Petra;

> Thanks for your extended time on this work. I appreciate it. I hope that "Class Act" from the other board is happy. I never seriously thought that I had any detractors, or enemies except say the ex, but I now know I was wrong.

Not necessary, Petra. It's what I do.

> Though scientifically the results are what they are, I'm going to submit a counter to this method which I think should be given due consideration.

OK.

> I did not know until last night when Don explained how magnitude assignment was evaluated that its the lower number, not the higher one, even if that is correct that is used. IE: My Parkfield prediction low end magnitude was 3.8 and high end 4.8, but 3.8 is the figure used, therefore when averaging it falls into a whole different catagory. Yes, 3.8 quakes occur far more often than 4.8's.

What ARE you talking about? Magnitude is an average of as many stations as you have available.

> So now I have to work on the magnitude assignments again and that's always been the hardest part.

That's what ranges are for.

> I think we have to weigh the facts, ie: did an earthquake arrive? How far off was the magitude? for instance. These cases clearly demonstrate that earthquakes do arrive, but as to how to improve upon deliverance to acceptable scentific standards, I'm not quite sure how to accomplish this, but like all experiments you refine them in time.

That's right. I have a program which will select the 3 best fitting quakes, in or out of your window. It's to be used for training.

> Aside from the above, I have to say I have some serious concerns and I have to give them due thought. I'm rather a private person, though I'm not shy on being myself. I don't believe in lurking in the shadows and using odd ball names for instance. But if I have to imagine being fried in the news for instance or having someone like you know hop up there and point fingers, well I have to think about my willingness to set myself up for whatever might occur.

You can't have a thin skin and you MUST be willing to adapt your theory as the facts require. You can't insist the facts are wrong as Jim does.

> I would prefer of course to sit down with someone and work with current material and let the research happen behind the scenes, rather than put it out here when its in R & D for instance.

We can do that if you prefer.

> However, my greatest concern overall is that I do seriously believe this could be the year that matters insofar as people getting a warning they need and should I, if I'm reasonably sure there is a moderate to large earthquake coming post it. I've spent a few fretful days and nights thinking about this big demon and I have yet to come to terms with it.

False alarms must be avoided but if you're sure and have reason to be sure, go for it.

> Its rather a lot to think about. Should I just go back to work on the R & D and not post here anymore, thus affording more pot shots from people who wish to silence me, or do I go forward and let the method unfold with a huge disclaimer stating it is in research and development with a poor scentific evaluation.

Poor scientific evaluation?? Well!!!

But seriously, no one can silence you so why is that a concern?

> We'll see.

Indeed.

Roger

Petra