(Normal) Tony Smith 10:17 PM 30/9/00 -0400 0 ? LANL strange situation ?
(Normal) Gary S. Bekkum 10:22 PM 30/9/00 -0500 8 Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:04 AM 1/10/00 -0400 4 Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:34 AM 1/10/00 -0400 2 Re: El Naschie and DAMPT
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:54 PM 1/10/00 -0400 18 LANL matter
(Normal) Gary S. Bekkum 1:54 PM 1/10/00 -0500 1 Re: LANL matter
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 9:02 PM 1/10/00 +0200 2 Re: Ginsparg
(Normal) Tony Smith 4:29 PM 1/10/00 -0400 1 Re: Ginsparg
(Normal) Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi) 6:11 PM 2/10/00 +0200 1 About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with cas
(Normal) Alex Granik 10:04 AM 2/10/00 -0700 3 Re: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:06 AM 3/10/00 -0400 4 e-print archive matter
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:18 AM 3/10/00 -0400 2 papers disappear and reappear
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 11:20 AM 3/10/00 +0000 3 Fwd: RE: Review of NUCPHB 7713
(Normal) Tony Smith 11:14 AM 3/10/00 -0400 2 H. Ooguri
(Normal) Tony Smith 11:29 AM 3/10/00 -0400 0 typo error in message about H. Ooguri
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 1:45 PM 3/10/00 -0400 0 Important
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 1:46 PM 3/10/00 -0400 4
(Normal) Alex Granik 11:45 AM 3/10/00 -0700 4 Re: H. Ooguri
(Normal) DavPaulson@aol.com 3:01 PM 3/10/00 -0400 1 Re: Oxmoor offer
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 7:34 PM 4/10/00 -0400 0 Re: message
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 3:32 PM 5/10/00 +0000 5 Re: H. Ooguri
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 5:01 PM 7/10/00 +0000 4 Annals of Physics Cyber-night-mare
(Normal) Alex Granik 2:32 PM 7/10/00 -0700 2 Change of address
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 12:59 PM 8/10/00 +0000 4 Re: Letter and Mohammed
(Normal) Tony Smith 2:40 PM 10/10/00 -0400 5 Mohammed el Naschie matter
(Normal) A.Granik 1:59 PM 10/10/00 -0700 8 Re: Mohammed el Naschie matter
(Normal) Tony Smith 7:49 PM 10/10/00 -0400 1 e-print archive access
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 4:59 PM 11/10/00 +0000 10 Re: Law suit
(Normal) Alex Granik 9:20 PM 11/10/00 -0700 2 Re: e-print archive access
(Normal) Alex Granik 9:26 PM 11/10/00 -0700 2 Re: e-print archive access-addendum
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:28 AM 12/10/00 -0400 5 Re: Re: Law suit
(Normal) Alex Granik 8:43 AM 10/12/00 -0700 9 Re: Law suit
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 6:18 PM 12/10/00 +0000 5 lawyers, Ron Perelman, India.....
(Normal) Alex Granik 11:51 AM 10/15/00 -0700 4 Re: archive access
(Normal) Tony Smith 5:04 PM 10/17/00 -0400 1 Ginsparg, physics, etc.
(Normal) Alex Granik 8:13 PM 18/10/00 -0700 4 Re: Ginsparg, physics, etc.
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:02 AM 19/10/00 -0400 1 letter, etc.
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 5:58 PM 24/10/00 +0200 2 Re: legal costs and temporal costs
(Normal) Alex Granik 9:26 AM 24/10/00 -0700 3 Re: legal costs and temporal costs
(Normal) Tony Smith 2:55 PM 24/10/00 -0400 1 process
(Normal) A.Granik 2:17 PM 24/10/00 -0700 4 Re: process
(Normal) A.Granik 2:24 PM 24/10/00 -0700 3 Re: process
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 3:51 PM 25/10/00 +0000 6 Re: Civil Rights Division
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 12:05 PM 25/10/00 -0400 0 Re: Civil Rights Division
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 4:23 PM 25/10/00 +0000 3 For your Records : H.Ooguri and NUCPHB 7713
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 7:07 PM 25/10/00 +0200 6 Big Misundertanding
(Normal) A.Granik 12:45 PM 25/10/00 -0700 9 Re: Big Misundertanding
(Normal) A.Granik 1:03 PM 25/10/00 -0700 8 Re: Civil Rights Division
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 10:51 PM 25/10/00 +0200 1 Confusion, miscommunication....
(Normal) Tony Smith 8:09 PM 25/10/00 -0400 5 IJTP paper and misunderstanding
(Normal) Alex Granik 5:40 PM 25/10/00 -0700 8 Re: IJTP paper and misunderstanding
(Normal) Tony Smith 10:20 PM 25/10/00 -0400 2 left and right
(Normal) Alex Granik 8:31 PM 25/10/00 -0700 3 Re: left and right
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 3:25 PM 26/10/00 +0200 3 Re: IJTP paper and misunderstanding
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 5:53 PM 26/10/00 +0200 11 Letter to the Justice Dept.
