Browse By

Donald Trump Prediction Of An Early Freeze In NYC Fails To Materialize

Yesterday, Donald Trump made a big display of complaining about unseasonably cold weather in New York City. On Twitter, he declared, “It’s really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!”

As usual, Donald Trump’s talk wasn’t anywhere close to the facts.

Actually, it didn’t freeze at all in New York City yesterday. The temperature got down to just 35 degrees, a perfectly normal nighttime temperature for this of year. For there to be something that could be called “a major freeze”, penetrating under the remaining canopy of leaves, into New York City’s relatively sheltered neighborhoods, the temperature would have to go down into the 20s.

The average date of a first frost in New York City isn’t “weeks ahead”, but just one week from now. There isn’t any forecast night of temperatures in New York City below the 40s for the rest of the month. Tonight, and all the way through the coming weekend, the temperature will remain in the 50s or above.

In short, this year, New York City will see its first frost take place after the usual time in the autumn, not before, as Donald Trump claimed. All Trump had to do was check the weather forecast before shooting his mouth off, but he couldn’t be bothered to take event that small effort. Instead, he wished global warming upon the entire planet just to compensate for Donald Trump’s own chilly experience with a day that was not unseasonably cool.

Just imagine what that lazy attitude could do, if given authority over the Oval Office.

52 thoughts on “Donald Trump Prediction Of An Early Freeze In NYC Fails To Materialize”

  1. Leroy says:

    What an idiot.

    Reminds me of Super Rightwing Wingnut Mark Steyn who publicly attacked renown scientist (climatologist) Mann over Mann’s report on Climate Change, specifically Global Warming… and is now being used by Mann for defamation, etcetera. (And as I recall, Canadian born Steyn – not sure if even an American citizen though lives here and writes pretty much solely about American politics – never even graduated from college).


    This book is one of those that should be on “The World’s Most Shameful Books” list!

    General info:
    (United States)

    Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera……

  2. ella says:

    Man, that was rough on the Donald. It is in the 60’s for a daytime high here and I’m freezing! But then it would not be good to go back into the high 90’s/low 100’s again. Granted, that is New York and it gets cold earlier up there, but he has been out on the campaign trail places where it is warmer. This El Nino cycle is saying that somewhere up north it will be relatively warmer this year and colder in the southern tier. So, maybe he could catch up on the general weather conditions too. But, in the meantime, I’d give him a break and say, yea, 35 degrees is really close to a frost mark, and it can frost at 35 degrees (out in the open countryside). Either way it is cold if you aren’t dressed for it, for some of us anyway.

  3. J Clifford says:

    No, sorry, Ella. Donald Trump was claiming that weather in New York City is extremely cold, well below normal, and using that claim as a proof that global warming is nonsense. His facts were inaccurate and his logic was thoroughly flawed.

    Do you want someone with such a poor command of facts and reason to be in charge of the nation’s military? I sure don’t.

    1. ella says:

      Sadly, that is not anything new at this time. Obama did not believe in global warming either, when he started. But then he refused to salute the troops in review for his inauguration too. He salutes without a problem now. There are probably still Congressmen that still do not believe the ice melt at the poles has anything to do with global warming. Maybe they have put a giant mirror in space to melt the poles. Did that in a Bond movie you know. I think he does that stuff to get attention and keeps what he really believes to himself a lot of the time. At this moment, I see no reason to not want him for President. There is a Democrat candidate, and her husband, that definitely there are reasons to not want in the White House. I’d vote for Trump even though I called him a Bob Hope type in the beginning. But he got serious and seems to really want to win. It would be a real problem at this time if he did not.

      On the other foot, there is Bernie Sanders. A person with an uncanny ability to reach out to people and deliver his message clearly for them. It turns out he is learning about politics on the national trail too. I still do not know if he is getting significant electoral attention.

      1. Leroy says:

        What a bunch of BS!

        Let’s deal with the second LIE first…

        Presidents, as civilians, are NOT supposed to salute military personnel!

        Is The President Allowed to Salute?
        And Here’s Why.

