Martin - This is an Earthquake prediction website - Some people tend to believe what they read and take it to heart.

I'm sorry you don't think its fun when someone disagrees with you. I believe it is my responsibility to attempt to lend some credibility to the science of quake prediction (sensitives included). Calling gas leaks from a storage facility in Kansas a precursor to an earthquake is a bit far-fetched. Calling for an earthquake in Yuma based on earthquakes in the Gulf of California and Baja Mexico is not right. Calling for a 5.1 quake in Baja when its in the middle of a swarm and has had a 5 isn't much. Not having a 3+ earthquake in California in 5 days isn't a big deal. Magnitude 2 earthquakes along the coast are happening all the time.

You have a good point in that sometimes there are foreshocks before a large quake. You just keep posting predictions for every little quake out there. You gets hits just on volume alone and I've already proved my point about that.

I've asked you before to track your own predictions - How many do you predict? (several a day) How many of those have hits ? How many don't? and How many other quakes have hit?

Unless there is some good evidence and record keeping no one is going to pay attention - You have to ask yourself why are you doing this? For what purpose? To be right or to save lives? If you want to save lives and have people take notice - you have been told time and time again what you need to do and quit getting upset when someone disagrees with you.

This site is not like Jim Berkland's site - I'd rather have a few good quality predictors than all the gibberish over on his prediction page. A few years ago someone actually was keeping track of the predictions and hits over there - JD I think it was? I think with so many garbage posts seemingly based on nothing that his site has become a joke for quake prediction. I don't want that to happen here.

Canie