|
Re: repetitive but eminently sensible |
The point is, there is nothing new added with the posts - which is why I suggest putting up a page on her site with her standard response. What is the point of repeatedly posting such stuff here - don't you think by now that the entire world knows what she is saying? A simple link to a page called: Debunking EQF would be sufficient. No - he doesn't post predictions here in a format that everyone can see, and probably never will. He is somewhat paranoid and does not wish to reveal himself to the world at large, as it is illegal in some communities to attempt to predict earthquakes. EQF believes he has something - and no, I can't prove that he does and neither can anyone else - he seems to think he does. Petra also thinks she has something with her ear tones also, but she too is missing a piece of the data - does that make her entirely wrong? (I'm not going to argue ear tones here) - Others think they have something of worth as well - Jim Berkland, geoForecasters, Shan, and other sensitives. I would like this to be a site to freely discuss such ideas - not be pounded on for attempting to share ideas. Maybe EQF doesn't have the whole enchilada - but if someone could step back for a moment, instead of acting like a rabid dog, and look at what is there, maybe there's a kernel of something there, maybe there isn't. I think there is a lot of politics involved in earthquake prediction - mainly the major belief that it can't be done. I don't know if you'd call that political or psychological - then if you do manage to get past that hump and come up with a real method that works - what do you think the 'powers that be' would do if it were known that a 7.2 quake were about to hit San Francisco Bay area? Would they tell the people? I don't think so... As an example, the Hector Mine quake set off a few smaller quakes near the southern end of the San Andreas fault by the Salton Sea - geologists wanted to put out a warning stating their 'concern' of a possible quake in the next week or so - possibly the big one on the san andreas - the government did send out a warning, but so watered down, that it was worthless - luckily, nothing developed from that. That sure sounds political to me - lets not even start to discuss Mammoth Lakes area..... You are right in that Petra and Don have much to contribute - I just would like them to quit badgering EQF. Its a waste of disk space and bandwidth. Canie Follow Ups: ● Re: repetitive but eminently sensible - Petra Nova Challus 17:11:17 - 11/21/2003 (20202) (1) ● Re: repetitive but eminently sensible - Canie 19:30:00 - 11/21/2003 (20206) (0) ● Making things unnecessarily complicated - EQF 12:54:16 - 11/21/2003 (20189) (1) ● talking in circles - John Vidale 13:48:17 - 11/21/2003 (20193) (2) ● Re: talking in circles - Cathryn 22:52:04 - 11/21/2003 (20214) (1) ● biweekly tides - John Vidale 07:30:31 - 11/22/2003 (20222) (1) ● Re: biweekly tides - Cathryn 16:58:56 - 11/22/2003 (20229) (2) ● Re: biweekly tides - Cathryn 17:14:30 - 11/23/2003 (20253) (1) ● eclipses - John Vidale 17:19:36 - 11/23/2003 (20254) (1) ● Re: eclipses - Canie 20:54:41 - 11/23/2003 (20259) (0) ● biweekly tides - John Vidale 06:14:40 - 11/23/2003 (20245) (0) ● No. You are simply not listening. - EQF 14:55:33 - 11/21/2003 (20196) (2) ● I'm losing my patience - John Vidale 15:47:53 - 11/21/2003 (20198) (1) ● Re: I'm losing my patience - EQF 17:19:31 - 11/21/2003 (20203) (0) ● That was supposed to be - Perhaps you are simply not listening n/t - EQF 14:58:53 - 11/21/2003 (20197) (0) ● Re: repetitive but eminently sensible - Don in Hollister 10:36:03 - 11/21/2003 (20188) (1) ● Re: repetitive but eminently sensible - Cathryn 12:55:01 - 11/21/2003 (20190) (1) ● Re: repetitive but eminently sensible - Canie 16:01:38 - 11/21/2003 (20200) (1) ● Amen! (NT) - Cathryn 21:41:16 - 11/21/2003 (20210) (0) ● politics vs practicality - John Vidale 09:16:49 - 11/21/2003 (20177) (0) |
|