Boy, I missed the reason for anger here... I don't see that Chris was saying anything but post your predictions so they can be evaluated. For probability (chance) and for accuracy.

He did also state that there is an inclination by some readers to take as proven truths some things written here and use it as a basis for ideas they develop - and its good to be clear that methods are being looked at or evaluated, rather than published and accepted theories. You yourself like to make it clear to the world that not everyone on this board agrees with things said by another poster.

You already do post your predictions sometimes, so why not post for every eartone, and then they can be evaluated. Roger has written his probability program, but its only for the larger world quakes.

Roger - can a more localized dataset be used to do this sort of thing? - like Petra's predictions are mostly for the area surrounding California - and her predictions haven't been for quakes over 5Mw (usually) - so how to calc probability on the smaller ones?

This way you, Don, and the rest of us know what kind of progress you are making. From what I understand, you are doing very well.

Canie