Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or what, Glen, but you must be aware that the discussion primarily centered on Callie's claim that an M4.0 near Willits, and a supposed M4.5 near Tahoe (when?) fulfilled, in one case, an exceptionally fuzzy prediction by an _astrologer_ and, in the other, a prediction made by Callie herself - presumably based on animal behavior. Several skeptical members of this board, quite rationally, took issue with that proposition, and used NUMBERS to support their case. As this is a _prediction_ forum, and NUMBERS are the ONLY way to determine significance, we used them. In this case, of course, the argument is not conclusive. But just as one quake can incrementally help a predictor make her case, a single statistic can incrementally do the same for a skeptic.

If you believe that your study of the physical structure of fault systems will lead you to eventually be able to make predictions that, in total, work better than chance, then go head on!!

I, like you, am fascinated by tectonic processes, and spend a great deal more time studying that and other elements of seismology than I do reading or posting about predictions. But prediction is the minor sub-field of seismology that seems to attract so much of the layperson's attention, and it is the subject of this board and the threads you are taking issue with. Like Churchill, I'm gonna leave that preposition right there.

Michael F. Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA