Hi Don:

Thx for the explanation. You are starting to sound like a walking dictionary on the subject as well...always a good asset.

Hat's off to the CFF idea but perhaps it is more a metric of "what happened after the quake hit" compared to what was the state of the fault prior to it. There appears to be an assumption that it may be a good indicator of future trauma at a particular fault location.

I'm suggesting that this type of metric, though well-intentioned, will virtually always fail to be useful. The problem lies in the fundamental assumptions about the cause of the earthquake in the first place. Again, hat's off to them for trying.... I'll give an expanded explanation of what I'm thinking later (if u care to hear it)....

mark