As many people know, AccuWeather is spearheading the attempt to take public information out of the public and give it to for-profit coroprations. I usually carry Joe Bastardi's service every year but will not do so this time. Here's a real-live instance of where Senators are serving their special interests rather than the citizens of the United States. Rick Santorum R-PA is touting this bill on behalf of AccuWeater (headquartered incidentally in Pennsylvania).
Sometimes one has to ask oneself who these elected officials actually serve. Are they up on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Ave. to do the people's work or are they there to serve special interests? Last I checked, the constitution didn't address special interests and the Declaration of Independence begins "We the People..."
So in that regard, here's a story out of the local paper regarding the bill. You don't have to register, just put in a birthyear, gender and zipcode and you have access.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1115360820207070.xml
Steve
Boycott Accuweather...
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
Boycott Accuweather...
0 likes
-
James
- Category 5
- Posts: 1531
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:29 am
- Location: Gloucestershire, England
- Contact:
I suppose its the only way to really show Accuweather what people think. This is only my humble opinion, but the gripe that the government is doing unfair damage to a private corporation seems just a little bit odd to me. Surely if the government was already providing information long before private businesses did the same, it should have the upper hand. These businesses knew what they would be up against, so it just seems like a rather pathetic argument to me.
*Straightens tie and steps down off the soap box.
*Straightens tie and steps down off the soap box.
0 likes
-
Blown Away
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 10145
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 6:17 am
Good point James and one I agree with. We're dealing with life and limb here and if people want to pay for additional services, that's fine. I have done it myself.
The other side of the argument is that the government can be capricious with its dissemination of data, sometimes withholding or delaying it to suit whatever agenda it has (hurricane hunter data, real-time snowfall data and spotter information). And I don't have a problem with debate on that topic between the public and private sector. But in defense of the bill, Accuweather and the Commerical Met. Assn. basically also note "a new defined role for NWS" which would render them moot. Their defense sounds all rosy, but it's just part of the plan. They go OUT OF THEIR WAY to endorse "free, real-time public information" but if they were so concerned about that, they wouldn't be invovled in this debate to begin with.
Below is a link to the public statement of support of the bill by Accuweather. It's a little dubious that they entitle the story Protecting Your Access to Weather Information. As noted above, I don't have a problem with the public and private sectors debating dissemination of real time data. But they wouldn't be lobbying quite so hard for a bill that wasn't designed to throw a bigger prize their way. But to be fair, I wanted to throw their opinion out as well:
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promotion.a ... infoaccess
The other side of the argument is that the government can be capricious with its dissemination of data, sometimes withholding or delaying it to suit whatever agenda it has (hurricane hunter data, real-time snowfall data and spotter information). And I don't have a problem with debate on that topic between the public and private sector. But in defense of the bill, Accuweather and the Commerical Met. Assn. basically also note "a new defined role for NWS" which would render them moot. Their defense sounds all rosy, but it's just part of the plan. They go OUT OF THEIR WAY to endorse "free, real-time public information" but if they were so concerned about that, they wouldn't be invovled in this debate to begin with.
Below is a link to the public statement of support of the bill by Accuweather. It's a little dubious that they entitle the story Protecting Your Access to Weather Information. As noted above, I don't have a problem with the public and private sectors debating dissemination of real time data. But they wouldn't be lobbying quite so hard for a bill that wasn't designed to throw a bigger prize their way. But to be fair, I wanted to throw their opinion out as well:
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promotion.a ... infoaccess
0 likes
-
wxman57
- Moderator-Pro Met
- Posts: 22976
- Age: 67
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
- Location: Houston, TX (southwest)
The bill looks fine to me. It may prevent the NWS/NHC from witholding valueable data in the future. Seems like the NHC was witholding recon data in recent years until HOURS after it was available to them.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. No one is going to be prevented from receiving a forecast from the NWS.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. No one is going to be prevented from receiving a forecast from the NWS.
0 likes
-
BayouVenteux
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 775
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:26 pm
- Location: Ascension Parish, Louisiana (30.3 N 91.0 W)
Re: Boycott Accuweather...
Steve wrote:I usually carry Joe Bastardi's service every year but will not do so this time.
Ditto...and principals aside, I noticed Accuweather mega-jacked the single-user monthly subscription rate up to $24.95. I guess the company overhead's been up this past year, what with hiring lobbyists, campaign contributions, and all.
