Hi Glen,

You wrote: "I take your previous comment to mean that a gap in seismicity that is geographical in nature should not be a rational pretext for a prediction scheme.>>

Well, not really. I made a sketchy reference to a continuum of bases for predictions, beginning with what I felt was the least rational (psychic, astrological, earth tones, cloud formations, etc.), and then skipped attempting any sort of middle grouping, and included "seismic gap theory" in the latter-most grouping of what I called "more rational" bases, which also included changes in P- and S-wave speeds, stress changes, and other such items that are not irrational at all.

I'll need to withold comment on the rest of your post until I have time to study it. Thanks for writing.

Michael Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA