Article View: sci.physics
Article #653Re: Super Conducting Supercollider
From: John W. Cobb
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1992 17:57
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1992 17:57
41 lines
2901 bytes
2901 bytes
In article <25134@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|>In article <10067@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes...
|>
|>>A friend here tells me RR crushed Schwitters when he asked him what HEP
|>>had done for us since 1946 and got no answer. Sounds like Schwitters
|>>was as prepared as Dan Quayle on Larry King Live.
|>
|>Sad, but true. RR was full of it, but Schwitters let him walk all over him.
|>I coudn't for the life of me figure out why Schwitters was so poorly
prepared
|>to deal with this guy. I was very disappointed. It seemed like even *I*
|>could have done a better job. And they don't pay me to be the SSC spokesman.
Perhaps they should. You don't insulate yourself so much that you
are unaware of what those with different opinions think. I tell you, the SSC
is in need of a good PR firm. It seems that at every turn they are stepping
in it and not learning. First the NMR testimony fiasco and now apparently
this. But it seems that someone knows how to talk to the 100 people who
matter. Did you keep score? Bumpers got 32 votes this year, down from 37
last year. Who did the SSC-guys convince to change their minds? How did
Ill., CA, and NY vote?
I don't know if you are familiar with Rustum Roy, but from your posts it
sounds like you have not heard of him before. There was a fairly long
exchange in the letters section of Physics Today for the two years
before site selection when he was stating his position that he didn't think
HEP had any (or rather little) utilitarian justification. He came on strong
as onions then. From your description of the ML interview, it sounds like he
still does. Actually there was one funny exchange in Physics Today when a
big HEP name (I want to say Glashow, but I'm not sure now) suggestted that
Rustum Roy was a straw man that someone else was really writing since the
points he was making seemed so extreme and he was so vociferous. He
additionally wrote a name like that just had to be made up. It was kind of
funny when he had to apologize to Roy for that.
Unfortunately I missed that show. Could you tell me what the date was. I think
I'll send off for the transcript.
john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<77122@ut-emx.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!news.dell.com!math.utexas.edu!ut-emx!johncobbReferences:
<5568@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> <MATT.92Jul31102346@physics.berkeley.edu> <25116@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <10067@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <25134@dog.ee.lbl.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!news.dell.com!math.utexas.edu!ut-emx!johncobb From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Super Conducting Supercollider Message-ID: <77122@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 4 Aug 92 17:57:32 GMT References: <5568@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> <MATT.92Jul31102346@physics.berkeley.edu> <25116@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <10067@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <25134@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) Distribution: na Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 41