        “Is the president allowed to salute ever? Nope. Yet Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and others got all over U.S. President Barack Obama for not doing it. They’re dead wrong. Here’s why.

        A story on the web and a storm of online opinion is out there on U.S. President Barack Obama’s ‘mistake’ in not saluting some Marines shows that some people just shouldn’t say anything, freedom of speech not withstanding.

        There is some video of Obama getting on Marine One (helicopter) without ‘returning the Marine guard’s salute’ and then getting off again to say some nice things to the Marine standing guard… The story on the web is that the pilot refused to let Obama on board until he went back to the Marine standing guard. CNN says Obama realized his so-called “mistake” and went back out to correct it.

        You know what’s funny? The pilot could not have seen whether Obama snapped a salute or danced a jig or ate a pumpkin pie and sang for more supper. The pilot at the time would be pretty well stuck facing front, doing his instrument checks prior to lift off – plus is positioned where he pretty much cannot see that entry area). So that part is kind of hard to believe.

        But it’s easy to believe that people who watched this wanted to jump all over Obama for his perceived wrong here… Certain kinds of people love to think about Obama being scolded by our military professionals…

        But in truth, Obama didn’t owe the Marine anything. And he wasn’t even permitted, by protocol, to salute him. In military lingo, Obama wasn’t qualified.

        Civilians, you see, know a few things about etiquette, but they often understand nothing of protocol – the military version of etiquette.

        Etiquette is an outmoded system of manners based on courtly needs. Protocol is a more adaptive, dynamic system because feudalism is dead and we still have the military. And here’s the thing: People out of uniform – and especially non military civilians – are not permitted to salute military personnel. Period. Nor (with one exception) even salute (military style) the flag… The salute is reserved for people under arms, in uniform. Civilians are not qualified to render it. People out of uniform are not permitted to. It is a breach of protocol. As commander in chief, Obama would’ve known this. As a civilian person not of arms and not in uniform, he couldn’t have saluted.

        You know, there are some people who will look down at our president no matter what he does. They’ll shake their heads sadly and demand their country back. They’ll even call him a disgrace…

        Hitler – as the civilian leader of Germany wore a uniform. So did George W. Bush as the civilian leader – president – of the United States. But we’re a democracy with a civilian leadership.

        Every president before Reagan honored protocol and honored our democracy – a place where the civilians are in charge. And that included one of our last FIVE STAR GENERALS who left military service to become civilian president – that being Dwight Eisenhower (former veterans Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter can also be included in that group of – properly – “non saluting” presidents)…. So, Obama shouldn’t salute Marines, airmen, soldiers, or sailors.”

        Then, from a Texas GOP article (that is Republican – so clearly NOT pro Obama, though the author absolutely knew his military protocol):

        “When President Obama awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor to a rare living recipient of that award last year (Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta), a friend contacted me and stated he was quite offended that President Obama did not salute Sgt. Giunta. I went back and looked at the video and sure enough, he did not. In fact, he hugged Sgt. Giunta. I went back and looked at previous presidents who awarded the Medal of Honor and sure enough, they did not salute the recipients either.


        For those who are not aware, a military member who has received the Medal of Honor rates a salute from any other military member regardles of rank. If an army private has received our nation’s highest honor, a general must salute him (the medal actually). So why are these presidents, as Commander in Chief (CINC) not saluting the Medal recipients? Even President Dwight David Eisenhower (a retired 5 star general) did not salute the members of the military to whom he presented the medal…

        The answer is quite simple. The President of the United States is a civilian. He is not a member of the US Military and is therefore not entitled to salute. The military salute is a privilege earned by honorable service in the military. It is also a privilege that can be taken away. Military prisoners are stripped of the privilege of saluting. While the President is Constitutionally the CINC, he is not a member of the military.

        One of the core principles of our country is our military is under civilian control. The President is that civilian authority over the military as is the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the branches of the armed services.

