignored you? Yes or no are options, not required answers.

And what is this "You had to circle "yes" or "no"...what is this, Russia? Iran? North Korea? Since when is a survey question asked by a total stranger that I'd never met, requiring of a yes or no answer? Perhaps in a totalitarian society; this one ain't, lad.

So before you throw another fit, go back one more time and re-read (a) Rantamaki's column and (b) all of my responses to your comments on the blog. If you read thoroughly and carefully, you'll not only find my answer to you has already been given, but you'll find the original question was unnecessary in the first place. Or you may opt to continue to have your tantrum. I'm good widdit, either way.

To quote the knight from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, "he chose....poorly":

Alright dude you're a fucking pussy that's too afraid to say what he really thinks...that's the bottom line (uh, not really, but he goes on). I understand every fucking word you have said, and here's what I got..."I'm a fucking pussy, I'm a fuckin pussy" (is that what you got? That isn't what I got...but that's what he says he got, and he goes on). So, I'm through with it! You're too scared to say yes or no because you're afraid of what you're great viewers may think of you. Fuck that man...say what you think (he don' read me vewy well or often, do he? But he goes on)! What I think is that you think that they should interrupt, but you don't wanna say that because you want people to believe that you could care less either way. That's what I think, and that's the assumption I'm gonna make unless you tell me otherwise. You know what...you should run for some kind of political office because you know exactly how NOT to answer a question and turn the whole thing around to make it something completely different from what it really is. Since you're so good at that, I think you would make one hell of a politician (do I sense an endorsement hyar? I think not as he goes on). This was no argument, but you tried to make it one by making false statements about me. Put yourself in my place (I'd have to dumb down way too much, no thank you, and he goes on)...what if someone wrote an article that said something like "all reporters suck balls and blow goats". Would you be happy with that (yeah, probably, since I'm not a reporter, but he goes on)? Naturally, you will say that you would laugh it off because of what's been continually discussed here, but deep inside you know that would piss you off (actually, deep inside I'd still laugh about it, but he goes on). And you just pick out things that are completely irrelevant and unnecessary to say like the circle yes or no shit. What was the point of saying that you fucking prick? Did you REALLY not know what I meant? I think you did, but you make yourself feel good by point out some stupid ass typos and once again changing the subject. You're a fucking loser....just keep writing your stupid ass blogs and making fun of people when they call you out on some of the bullshit you say. What ever you do...don't try to defend what they're saying about you by answering the questions (uh...yeah, what he said..and he continues)! Just try to point out some imperfections on them to change the subject and get everybody focused on something else.

Well, why not? I'll keep writing my stupid butt blogs with replies like this:

LMAO...and you were upset about being made to look stupid, eh (a few exchanges above, he complained about ME making HIM look stupid...)? Guess you don't care about that anymore. Fine with me. Having demonstrated in your very childish way that you've lost the argument you should never have engaged in from the outset, you've shown your true colors in the epithet-laden drivelfest you've concluded on (except that he ain't concluded, and I continue). My readers will be able to decide for themselves on this one, lad. Again -- though you assure me that no one else will read any of this -- I will acknowledge to any of your cyber-surfing classmates that your pithily expressed opinions and demonstrated reading inadequacies are not held to be indicative of the development of your peers, or the instructors who further your peers knowledge base. In fact, if any of your instructors wander by, perhaps they'll see the need therein to provide you with some remedial instruction and assistance, so as not to allow for any thought or notion suggestive of misrepresenting the quality of the (name omitted) undergraduate program.

After all, they wouldn't want it said later that when you melt down on the air because someone poked fun at one of your forecasting gaffes ("Oh YEAH? DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO F***ING DIE IN THEIR F***ING TRAILERS BECAUSE YOU MADE F***ING FUN OF MY MAKING A LITTLE F***ING MISTAKE ON THE F***ING FORECAST? YES OR F***ING NO!"), that you are a product indicative of the quality of their program.

Untrue to his word, he wasn't "through with it":

You know what...there's absolutely nothing left to say to this (so he keeps saying, and he goes on). I can see that you're not gonna budge either way to answer a simple yes or no question, so I'm through with it (no, he ain't, but he goes on). *Sigh* and there was no argument to start with...it was just me trying to get someone's opinion about something that seems to be harder than pulling teeth. For whatever reason you chose not to answer the question and cause me to waste I don't know how much time of my life dealing with a closed-minded, politically speaking, baby (he must be a progressive; he's not responsible for his actions, someone else is...and he goes on) that would rather turn a simple question into something that is completely off base. Well, dude, fine...you, I guess, "win" something that was not even a contest (I don't have to pay taxes on the winnings, do I? Baad Skunk, and he continues). So screw it...I know meteorologists should break in to alert people, and that is what I will do regardless of what people tell me (oy vay...the mental density hyar is something to behold, and he continues). Hopefully I can save a few people's lives that care enough to do something about it, and if the rest of them want to try to act like bad-asses and say "it's never gonna happen to me", well, then go ahead and let it kill them. I will at least have a clean conscience (since you spilled all the filth out in your emails, maybe you will, and he continues) and know that I did everything I could to help them. I will definitely feel bad about it, but there would be nothing else I could've done. So, again...yeah, you "win". I know all I need to know.

