Thanks for the apology Dennis.

I hope we both agree that nasty attitudes don't belong here. But, it may be the only thing we agree on.

I beg to differ regarding your comments about documentation. I don't see any documention anywhere. If I'm not looking in the right place, please feel free to point me in the right direction.

Can we answer these simple basic questions about our predictions?

1. How many predictions has the board made in the last year?
2. How many of those were hits?
3. How many of those were misses?
4. What is the definition of a hit? What is the definition of a miss? What is the definition of a "near hit"? What is the definition of a "near miss"
5. What is the definition of a prediction?
6. How did those hits and misses compare to background siesmicity?
7. Can you break all this down by predictor?

I think we would all agree that you nor anybody else looking at this board has an answer to any of these questions.

The entire purpose of the table is to define and document predictions and their outcome, so I have not idea how your coming up with your last statement. Would you please clarify your position with regards to the table being "after-the-fact nice to have but does nothing to document predictions beforehand". I simply do not understand the statement as it makes no sense to me.

Thanks!

Michael