• Member Statistics

    16,050
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NWAflizzard
    Newest Member
    NWAflizzard
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
TropicalAnalystwx13

Cat 5 Major Hurricane Patricia

Recommended Posts

Pretty cool! If you'd like, here are the missing actual values:

 

17:40: 965.4 mb

18:20: 941.6 mb

18:40: 956.9 mb

19:10: 981.9 mb

19:50: 992.4 mb

 

As you can see, most of your estimates were very close except 18:40, which was during a period of violent change.

 

Two quick things I want to emphasize:

  • My times are CDT. Not sure if that station is CDT or CST, but just wanted to note that.
  • My values are sea-level pressure. Not sure if that station's values are sea-level or station pressure.

I'm sure you're mindful of these things but just wanted to make sure. :)

 

Sweet. Thanks Josh! I knew the time-weighted interpolation I was using near 18:40 wasn't correct, but I didn't know what else to do. That certainly clears things up.

  • I believe the CCXJ1 station was reporting in CDT at the time.
  • Actually the raw dump of CCXJ1 had station pressure. I adjusted all of the values by +10mb (using 100m height and 23C temperature) to reduce to sea level manually.

 

Here is the corrected table.

        JOSH1  CCXJ1   JOSH-winds   CCXJ1-winds
16:30   989    988     
17:00   984    985     
17:30   973    979     damaging     42 / 103
17:40   965    977     damaging     46 / 129
17:50   957    973     damaging     49 / 139
18:00   946    969     damaging     66 / 161
18:10   940    963     calm         89 / 211
18:15   938    960*    damaging
18:20   942    956     damaging     104
18:30   947    951     violent      149
18:40   957    947     violent      133
18:50   971    949     violent      185
19:00   978    953     damaging
19:10   982    965     damaging
19:20   985    971     damaging
19:30   988    976     windy        162
19:40   990    981     windy        81
19:50   992    984     windy        66 / 143
20:00   994    986     windy        76 / 149
20:30   998    992     
21:00  1001    995     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also important to note that Josh reported that the center could have been 2nm to the west of his location. That would place the center between JOSH1 and CCXJ1 but closer to JOSH1. So yes, the pressure at the center of the eye was likely much lower than the minimum reading observed at JOSH1.

 

For the experts...I envision (possibly incorrectly) that the laplacian of the pressure field is > 0 (positive) inside the eye at the center to the point where cyclostrophic balance is achieved and < 0 (negative) from this point outward to the environment. Is that correct? If that's the case then I don't think we can take ~10mb/nm (like what Hurricane Andrew was claimed to have had in it's eye wall) to extrapolate a minimum centeral pressure from the JOSH1 reading. However, we can easily get into the upper 920s by using a more modest (relatively speaking) 5mb/nm. The official NHC lanfalling pressure was 924mb right?

 

Edit: changed "eye" to "center" in the 1st paragraph to clarify meaning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear: the center was a little to my W, but I was in the eye. (Center and eye are not the same thing: the center is just a theoretical point (likely at exact midpoint of the eye), whereas the eye is a calm region that actually occupies space and distance.)

 

My report uses my minimum pressure reading at the edge of the eye to estimate a central-pressure range at landfall: 931-935 mb.

 

The NHC estimated the landfall pressure to be 920 mb operationally, but that was probably too low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really a great report Josh. That gradient is unbelievable. I know you said in some previous statements that Patricia had some of the worst winds you have experienced. After having a little time to digest the storm and compare to your other chases. Do you still feel that way? The videos I have seen of yours from Haiyan are crazy thats why I ask.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear: the center was a little to my W, but I was in the eye. (Center and eye are not the same thing: the center is just a theoretical point (likely at exact midpoint of the eye), whereas the eye is a calm region that actually occupies space and distance.)

 

My report uses my minimum pressure reading at the edge of the eye to estimate a central-pressure range at landfall: 931-935 mb.

 

The NHC estimated the landfall pressure to be 920 mb operationally, but that was probably too low.

 

It is amazing that the storm weekend about 50mb in the 6 hrs prior to landfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, you are incorrect in your recollection for I never said it was likely a high-end category-four until right at landfall.

