We thank Thorne Lay and Susan Schwartz for their comment on our Forum article (Eos, 85(18), 4 May 2004, p. 180). They agree with our main point that slip rates of a fault should not be confused with stress conditions or frictional properties, but they criticize our use of the word locked and the interseismic deformation model we used to illustrate a conceptual error. We agree with Lay and Schwartz that the term locked has connotations beyond purely kinematical and that no slip may be more appropriate. The present reply is to further discuss the meaning of the simple deformation model. In that 2-D (no along-strike variation) example, the segment updip of the locked zone of a subduction fault is assumed to be weak (and may have a stable frictional behavior). Our criticism was solely to the assumption that this updip segment could slip steadily at the plate convergence rate for a long time, not on other aspects of the model. We have no general disagreement with the more complex fault model presented in Lay and Schwartz's Figure 1, but we feel that how a real subduction fault behaves is a separate issue (of course an important one!). Our choice of using the simple 2-D model was simply to clarify essential concepts.