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 9:13 PM 26/10/00 +0200 1 Re: Letter to the Justice Dept.
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 11:13 PM 27/10/00 +0200 12 I just sent a new paper to Los Alamos and .....
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 11:25 PM 27/10/00 +0200 12 new paper
(Normal) Tony Smith 7:50 PM 27/10/00 -0400 2 new paper
(Normal) Alex Granik 10:14 AM 29/10/00 -0800 2 New result on the coupling constant
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 8:35 PM 31/10/00 +0100 7 NPB and the Scandal at Los Alamos
(Normal) A.Granik 1:50 PM 31/10/00 -0800 8 Re: NPB and the Scandal at Los Alamos
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:00 AM 1/11/00 -0500 1 Re: NPB and government agencies
=================================================================================================
From ???@??? Sat Sep 30 22:17:19 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.148] (ip148.innerx.net [38.179.176.148])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 5AE7737411; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102802b5fc4e75057e@[38.179.176.148]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:17:08 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: ? LANL strange situation ?
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: Pej!!E(j!!T3m!!fio!!
Gary, you say:
"... this LANL situation for Castro is VERY strange
... None of the other kooky stuff at LANL gets this treatment. ...".
What is the LANL situation that you mention?
It has been several months since I last talked to Carlos Castro,
so I guess I don't know what is going on as of now.
Tony 30 Sep 2000
From ???@??? Sat Sep 30 23:48:16 2000
Return-Path: <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net [24.131.1.59])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E111537525
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mediaone.net (nic-31-c20-174.mn.mediaone.net [24.31.20.174])
by mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA22834;
Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39D6ADDC.FB84FFFB@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:22:04 -0500
From: "Gary S. Bekkum" <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Organization: SCI vs PSI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,zh,zh-CN,zh-TW
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
References: <l03102802b5fc4e75057e@[38.179.176.148]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: k9U!!F+6e9eH[d9I=Y!!
[Forwarded from Carlos Castro]
Hola Armando, Alfred, Alex, Jorge, Gary, Mohammed , Dimi, Jamie and
Terry :
The assholes in Los Alamos ( Paul Ginsparg in particular ) are
threatening
to ban the whole University
in Atlanta from posting scientific papers at the Los Alamos archives if
they
defend me...
Incredible
Here I send you the latest message
Jorge : please e-mail Carlos Handy at :
handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
and explain to him in FULL detail the story with Mohammed El Naschie.
Not to
be confused
with my other friend Mohammed....
Since they are refusing to provide us with the name of the person who
accused Mohamed El Naschie of being an
impostor, by pretending to be at DAMTP, Cambridge, I think
it was ALL a LIE and PLOY from Los Alamos to find an excuse to BAN me (
Carlos Castro ) and any collaborators
for life from posting papers on the web.
I did not know that the New Relativity was going to be so revolutionary
!!!...
Carlos
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: galois4@home.com
Delivery-Date: Sat Sep 30 19:06:50 2000
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (infnts.ts.infn.it
[140.105.6.150])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17961
for <castro@axpts2.ts.infn.it>; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 19:06:49 +0200
(MET
DST)
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (24.0.95.82) by INFNTS with
TCP/IP
SMTP; Sat, 30 SEP 00 19:07 CET
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id
<20000930170720.JJNL27630.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <castro@ts.infn.it>; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:07:20 -0700
Message-ID: <39D61D93.BBE391B9@home.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:06:27 -0700
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>
References: <200009301637.SAA16909@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alex Granik <galois4@home.com>
Subject: Re: NPB ...NSF.....do NOT forget them
Dear Carlos:
I have predicted a long time ago that one should follow the money and
ego:
and here it is.
1)I have sent to Carlos H. a detailed explanation of the incident with
the
affiliation of Mohammed. Now they are threatening even
Catrlos H. And this makes him mad ( a rather dangerous proposition), or
more
correctly makes him more than willing to
get even. I think that they are treading on thin ice in his case,
because he
is a minority (which Ginsparg does not know),
and all this begins to smack very, very badly. The lab has a very bad
publicity, and Carlos H. will complain this is not
going to add to their improved image. I am sure that serious people
there (
a majority) will find the ways to put Mr.
Ginsparg in his appropriate place. It looks that he becomes too big for
his
breeches.
2) Loosing the privilige to place somebody's work on the archive is an
extremely serious business , and it must not be
made
a)on the basis of an undisclosed denunciation ( we are not living under
the
inquisition,
nor in the Stalinist Russia, nor in the National-Socialist Germany)
and
b) without hearing our side of the story: a two-day ultimatum delivered
to
people who
might not read their mail on a daily basis. Once again it smacks of the
Nazi-Communist tactics to deliver the impossible
to satisfy demands ( let's recall Germany's invasion of Poland and
Stalin's
agression against Finland, both followed a
two-day ultimatums).