Well, no, he doesn't. But eh...what does ol' Skunk care? But ol' Skunk has another 'baaaad Skunk' moment, figuring he didn't mean what he said yet again:

Still harpin' on a lost cause, eh? Lad, you didn't 'win' because you simply don't pay attention. Good luck to any audience you forecast for, if you read a weather model as well as you read and comprehend text. You best work on that. From what I've seen here, work on it a lot. And I still don't consider the (name omitted) undergraduate meteorology program as faulted, based on just your demonstrated shortcomings.

Yeah, yeah...I know:

See...why did you have ot keep it going like that? I said YOU "won"...now who needs to learn about reading comprehension? And why did you have to say the thing about the meteorology program? That was completely unnecessary....everything that you have said about this is completely unnecessary. You're an idiot (a subjective opinion, not altogether inaccurate since I'm willingly continuing this dialogue, and he continues)! Ha...that's all there is to it. How does reading comprehension play into interpreting a model anyway moron? (duh, of course...you don't have to read and interpret a model...it tells you everything you need to think and say...*bonk* the whaaaa-therman, and he continues) So just shut up about all the reading comprehension stuff...shows how much you actually know about weather. By the way, I was just trying to say that I was through with this useless discussion (for about the umpteenth time, and he goes on) but you had to go on with your "lost cause". Again...who need to work on the reading comprehension now, skunkboy?

*Ear to ear grin as another baaaaaad Skunk moment evolves*:

You know (name omitted), you've convinced me of something: you're really not a college senior in an undergrad program. You're an 8th grader -- and I might be overestimating you even then -- who not only can't comprehend what you read, you're terribly immature and don't mean a single word you say, either. Several times now (my math may be as bad as his word, so I won't go back and count all of his "I'm through with this", and I go on) you've said you were through with this, via varied degrees of tantrum. And several times you're back, throwing still more of a tantrum. Do your parents know what you're doing on their computer? Bad (name omitted). Go to your room and take a time out.

And while you're standing in the corner, pouting over your bad behavior, I'll be mulling the entertainment versus the educational value of this series. When this post goes up on the blog, your penchant for making "terrible twos" look grown up will merely provide additional laugh fodder to the readers, to be sure. But perhaps more: many of my readers are parents themselves, and they'll look at this, look at their own kids, and suggest they make sure the kids not only learn their reading comprehension well, but they learn to mean what they say and say what they mean, too. And they might even throw in some points on rational, mature debate technique, too (not that ol' Skunk is a role model there, but I sorta digress and I go on).

As for you (name omitted)...storm on, lad. See what I just did there?

Yawp...bad Skunk. Baaaaad Skunk.

Now, His Nibs may fire back yet again (he did, twice more and as drivelly as heretofore, until with a last "so THERE!", he finally picked up his marbles and ran home to Ma), even after multiple promises to be "through with it". Perhaps to you readers, all we just had hyar is an adult (sorta) version of "is not!".."is too!"..."IS NOT!"..."IS TOO!". Maybe you'll argue it was equally demeaning to him and yours truly. Perhaps it was. But dang...it was fun. And be that as it may....I still won't trust a weather forecaster who can't comprehend basic English, and says there's no reading comprehension involved in interpreting a weather model. He better hope one of his alleged instructors doesn't happen by and read that little gem that qualifies as a full-fledged "don' git it".

Now, if he'd of said that there was nothing to interpret on a "weather model" who looks like Becky Ditchfield (KUSA Channel 9, Denver)...he and I just mighta had to finally of agreed on something. Rrrrowrrr (guys, just trust me on that).

NOVEMBER 23 ADDENDUM (WITH EMPHASIS ON DUMB): Well...(name omitted), as unable to read and comprehend as he is saying things he doesn't mean -- two superb character flaws for a future failure of a weather forecaster -- **** wasn't done yet, even though he said he was (again). And for all his claims that I steered the discussion off-topic, he had to come back, make some very off-topic comments and figure that I wouldn't have the guts to post them. LOL...here's **** and more of his childish drivel under the dishonest heading of "one last quick question":

I so badly wanted to be through with this, but I just found this to be all too funny. Why did you delete the comment about you being single? It's true isn't it? HAHA! You're just a fat, old SINGLE fart wh has nothing better to do than sit in front of a computer-screen all day aren't you? Well, listen man, you're gonna have to do more than "slap my wrist" to impress the ladies, ok? Hahaha!! Now...post that on your blog.

No problem, Junior. I'll even post my reply:

I had removed it because you were on restriction and you had expressed so much unhappiness about straying off-topic -- something you've done so much of -- I thought I'd help keep you on-topic by deleting the obvious loss of focus on your part. But to answer your last question (which, since you don't mean what you say any better than you understand what you read, I doubt it), I will be happy to add your last childish burst to the blog; you've even moved non-commenters to comment about you. Adding in this will merely underline and lowlight what they've already come to know about you and the complete embarrassment you bring and are to the MSU undergrad program.

I'll be happy to quote you here. Stupid is as stupid insists on being quoted.

That was fun. But as you read the comments section below, you'll see he still wasn't done; though once he started into insulting some female commenters, I did *bleep* those comments, and began using my latitude as "benevolent dictator" of this blog.

(2010 Note: ...when he started attacking female commenters, those comments of his I zapped, as unacceptable on this blog, then or ever. At any rate, he finally ran out of steam, and faded away. He resurfaced for one comment on a column almost a year later, but kept it civil. I hardly knew him ;-) At any rate, perhaps he's a weather forecaster today. Hopefully, a wiser one who takes care of his listening audience, when weather threatens. At any rate, enjoy the comments string).