Dear John,

I think what Petra is driving at relates to my own concerns expressed below. It's not the "what" of the matter, it's the "how." Tone is everything.

It's great that you have all this terrific knowledge to share. It will, undoubtedly, remain above my head despite my having learned so much from this board in the last five years. (Thanks, Canie.)

Still, I would never call myself anything but an amateur when it comes to highly scientific rhetoric, especially if physics are involved. So please don't "dumb things down" for the likes of me.

I often won't have a clue as to what you are saying, but the geophysicists and seismologists on this board will surely understand and appreciate your lingo, not to mention your knowledge. The rest of us will slink away, tails between our legs, marveling at our ignorance, growing exponentially confused with every passing year.

When Lowell was asked any question, no matter how statistical, seismological, or just plain stupid (I asked a real boner once), he always managed to respond in a way that addressed the inquirer's level of knowledge re: seismic studies, while at the same time making the questioner feel warm and fuzzy. If quake specific language was used, he would either briefly explain what it meant or post a link to the explanation, sometimes a glossary. That really helped the aliens here, like me.

Don is the same way. Rarely do harsh or abrupt words fly from his fingertips, even when he occasionally has to deal with some real Bozos on this forum. I'm sorry to have to say that, but thems the facts.

This board is not perfect, but is surprisingly harmonious compared to most of the other geoscience forums out there. I think some people land here expecting a bit of a cock fight, when all we really want to do is congenially debate ideas, postulate theories, learn all we can from experts like you, and feel a sense of camaraderie.

I think everyone here would agree that "your informed opinion" is *always* welcome. Your scientific aperceptive mass is much more impressive than my web page, but thank you anyway for the compliment.

If nobody ever challenged a purported foolproof methodology for predicting earthquakes, all we would have is a bunch of hacks, pedigreed or not, all claiming to have THE answer.

I don't think there is ONE answer to what triggers earthquakes; rather I'm inclined to believe a complex matrix of factors needs to be in place to trigger an earthquake of substantial magnitude.

What I see on Earthwaves is a lot of well-meaning and, for the most part, highly educated people trying to understand what and how (or if) certain forces might come together to unleash, say, an M8.3 off the coast of Hokkaido.

Frankly, I think we should all lighten up and have a little more fun on this board, all the while soaking up and distributing as much knowledge as we can.

Ya gotta keep in mind the Firesign Theater's great line: "Were all Bozos on this bus." Well, I'm probably one of the most Bozoid here, but not ashamed to cop to the astonishing depths of my ignorance of most things seismic. That's how I learn.

On the other hand, I do like that great quote from GBS, if I'm not mistaken. (And this may be a paraphrase): "'Tis better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Cheers, Cathryn

P.S. to Don: It's six-thirty am. I've been up all night and will soon be retiring. Call me and die.