Hi Roger,

I hear that all the time at work, "its not my job." Doesn't sound like team spirit does it? You see we have one rather large problem here and that is that we need a scientist to work with us and then we can be the support group. No one in science is going to give credibility to an amateur so we need a ranking professional.

Now if we were amateur comet seekers, they would give us credence, but in earthquake prediction we are just people who play with earthquake prediction. However, I don't want to play, I want to see results and that comes from hard work and a team effort. It takes a strong leader who knows what's going on and says, "I need the data for xyz and one of us recovers it." That kind of support. I can see your position very clearly, you are a data analyzer, that sets you aside. You can only evaluate, so we need a non-evaluator.

See, this is what Don and I have been looking for in a scientist. Someone who doesn't have his reputation to risk, not connected with the government, because they can't predict earthquakes, so our best shot is to find a retired seismologist. Someone who once wanted to work on EQ prediction, but didn't have the time or had certain restrictions placed on him. Mind you, I don't say her/him because most women in science today are still young.

Actually at the AGU all of the presentations on the Hector Mine quake were women except Max Wyss. All of the women were young, some didn't have their PHd's yet. So I took one aside and told her nicely to go for the gold and make the rest of us proud. She was very nice.

So Roger, you can see our problem. We need retired, still having all of one's mental faculties and willing to work with amateur volunteers. Hopefully, he's sitting at his home computer now reading this post. (If you're out there, please make contact. Send Canie an confidential e-mail and she'll forward it to me.)

Some of you are statistician's. So what do you think the percentage of chance might be for me to get a response?

Petra