Petra

> Quite simply you have only one set of rules of acceptability for predictions and it is a hard and fast one. Therefore if one wishes to use their own set of rules, their own personal method, it is not going to be accepted. In your thoughts this is the only way it should be because you feel comfortable with that and feel you can ferret out the bad from the good.

This statement intrigues me. My criteria for acceptability is "Did it work?"
Did the quake happen or not? What other standard makes any sense?

The test for reliability is whether you got more hits than drawing dates out of a hat. Do you see a problem with that? Do you have a better way of judging?

No offense here Petra; I really want to know. In my testing of Jim Berkland I've shown repeatedly that he gets no more hits than chance would allow but all he does is talk about his hits and claim to be doing well.

Roger