You are right - but here's an important detail:
"we call subsequent earthquakes aftershocks as long as the rate at which
earthquakes are occurring in that region is greater than the rate before the mainshock." - Its important to know the starting rate. I think we're just finally starting to call quakes near Landers 'not aftershocks' years after the 1992 quake.

But - lets say I predict a 5.0 to hit the area where the Hector Mine quake was - a few thoughts come up - one: there weren't any quakes prior - they thought the fault inactive and two: Its been about 18 months since the main shock - a 5.0 is getting serious - to predict one now - would it be significant enough a prediction to count? (Good thing hardly anyone lives over there)

But I will be the first one to 'bash' a prediction for a 3.0 over in the Hector area.

And more wondering with regards to Hector - The stress between the pacific and north american plates is still being accumulated - where is it more likely to relieve the stress? In an area that is more likly to move since the area had a rupture recently or in a whole new area? I like to 'step back' and take a wider view of the stresses and whre its likely to break. Wouldn't a weak point be where its already cracked? So wouldn't that area be more prone to movement? I guess that's what we call faults - but we have a unique situation here where the San Andreas, the main dividing line between the plates, has this set of big bends in it that tend to keep it from moving so it seems the earth is trying to find another route.

That is a handy article -

Well - now the cat's have helped me spill water into the keyboard and things are interesting indeed - time for another new keyboard. Good thing I happen to have a new one in stock.

Canie