Hello Roger-almost missed your post in this long thread. Yes, that would be good. It would be easier visually to see a correlation (or not) with a graph than what you did before (the FFA maps with quakes before and after)-those maps were good to show if there was a very strong effect (there was not, but it was for only 3 quakes-but I think the largest for that year-was it 2002?). John-those are posts that might be worth looking at-maybe Canie can link back to them if you don't have time to go through the archives-Canie-Roger first posted maps with errors and then posted the corrected ones. Or, did he just email them to me?. Petra-you might get the links to, say, 2-5 of Lowell's most informative posts on FFAs. It would be quicker for you to find them than for me, and I despite all the time John and I spend posting,I (for example) use this time as sort of a break before getting to work (and to communicate with real people from my home office when there is no one around-for me, the fun part of Geology is brainstorming with other Geoscientists (and to me, you don't have to have a degree to be a scientist-you just need to know what you are talking about). Canie-I know you are busy, but FFA maps for all the M>6 quakes for the last 2 weeks or so (not aftershocks) would be interesting. OK, I ramble, and I'm supposed to be working....Chris