Persistent 99 developing outflow and.....

#1 Postby **dixiebreeze** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:46 pm

blooming in size this afternoon:

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/float1.html

MortisFL · #2 Postby **MortisFL** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:57 pm

And why isnt this in the main thread?

#3 Postby **jlauderdal** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:58 pm

MortisFL wrote:And why isnt this in the main thread?

it should have been according to past policy

#4 Postby **dixiebreeze** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:52 pm

jlauderdal wrote:
MortisFL wrote:And why isnt this in the main thread?

it should have been according to past policy

That's past policy.

#5 Postby **jlauderdal** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:03 pm

dixiebreeze wrote:
jlauderdal wrote:
MortisFL wrote:And why isnt this in the main thread?

it should have been according to past policy

That's past policy.

ok so the policy of posting in one thread is no longer in effect?

#6 Postby **dixiebreeze** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:12 pm

jlauderdal wrote:
dixiebreeze wrote:
jlauderdal wrote:
MortisFL wrote:And why isnt this in the main thread?

it should have been according to past policy

That's past policy.

ok so the policy of posting in one thread is no longer in effect?

That's my understanding. Particularly if there is something new to report. Some of the threads get so lengthy and sometimes bogged down with small talk.

#7 Postby **cycloneye** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:17 pm

Bingo,dixie.What we want is for the members to post new threads but not repetitive threads about the same theme.Many members may want to see the very latest and dont want to go thru the long threads so making new threads without repetition makes sense for the forum to run very good.

#8 Postby **seaswing** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:20 pm

dixiebreeze wrote:
jlauderdal wrote:
dixiebreeze wrote:
jlauderdal wrote:
MortisFL wrote:And why isnt this in the main thread?

it should have been according to past policy

That's past policy.

ok so the policy of posting in one thread is no longer in effect?

That's my understanding. Particularly if there is something new to report. Some of the threads get so lengthy and sometimes bogged down with small talk.

You GO GIRL!

caneman · #9 Postby **caneman** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:20 pm

cycloneye wrote:Bingo,dixie.What we want is for the members to post new threads but not repetitive threads about the same theme.Many members may want to see the very latest and dont want to go thru the long threads so making new threads without repetition makes sense for the forum to run very good.

Good policy so long as it's not abused and some members don't do just to see their name posted as a topic starter :wink:

#10 Postby **jlauderdal** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:28 pm

cycloneye wrote:Bingo,dixie.What we want is for the members to post new threads but not repetitive threads about the same theme.Many members may want to see the very latest and dont want to go thru the long threads so making new threads without repetition makes sense for the forum to run very good.

I am really confused, there is a thread started by capeverdewave titled..View newest post INVEST 99L,comments,18:00z BAM Models Posted. why would a link to a sat shot require its own thread?

Stormavoider · #11 Postby **Stormavoider** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:31 pm

Here's an example

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=87488

was taken over by;

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=87493

wxmann_91 · #12 Postby **wxmann_91** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:34 pm

I don't really think this thread is necessary.

#13 Postby **jlauderdal** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:37 pm

wxmann_91 wrote:I don't really think this thread is necessary.

me either since there is already a thread about this system but according to cycloneye it is completely appropriate to start a new thread for things such as satellite images, i just want to know what the guidelines are.

#14 Postby **dixiebreeze** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:41 pm

jlauderdal wrote:
wxmann_91 wrote:I don't really think this thread is necessary.

me either since there is already a thread about this system but according to cycloneye it is completely appropriate to start a new thread for things such as satellite images, i just want to know what the guidelines are.

I didn't start the thread just to post a sat. image. It was because outflow was developing and that hadn't been posted to my knowledge.

It's looks like we may have a TD at 5:30 or 8:05 at the latest.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/float1.html

Grease Monkey · #15 Postby **Grease Monkey** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:47 pm

I agree based on the satelite images, but what I've been gathering about this invest from others so far is looks can be deceiving.

wxmann_91 · #16 Postby **wxmann_91** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:57 pm

dixiebreeze wrote:I didn't start the thread just to post a sat. image. It was because outflow was developing and that hadn't been posted to my knowledge.

It's looks like we may have a TD at 5:30 or 8:05 at the latest.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/float1.html

It's called a comment (and BTW it's not really outflow, it's shear), which should be posted in the 99L Comments, Sat pics,... thread.

Just my opinion, of course.

If Luis says it's okay, then whatever.

#17 Postby **Steve** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:59 pm

Why does anyone care? The mods handle the issues as they need. Everyone wants to be a mod (except me of course). 8-)

I'm happy just being a poster.

Steve

x-y-no · #18 Postby **x-y-no** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:01 pm

Sheesh folks ... if you object to this thread, stop posting in it. Every time you do, you bump it back to the top. :lol:

wxmann_91 · #19 Postby **wxmann_91** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:01 pm

I don't want to be a mod but I don't know, excessive threads just annoy me somewhat. But, this is a free country.

Grease Monkey · #20 Postby **Grease Monkey** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:02 pm

I agree. Being a mod is time consuming. Too much babysitting for me. I appreciate their work. :cheesy:

Persistent 99 developing outflow and.....

Persistent 99 developing outflow and.....

Who is online