 

 

 

To keep this in its proper perspective...imagine if Patricia had never intensified to such an extraordinary intensity and was threatening to make landfall as a high-end category-four hurricane.

That's the reality of this situation, and by no means is this anything less than an extremely dangerous and potentially devastating event!

 

The answer to your other question is that my best educated guess is just as valid as Josh's, as we both have access to the same evidence by which to form an opinion. This may seem difficult for you to understand, but I just simply care about the absolute accuracy of the HURDAT record. As a result, I have assisted HRD in identifying various errors contained therein over the years. Hope this helps answer the question regarding my supposed motives. If it was the other way around and the evidence suggested to me that it was a category-five landfall, when they were calling it a category-four, I'd be doing the exact same thing. Keep in mind, it wasn't I that suggested those with a desenting opinion should not post any further.

 

You said it best yourself:

 

I agree with you, personally. Whether it retained borderline category-four/category-five intensity or not...one really isn't going to be able to differentiate between the two by observing the damage for those type of winds are extreme and will cause severe destruction, regardless.

Like you said, a hurricane doesn't need to possess 200 mph winds to cause immense devastation from the winds alone! For those who experienced the maximum winds, they too wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a high-end category-four hurricane and a 145 kt. category-five.

Either way, there should be heavy devastation in the area where the inner-core came ashore...especially considering the weakly built structures there.

 

 

 

Your sub-forum must love you btw, I can totally picture you arguing over whether a station got 1 inch of snow or 1.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh, two questions.

 

In this thread you estimated winds of 40 knots at your lowest pressure yet in your chase report, you estimated winds of 20-30 knots. Why the difference?

 

Also, did you factor in the CCXJ1 pressure data when estimating the lowest pressure in your chase report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said it best yourself:

Your sub-forum must love you btw, I can totally picture you arguing over whether a station got 1 inch of snow or 1.5.

And your point? All you did was validate my own and prove yourself wrong in your false accusations from earlier today.

I stand by what I said in each one of those posts you quoted. You may not like my personality or my best educated guess regarding Patricia's landfalling intensity, but that has no relevancy to the topic we've been discussing/debating.

Although you are trying to marginalize my viewpoints, it doesn't change the fact that they are scientifically based and are just as valid as any argument(s) suggesting Patricia retained category-five strength at landfall.

Btw, thanks for going back and reading my previous posts (and reposting them here) to only confirm the idiocy of your previous derogatory statements. Unlike you, apparently, truth really does matter to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh, two questions.

 

In this thread you estimated winds of 40 knots at your lowest pressure yet in your chase report, you estimated winds of 20-30 knots. Why the difference?

 

Also, did you factor in the CCXJ1 pressure data when estimating the lowest pressure in your chase report?

 

I use my video footage as a tool in postanalysis. After carefully reviewing the footage, I noticed some moments during which winds were a bit weaker than I remembered them.  That's why postanalysis is valuable-- you have time to review things in greater detail, when your mind isn't racing.

 

I did not factor in those other pressure data-- only my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said it best yourself:

Your sub-forum must love you btw, I can totally picture you arguing over whether a station got 1 inch of snow or 1.5.

First of all, that's not only a rediculous and very condescending assumption, but also is not even remotely similar to my position in this honest debate.

Here's yet another reason I feel it's important to make the most accurate estimate of Patricia's landfalling intensity as possible: that being the manner by which the general public might react in the face of another prospective category-five hurricane landfall. When people erroneously believe they may have just survived a category-five hurricane that the media consistently refers to as the most intense hurricane in recorded history for the entire western hemisphere, it's natural for them to come away with a false sense of security and lessened concern when the next category-five hurricane threatens.

Of course, this wouldn't matter much if the data clearly supported retaining the current category-five designation. However, that isn't the case. In fact, I strongly believe all of the available data and evidence strongly suggests a 125-130 kt. category-four landfall. If it was my call, I'd go with 130 kt.

As I've mentioned a couple times already, that 10-15 kt. difference in the MSW may very well have been the difference between life and death for some. So, the reanslysis of Patricia's landfalling intensity is far more consequential than the sarcastic example you listed above.

