John,

As you know, most scientists list their papers on their CV's. The list shows their areas of interest and usually the work they are proud of. I'm not sure why he chose not to list them, unless USC/SCEC only affords a given amount of space.

Insofar as his prediction collaborary is concerned, I am curious about how many scientists will wish to test their prediction methods. It may be years before the information surfaces, if ever. I was just trying to find the article which referenced his interest in ULF and I can't put my cursor on it right now.

Overall, I am greatly concerned about the lack of results from the Parkfield Project. That project I'm fairly certain tops the budget for any prediction projects to date. But more disappointing is the work that stems from more than a thousand skilled scientists who researched the project and they too met with no results. I wonder if K.B. etal are our last hope? And what should become of Earthscope? More of the same? I hope not.

The only good news today is that earthquake prediction has come out of the closet. Six years ago I personally had difficulty talking to scientists about it because they were so afraid someone would hear that they were interested or G.d forbid, they were working on it. I don't understand the turn of events that lead us to where we are today, but it is more promising that at least it can be discussed.

Well, I'm curious about meeting Jordan. I hope he is like Rolff Stephansson in his enthusiasm. It's a rare quality.

Petra