Thanks, John. In your usual diplomatic fashion, I think you might actually be informing me that my skepticism was misplaced. I wondered, and should have considered more thoughtfully, if the actual, picked data he used did not actually exist and support his claim (at least for the period he chose).

If so, then it is only his misapplication of the data, and resulting conclusion, that are wrong.

Interesting that the '60s were so anomalous in terms of high-magnitude quakes. I hadn't realized that.

Mike Williams