---

From: Stephen Matheson To: All Msg #40, Oct-07-93 02:48PM Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1 Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1 of 1) From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) Message-ID: <2926b3$dvr@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins From article <19931007.142239.259@almaden.ibm.com>, by creichley@vnet.IBM.COM (Charles Reichley): >> In article <19931006.130912.577@almaden.ibm.com>, >> creichley@vnet.IBM.COM (Charles Reichley) writes: >> >In <28urgm$rpf@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu writes: >> [snip] >> >> In article <28tr10$sca@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, >> >> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes: [large deletion] > [I'm deleting the Harper's Quote discussion, because I don't have > anything to add, or any great disagreement with Robert's response > Robert asked if I could fill in the blanks, and I can't -- Steve > suggested elsewhere that there was a tape, When Mims contacted me about posting this article for him, he asked if I thought he should also post the complete transcript of the recorded call, with the uhs and ums included. I hesitated, thinking that it was probably rather long and tedious, and didn't think that there was any real need to do this, as there didn't seem to be any doubt that the quotes from Piel were real. When I hesitated, he quickly decided not to send me the material. I then suggested that he send it to me and that I deposit in the t.a archive instead of posting it (assuming that it was judged important enough to be put in the archive). On the subject of the tape: I'm sure it still exists, and that it is in Mr. Mims's possession. When he sees these discussions, he's likely to respond to the so-called skepticism. [deletia] > I'm adding something new here. Robert has stated later in this article > (and I might have deleted it when I get there) that he thinks SA had > paid for the original 3 articles, had published 1, and merely didn't > publish the other 2. Point number 1 of the post by Forrest Mims, to which we all thought Robert was responding, reads as follows: 1. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN published three, not one, of my columns. Check SA in 1990, or refer to the newspaper accounts in Oct./Nov. 1990. (Do I need to post these again?) [deletia] This should help with the rampant confusion over what occurred regarding the purchase and publication of Mims's columns: From the Washington Post, Nov. 1, 1990, page D1: Last fall, after protracted negotiations, Scientific American undertook to publish three columns Mims had prepared, with no futher obligations, and Mims signed a waiver of his right to sue the magazine. The last of the 3 columns appeared in the Oct. 1990 issue of Scientific American. -- Steve Matheson Program in Neuroscience University of Arizona sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank