reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
I was wondering if that had to do with a mapping and area focus issue myself.
Might I suggest, Mr. wujo, that seeing as you obviously are someone in the industry, that you go back and tell them that it drives people nuts. !
And your analysis of conversation flow in your posts does not hide to me your third person perspective of things that removes your own sentiment from
your posts.
For example, why haven't you whipped out some facts and figures that show that in previous circumstances with other big quakes where there turned out
to be foreshocks, that my basis for making this thread based upon the close magnitudes is unreliable and faulty- because in those instances a similar
situation occurred or did not occur. I mean what, don't wanna make me look bad? Ha, I look bad here every day in one form or another, to someone or
the other. I could give two hoots.
The bottom line is that yes, this anomaly occurred, and yes, I caught it, and yes, there was a big quake. And there could be another, based still in
this methodology- cause the numbers are in front of you. But you lend no opinion, as do others who just sit back and say nothing about it.
Boring. Take me on. Let's go man, what are you waiting for. Show me it was a fluke. Cause to be honest, I really feel it was just a lucky guess
myself. If there is nothing to it, then say so in your opinion. But all this beating around the bush and sitting back there as papa geophysicist,
pouncing on conversation analysis is no fun. Tell me what you FEEL. Or don't you feel anything anymore, you're so buried in books?
I thought I was pretty emotionless, but damn, I swear, every single scientist I have come across in my wanderings makes me look pathetic in that
department.
edit on Mon Feb 11th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)
