Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
They are saying something, Craig. The first statement is saying that because of the size of the aftershocks, there's a good possibility of there being another large quake, in his estimation.
The second is saying that the 80's and 90's were quite and that the last two years or so has been active, more so than usual. He thinks it may not be random and they don't know why.
Probably not all that important in the overall scheme of things, but they're not just throw away lines  |
I see what they're saying .. and it sounds logical, but I still question the value of what they're saying. Because of the known nature of the beast, even logical statements add little-to-no value.
If I was living over there, I doubt that I'd be needing someone to tell me that there's a good possibility of there being another large quake, in someone else's estimation. I think I could estimate that as well as anybody (probably to the same degree of accuracy, too) .. but that still doesn't give me anything I can rely on.
In my opinion, the second statement is almost self-redundant.
Cheers