John's speculations (which may or may not lead to his theories), may be unobservable (at this point in time), but what a) makes you think they are untestable? and b) leads you to conclude he is not proposing to explain phenomena?

You are obviously very schooled in science and probably earthquake science from what I can glean, but like John and Canie, I do find your comments insulting to him, even though you clearly state that was not your intention.

We don't insult each other on this board. If we disagree with someone, especially someone whose tone has been cordial, we do not personally attack. You implied John was a "pin head dancing with angels." A nice turn of phrase, but that is just one of many insults you have flung at him, insults which, ironically, discredit only yourself.

Using the scientific method you outlined for us above, something most of us, especially those of us with Ph.D.s, have been familiar with since grammar school, you have, by extention, boxed yourself into a corner.

Having just returned from overseas, I was anxious to catch up on the many posts to this board I had missed. At first I was excited to see that another scientist (my speculation, not my theory) was on this board, and might have many intriguing insights into earthquake phenomena to share.

But what I see now is just another bully. We had one here a while ago. He drove many of us to distraction, and some of us who post here frequently were seriously considering abandoning ship and building our own boat somewhere else in cyberspace. Fortunately, Canie asked him to leave before we did, and he complied.

You have come out with your guns cocked and loaded, and the face in the center of your target belongs to John, a well-respected member of this board. IMHO, that is not the best way to ingratiate yourself with strangers.

Respectfully,

Cathryn