P.s. I'm going to stop here for I've had an incredibly long day, and have now been awake for more than 39 hours straight. In truth, it's all I can do to just put two sentences together. That said, I hope each one of you have a great rest of the night and a good day, tomorrow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been good arguments for and against category 5 intensity at landfall.  Eventually you reach a point when there's not much new to add and the conversation starts going in circles.  I'm sure the reanalysis process will attempt to come to the most accurate conclusion.  Sorry if it's been mentioned already but do we know approximately when can we expect the verdict on Patricia? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been good arguments for and against category 5 intensity at landfall.  Eventually you reach a point when there's not much new to add and the conversation starts going in circles.  I'm sure the reanalysis process will attempt to come to the most accurate conclusion.  Sorry if it's been mentioned already but do we know approximately when can we expect the verdict on Patricia? 

 

That's exactly my issue with this whole discussion-- it's been strangely repetitive. I think folks here should know that when they post something, people read it and understand it-- and points don't need to be repeated again and again and again.

 

The official verdict will come sometime after the new year-- but there's no set date. Usually the big storms take a few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly my issue with this whole discussion-- it's been strangely repetitive. I think folks here should know that when they post something, people read it and understand it-- and points don't need to be repeated again and again and again.

 

The verdict will come sometime after the new year-- but there's no set date. Usually the big storms take a few months.

 

 

Thanks.  By the way, watched some of your stuff on TWC...big fan.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  By the way, watched some of your stuff on TWC...big fan.  :)

 

Oh, wow-- thank you! :) Appreciate that. Haven't been here in a long while and it's nice to pop back in and reconnect with old "faces" (or handles I guess I should say).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gynx snewx, wxeyeNH, ncforecaster89 and all of you. The decision to leave the station was partly made on the info I was reading right here at the forum and the NHC advisories, so I am really grateful to you all.

News on the anemometer tilt: last Wednesday we were visited by people from CONAGUA, they got a message from NHC regarding the reliability of those readings and they came to check for themselves the state of the sensor and the whole station. They have thought about the wind tunnel test too, winterymix. The Biological station has already contacted people from the Engineering Institute at UNAM, they have a new wind tunnel and they are already in contact with CONAGUA and through them to NHC, either to perform the tests or to help them decide if it is worth doing. And yes, bdgwx, the anemometer was not only tilted, but the boom where it sits was rotated, so the junction box now it is due SW instead of S (approximately, they did not want me to climb the tower). Two of the three guy wires of the tower were loosen quite a bit, too. Luckily, they agree to leave the anemometer at its current position until more assessment is done. Hopefully the NHC interest exerts some pressure on them to stay on top of this.

...

In the pictures you can see some of the damage we captured in the highway and what happened at the station too (hope the link works).

Finally, Roger Smith, regarding the Copa del Sol: It is a weird structure built by an excentric millionaire that owns a lot of land around here. It is supposed to serve as a point of contact with UFOs (!) and he celebrates some sort of re-energizing ritual up there. Excentricities apart, it is the largest concrete structure near the point of landfall, so we are trying to reach a biologist who works for this guy in order to visit the structure and report the damages it shows, if any. Truth is right now the communications with people in nearby villages is harder than reaching people like you, thousands of miles away.

Some towns around here took a big hit. They are mostly fishermen villages, the houses are poorly constructed, and most top roofs are gone and therefore all their stuff got damped and they lost the few things they had. Luckily, the abscense of flash floods meant that Emiliano Zapata and other towns that did very badly during Jova were spared of severe damage this time around, but people in poorer towns are suffering. On top of it, today and yesterday it has been raining and the Cuixmala river and others are swelling quickly. One can only hope there will be no flooding.

Going offline now. Read you later!

Maru González,

 

First, thank you for your excellent firsthand reports from the area. Some questions:

  • Do you care to share an update regarding the state of the anemometer? Has it been left in place? Is it going to be tested via wind tunneling?
  • Also, have you sent in your data and images of the aftermath to the NHC?
  • Have you heard from the biologist regarding Copa del Sol?

