Shan;

> I referred back my prediction and I wrote like this:

>6 to 7+M quake over
> -I mentioned clearly that the magnitude falls between 6 to 7+ means 6 to 7.1 or 7.2 and not claimed as 7 and above.

I stand corrected then. The magnitude was correct. I shouldn't post from memory.

>NEAR S. COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (33.3N 137.2E)
> - I already accept the location differed by 786 KMs

But you were calling it a hit. If you had given geographic boundaries (lat,lon) there would be no dispute.

>may occur within next 48 to 180 hours from 04.30 UTC on 28th August 2005.
- Quake occurred on 30th August well within the time frame fixed.
>(Range 250 KMs)

Granted.

>Also I suspect around 5.5 to 6.5+M quake over ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA (11.3N 92.1E) and/or SOUTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA (37.2N 79.1E) on the same period.

I would consider these as separate predictions.

> Also why you are so particular about your words as,

>>Place names are not acceptable either because they have no defined boundaries.
>> It's necessary in order to determine hit or miss.

> since I have already emphasis that the location varied around 786 KMs.

As I said, the location must be unambiguous so that hit or miss can be determined without argument.

> I don't know why your judgement elaborate only on Honshu quake and Andaman Island prediction kept untouched. Any reason?

No. Personal choice.

> Finally a question.... when an art film produced with low budget running 100 days and another film, filmed with experts running the same 100 days but invested with huge amount.
Which is best?

Bad example. No way to tell which is the better film.

Roger