Chris,

"I'm just curious...slightly...I'm not going to do anything with it..."

Well, no wonder you got bored so easily! Though I reiterated some points, it is because I to the contrary was HIGHLY curious. The issue of what makes a prediction meaningful is important to me.

Chris, you said to me

"Why don't you get Roger's program with Shan's predictions and go through it and make some sort of comment...maybe a graph of some sort. I am preparing a talk and have not looked through Roger's stuff yet..."

but I have to say that in order for me to tell you why I do not bother making a graph I would have to repeat myself AGAIN. And why should I, since you criticized me for being too repetitious on a topic that you are only slightly curious about?

I would say if you want a graph make one yourself. The only thing I would want to graph are the actual deviations in the shadow-path observed by Shan (his so-called angle, time and shift elements) -- which he does not provide. Oops -- more repetition. Without that data, the predictions are merely "unevaluatable" (Roger's term) or "meaningless" (my term). And in addition there is the issue of the prediction range size, which I was referring to in conversation with Roger when you rudely told me to "move on."

Be a little more fair towards me, Chris, even if you don't like me. Do not assume that I post without good reason, just because your own readings of some posts have been careless.