        In many countries this is not the case. The leader of the country is actually a uniformed member of the military. In some cases even a military dictator. Even the Queen of England is a uniformed member of the military, albeit a figurative position.
        So, all that said, where does the tradition of saluting by the president come from? Many believe it began with President Ronald Reagan. He certainly was the first to consistantly (though highly improperly) exercise the hand salute to military personnel (and also the flag)…

        Since that time, we have begun seeing presidents becoming more “paramilitary” by donning pieces of the military uniform such as a military flight jacket while on board Air Force One. President George W. Bush took this a step further donning an entire Navy Flightsuit Uniform complete with insignia and a decorated aircraft for his now infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech.
        Is the newly founded tradition a harmless gesture of support to members of the military? Or, is it rather, a slow errosion of the principle of civilian rule over the military? Perhaps we should step back and re-establish the fact and the image that the POTUS is a civilian and he (or she) should look and act like a civilian.

        Shouldn’t we stop the blurring of the lines between civilian and military authority? Commander-in-Chief is a job position not a military rank. The CINC is only CINC of the military, not civilians. Isn’t this militarization of our president an errosion of Constitutional liberty? ”

        And also (this was from 2007 when Bush was President) in an Op/Ed NYT piece from a very credible Northwestern University History Professor:

        In 2007, Northwestern University History Professor Emeritus Garry Willis wrote in the New York Times, “The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.”
        “We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past — by caudillos,”

        That full article (which is great) is here:


        “President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus’s commander in chief. The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…

        re has never been an executive branch more fetishistic about secrecy than the Bush-Cheney one. The secrecy has been used to throw a veil over detentions, “renditions,” suspension of the Geneva Conventions and of habeas corpus, torture and warrantless wiretaps. We hear again the refrain so common in the other wars — If you knew what we know, you would see how justified all our actions are.

        But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.

        When Adm. William Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized the gulf war under the first President Bush, Secretary of State James Baker said that the admiral was not qualified to speak on the matter since he no longer had the clearance to read classified reports. If he is not qualified, then no ordinary citizen is. We must simply trust our lords and obey the commander in chief…

        he glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

        That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket – and complete USAF flight suit).

        We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon…”

        1. ella says:

          I stopped reading at the first sentence. Shear ignorance! The President of the Untied States of America is the Commander in Chief of the military forces!

          1. Leroy says:


            He is the CIVILIAN Commander-in-Chief.

            Not a MILITARY Commander-in-Chief.

            That is the way it has been since George Washington.

            That is the way that it is established in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

            Regardless of what Ella wants to believe, NOTHING in that post is ignorance or false.

            Every word of it is the Truth.

            Now here is where you reach a fork in the road.

            You can do one of the following:

            1. Go back and read it and LEARN.
            2. Don’t read it and remain clueless.

            The second option is SHEER NONSENSE.

            The first option demonstrates being “slow”.

          2. Leroy says:

            To continue with the destruction of the second LIE:

            More links (yes, that WILL require the hassle of clicking on them and then reading them):


          3. Leroy says:


            The ONLY exception that allows civilians not in military uniform to HAND SALUTE (military salute) the flag applies only to VETERANS (and does NOT mandate that they do this, only that they can without violating protocol…. note that was NOT the law when GWB and RR were presidents):

            “Veterans were given legal standing to salute the Flag during the National Anthem by the Defense Authorization Act of 2009; prior to that, only during the raising and lowering of the flag was it expressly lawful for a Veteran to do so.”

          4. Leroy says:

            Yo, Ella…

            Lies of conservatives:


            Proven lies that you CHOOSE to believe!

          5. Leroy says:

            That last link (an article from the esteemed “Editor and Publisher” online magazine) is a classic example of conservative dirty deeds, lies, and propaganda.

            This HOAX email referred to a supposed national “Meet The Press” interview where Obama said all of the crazy things (which he did not, in fact, he wasn’t on any such Meet The Press interview) – and was September of 2007 – yep, two months before the election!

            Some of it:

            In recent months, conservatives have been caught red-faced spreading smears about Barack Obama via emails and blogs and Web sites, their sources eventually unmasked as tainted or non-existent people. Now here’s another example, but this one is a little different–the source is a Washington Post reporter named Dale Lindsborg.

            Of course, there is no Dale Lindsborg at the Post (or seemingly anywhere) but when did that get in the way of a good smear?

            Even a giveaway line in his alleged account where Obama endorses an old Coke commercial song as our new national anthem did not deter some from believing it and making it “viral.”

            For at least two weeks the “Lindsborg” account of an Obama appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sept. 7 has been rocketing around the world and back again via email and the Internet, sometimes showing up at reputable sites — such as the Post itself — in their Comments sections…

            The charge is the old familiar tale of Obama not believing in honoring the flag, and hating America, with the new twist that he said this on “Meet the Press” a month ago (somehow the world missed this) and that it has been confirmed by the aforementioned Dale Lindsborg.

            It was debunked this week on the site, which traced it back to a satiric entry at an obscure site that was taken seriously and spread widely.

            The giveaway should have been Obama saying he wanted to junk our “bellicose” national anthem, the “Star-Spangled Banner,” and replace it with the more peaceful “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” — adding that if that was our anthem “then I might salute it.”

            He supposedly then added, “It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren.” And: “My wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago.”…

          6. Leroy says:

            The hoax email is then wrapped up with the following (from.a non existent reporter about a non existent, fictitious national interview):

            Reporter “Lindsborg” then winds up his account: “Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our next President. I, for one, am speechless.”


          7. Leroy says:

            The response to this hoax report as printed by the Charlotte (NC) Observer newspaper is great:

            Taylor Batten, editorial page editor at the Charlotte Observer, commented yesterday at one of his paper’s blogs, “Come on, people. You’re e-mailing this to all your friends, in a panic, in disbelief that this man is leading in the polls.

            “Here’s an idea: think for yourself! Spend, oh, 10 seconds on Google and see if there really is a”Dale Lindsborg at the Washington Post. Spend 30 seconds seeing if Obama was even ON the Sept. 7 ‘Meet the Press.’ Are you so predisposed to one candidate or the other that you can’t think critically?”

            (Yes, Taylor, KKKonservative TeaPubliKKKans are so full of sheer ignorance that they ARE predisposed to believe ANY lie or piece of fictional propaganda that fits their personal opinion, bias, racism, etcetera).

      2. Leroy says:

        Talk about sheer ignorance…

        “Sadly, that is not anything new at this time. Obama did not believe in global warming either, when he started.”

        There is not one itsy-bitsy bit of truth to that foolish statement.

        Not one.

        Obama has been a staunch supporter of the environment – and a strong believer in Climate Change / Global Warming.

        This comes from Obama’s own website:

        From “The Hill Magazine”:

      3. Leroy says:

        Continuing to demolish false claims about Obama and Climate Change / Global Warming:
        (September 2013)
        (October 2012)
        (July 2010)

      4. Leroy says:

        RE: Comments regarding Obama initially being a Climate Change denier
        (September 2009 – 1st year in office; election was 11/2008, but didn’t take office until January 2009)
        (Note paragraph under “Leading By Example”)
        (Extracts from Obama’s November 2008 speech)

      5. Leroy says:

        Final destruction of claim that Obama was initially a Climate Change denier:
        (November 2008)

        Meanwhile – from a February 2015 report:

  4. Tom says:

    Perhaps Trump bought a degree in meteorology recently, so he’s, ya know, an expert – as you can tell.

    i don’t want ANY of the people IN EITHER PARTY as president of this lunatic, bankrupt and fascist country (where Homeland Security in all its bureaucracy is the dictator).

    Your corporate politicians are killing the planet and everything on it by continuing to destroy the environment every day FOR MONEY. Enjoy your election, as if there’s a choice.

  5. Bob in Ohio says:

    THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: T-Rump is a Gold-Plated Carnival Clown Chump,
    so send him to the nearest political dump with all of the Ratpublican junk.

    I always thought that Lush Limpbaugh,
    Head-in-Fanny Hannity and G. Dumb-ya Shrub Brainless were the best examples of
    but The DONALD has them all beaten by trillions of miles.

  6. Leroy says:

    I guess that I have to formally wonder about this now.