Best wishes to you and the residents still recovering from the storm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've mentioned a couple times already, that 10-15 kt. difference in the MSW may very well have been the difference between life and death for some. So, the reanslysis of Patricia's landfalling intensity is far more consequential than the sarcastic example you listed above.

P.s. I'm going to stop here for I've had an incredibly long day, and have now been awake for more than 39 hours straight. In truth, it's all I can do to just put two sentences together. That said, I hope each one of you have a great rest of the night and a good day, tomorrow!

I think that you're contradicting yourself. You previously said that the difference between its hitting at peak strength (175-185 kt) and striking at 130-145 kt could have saved the lives of the iCyclone crew and local residents. You explicitly said, when asked, that the difference between a strong Category 4 and a low-end Category 5 is marginal at best, and in either case, even people in the core, a few blocks inland, would have likely missed the strongest winds. Damage, as you've admitted, would be similar, whether the storm hit at 130 or 145 kt.

 

(If your lack of sleep is affecting the tone of your responses and your perception of reality, please get some sleep. Even an interesting storm isn't worth it. Take my kind advice seriously. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you're contradicting yourself. You previously said that the difference between its hitting at peak strength (175-185 kt) and striking at 130-145 kt could have saved the lives of the iCyclone crew and local residents. You explicitly said, when asked, that the difference between a strong Category 4 and a low-end Category 5 is marginal at best, and in either case, even people in the core, a few blocks inland, would have likely missed the strongest winds. Damage, as you've admitted, would be similar, whether the storm hit at 130 or 145 kt.

 

(If your lack of sleep is affecting the tone of your responses and your perception of reality, please get some sleep. Even an interesting storm isn't worth it. Take my kind advice seriously. :) )

 

Hi GS!  I appreciate the respectful tone with which you made this post.  That said, please allow me to clarify some apparent misinterpretations of my previous posts.  First, I did say that the difference between Patricia having come ashore at peak intensity (175-180 kt.) and at high-end category-four strength may very well have been the difference between life and death for Josh and residents in that area.  There is no discrepancy when I state the same possibility may have been the case if Patricia had made landfall at the current operational 145 kt. intensity.  Interpreting all of the available data to suggest a 125-130 kt. landfall intensity is the 10-15 kt. differential I referred to in the post you quoted...that again, may very well have been the difference between life and death for the aforementioned.  It's most important to note that in each case, I specifically said it in the context of "could" ("may very well have been"), which isn't an inaccurate remark or one that is contradictory to anything else I stated in that regard.

 

Secondly, I did express that it would be difficult for one to discern the difference in damage between a 130 kt. category-four and a 140 kt. category-five, and I still believe that to be the case.  The reasoning being that most structures aren't built to withstand winds of such severe intensity.  Furthermore, these type of wind speeds are so rare (and extreme) that it would be very difficult, if not virtually impossible, for anyone to tell the difference in those respective wind speeds without an anemometer (i.e. based solely on a visual estimation).

 

All that being said, I didn't specifically say, or meant to insinuate, that there isn't an increased danger to both life and property by a 10-15 kt. increase in the MSW...for there definitely is...as I alluded to in my preceding post.

 

Gotta go crash.  Good night! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your point? All you did was validate my own and prove yourself wrong in your false accusations from earlier today.

I stand by what I said in each one of those posts you quoted. You may not like my personality or my best educated guess regarding Patricia's landfalling intensity, but that has no relevancy to the topic we've been discussing/debating.

Although you are trying to marginalize my viewpoints, it doesn't change the fact that they are scientifically based and are just as valid as any argument(s) suggesting Patricia retained category-five strength at landfall.

Btw, thanks for going back and reading my previous posts (and reposting them here) to only confirm the idiocy of your previous derogatory statements. Unlike you, apparently, truth really does matter to me.

 

 

Good grief.  My point was you were declaring the storm to be a CAT 4 before it even made landfall.  The ob before that comment you made was 185 mph, the one after was 165 mph.

 

"imagine if Patricia (..) was threatening to make landfall as a high-end category-four hurricane."
 
"That's the reality of this situation, and by no means is this anything less than an extremely dangerous and potentially devastating event!"
 
