|
|
|
|
| Re: 5.0 or greater |
Just to clarify, this is my question. I like the question Barbara asked about the 5 mags. "Does a lack of 5 mags indicate a larger quake?" (my question) glen Follow Ups: ● short answer: we don't think so - John Vidale 14:54:02 - 2/19/2006 (33913) (2) ● Re: short answer: we don't think so - Petra 17:23:02 - 2/19/2006 (33918) (1) ● if I read you right - John Vidale 20:04:58 - 2/19/2006 (33922) (1) ● Re: if I read you right - Not Really - Petra 20:32:17 - 2/19/2006 (33925) (1) ● chatting here is a hobby - John Vidale 21:14:22 - 2/19/2006 (33927) (1) ● I'm Sorry, You're Under-appreciated. - Petra 05:19:24 - 2/20/2006 (33935) (1) ● Re: I'm Sorry, You're Under-appreciated. - John Vidale 06:58:46 - 2/20/2006 (33936) (1) ● Suppression of Information - Petra 12:06:17 - 2/20/2006 (33947) (1) ● difference of opinion - John Vidale 13:31:56 - 2/20/2006 (33966) (2) ● Re: difference of opinion - Russell 14:29:57 - 2/20/2006 (33973) (1) ● Re: difference of opinion - Don in Hollister 15:14:02 - 2/20/2006 (33980) (0) ● Re: difference of opinion - Jim W. 14:07:07 - 2/20/2006 (33972) (0) ● Re: short answer: we don't think so - glen 15:58:42 - 2/19/2006 (33917) (1) ● how near in the future? - John Vidale 20:15:43 - 2/19/2006 (33923) (1) ● Re: how near in the future? - glen 21:30:45 - 2/19/2006 (33928) (1) ● yes, 6+ likely to come sooner - John Vidale 21:33:20 - 2/19/2006 (33929) (1) ● Agreed. Thanks. n/t - glen 22:11:26 - 2/19/2006 (33932) (0) ● Re: 5.0 or greater - Don in Hollister 13:01:51 - 2/19/2006 (33907) (1) ● Re: 5.0 or greater - Barbara 07:14:07 - 2/20/2006 (33937) (1) ● Re: 5.0 or greater - Don in Hollister 11:02:19 - 2/20/2006 (33940) (1) ● Re: 5.0 or greater - Barbara 22:37:00 - 2/20/2006 (34019) (2) ● Re: 5.0 or greater - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande 07:43:57 - 2/21/2006 (34027) (1) ● Re: 5.0 or greater - Barbara 19:11:45 - 2/21/2006 (34044) (0) ● Re: 5.0 or greater - glen 00:13:07 - 2/21/2006 (34022) (0) |
|
|
|
|
