Lowell,
I have absolutely no problem with with what you have just said.

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself well.

When someone else says or does something that one
doesn't agree with, or feels is out-of-line, there are different ways to respond. One can disagree and make one's point politely and kindly, if one is trying to be constructively
critical....or one can belittle the other person.
It is up to each of us in life to decide how we want to treat other people.

What bothers me so much about what has taken place here is that one individual, who is very bright and talented, has attacked another individual in a manner that feels 'vicious' to me. Perhaps I've missed something here, because I can't see anything that EQF has said that justifies his being attacked in such a manner. If
others on this board disagree with him, why couldn't the disagreement be done in the tone in which you've just addressed my message? If you can't tolerate EQF's attitude toward his work, why not just skip his posts to the board?

As to being amiss in one's duties by not asking for proof....is it really necessary to be so brutal in performing one's duties?

You are far more educated than I am, Lowell. No argument. However, I have had the good fortune to have received some of my scientific education from
two incredibly fine and decent researchers from the biochem/biophysics department at Oregon State. One of those researchers, a man whom I often tell people is the most Christ-like human
being I have ever met (my apologies if this statement is in any way offensive), is well published and spends time during the summer at NIH. The other researcher's work on histones was
cited in Watson's Molecular Biology of the Cell.
I am assuming that each of these men have adequate credentials to qualify as good scientists. I have never heard either one of them ream anyone elses work the way that EQF's work has been attacked here. I never heard either of these men attack anyone the way EQF has been attacked here.

Whether EQF has the abilities he claims, or not, is not the point I'm trying to make. He has not been treated with respect here. As I tried to point out in an earlier message....how many good people with good ideas do not post here because of the kind of environment that encourages such
profound belittling of one person's posts?

One of my professors, who counted among his friends many of the giants of molecular biology,
who spent every summer at Woods Hole....made a very fine effort to teach his students what science truly is. He was deeply saddened by what some scientists were doing....seeming to feed by tearing down other people's work. I sort of feel
like I understand what he meant after reading some of the messages posted here.

EQF is the person who encouraged me to read the messages posted to this board....I think, in particular because of your postings, Lowell. Your information about the effects of quakes at PNG
on the San Andreas was very helpful to me in understanding why PNG activity might be triggering symptoms that would normally indicate
SoCal quakes to me.

I have great respect for the effort you put into the info you post here....and, until recently,
tremendous respect for the gentleman you are. A
class act. It has been disheartening to see a couple of your recent posts.

Please understand that I'm not trying to say that
anyone here is a bad person. I consider most of what has occurred to be triggered behavior....and
given what's going on in SoCal right now....an
interesting possible sign of more activity to come.

What bothers me is that everyone seems to be jumping on the "It's okay to treat EQF in a disrespectful and abusive manner" bandwagon....
which, IMHO, is the sort of attitude that says
that it's okay for people to treat one another abusively.

I don't think it's 'right' to encourage this. And I ask each of you to examine your heart and ask yourself if you think it's right to encourage this.

If the true goal of this group is to find a way to
predict quakes and save lives....wouldn't it be more productive to show curtesy to people with whom you disagree, or if you don't have it in your heart to do that....just ignore them? Whatever kind of message do you think people reading this board are getting from the way you have treated EQF?

As Cathryn said in one of her posts, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it is the way I feel.

Nancy