To those among us re-subscribing this season, remember..."Enjoy the weather, it's the only weather you've bought....twice"
Last edited by BayouVenteux on Fri May 06, 2005 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
-
BayouVenteux
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 775
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:26 pm
- Location: Ascension Parish, Louisiana (30.3 N 91.0 W)
wxman57 wrote:I just don't see what all the fuss is about. No one is going to be prevented from receiving a forecast from the NWS.
Forecasts perhaps, but what about the other web content issued by NOAA and related government agencies: data from NCEP, The Hydrologic Center, NWS, the satellite imagery from NOAA, NASA/GHCC, etc., etc. Someone please clarify for me...does this bill not deal with the public access of this material? The issuance of these various products to the public by the Feds appears to me to be the real stopper in preventing Accuweather from becoming the 900 lb. gorilla it desires to be. It's all about content. As an electronic media outlet, it's all they have to sell.
0 likes
-
x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 65
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
wxman57 wrote:The bill looks fine to me. It may prevent the NWS/NHC from witholding valueable data in the future. Seems like the NHC was witholding recon data in recent years until HOURS after it was available to them.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. No one is going to be prevented from receiving a forecast from the NWS.
Forgive me if I don't just believe that because you assert it. Section 2(b) of the bill is quite clear in saying that NWS may not compete by offering any service or data which could be provided by the private sector unless they can demonstrate that no private entity is willing to provide it. Now go to Accuweather Pro, and see just how much territory that covers. Along with forecasts, they have sattelite imagery, radar imagery, model output, etc. all things many of us here use on a daily basis free from NOAA. Now, by the plain wording of the bill, the government must stop offering those things since Accuweather has manifestly demonstrated the willingness to provide them.
The bill says that data shall be supplied through " a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services" - it doesn't say anything about continuing to provide such data to the public, even though we've paid for it.
Also, the bill repeals 15 U.S.C. 313. I suggest you look that up and tell me deleting this from the law will have no effect.
Jan
0 likes
-
donsutherland1
- S2K Analyst
- Posts: 2718
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
- Location: New York
Steve,
Some thoughts.
1) I disagree with AccuWeather's characterization of the bill in its press release. There is no existing threat to access to weather information at this time. S.786 (not SB 786) is not needed on such grounds.
Indeed, the way the legislation is drafted, it does raise serious questions as to what data would be available to the public. Here are the key phrases, of which AccuWeather's press release only mentions one:
All data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the National Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in real time, and without delay for internal use, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings.
No problem there.
Data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings shall be issued under paragraph (1) through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate for purposes of that paragraph.
Notice that the issuance is in a fashion that specifically references "commercial providers of products and services" and does not at all mention the general public.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE- To protect life and property, the Secretary of Commerce shall, through the National Weather Service, be responsible for the following:
(1) The preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property of the general public.
(2) The preparation and issuance of hydrometeorological guidance and core forecast information.
(3) The collection and exchange of meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data and information.
(4) The provision of reports, forecasts, warnings, and other advice to the Secretary of Transportation and other persons pursuant to section 44720 of title 49, United States Code.
(5) Such other duties and responsibilities as the Secretary shall specify.
(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service (other than a product or service described in subsection (a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--
(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such product or service
Key points:
• The dissemination of data to the public--models, ensembles, climate, radars, etc.--is not specifically mentioned in NWS's proposed duties and responsibilities.
• Products and services that "could be provided by the private sector" could not be provided by the NWS. This could well mean high-resolution radars, model displays, climate data, etc., as all such elements could be provided by the private sector even if generated by the NWS. After all, the NWS's data responsibility concerns the "collection and exchange" of such data. As noted earlier, the issuance is specifically referenced to commercial providers.
What could this mean? It could mean that the NWS makes data available in raw format. Easy to use formats might not be protected at all, especially if the private sector is deemed to be providing such products.
But this is not all.
1) I raised this issue with Senator Santorum's office. To date--more than two weeks later--I have received no reply on my specific concerns regarding data.
2) Dr. Barry Myers' expressed opinion at a March 2004 AMS forum raises additional concerns. In his presentation, he complained about the new NWS guidelines, "The recognition that the private weather industry is ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users is deleted."
