|
Oh come on. |
John, gI just listed 7 specific insults directed at me.h You excerpted a few remarks, all responses to you, out of context. Just for one example, in response to gYour long diatribe is curiously devoid of the level of detail that is the bread and butter of science.h I wrote "Your many posts are devoid of any detail that might suggest you are effectively combining indirect evidence to solve any problem at all." You find that insulting? That is just an observation that there has been no such detail in your posts. And now, in your last post, for the first time, suddenly you provide detail: gR&S friction as developed by Dieterich predicts with mathematical precision, and with just 2 free parameters, the quake-tide correlationc The quake-tide correlation measured by me for tectonic earthquakes after many decades of previous attempts is a test of the quite well-developed theory.h You have shown that my remark about your previous lack of detail was indeed correct. I have no idea how such an observation could be insulting. gIt is hard to defend the claim that rate-and-state friction and its prediction for the correlation between tides and quakes and my observation of the correlation is not even just a theory.h This is the first time you have mentioned that R&S predicts anything. gIf you have an alternative theory for friction in rocks, perhaps you shouldc propose it, say why rate-and-state is wrong, and how your theory explains the literally thousands of papers written on this subject better.h Ifm not interested in explaining gthe literally thousands of papers written on this subjectch You seem to have cornered that market. And I have no idea whether R&S is right, or whether the seismologists who gdon't think such a phase even existsh are right. It would have been a simple matter for you to claim from the beginning that the correlation you found is a verification of R&S. By now, I doubt that you are giving me an objective appraisal of the interpretation of your results, and I am no longer interested in inquiring. Thank you. Ara Follow Ups: ● I get it - John Vidale 21:00:09 - 1/22/2005 (24523) (1) ● I did not get it - Ara 01:56:43 - 1/23/2005 (24526) (0) |
|