In the US we HAVE the right to know the names of our accusers (
Mohammed's
accusers ) Otherwise it is a clear violation of
the US Constituion.
What is going on? Who is the nut? In my opinion, the people who fan the
hysteria are the real nuts. This reminds me of the
old trick: a thief always cries catch a thief.
Shalom
Alex
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" wrote:
> Dear Carlos nad Alex and Jorge :
>
> Please do not let NPB off the hook. Those bastards are the ones WHO
started it ALL . We should not
> let them off the hook nor the " jap " Ooguri and the string theory mafia
who are the ones behind all this.
> Ginsparg is just their pawn.
>
> Contact Zinn Justin and Duplantier in France and let them know what Ooguri
did and WHAT NPB did :
> They, by their own admission,
> looked up at my work in Los Alamos on the New Relativity and found it
outlandish = NUT
> Work which had nothing to do with the paper accepted by the 2 referees of
NPB ( it has been revised ) :
>
> " Conformally Invariant sigma models on AdS spaces, Chern-Simons p-branes
> and W geometry " hep-th/9906176
>
> ( currently, the Journal Math Phys, Newton, the Editor, asked me to make
some changes and revisions )
>
> This is what started it all. so we must not let those assholes of NPB off
the hook.
> We should complain to the Elsevier Bosses.
>
> About the scandal ( behind closed doors ) going on in DAMTP, Cambridge. I
think that actually NOBODY
> complained about Mohammed. But it was instead a clever ploy by Los Alamos
to BAN us off the web.
> This is what I think. So we must find out if DAMTP complained or it is a
LIE from Gisnparg.
> If Cambridge complained we MUST know who the person IS so Mohammed can sue
his ass off for defamation
> Mohammed has the right to know who it was, in case this was really the
case !!!......
>
> We have to TEACH this people a LESSON .
>
> Think about this seriuosly....
>
> I will e-mail Finkelstein.
>
> About being a " nut " this is what we expected long ago. Actually it is a
complement and a Suplement.
>
> Mohammed thinks that the REASON all these assholes are pissed off is
because I was nominated for the Peter Gruber
> Foundation Awards of 150,000 $ due to the New Relativity Theory. Mohammed
thinks that I am competing against some of
> these assholes or their friends in Cambridge or in the USA.
>
> So YES, a NUT was nominated for such a big award. It all boils down to
money. It is so sad....
>
> I was thinking of applying for an NSF grant. In view of all this,
> I think I ought to get Paul Ginsparg and the JAP foundation to finance my
future research on the
> New Relativity by giving big money NOT to the NSF but to the other NSF
agency : the NUT SCIENCE FOUNDATION............
>
> Shalom
>
> Carlos
------- End of Forwarded Message
Tony Smith wrote:
>
> Gary, you say:
> "... this LANL situation for Castro is VERY strange
> ... None of the other kooky stuff at LANL gets this treatment. ...".
>
> What is the LANL situation that you mention?
>
> It has been several months since I last talked to Carlos Castro,
> so I guess I don't know what is going on as of now.
>
> Tony 30 Sep 2000
--
"The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts is that
they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they
have no legitimacy."
Albert Einstein - "The Meaning of Relativity"
"No formal 'talent', 'wunderkind abilities', personal ambitions and
relations, technical power, or material prosperity can replace the power
of creation coming only from the open, free interaction with the Truth."
Andrei Kirilyuk - "Universal Concept of Complexity"
"Through this 'Key' Divine Intention can be connected to our world, and
to other may be worlds. Some of those worlds can be the worlds of our
dreams. "The 'Key to the Universe' is the archetype of evolution that
now we know and can use consciously."
George Ryazanov - "Key to Absolute Flight"
"That's the effect of living backwards," the Queen said kindly: "it
always makes one a little giddy at first...but there's one great
advantage in it, that one's memory works both ways."
Lewis Carroll - "Through the Looking Glass"
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 01:07:48 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.162] (ip162.innerx.net [38.179.176.162])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id EE7C43727E; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b5fc65971129@[38.179.176.148]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:04:40 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: 26pd94!?!!%@p!!1XV!!
Gary,
thanks for forwarding the messages about the LANL controversy
with Carlos Castro. However, after reading those messages I still
am unclear as to exactly what is going on. Here are some
specific questions/comments that I have. I am sending the e-mail
to you, but you may forward it to whomever you want to forward it.
Is the root of the controversy a claim by DAMPT at Cambridge
that a co-author of Carlos Castro,
named Mohammed El Naschie,
is misrepresenting himself as being associated with DAMPT ?
