Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California
Posted by 2cents on October 30, 2001 at 09:57:41:

Hmm...Looks like it was no mystery to somebody on another prediction board...looks like "training" is all relative....

Follow Ups:
     ● Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  12:37:37 - 10/30/2001  (10495)  (2)
        ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - 2cents  00:38:18 - 10/31/2001  (10518)  (1)
           ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  06:57:14 - 10/31/2001  (10521)  (1)
              ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - 2cents  14:22:22 - 10/31/2001  (10547)  (1)
                 ● Re: water consumption - Canie  08:55:44 - 11/1/2001  (10566)  (1)
                    ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  23:21:01 - 11/1/2001  (10589)  (1)
                       ● Re: water consumption - Canie  08:45:44 - 11/2/2001  (10606)  (1)
                          ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  09:53:24 - 11/2/2001  (10614)  (1)
                             ● Re: water consumption - Canie  11:27:17 - 11/2/2001  (10618)  (1)
                                ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  22:24:12 - 11/3/2001  (10686)  (0)
        ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Roger Hunter  12:55:07 - 10/30/2001  (10498)  (1)
           ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  13:44:49 - 10/30/2001  (10499)  (0)