So Manchester, UK was "rocked" by a 3.2 temblor this morning, and later was hit by two larger earthquakes which, at this time, don't have Richters attached to them yet.

The funny bit is that everyone seems so surprised that there could be a larger quake after the first. The term 'foreshock' apparently hasn't crossed the pond, and even experts at the British Geological Survey seemed a bit surprised:

Julian Bukits, of the BGS, told BBC News 24 that it was unusual to have further quakes that were stronger than the first.

He said it was usual to have a strong tremor followed by further smaller aftershocks, but sometimes there could be up to three quakes leading up to a "bigger earthquake".

In truth, foreshocks are really common, and in the event of a 4.0 or higher, the USGS will usually put out a warning that there's a 20% chance of a quake larger than the first within the next 48 hours.

Okay, okay, so maybe I'm just being picky. I just get a kick out of how the BBC put "bigger earthquake" in quotes.