Roger:

MY cOMMENTS INSERTED IN BOLD.

> I referred back my prediction and I wrote like this:

>6 to 7+M quake over
> -I mentioned clearly that the magnitude falls between 6 to 7+ means 6 to 7.1 or 7.2 and not claimed as 7 and above.

I stand corrected then. The magnitude was correct. I shouldn't post from memory.

>>> I THINK YOU ARE A SENIOR CITIZEN.

>NEAR S. COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (33.3N 137.2E)
> - I already accept the location differed by 786 KMs

But you were calling it a hit. If you had given geographic boundaries (lat,lon) there would be no dispute.

>may occur within next 48 to 180 hours from 04.30 UTC on 28th August 2005.
- Quake occurred on 30th August well within the time frame fixed.
>(Range 250 KMs)

Granted.

>>> OH..THANK GOD!

>Also I suspect around 5.5 to 6.5+M quake over ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA (11.3N 92.1E) and/or SOUTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA (37.2N 79.1E) on the same period.

I would consider these as separate predictions.

>>> NO ITS COMES OUT OF SINGLE PRECURSOR. I DONT WANT TO DISCLOSE AT THIS MOMENT.

> Also why you are so particular about your words as,

>>Place names are not acceptable either because they have no defined boundaries.
>> It's necessary in order to determine hit or miss.

> since I have already emphasis that the location varied around 786 KMs.

As I said, the location must be unambiguous so that hit or miss can be determined without argument.

>>> DUE TO LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE UNABLE TO FULFILL YOUR DREAM AT PRESENT.

> I don't know why your judgement elaborate only on Honshu quake and Andaman Island prediction kept untouched. Any reason?

No. Personal choice.

>>>CLEARLY INDICATES NOT A BALANCED EVALUATION.

> Finally a question.... when an art film produced with low budget running 100 days and another film, filmed with experts running the same 100 days but invested with huge amount.
Which is best?

Bad example. No way to tell which is the better film.

>>>SEEMS HIDING THE TRUTH AND STICK ON TO OLD PRINCIPLE.

SHAN