Chris;

> Roger...your wording is a bit ambiguous so I can't quite follow your post. In particular, I can't follow: "All but one of them were veryy low probability and since that one was a hit she has only 2 really good hits out of 7 predictions."

She had 7 predictions, one of which was high probability. of those 7, 3 were hits and one of the 3 was the high probability case. Thus she had only 2 low probability hits.

> Also, what is a "hit"?

A prediction which was correct in all parameters.

> Petra, if you don't post publicly then it will not be interesting to me...I won't want to hear your claims of success or Roger's evaluations of predictions that I did not see.

Why not? Don't you trust me?

> And, although perhaps unlikely that I would be of any use anyway, I'm certainly not going to approach, for example, the UCSB physicists working on earthquakes based on a private prediction record.

Even when independently verified? I'm hurt.

Roger

Chris