Hi All,

I've just have say this because I think it deserves some well thought out attention. I don't know how many times I've spoken about a scientist or made mention of someone's work and the response is that they are suddenly they are labeled as a kook or a nut or something else that is quite derogatory.

What I find puzzling is that they are in the same field, frequently they are very papered and they have their own camp of supporters. So, if I were to ask someone about Joe Smith, the seismologist who wrote the paper on subatomic atoms and their effect on transverse faults, if Jerry White says he's a kook, is he really a kook, or is that an expression of professional jealousy?

I think I had some really good luck in the beginning in finding scientists who were Nature Debaters or people who worked in the Parkfield Project. But Lowell Whiteside who some may not hold in high regard is probably the person who taught me more about the dynamics of the earthquake process than any of the others. I value his friendship above all of them. He was and is one of the most patient people I know and one who truly looks at everything.

Thus, I'll close with this question. As I meet scientists in the future and discuss their work, how would I, the layperson, classify a mainstream scientist from a kook?

Petra