    I am STILL having problems – two days in a row now – posting to this “Donald Trump Freezing in NYC” article…

    And this is the second time (two different articles) that this happened over several days. Before (the other article) I was told (by posting online) that the program “robots” very frequently picks up on multiple website links and “interprets the Reply as Spam” and doesn’t allow it through.

    In that other article, the Reply being chopped had a few links in it but no more than prior Replies in the same article. And in this article I had Replies (one in particular) with numerous links that went through just fine.

    And the real kicker is that this most recent attempt (another FAIL) only had two links in it!

    On top of that, NO ONE there is responding to me when I report this!!!

    Have I been locked out?

    Or just if it has ANY links (most of these being from FactFinder type organizations)?

    Yes, I do utilize factual site links. Sometimes lots. I do NOT want to simply express an opinion (and then declare it a fact – Milnes, or infer that it is – Ella). Like the Blog article authors (usually), I want the postings that I do based as closely to fact as absolutely possible!

    Not personal belief (though mine might coincide with what I post, sometimes it doesn’t *)

    Not personal opinion (though mine might often coincide with what I post, sometimes it doesn’t *)

    But fact(s).

    (*) As an example, I may often – when the discussion is in that realm – reference Biblical scripture and specify Book and chapter and verse(s) and often with a link to same, that doesn’t mean that is my personal opinion or belief (it generally is not as I am Deist, not Christian). I am simply clarifying what is really stated therein or correcting a misperception that someone references. So the FACT that is being presented is what is factually in the Bible (or Quran), not that what it says there is factual!

    1. J Clifford says:

      Leroy, you have not been individually singled out. The issue is that when you place lots of links into comments, it triggers spam filters. The reason for that is this: Any web site that has open comments fields receives a HUGE amount of spam from people trying to boost their SEO (search engine optimization) by posting links everywhere possible. Usually, it’s scams that have web sites infected with malware or other fraudulent activity. If we turned off these filters, the comments from real people would be overwhelmed by garbage, and no one could have a conversation. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best that we can do, given those who use automated systems to try to make money for themselves without really providing value to anyone. Generally, anything with more than one link will be automatically held for review.

      1. Leroy says:

        I could buy into that, except my first posting (which was also the first post for this article) was SEVENTEEN (17) links… And it went through without a hitch.

        One posting after that with ONE link was posted.

        Since then I have chopped my Replies into smaller and smaller segments to reduce the number of links in an attempt to get through (this is the same explanation that you gave me before in another article). I got it down to TWO links and no go. Then just ONE link… And still FAIL!

        At this point I can’t even use one lousy link!

        I guess by discussion it is means a swapping of opinions (as far as most people – who don’t do research – would know). Except for the Blog article authors who can, of course, cite factual basis for their position.

        I spoke with a relative who runs the IT department for a school district. He asked if I had registered to the website. I told him that I had – and also subscribed to each article that I posted too.

        He was totally confused (and somewhat shocked) that your IT has it set up this way VERSUS set up as most sites would do to recognize email addresses. He said that your method would be absolutely necessary if it was an open forum that anyone (unregistered and unsubscribed) could post to… whereas in the method be described if there’s ONE instance of a Spam issue, then that address is blocked (and if it was innocent Spamming due to a virus then that user couldn’t get unblocked – manually – until the virus issue was cleared up… And a second Spamming, even if innocent, would be a permanent blocking).

        The other option he discussed was that ALL postings with more than “X” number of links be Held until a Moderator could review. He suggested more than 3 links.

        Though interestingly, he – and this is the third school district where he was the IT Manager plus a commercial business before that – said that over 75% of Spam “emails” [*] that came into each of those places only contained ONE link… I could readily believe that as when I spot check the Spam that come into this or my main computer address – which gets used for commercial purposes so it gets a LOT – it invariably has only ONE link or one attachment. So I am well aware of the need for Spam controls.

        But, IMO, this method defeats the very purpose of communicating and exchanging facts (and opinions when clearly identified as such… a great American statesman once said, “”You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” — and most readers likely could not identify that individual without researching it).

