John,

You wrote, �gThe lack of a strong earthquake-tide correlation indicates there is some precursory deformation, as suggested by rate-and-state-friction, that is more important than the tectonic loading and tidal stresses in the last few days before failure. This is the reasoning behind our statement�c�h

That is very good reasoning, but it does not make a hypothesis, let alone a theory. I asked, �gWhat observable phenomena does this theory say WILL happen so that the theory can be validated or scrapped?�h The answer seems to be that this �gtheory�h does not predict any particular observable phenomenon at all, and so can neither be validated nor repudiated.

{"seems to serve no other purpose than PR" is a rather insulting way to state what seems like a misunderstanding.}

Certainly, I never intend to be insulting with remarks. In this case, I was referring to the item linked at the top by Don: Public Information Office, University of California-Los Angeles, October 21, 1998. Calling something that is no more than speculation a �gtheory�h makes a good impression on the public. That is PR.

The article further invites misunderstanding:
�gThis theory, developed by Jim Dieterich of the U.S. Geological Survey and others, gives some hope to those who think earthquakes can be predicted�c�h

My comments were fair and accurate.

Ara