Here's an excerpt from Canie's cited reference:

"The standard body-wave magnitude formula is

mb = log10(A/T) + Q(D,h) ,

where A is the amplitude of ground motion (in microns); T is the corresponding period (in seconds); and Q(D,h) is a correction factor that is a function of distance, D (degrees), between epicenter and station and focal depth, h (in kilometers), of the earthquake. The standard surface-wave formula is

MS = log10 (A/T) + 1.66 log10 (D) + 3.30 "

----------------------------------------------
+ Note that "Fault length" is not used in the above estimates.

Getting back to my point:

"+ IOW, the dogma that the length of a known fault determines the max size of a quake on the fault is not correct at all...that a mag. 7+ could occur anywhere on any fault(s) given particular conditions."

Re-phrased as:

To use historical data to infer the future maximum size of an earthquake may be completely and absolutely bogus. In particular, measuring/deriving fault lengths as part of summarizing the past earthquake activity and then using that to make statments regarding the future maximum size of an earthquake may be incorrect. Past history (perceived) may not always be used to accurately predict/infer future events.

If I've never been exposed to bears and I see many little bears in the woods then I may infer that all future bears that I see will be "little"...until I run into mama bear that is.

Statements made by Chris (below) regarding the presence of "blind faults" seem to allow the paradigm to continue it's existence. As this reason may be used to "explain" cases that violate the predictions regarding the max size of the future quake (for a particular area).

Any theory which has convenient lines of reasoning to explain away the contradictions tends to stabilize upon itself...with the consequence of a failure to "find fault with it" and to continue to "patch it up" as the unexplained or vaguely explained anomalies accumulate. For example, look at the earth's dynamo conumdrum...lots of "escape hatches" there too...(but it survives because that's the 'best we've got' so far...despite the anomalies).

I'm posing these thoughts for those inclined to think, IMHO, "outside of the box".

Just my $.02 worth