Posted on 03/18/2005 10:19:20 PM PST by Quix
That should be 1797, not 1897, in the above, sorry.
Damn well said Stratergerist, good call. Having that other thread (in fact both of those that you mentioned) posted here on the pages of FR was nothing short of an embarrassment. I loved that graph they added, it must have taken them all of 3 minutes on Excel to crank out that silliness. But then you and I must be those that Quix labeled in #6 as "snooty freeper naysayers".
--Boot Hill
Goodness! I wouldn't think things were normal if someone wasn't jeering at me!
Time will tell regarding my interpretation of Biblical prophecies as referring to our era being equal to the last of the last days.
I'm quite comfortable staying with that interpretation. The injunction about the watchman who knows and doesn't warn is very strict, indeed. I do not want to be caught on the wrong side of that one. By comparison, jeering is nothing.
I'm used to seeing, thinking, feeling, knowing things ahead of lots of other people. Sometimes I'm wrong. Many times, I'm not.
But, thanks for the exhortation.
I'm aware that the data on Yellowstone is perhaps best described as neutral to confusing in terms of any predictive usefulness about a quake in the near future.
I couldn't find that Times of India article again. But I didn't type the India Daily in my original search way back with the posting of the Daily article. For some reason, I thought it was the Times of India a that had the article. And, I did find it on their site. Don't know why I can't find it now.
Snooty? It depends. Probably sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
ROTFLMAO Quix, that is a classic, a definite keeper, a new tagline even. How do you do that and keep a straight face?
--Boot Hill
So, I gather that you doubt that psychologists make fairly accurate assessments regarding such things as snooty, all the time?
BTW, in this case, a number of other FREEPERS have volunteered affirmations of agreement on the topic of snootiness on the part of many such posters.
It doesn't really take a psychologist to pick up on it.
Usually the only one failing to see it is the snooty person themselves.
And, "vents" emitting OIL! into the sea. Congress neds to outlaw these rouge vents and volcanos AT ONCE! Tee Hee
LOL.
I'm just ROTF laughing at your likening of yourself to a "super sensitive psychologist". Too bad this super sensitivity of yours doesn't extend itself into technical analysis as well.
--Boot Hill
Well, the Apocalyptikooks have turned to something much less easily verifiable in order to promote their "unusual activity" nonsense...
The problem with large earthquake activity is it's ALL recorded, and has been recorded accurately for 100 years; The average yearly is 18 Mag 7+ quakes a year for that 100 years, and in the last five years we've had 15, 16, 13, 15, and 15 Mag 7+ quakes; BELOW average every single year. So far this year we've only had 2 such quakes when we should have had 3 or 4.
Mag 9+ quakes are rare, but we'd gone 40 years without one; in the space of four years in 1960 and 1964 we had the two largest quakes of the century, both over Mag 9.
And regarding surface volcanic activity, we haven't had an eruption of more than 1 cubic kilometer of ash (Cerro Hudson in Chile) since 1991.
So they've turned to underwater volcanic activity since it's so much easier to simply make stuff up about it.
What really shows you the fraudulent nature of apocalpytikooks is when a given form of disaster runs well BELOW average for decades they aren't saying "Wow, so few of these, the End Times must be a long way off!"
We went a LONG time...basically 1970 to 1996...with a WELL below average number of large hurricanes hitting the US...not a peep from the apocalyptikooks. Northern California went most of the 20th century with below normal quake activity after the 1906 quake (it created a "strain shadow" by releasing so much locked strain)...
One problem with this is when things return to "normal" it's perceived as "abnormal."
A final psychological factor is people are really terrified of the idea that you can have horrible natural disasters that don't really mean anything from a human perspective...they just happen, and they're normal. The Sumatran quake wasn't a sign of the End Times or God's punishment; it was a sign that the Indo-Australian plate is continuing Northwards into Asia, nothing more. People unfortunately haved moved in the way of something that was going on for millions of years before humans existed.
When I refer to myself, I usually refer to and
use terms which my supervisors, clients and colleagues have volunteered using in describing me.
Such was the case with "super sensitive psychologist."
You are welcome to laugh. Laughter is good for the soul and the immune system . . . unless . . . it's haughty, judgmental derision.
I love it when you go on record like this.
A final psychological factor is people are really terrified of the idea that you can have horrible natural disasters that don't really mean anything from a human perspective...they just happen, and they're normal.
I find that when these "Apocalyptikooks" begin to get excited, I have to post the following table from time to time. But since they're winging it on emotion rather than logic or reason, I sometimes wonder whether it does any good.
From the USGS
Worldwide Frequency of Occurrence of Earthquakes
| Descriptor | Magnitude | Average Annually |
|---|---|---|
| Great | 8 and higher | 11 |
| Major | 7 - 7.9 | 172 |
| Strong | 6 - 6.9 | 1342 |
| Moderate | 5 - 5.9 | 1,3192 |
| Light | 4 - 4.9 | 13,000(est.) |
| Minor | 3 - 3.9 | 130,000(est.) |
| Very Minor | 2 - 2.9 | 1,300,000(est.) |
| 1Based on observations since 1900. 2Based on observations since 1900. |
||
(Very similar to the number you posted, Strategerist. And like you said, there has been no upsurge in activity. )
--Boot Hill
Thanks.
The more you call us kooks [great following the rules, that],
the sooner you schedule your . . . enlightenment. I'm not sure how or when it will come. I'm 100% certain it will come.
There could be an interesting installment this summer.
Given all the 'fun' this quickly selected test post has resulted in, I should have chosen a UFO article. LOL.
Or maybe a recent article from the BibleCodesDigest.com site.
Imagine the fun.
I never ceased to be amazed at how much people assume that they know.
I saw your question in the last thread and thought it was a good one there too. Do let me know the answer if anyone gets back to you on it. Thanks.
LOL, they wouldn't be patting you on the back with one hand while slipping Thorazine into your latte with the other, would they?
--Boot Hill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.