Hi Dona:

I go by michael by the way.

My quest is to introduce credibility to this art form. I am quite familiar with the area, and have a good idea of what he intended, but was unable to quantify it.

My arguement was that he should not be so surprised to see a few 3s in an area a length of half of the state of California. This is a huge area, with quake hotbeds at both ends of his intended prediction area. I would be surprised if a few 3s didn't occur!

Of course, I have no way to debate that point further because Dennis did not clearly define a location. On the other hand, Dennis does not have a leg to stand on when he claims partial success for the same reason.

So, it seems to me that debate would be a lot more usefull if predictions were clearly defined. The shape of the predicted area is unimportant, what is important is that everybody who looks at a prediction understands exactly what the area is. It is ridiculous for everybody to try to interpret what is going on in a predictors head. By guessing what he means, I have to be subjective. Subjectivity with regards to predictions, so far, has been the biggest stumbling block on this board, ass well as all others I have visited.

Michael