Hi Chris,

You made a really good point. So often we discuss issues, but as to following up with some facts on them, it's not something we have been doing, but something we should be doing.

Just before the AGU I started plucking Don's predictions out of the archives to send to Roger for his evaluation, but I haven't finished the work yet. Its going to take a lot of time to do this as I'm not going to cut off any of the notes, which in most cases as as important as the prediction form used. In his evaluation he will use the method he uses for all of his evaluations. I think to be consistent it must be the same with no variations.

Notes which detail matches to his predictions have to be included because some of the data is difficult to locate, or at least it will provide a source for him to know from what catalog the data was used.

It isn't as easy as one might think because the predictions were almost daily and the matches to the quakes were in some cases ten days later, so its requires a lot of back and forth maneuvers to put it all together.

I am also extending the time past the seven months that was orginally used to get a better look for the longest period of time available.

I'm sorry you will not be able to go to the North Sea. This surely is a disappointment.

Petra