The pioneering calculation by Aceves et al. [1996> shed light on the main question of this debate, i.e., on whether ''VAN predictions can be ascribed to chance.'' Aceves et al. [1996> conclude that ''the VAN method has resulted in a significantly higher prediction rate than randomly sampling a PDF (probability density function) map generated from a 25 year history of earthquakes.'' After investigating the totality of VAN predictions issued during the period 1987--1989, Aceves et al. [1996> found: ''The prediction rate for the VAN method clearly exceeds that from the random model at all time lags between 5--22 days. At a 5 day time lag, the VAN prediction rate of 35.7% has a P-value of less than 0.06%. This means that a random model does as well as does the VAN method less than 0.06% of the time. At 22 days, the prediction rate of 67.9% has a P-value of less than 0.07%.'' These conclusions basically coincide with those of Hamada [1993> although Aceves et al. [1996> followed different procedures. They are also in fundamental agreement with the results of Honkura and Tanaka [1996>. Another important conclusion of Aceves et al. [1996> is that, after declustering the earthquake catalog and prediction list from aftershocks, ''VAN method is still formally significant.'' ¿ American Geophysical Union 1996