        And I have STILL not received any reply of my several emails to the email address.

        [*] I use the term “emails” because at several of the places where he has worked IT – and 3 of the 4 places he was IT Manager – they used an internal email messaging format (similar to how these postings work) rather than an external email system as the internal system itself cuts back in Spamming.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Leroy, your comment with 17 links went through because I approved it. There is no conspiracy against you. We are not a giant corporation with an agenda to control you, or an IT department full of workers ready to hop to your need. We’re just people.

      2. Leroy says:

        And if you note my last posting (time wise) before your reply, you would note that I am not getting a message that the posting is awaiting moderation, I get:

        “403 – Permission Denied

        You do not have permission to retrieve the web link you requested from Irregular Times, /wp-comments-post.php

        If you encounter this error and it seems to be a mistake, please let us know! You can write to us at”

        I think that a more detailed discussion with your IT might be in order… if nothing else to explain why the posting with 17 links went through IMMEDIATELY! That doesn’t sound right.

    2. ella says:

      Thankfully you came through this time. It happens like that sometimes and how you believe is up to you. By all means, whoever thinks whatever, post any and all Biblical quotes you want to. I like them :). Sorry I sound like I cannot prove anything I say, but usually I can if I take the time to look it up. I did that for a while and started getting into sites that were problematic. So lately I’ve just been relating mostly what I remember or believe, except sometimes when I ought to go take a snooze first. I just don’t get into Biblical altercations, go to get into translations and transliterations to get too serious with it, and I am slow.

      1. Leroy says:

        ” Sorry I sound like I cannot prove anything I say, but usually I can if I take the time to look it up. I did that for a while and started getting into sites that were problematic.”

        Those other sites, back when you looked up the Truth to verify and corroborate things were likely problematic because they said the Truth… And that was likely the OPPOSITE of what you wanted it to be!

  7. Leroy says:

    To be clear, the following Message is what I receive if I try to post a Reply with just even ONE link:

    “403 – Permission Denied

    You do not have permission to retrieve the web link you requested from Irregular Times, /wp-comments-post.php

    If you encounter this error and it seems to be a mistake, please let us know! You can write to us at”

  8. Leroy says:

    That’s great.

    And I appreciate it.

    So why don’t the other postings go on hold for moderation? I have had other postings go into a “Hold Awaiting Moderation” status for a considerable time period (which is no problem).

    There’s apparently no way that I can currently work around the “403 – Permission Denied” status at this point. Even one link triggers it. I must have been lucky with my first posting here to have a Moderator online right at that time.

    I am not claiming some conspiracy. What I am saying is that this IS happening to me, apparently because I use links and at times that is okay, and at times it clearly is not!

    In fact, as to a “Giant Corporation” with a “Conspiracy Agenda”, my posts did not reflect either status… just a problem that kept getting ignored (for example, you have never addressed the fact that I followed the “403” error instructions with multiple emails as it specifies one do). I would say that it appears to be more of a defensiveness (at your end) to a problem that seemingly is unfixable… based on obvious frustration on my part.

    I am not a giant corporation either. Or a large political group. Or even a grouping of Blog authors. I am just one person. A person who would like to contribute, but only gets the same explanation repeatedly as to WHY the error is occurring without addressing a fix for it (other than either don’t use links or hope that a Moderator is right there when you post).

    I imagine that I can in the case of the various links just copy the text info and post it as text – other than situations involving strict copyright language.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Leroy, I’ll be direct in following up on your conversation with J. Clifford:

      1. I am also getting a 403 error today that I’ve never gotten before. I am myself only able to post comments if I am posting from inside the innards of the system, not as a regular user. Something’s wrong, and I’m going to take a look at it.

      2. More generally, I have no idea how to fix the problem of posts with multiple links being automatically put in moderation without turning off the spam filters, and you’d be amazed how many hundreds of spam ad posts for viagra and fake diet pills etc. we get every day. If you have an idea how to fix that more general problem while still stopping spam, I am absolutely all ears.