The statement that private industry is "ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users" suggests that Dr. Myers possibly has in mind the distribution of raw data only by the NWS.
Of course, AccuWeather, like any entity in a free society has and should have the freedom to express its view. I disagree with its view on this legislation and do not support the legislation.
Finally, although it is rare for me to do so, I am going to offer much sharper criticism than usual on Steven Root's continuing indictments of the National Weather Service. Briefly, Steven Root is President of the Commercial Weather Services Association (CWSA) and also President and CEO of WeatherBank, Inc. In the CWSA document AccuWeather references, Root charges, "Unfortunately, the performance of the National Weather Service in fulfilling its key tasks of collecting and disseminating government information has not always kept pace with public and private needs and critical information the agency possesses is not always reaching the public in time" and "Government duplication of existing products and services readily available from the private sector is unnecessary and detracts from the NWS mission of saving lives and property."
In my view, this is an unfair representation that attempts to create a "cause and effect" relationship in which certain NWS operations have allegedly detracted from its ability to save lives and protect property and thus the legislation would fix things.
Although the NWS has sometimes experienced delays in disseminating information, there is no evidence that such delays have anything to do with the NWS's alleged "duplication of existing products and services" made available by the private sector. Instead, based strictly on Weatherbank's website, what I believe Root is doing is attempting to ensure that his company/other commercial providers can increase their ability to profit from selling data that is currently in the public domain by essentially removing such data from the public domain.
Excerpts from the Weatherbank website demonstrate that Weatherbank is, as part of its services, selling NWS products. Excerpts follow:
We also maintain a historical weather database that covers the full period of record with both hourly and daily information. Our historical weather database has many applications, including forensic studies in all industries and for generating various financial and energy load models. Furthermore, since 1995, we have been archiving all of our products on a daily basis.
Our product line includes high resolution, color WSR88 Doppler radar displays; including single-site NEXRAD data and composite images, direct GOES satellite images, ...the complete menu of National Weather Service forecast and aviation products...
Take a closer look:
• Such historical information can currently be purchased from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is not unique Weatherbank data nor does it, on the face of the website's description, suggest value added from the NCDC product.
• WSR88 Doppler and NEXRAD are NWS products. They were not invented by Weatherbank nor does Weatherbank hold any patents with regard to such tools that would give it or any single commercial provider exclusive rights to the distribution of such products (one can search the U.S. Patent & Trademarks Office for such information).
• GOES satellite images are produced by the U.S. Government. Weatherbank does not own nor have exclusive rights over GOES data nor is there any evidence that it was a major/leading investor in developing or launching the satellites and their imaging.
• Among the data that Weatherbank is seeking to employ to generate profits is "the complete menu of National Weather Service forecast and aviation products." In other words, it is repackaging what the NWS produces.
Where's the value added?
From these products alone, the only value added is repackaging and bundling. That's something but whether it is significant is a different matter.
Where Weatherbank truly adds value is the application of this data in generating custom forecasts for its clients. From that, if it does better than its competitors, Weatherbank should be able to enjoy profits. For such forecasts, it should enjoy protection from NWS competition. But that does not appear to be the sole focus of S.786.
However, from the NWS products/data alone, it should not gain new advantage by precluding the NWS from making these products available in the best-possible format to the wider public. If the NWS were barred from providing the public with readily-usable data--NCDC data, GOES images, doppler/NEXRAD, and its "forecast and aviation products,"--then Weatherbank and other commercial providers could use this information to generate much higher profit margins, not from any new value added but from simply removing these products from the public domain.
As taxpayers--the general public--provides the funding for such products, it would be inequitable for a single or even group of commercial enterprises to gain advantage by simply denying the general public access to these products. Thus, I actually have far stronger disagreement with Mr. Root whose company explicitly markets itself, in part, by selling public domain NWS/federal government products, than AccuWeather.
Some thoughts.
1) I disagree with AccuWeather's characterization of the bill in its press release. There is no existing threat to access to weather information at this time. S.786 (not SB 786) is not needed on such grounds.
Indeed, the way the legislation is drafted, it does raise serious questions as to what data would be available to the public. Here are the key phrases, of which AccuWeather's press release only mentions one:
All data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the National Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in real time, and without delay for internal use, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings.
No problem there.
Data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings shall be issued under paragraph (1) through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate for purposes of that paragraph.
