I tend to agree with Canie on this one Petra and Don. Although you may know
the author of these web pages, it is clear that for reasons of his/her own, this
predictor chooses not to use his/her real name. Even so, there are plenty of links on
the pages where information and questions can be sent. We get plenty of people
sending data and forecasts who prefer not to have their name revealed for reasons
of privacy. A lot of famous authors have pen-names, so why should it be a problem
if a predictor chooses to use a pen-name (like EQ-Forecasting) to publish results (even
if we are pretty sure we know what the real name of this person is).
The data (if you can interpret it) for solving the question of whether this person
has any validity is now on the web, and I welcome all to look at it, suggest improvements,
tear it apart etc., but let's do it in a gentlemanly/lady-like fashion accepting what
is good and discarding what is bad. Isn't that what we would like done with any
predictions we might make.
As for the use of a pseudonym in making predictions to government officials, etc.
it is very poor practice. Unless we know who it is that we are communicating with
here at NGDC, all correspondence remains unopened and is immediately trashed.
If a person does not have the confidence to discuss things in person (instead
of hiding behind a false identity) then I personally take very little heed to what
they might be saying. In the case of this predictor, he has made his real identity
available to me but has asked for anonymity, a request which I will always respect.