Those are your words, not mine.

 

I don't think the truth matters to you so much as being right.

 

In response to:

 

"Here's yet another reason I feel it's important to make the most accurate estimate of Patricia's landfalling intensity as possible: that being the manner by which the general public might react in the face of another prospective category-five hurricane landfall. When people erroneously believe they may have just survived a category-five hurricane that the media consistently refers to as the most intense hurricane in recorded history for the entire western hemisphere, it's natural for them to come away with a false sense of security and lessened concern when the next category-five hurricane threatens. "

 

You have to remember that the winds in this storm, whether it was CAT 4 or 5 strength, were pretty tightly concentrated around the center. People who didn't experience the eye may have the erroneous belief that they survived a CAT 4 (if it gets downgraded) because they were far enough away not to get those kind of winds. There's no way to avoid that because the saffir simpson scale doesn't take into account how big the storm is.  Maybe it should, and maybe that's what you should be arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A blend of the estimated 918mbar pressure from the surface data and Josh's pressure data (going call it 932 mbar)'s, would support ~930 mbar at landfall. A WPAC pressure-wind relationship would support 120 knots normally, but with the steep pressure gradient (steepest he's ever seen) and the fact there may be some lag with an eye filling in but the structure being symmetrical, that'd support at least 130 knots, and maybe 140 knots, not to mention the small size of the storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid any misunderstanding, for I can only speak for myself, I'm saying that it's a legitimate argument as to whether or not it actually made landfall at category-five intensity. It may not have. Since RECON wasn't taking observations within the last hour preceding landfall, we will likely never know the definitive answer. The NHC official landfall intensity is an estimate based partly on subjectivity (such as the presumed rate of weakening) in the absence of the "numbers" RECON wasn't there to provide.

From the forecasters perspective, and considering the impacts to those in harms way, it was far more prudent to operationally error on the side of retaining category-five intensity. They have plenty of time to do post-storm analysis, after the fact. Even then, there will be some subjectivity involved for the aforementioned reasons.

I'm definitely not saying it wasn't a category-five at landfall...but it's most certainly reasonable for one to question whether it was.

Geo. Go back and read through all the pre-landfall posts, and you will clearly see that I not once stated that it was category-four intensity prior to landfall. The post you keep quoting was in response to others who were suggesting that was the case, and I was making the point that it was still a very extreme hurricane, regardless. If truth truly matters to you, please go back and see for yourself.

The truth is that I felt it could've weakened to a high-end category-four hurricane right at landfall, initially, and this was still my perspective the following day. This is the reason I continue to state that your recollection is incorrect that I was supposedly one who was claiming it was category-four strength well before landfall. That's simply not true.

As more data became available, and I had time to analyze all the available evidence, that's when I became convinced it had weakened to a 125-130 kt. high-end category-four hurricane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to put this guy out of his misery

Discussion is a great thing, advocating  silencing opposing viewpoints and discussion is very detrimental to the forum. This is a platform for opposing viewpoints to be made. I fail to see any harm done. Skipping posts or placing on ignore is an option for those who wish to not view the posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief. My point was you were declaring the storm to be a CAT 4 before it even made landfall. The ob before that comment you made was 185 mph, the one after was 165 mph.

"imagine if Patricia (..) was threatening to make landfall as a high-end category-four hurricane."

"That's the reality of this situation, and by no means is this anything less than an extremely dangerous and potentially devastating event!"

Those are your words, not mine.

I don't think the truth matters to you so much as being right.

In response to:

"Here's yet another reason I feel it's important to make the most accurate estimate of Patricia's landfalling intensity as possible: that being the manner by which the general public might react in the face of another prospective category-five hurricane landfall. When people erroneously believe they may have just survived a category-five hurricane that the media consistently refers to as the most intense hurricane in recorded history for the entire western hemisphere, it's natural for them to come away with a false sense of security and lessened concern when the next category-five hurricane threatens. "[/size]

