EQF;

> The answer is no to just about everything you proposed. For example, you said that I don't provide any information regarding when a expected earthquake might occur. But with my latest advisories I clearly said that any seismic activity should be within a few days of the advisory posting.

Yet you claim quakes many days later.

> To a large degree, most of your other arguments are also inaccurate. However, I am still expecting an earthquake and am planning to circulate another advisory today. So I don't have time to get into any more discussions of all of this.

Your standard evasion "don't have time ... "

> To a large degree my posts are not aimed at proving anything. They are intended to provide people around the world with important data etc.

But they don't provide any data, just your personal opinions.

> Finally, it might have been better had you continued this discussion in the older thread instead of starting a new one as this causes them to move downwards fairly rapidly on this board. And I need to post some updates for that last advisory. They might not be seen if people have to go searching for them.

That's what your BBS is for. This board is for general discussion or so I thought.

BTW, I'm not attacking you, I'm explaining why no one believes you.

Roger