Hi All,

I've taken some valuable time to sit aside from this place and give some thought as to what can or cannot be accomplished here. Foremost on my mind was the principle of debating. My dictionary defines debating as those who engage in discussion, in a public place, to discuss reasons for and against a given matter.

When looking back at my research on the Nature Debates topic of Earthquake Prediction where some of our foremost geo-scientists provided their opinions on whether it was possible; the history of success and failure and their thoughts as to whether they should continue and what the long term synopsis might be was an invaluable vehicle.

I read the opinions eagerly and I went beyond that and had a look at the backgrounds of those who participated. I wanted to understand why these scientists felt the way they did, either pro or con. In viewing this aspect, I learned more about how they came to the conclusions they did. And lastly, I visited four of them personally and that added another element in understanding them in particular.

One thing that was apparent from the beginning was that absolutely none of them said that they thought they should continue in an effort to save anyone's life. Though I received an explanation as to why they didn't, I have yet to feel comfortable with the thought that it was never important enough to mention.

As one interacts with another through debate or discussion, it requires that if someone places an issue on the table they are willing to discuss the matter to a conclusion. However, in this forum that cannot be done. Some people who post here do not wish to have this debate or discussion, but simply wish to make a statement, unsupported of any factual evidence and expect no one to respond unless it is favorable.

In real life this is not acceptable. From Washington, DC where matters are debated daily to courtrooms where attorneys argue for and against issues surrounding circumstances and scientists who debate theory, there is nothing that can hold a position that cannot be debated in some form or another.

But one other element as I referenced above, is the background of the individual who supports a given statement, matter or issue on the table. If one does not know this person then credibility becomes an issue and will always remain unless that person is honest and forthright. I will say unilaterally, I do not support any person who is not a real and identifiable person. Anyone who is in my realm must be a known individual and someone I trust. I know in this I will probably receive words that it is not important for anyone here to accept that. But that is my standard and I live by it. If one is not forthright, then they are no doubt dishonest and I don't associate myself with anyone or anything which harbor's dishonesty.

If there is nothing that is consistent, it is that true scientists are known, are in a position to be identified, contacted, asked questions of and have credentials to speak of their work. I know of no other group of individuals of whom I could speak more in support of. For the greater part they are honest, they are work-a-holics and they care about the Earth and its inhabitants. They are rarely political, but some do play that role to receive funding for their projects. Scandal is rarely attributed to them.

This is my learned position on this issue about debates and those who refuse to engage in them.

Petra