Hi Canie (and Cal),

Thanks, but I don't feel defensive. I think the argument is unproductive. After all, the quake did occure VERY close to Northern California. It's just that, with such a large geographic area as "Northern California" specified in the supposed prediction, and such a small magnitude quake (I don't know what the time frame was), that it seems fudging should be discouraged. Where will it all end!! I understand why it seems so surprising that areas just south of San Jose are in Southern California. It's a perception issue caused by the fact that the major population centers of each region (North and South) are each displaced very far to the south of their respective regions.

Didja know that Reno is further west than Los Angeles?

At any rate, rather than being told where my reasoning has gone wrong, all I'm getting are references to the media, the Florida media at that(!), including what for all I can tell is a postdiction, and Jim Berkland. Oh, and the specious argument that, since the quake occurred in Santa Clara County, and that most of Santa Clara County is in Norhern California, then the quake occurred in Northern California. Sacramento is the capital of California, and Sacramento is on the North American Plate, hence Catalina Island, within the State of California, is on the North American Plate.

Oh - and I'm retired, so can't use work as an excuse. But I'm starting a full summer session at college tomorrow, so . . .

Also, just like you, all I've personally given Berkland's prediction is a "quick eyeball analysis", and yours and my skepticism seems reasonable. Others, with the mathematical and statistical skills to make a more reliable determination have concluded that Berkland's predictions are no better than chance.

Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande, CA