Notice that the issuance is in a fashion that specifically references "commercial providers of products and services" and does not at all mention the general public.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE- To protect life and property, the Secretary of Commerce shall, through the National Weather Service, be responsible for the following:
(1) The preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property of the general public.
(2) The preparation and issuance of hydrometeorological guidance and core forecast information.
(3) The collection and exchange of meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data and information.
(4) The provision of reports, forecasts, warnings, and other advice to the Secretary of Transportation and other persons pursuant to section 44720 of title 49, United States Code.
(5) Such other duties and responsibilities as the Secretary shall specify.
(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service (other than a product or service described in subsection (a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--
(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such product or service
Key points:
• The dissemination of data to the public--models, ensembles, climate, radars, etc.--is not specifically mentioned in NWS's proposed duties and responsibilities.
• Products and services that "could be provided by the private sector" could not be provided by the NWS. This could well mean high-resolution radars, model displays, climate data, etc., as all such elements could be provided by the private sector even if generated by the NWS. After all, the NWS's data responsibility concerns the "collection and exchange" of such data. As noted earlier, the issuance is specifically referenced to commercial providers.
What could this mean? It could mean that the NWS makes data available in raw format. Easy to use formats might not be protected at all, especially if the private sector is deemed to be providing such products.
But this is not all.
1) I raised this issue with Senator Santorum's office. To date--more than two weeks later--I have received no reply on my specific concerns regarding data.
2) Dr. Barry Myers' expressed opinion at a March 2004 AMS forum raises additional concerns. In his presentation, he complained about the new NWS guidelines, "The recognition that the private weather industry is ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users is deleted."
The statement that private industry is "ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users" suggests that Dr. Myers possibly has in mind the distribution of raw data only by the NWS.
Of course, AccuWeather, like any entity in a free society has and should have the freedom to express its view. I disagree with its view on this legislation and do not support the legislation.
Finally, although it is rare for me to do so, I am going to offer much sharper criticism than usual on Steven Root's continuing indictments of the National Weather Service. Briefly, Steven Root is President of the Commercial Weather Services Association (CWSA) and also President and CEO of WeatherBank, Inc. In the CWSA document AccuWeather references, Root charges, "Unfortunately, the performance of the National Weather Service in fulfilling its key tasks of collecting and disseminating government information has not always kept pace with public and private needs and critical information the agency possesses is not always reaching the public in time" and "Government duplication of existing products and services readily available from the private sector is unnecessary and detracts from the NWS mission of saving lives and property."
In my view, this is an unfair representation that attempts to create a "cause and effect" relationship in which certain NWS operations have allegedly detracted from its ability to save lives and protect property and thus the legislation would fix things.
Although the NWS has sometimes experienced delays in disseminating information, there is no evidence that such delays have anything to do with the NWS's alleged "duplication of existing products and services" made available by the private sector. Instead, based strictly on Weatherbank's website, what I believe Root is doing is attempting to ensure that his company/other commercial providers can increase their ability to profit from selling data that is currently in the public domain by essentially removing such data from the public domain.
Excerpts from the Weatherbank website demonstrate that Weatherbank is, as part of its services, selling NWS products. Excerpts follow:
We also maintain a historical weather database that covers the full period of record with both hourly and daily information. Our historical weather database has many applications, including forensic studies in all industries and for generating various financial and energy load models. Furthermore, since 1995, we have been archiving all of our products on a daily basis.
Our product line includes high resolution, color WSR88 Doppler radar displays; including single-site NEXRAD data and composite images, direct GOES satellite images, ...the complete menu of National Weather Service forecast and aviation products...
Take a closer look:
• Such historical information can currently be purchased from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is not unique Weatherbank data nor does it, on the face of the website's description, suggest value added from the NCDC product.
• WSR88 Doppler and NEXRAD are NWS products. They were not invented by Weatherbank nor does Weatherbank hold any patents with regard to such tools that would give it or any single commercial provider exclusive rights to the distribution of such products (one can search the U.S. Patent & Trademarks Office for such information).
• GOES satellite images are produced by the U.S. Government. Weatherbank does not own nor have exclusive rights over GOES data nor is there any evidence that it was a major/leading investor in developing or launching the satellites and their imaging.
• Among the data that Weatherbank is seeking to employ to generate profits is "the complete menu of National Weather Service forecast and aviation products." In other words, it is repackaging what the NWS produces.
