Parker, you wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still don't see where I ever stated there was a
> correlation, only that there was possibly a
> correlation

You repeatedly claim this possibility yet, as I have pointed out to you before, you have entirely failed to test your claim. As I have pointed out to you before, it is simple enough to do. I suspect that the only reason that you refuse to perform a test for this possibility is because you know darned well that such a test will demonstrate, as I have repeatedly told you, that the correlation does not exist and you will have to admit that the whole claim is DriveL.

As I have written to you before:
Why do you persist in pretending that thorough scientific studies of the correlation between earthquake frequency and lunar syzygy have not already been done? This was an early idea when seismology was developing and has been done a number of times. I have already informed you of this, so please do not continue to pretend that you were unaware of it.

> Anyway, so are you saying that the gravitational
> effects of the moon and sun have NO effect on
> tectonics?....

No, I did not say that. If, as I now seriously doubt, you care about misrepresentation, you can use the quote facility on this MB to repeat what I actually said. Please stop pretending that I have not already written:

The gravitational affect of the moon puts no differential force on the plates on either side of a boundary.

and, in response to jameske's:
> But to imagine that the gravitational
> influence of the moon could act like a trigger for an
> earthquake is really not mad nonsense.
No, it isn't. But it's not a testable hypothesis, since the period between "trigger" and "consequence" need not be less than half the synodic period; "tensions" in Earth's crust can apparently last for years before they are released! (...) But, what I was examining was not whether or not tidal effects can trigger earthquakes (untestable) but Hancock's parroting of Velikovsky that earthquakes are more frequent at syzygy (testable)

Let us summarise:
1. You claim that a correlation between earthquake frequency and lunar syzygy is possible.
2. "Correlation" is a statistical description of a relationship.
3. All the data necessary to test the correlation is readily available, freely, on the internet.
4. You repeatedly fail to test the correlation.
5. I inform you that statistical studies demonstrate no such correlation.
6. When I ask you for evidence of the correlation you choose to waste my time by pointing me to sources that provide no such evidence (e.g.as referenced here).
7. You state or imply, repeatedly, that I have said things that I have not said, and continue to pretend that I have not written things that I have written on this message board.

Conclusion: You know that the possibility of the correlation does not exist, but you prefer to publicly peddle anti-scientific DriveL than to publicly reject the falsehoods and move on (as science does). Shame on you!


With respect to your inane jibe:
> PS, you're gonna flunk the ashes too.

Actually, I've not been selected (even though I do seem to have a safer pair of hands than Kevin Pietersen), so I'm going to have no part in flunking them if, indeed, they are flunked; my cricket ability never progressed beyond club level and is now, in the middle of my 6th decade, limited to village and social cricket. As for the Ashes, I'm content that it is a competitive series with excellent sportsmanship and mutual respect making for some very exciting games (in every respect such a far cry from soccer).

Oh, and on hearing the news this morning I realised what your soccer comment was a reference to. Who cares? Just further evidence (as if any were needed) that the only positive social function of British soccer is that it keeps the hooligans who play and support it from contaminating decent sports with their presence.

--

Stephen