You have to remember that the winds in this storm, whether it was CAT 4 or 5 strength, were pretty tightly concentrated around the center. People who didn't experience the eye may have the erroneous belief that they survived a CAT 4 (if it gets downgraded) because they were far enough away not to get those kind of winds. There's no way to avoid that because the saffir simpson scale doesn't take into account how big the storm is. Maybe it should, and maybe that's what you should be arguing.[/size]

As shown in the previous post I made (quoting my feelings the next day), I wasn't one who was stating unequivocally that Patricia had indeed weakened to a high-end category-four hurricane prior to landfall (like a few others), but actually suggested it was a borderline case at that time. Now, I'm convinced that it had weaken to a 125-130 kt. Cat 4...which is most certainly likely based on all the data. Why you go through all this effort and consistently make false accusations about what I actually did say, only you know the answer.

Any truly objective and unbiased person should be able to look at all the evidence and agree that a 130 kt. intensity is not only plausible...but far more realistic than a 140 kt. category-five landfall. It may not be a popular position to take around here and you may not like my personality, but it's wrong for you to try to discredit my own personal best educated guess with false accusations and misinterpretation of my posts and what I did actually say and mean.

It's not about "being right", it's genuinely what I strongly believe to be the most accurate estimate of Patricia's landfall intensity, based on the data and all the available evidence. Truth especially matters to me when people claim I said or did something...which I didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for a late addition, we lost our internet connection, I am writing from Melaque (relatively intact, btw, although there is a stranded ship very close, with the skull broken and a lot of heavey diesel on its tanks, which is right now a very serious environmental threat to the bay and the nearby lagoon).

 

Josh, the praise is well deserved. We would really like to meet you here at the station and give a talk, it would
be most interesting to all of us, but please take vacations while you are here, do not come in your capacity of
hurricane chaser! :)

Btw, I checked with the guy that maintains the little tower where the cup anemometer sits, and it is 17:50 CST (18:50 CDT), as I stated before, so it does match your experience of the highest winds. This particular record is a gust, though, I and also found it low given the damage we have sustained in the station facilities, but I think this particular sensor (MetOne 014) has a lower range of response (0-45 m/s according to the manufacturer), so I would not trust this to be the highest wind, only the highest reading. Besides, this anemometer is a bit low and somewhat obstructed by nearby trees on the side where the highest winds hit the entire station (from the N and NE). In summary, it is badly situated.

 

ncforecaster89, I completely understand your comments, no need to clarify your thoughts and I never meant to suggest you do not appreciate the damage in all its extent. Actually, I find your posts are quite enlightening (not only yours, of course) and I always enjoy a good discussion on details -and the contrarian viewpoint-. I will add that most roofs that were blown are tile roofs or galvanized steel sheets, many of which were also blown by Jova. Myself, being incapable of anything close to the technical analysis you are doing, when I compare pictures of cat 5 damages with what we observe in well-built buildings (e.g. Wilma on Cancun), I can see some difference, the damage here seems to be lower, but that is only my appreciation and as many have pointed out, we were not at the inner core or inside the eye, as Josh did.

Ground Scouring, it seems the wind tunnel test with the windsonic will take place and I will report any news on that, CONAGUA already contacted the Engineering Institute of UNAM (the National University) to use their wind tunnel. No news from the biologist yet, but a guy that does reparations on electricity lines and water systems around here says the damage he saw to the Copa del Sol were only to stairs and points of access to the copa, and not to the main body of the structure, which he says is concrete only and very sturdy.

I hope to upload some images of the damage to trees soon. We estimate that >90% suffered severe damage, only the skinny, flexible ones survived more or less intact (leafless, of course). Jova had halved many on the wetter areas that support larger trees (what we call "median tropical forest"), but this time around most of them on the median and low forest appear knocked down, and a large percentage of them uprooted. That being said, we have observed no debarking. On a happier note, and as proof of the extraordinary resilience of this forest, most of them are already showing new buds, it is amazing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to put this guy out of his misery

This has gone from a respectful and legitimate discussion on the merits as to whether or not Patricia actually retained category-five intensity at landfall to an unjustified attack on my character and presumed motives. Worse yet, we have posters making false allegations regarding things I've stated previously.

Instead of focusing on discussion of the topic at hand, I've had to waste time correcting those unjustified and erroneous comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.