Where's the value added?
From these products alone, the only value added is repackaging and bundling. That's something but whether it is significant is a different matter.
Where Weatherbank truly adds value is the application of this data in generating custom forecasts for its clients. From that, if it does better than its competitors, Weatherbank should be able to enjoy profits. For such forecasts, it should enjoy protection from NWS competition. But that does not appear to be the sole focus of S.786.
However, from the NWS products/data alone, it should not gain new advantage by precluding the NWS from making these products available in the best-possible format to the wider public. If the NWS were barred from providing the public with readily-usable data--NCDC data, GOES images, doppler/NEXRAD, and its "forecast and aviation products,"--then Weatherbank and other commercial providers could use this information to generate much higher profit margins, not from any new value added but from simply removing these products from the public domain.
As taxpayers--the general public--provides the funding for such products, it would be inequitable for a single or even group of commercial enterprises to gain advantage by simply denying the general public access to these products. Thus, I actually have far stronger disagreement with Mr. Root whose company explicitly markets itself, in part, by selling public domain NWS/federal government products, than AccuWeather.
0 likes
It's certainly a tricky issue, but the bill just doesn't seem right.Awesome work Don. I e-mailed both of my Senators (Vitter and Landrieu), sent an e-mail protesting their deception to Accuweather and ripped Senator Santorum a new one over who he was actually elected to support. I guess this kind of stuff slips by every year because people don't know what all is going on buried in that legal-ease. But this is a deliberate attempt to co-opt the public out of the money we provide for the services to turn it over to for-profit corporations. Hey, I don't have any problem with competition. I have a problem with being ripped-off. And I will fight anyone who tries to rip me off, even if I have been a long-time supporter of their services and Bastardi himself. /not this year baby.
Steve
Steve
0 likes
-
george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Hampton, Virginia
Re: Boycott Accuweather...
BayouVenteux wrote:Steve wrote:I usually carry Joe Bastardi's service every year but will not do so this time.
Ditto...and principals aside, I noticed Accuweather mega-jacked the single-user monthly subscription rate up to $24.95. I guess the company overhead's been up this past year, what with hiring lobbyists, campaign contributions, and all.
To those among us re-subscribing this season, remember..."Enjoy the weather, it's the only weather you've bought....twice"
You forgot to mention bribes
0 likes
-
Matt-hurricanewatcher
Santorum/Accuweather............. 
This tid bit of information was found on a web site called opensecrets.org.Thought that it may be of some interest:
THE CENTER
FOR RESPONSIVE
POLITICS
Results:
Search Criteria:
Donor name: myers
Donor occupation: ACCU WEATHER
Recipient: santorum
Cycle(s) selected: 2004, 2002, 2000
Total for this search: $4,600
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
12/31/2003
$1,750
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
9/10/1999
$1,000
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
5/16/2000
$1,000
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
6/7/2000
$300
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, BARRY LEE DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
8/31/2004
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, BARRY LEE MRS
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
8/31/2004
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
8/18/1999
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
10/9/2003
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
12/31/2003
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
9/10/1999
($700)
Santorum, Rick
THE CENTER
FOR RESPONSIVE
POLITICS
Results:
Search Criteria:
Donor name: myers
Donor occupation: ACCU WEATHER
Recipient: santorum
Cycle(s) selected: 2004, 2002, 2000
Total for this search: $4,600
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
12/31/2003
$1,750
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
9/10/1999
$1,000
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
5/16/2000
$1,000
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
6/7/2000
$300
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, BARRY LEE DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
8/31/2004
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, BARRY LEE MRS
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
8/31/2004
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
8/18/1999
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
10/9/2003
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
12/31/2003
$250
Santorum, Rick
MYERS, JOEL N
STATE COLLEGE,PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
9/10/1999
($700)
Santorum, Rick
0 likes
-
george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Hampton, Virginia
-
chadtm80
-
gtalum
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 4749
- Age: 49
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Bradenton, FL
- Contact:
chadtm80 wrote:I have never used Accu.. Wont start anytime soon. A lot of good people over there.. Just remember the mets are still qualified and respected mets.. "Management" is just being very ignorant imo with this
Accuweather is not to blame. Lobbying is just what happens on the Hill. the guilty parties are the congresspeople who choose to be bribed this way.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests