I apologize for my tone, Dennis. Such criticism as I made was directed more at what the article writer wrote (the part I quoted). And, the source of your article is one that is normally reliable. And, after all, no rebuttal to the article has been forthcoming, so you and the writer could even be correct. But, since you say "it sounded like good science," I would suggest there are a couple of clues that it may not be. The first is the sponsorship of the research. The second is that a great deal of other science has strongly suggested that patterns of seismicity contain near-zero quantities of information on occurrence of large earthquakes.

Michael Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA