Fourteen extreme national high temperature records have been set in 2010

[Kathryn41 3,205]

So if it's light-hearted and not meant at anyone individually, it's OK?

The definitive answer? Not necessarily!

This is the quote from the TOS definitions Captain Ewok posted in Site Discussion talking about when a suspension will be issued:

Again, a person personally attacks another member by using profane language, verbal threats, or other forms of derogatory comments directly at a specific member. This is referring to blatantly derogatory and antagonizing threats, not one made in jest. In this case judgment may be necessary including looking at if this is a trend or just a single event that will likely not occur again.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/322-tos-violations-and-moderator-responses/

We do try to read posts in context but sometimes the humour - especially if it is an 'inside' joke or one initiated in another forum or thread - may not be apparent. In those cases if we are missing it, it is a good bet that the general membership is as well. Any moderator action in that case will depend on the comments and the circumstances. And - while we do the best we can - yes, it can sometime be very subjective.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

This post and the post immediately preceding it were not meant seriously - they were posted with the intent to make a light-hearted comment that was obviously ridiculous and not aimed at any one individual or person.

So you have a light heart detector? Of course my post was mean and cruel? In other words you dont like my light hearted comments over anothers? :rofl: Comon Kathryn! Your favorites are shining through!

So could you tell me what I need to do to have my light hearted comments be okay? Other than to be scrutinized through your bias.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[Kathryn41 3,205]

To be honest, I don't have favourites. It is too much work to try to hold onto such ephemeral feelings as like and dislike for individuals with whom I have no real relationship or interaction. I don't like or dislike you. I don't know you. Personal preferences don't enter the equation at all.

When I review reported posts, I read the comments and evaluate them without reference to who has posted them. I read far too many posts in a day to try and keep straight who said what, and when, and who is friends with whom, who is angry at someone else, who habitually picks on another, etc. When I have decided that a post requires action that is when I will look at who has posted it and figure out if there is a trend with that poster, because that will affect the choices of action available to me as a moderator. I will sometimes spend time reading over an individual's listed 'content' to ensure I am taking appropriate action.

Granted, certain members' names I do remember - repetition has a habit of doing that for one's memory - but there is enough work to do in the forums without spending additional energy playing pointless games like 'like and dislike' with my responses. Sometimes it is often several days before I even realize that some one has changed their membership name to something else, usually when I realize that I am seeing "XXX" name regularly and no longer seeing 'YYY'.

While you seem to think I don't like you, I can honestly say I neither like nor dislike you.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

To be honest, I don't have favourites. It is too much work to try to hold onto such ephemeral feelings as like and dislike for individuals with whom I have no real relationship or interaction. I don't like or dislike you. I don't know you. Personal preferences don't enter the equation at all.

When I review reported posts, I read the comments and evaluate them without reference to who has posted them. I read far too many posts in a day to try and keep straight who said what, and when, and who is friends with whom, who is angry at someone else, who habitually picks on another, etc. When I have decided that a post requires action that is when I will look at who has posted it and figure out if there is a trend with that poster, because that will affect the choices of action available to me as a moderator. I will sometimes spend time reading over an individual's listed 'content' to ensure I am taking appropriate action.

Granted, certain members' names I do remember - repetition has a habit of doing that for one's memory - but there is enough work to do in the forums without spending additional energy playing pointless games like 'like and dislike' with my responses. Sometimes it is often several days before I even realize that some one has changed their membership name to something else, usually when I realize that I am seeing "XXX" name regularly and no longer seeing 'YYY'.

While you seem to think I don't like you, I can honestly say I neither like nor dislike you.

Im gonna have to fall back to a song! It is a light hearted song too by the way. Hopefully none of your PM's will guide you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU_rqm7WPPI

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Aww Shucks - and I didn't even know that you cared about me!

Edited August 3, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Aww Shucks - and I didn't even know that you cared about me!

Who are you? I don't pay much attention to ppl who post here. Are you a regular? I care about all of us you just need to take off the shades.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Who are you? I don't pay much attention to ppl who post here. Are you a regular? I care about all of us you just need to take off the shades.

Even me?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Even me?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Little Boy Blew, he needed the money.

[mendeleev 67]

Last year -- wanting to find a new way to express nerdiness, I guess -- I compiled four kinds of weather records for Denver, Colorado: record high, record low, record low high (like, say, 45F for a summer day), and record high low for each date of the year. It was pretty easy, the records themselves in disaggregated form are readily available at the National Weather Service website. I then bined the data into decades and made frequency plots.

The frequency of all time lows was just about the same since records began for Denver in the 1870s. That is, we were about as likely to have an all-time low in the first decade of this century as in the 1880s.

But the all-time highs showed a very strong increasing trend. Beginning in the 1970s, the frequency of all-time high temperatures started to increase. It was higher in the 1980s, even higher in the 1990s, and highest in the first decade of this century. The frequency if record low highs and record high lows did not show a trend with time.

The dataset doesn't say anything at all about whether average temperatures in Denver are increasing. It does show that variability is increasing here, due to more frequent record hot events. This is consistent with prevailing theories of global change. It was an amusing exercise. I started similar analyses for Chicago and Tulsa -- the results looked similar but I got bored and moved on. Subsequently, I saw an abstract for a paper from folks at the National Weather Service who conducted the same sort of analysis for the nation. The trend I saw in Denver is robust throughout the western part of the United States, according to that abstract.

All this is consistent with the observations of original post: the frequency of extremely hot events is increasing.

Edited August 3, 2010 by novotul