In post 7024 below (way below) Roger Musson says this in a discussion about modifying predictions:
The problem is inherent when prediction evaluation is done in what is essentially an adversarial manner of racking up hits and misses, instead of open presentation of data, in which case the reasons for needing to alter the prediction can also be evaluated, or at least discussed.

Dennis tried having an open presentation of data and got hammered on by Michael - Its true that there seems to be adversarial energy out there when it comes to quake predictions.

In all fairness Dennis has some methods which appear to work - he doesn't over predict and then get a few hits - he makes predictions according to his signals and there are usually results. Refining those results is what this forum is all about.

Its sad to lose someone who is truly effective in this arena to some negative thinking people who seem to want only to argue and destroy any possibility.

Canie