Tony, I don't see why Canie or anyone else would have a problem with that post. I am capable of getting my stuff published, and have done so in the past. The Palos Verdes work is important, and I'll get it out. There are certain valid reasons why the manuscript was rejected. But, we are also working against the perception by many, including one anonymous reviewer, that the backlimb of an anticline must be wider than the forelimb (backlimb dips the same way as the fault). This is based on specific fault-fold models. But, these are just one possible model, and there are publications with models where tilting forelimbs are wider than backlimbs.

In my opinion, because the wide backlimb model is so established, the accepted faults dip the wrong way (dip oppositely from what I think). Faults inferred based on the widely-accepted model include a SW-dipping inferred "roof thrust" beneath Palos Verded Hills, a S-dipping roof thrust proposed to come to the surface at Sabta Cruz Island (impossible for it to be correct), and a SW-dipping fault inferred beneath the San Joaquin Hills.

I have to tackle the San Joaquin Hills in a report due at USGS by Feb, 28.
The Palos Verdes one was in the rejected manuscript.

Chris