>The point is that since it would be so easy to do, >there must have been scientists who tried and
>failed to establish such a link.

Ack. Isn't this a breakdown in the rule of logic you are trying so hard to hold us to? To make such a supposition (it's easy to prove, therefore it must be false because I, personally, haven't seen a proof) seems ...forgive the word... sloppy, especially for someone who takes pride in not peeing on the carpet.

>Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask you why
>someone pronounces that animals react to
>earthquakes if there is no scientific proof that
>they do so.

And it is legitimate to respond that I, personally, have never claimed that animals respond to earthquakes (assuming you aren't lumping yours truly in with all the bears and tigers.) On the other hand, such evidence would not at all surprise me.

Weren't there some definitive studies done in China?

Cathryn

P.S. I think you've missed one of my replies below.