HF, it is hard to argue with arguments like that so I think the criterial *should* be better defined than they are. But, apparantly they aren't for now so that means what the NHC chooses to do in cases like this are 'legal' or correct, albeit inconsistant. I must observe that the NHC is charged by international agreements to provide forecasting services for tropical weather to many other countries. The word 'legal' used above triggers another question: Is the criteria the NHC uses based somewhat on legal considerations as much as or more than weather or statistical considerations? The NHC seems to be more inconsistant when nothing is in immediate danger. Notable exceptions to that do include recent storms killing thousnds in the islands that weren't classified or under-classified storms, but I get the impression over the years that if fish are the only ones affected, the NHC witholds its 'blessing' until the issue is forced. It is frustrating to many of us, but it is not dangerous unless no one is watching and I'll bet even though unclassified, xTD10 was being closely watched by them.XTD10 is now too close to ignore much longer so I think unless it obviously dissipates PDQ, the NHC will be reclassifying it shortly to give the Bahamas or even US interests time to put their acts in gear. Persistancy is one of the criteria often cited for 'watch me', and it would be pretty hard to say that xTD10 hasn't been persistant. The question remains, are legal factors involved?