    2. ella says:

      I go on moderation sometimes, sometimes some of my post (as I remember it) disappears, and sometimes it shows up later. My eyes play tricks on me. 🙂

      Here is an objective poll on who is ahead, Clinton vs Trump, at this time.

  9. Jim Cook says:

    OK — figured this one out. We had a plugin problem. Took a little sleuthing, but it should be fixed now.

    1. Leroy says:

      Trying as a Reply rather than General Comment.

    2. Leroy says:

      Okay, that very short Reply worked.

      Let me try the initial one again (boy have I learned to save my work!).

      Here goes…

    3. Leroy says:

      Nope… The longer reply (with NO links) did NOT go through – another 403 error!

  10. Leroy says:


    Just tried a Reply (longer than one sentence) to you but with NO links… And immediately got a 403 error.


    1. Jim Cook says:

      Sorry, Leroy. This is frustrating! Hmmm. OK, let’s head back and try this again. Here is a one-line comment with me logged in.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      And here’s a two-line comment, with the second like being a link, again with me logged in:

    3. Jim Cook says:

      Now I am logged out and trying a longer comment with two links.

      What Robert Samuelson indicates in today’s Washington Post about the #1 status of the United States being dubious — — is borne out by a check of OECD statistics:

      The criticism Bernie Sanders received from Hillary Clinton for suggesting that the U.S. become more like Norway, Sweden or Denmark seems unfounded by these standards. The people of those countries, by typical markers, live better lives.

      I can post all of these without a problem. I did see a 403 error last evening, but I’m not seeing it this morning… but I will keep looking.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        So, this comment was put into moderation because of the two links, but no 403. Sorry I can’t reproduce the errors you’re having trouble with.

        Were the “longer” posts really long, as in more than three paragraphs?

        1. Leroy says:

          Probably just about 3 paragraphs.

          Nowhere near as long as some of my earlier ones in this specific article (see above).

          I wonder if you copied one of those and pasted it as a Reply if it would generate a 403?

          (Of course when I posted those, they went through fine… And only one – the first one – went into a “Awaiting Moderation” status).

        2. Leroy says:

          Just tried submitting the follow-up response to Ella.

          It was basically two paragraphs and it had two links.

          I tried it as a Reply, then as a General Comment.

          Both times I received:

          403 – Permission Denied

          You do not have permission to retrieve the web link you requested from Irregular Times, /wp-comments-post.php

          If you encounter this error and it seems to be a mistake, please let us know! You can write to us at

          I just emailed “” and included the word-for-word language in that attempted posting.

        3. Leroy says:

          And now just submitted it again (word-for-word) – and it went through!

          Same exact thing that drew THREE of the 403 replies in a row.

          And then went through (???)!

      2. Leroy says:

        I posted some very brief (chopped up) Replies just now that went through. They were brief and only contained one link each. They went through.

        Then I went to Post the last reply of that series – which was just a couple words and one link… And got the 403 message.

  11. Leroy says:

    It seems to do it (even if just 1 or 2 links- or in this last case, NONE) most often when it is a Reply to someone’s specific post rather than as a general Comment (like what I just posted and also this).

  12. Leroy says:

    Nope, posting as a General Comment didn’t work either.

    Got another 403.

    And, again, NO links in message.

    Apparently the program now limits replies and general comments to a few sentences???

    Man, this is just getting weird…

  13. Leroy says:


    I wonder if there’s any chance that you’ve been hacked or had a Trojan insertion?

    I can even think of a likely “suspect” – or someone so connected.

    This person is a self-proclaimed Mensa member and runs a couple of websites and a blog.

    And I haven’t seen anything from them since this started. In fact, it started after the last brouhaha involving them.


    1. Leroy says:

      Whatever happened to Milnes?

  14. Leroy says:


    BTW, enjoyed your article from the Washington Post about “Are We Number One?”.

    Around that same time I read this through Business Insider:


    1. Jim Cook says:

      Very interesting!

  15. Leroy says:

    Faux bracelet love carrier?

    Sounds like spamming or hacking… or a regular Commenter with a very weird sense of humor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!