This is a waste of time to even post, but I can't help to marvel at how quickly the "dialogue" becomes vicious. If, in the opinion of some, EQF wants to stand on the bow of the Titanic and proclaim he's King of the World, who cares (assuming that's what's going on)?

This makes science and the philosophy of science a major turn off. I've taken one geology class in my life - and it sucked. The professor had this attitude much like I see here on the board. So, bowing out with a big "Wayne's World" "I'm not worthy," I left the earth science building and vowed never to return.

I just thought it was such a crack up to see a number of people walking around the earth science department with this crass demeanor because someone "thunk" a thought that might leave another uncomfortable. Hey - big deal. But, those in control fail to realize that they don't dominate the dialogue through logic - but rather manipulation and just plain old white hot anger. (I can't get over how nasty "Mr. Rabbit's" comments have been. Seriously, do you think the tenor of the comments lends to credibility?)

Here's a clue to undertaking meaningful dialogue: ask questions, quit making angry dissertations. It's kind of like jujistu - efficiently bring your opponent to the ground. It took me five to six years of practicing law to realize the power of asking questions versus giving sermons. (Duh.) (Of course, people would know about law and lawyers, because there's always television, right?)

As for the present state of earthquake prediction, it appears that no one has figured it out. Right? Okay, then, so what if some guy posts something objectionable? So what if people might glean some degree of "self-importance" from the posts? So what? If he's cultivating a reputation in the scientific community, that's his problem. But, the rank nastiness that follows is . . . befuddling.

Hey - let's all have a re-read of Steven Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man." People might be well served to rethink what their questions presume. Since no one has figured out how to predict earthquakes, it's a little odd as to how dialogue outside of the main course of peer reviewed acceptance is so offensive. Continue down that path and it will never be figured out.

These . . . people . . . are personal opinions.

Tony