I looked up "Naschie" as an author on xxx.lanl.gov,
and found two listings:
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0008056
On plausible violations of the Riemann conjecture due
to fractal p-branes in Cantorian-Fractal Spacetime
Authors: Carlos Castro, M. S. El Naschie, J. Mahecha
From: Mahecha Gomez Jorge Eduardo <mahecha@ictp.trieste.it>
This paper is said to exist in 4 versions,
but none of them seem to be available.
When you try to get any version, you get a message like:
"The author has provided no source to generate postscript,
and no postscript."
and
"The author has provided no source to generate PDF, and no PDF".
There are comments:
"v3: The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed.
v4: This paper has been withdrawn
This paper has been withdrawn".
Although I could not download any version 3 of the full paper,
there does exist an abstract of version 3 at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0008056v3
which abstract of version 3 states:
"It is explicitly shown using a Mathematica package
that non-trivial complex zeroes of the Riemann zeta function may
exist which {\bf do not} lie in the critical line: $ Re ~ s = 1/2$.
The generation of the location of these plausible zeroes,
that may violate the Riemann conjecture, is based on the study
of fractal strings/branes moving in a Cantorian-Fractal spacetime.
Since this result was very strange we did a search for any possible
bugs in the package. We found that the package yields {\bf spurious}
zeroes {\bf without any warning} when the variables are evaluated u
p to 16 decimal places. However when calculations are performed
up to 40 decimal places there is a {\bf huge} discrepancy.
Therefore it is warranted that true analytical calculations
be performed to verify without any doubts whether these zeroes a
re spurious or not."
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
Why we live in 3 Dimensions
Authors: Carlos Castro, Alex Granik, M.S.El Naschie
From: castro@ctsps.cau.edu
This paper is said to exist in 5 versions, but only the latest (v5)
seems to be available. In pdf format, it is about 400 k in size.
There is a comment:
"The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed."
-------------------------------------------------------------
If there were an incorrect institutional affiliation of
M. S. El Naschie, then it seems to have been removed,
so
why is the problem not solved, and everybody happy ?
What is the EXACT nature of the threat described as
"... Paul Ginsparg ...
threatening to ban the whole University in Atlanta
from posting scientific papers at the Los Alamos archives ..." ?
Since
only one of the papers (hep-th/0004152) was sent from ctsps.cau.edu
(CTSPS at Clark Atlanta University),
and
the other paper (hep-th/0008056) was sent from ictp.trieste.it
does
the threat to ban from posting at the Los Alamos archives
also apply to the ICTP at Trieste ?
If the threat only applies to one instituion, and not the other,
then what is the basis for the distinction ?
Could it be that one is European (Trieste)
and
the other was founded by freed African US slaves (Clark Atlanta) ?
Tony 1 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 01:43:14 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.162] (ip162.innerx.net [38.179.176.162])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 48F2D378C8; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5fc782f6f7a@[38.179.176.162]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:34:02 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: El Naschie and DAMPT
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: p8(e9Jni!!MJU!!)D2!!
With respect to the institutional affiliation of El Naschie,
I found (by google search of the web) a web page at URL
http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
that said, in part:
"... Proceedings of the Conference were published in
Wolfgang Hofkirchner (ed.): The Quest for a Unified Theory of Information.
World Futures General Evolution Studies Vol. 13,
Gordon & Breach 1999, 590 pp.
as well as in World Futures, Volumes 49 (3-4) & 50 (1-4) 1997.
...
Muhammad S. El Naschie
* Dimensional Symmetry Breaking, Information
and the Arrow of Time in Cantorian Space
DAMTP - Cambridge, U.K.
We derive the exact expectation value for the dimensionality
of a Cantorian space-time as well as it's standart deviation.
These are found to lead to max=4 and max=8.
Connections to time symmetry breaking and the generalization
of complex numbers are also discussed.
Keywords: dimension of space-time, Cantorian space-time,
Hausdorff dimension, symmetry breaking, Gravity
...".
Therefore, it seems that Gordon & Breach,
and editor Wolfgang Hofkirchner, had described El Naschie
as being with (in some unstated capacity) at "DAMTP - Cambridge, U.K.".
Further, the web page at URL
http://solvayins.ulb.ac.be/generated/julyconf.html
for a Solvay Brussels Meeting II, 02-06 July 1997,
describes, in its list of speakers:
"El Naschie M. (Cambridge, UK)".
Still further, the web page at URL
http://wmy2000.math.jussieu.fr/cairo/ListOfParticipants.html
for MATHEMATICS AND THE 21st CENTURY, Cairo - Egypt, 15-20 January 2000,
lists as "* =Plenary or Topical lecture speaker":
"*M. S. El-Naschie, Cambridge, UK".
There may be more such listings on the web,
but I will stop with the 3 pages described above.
Therefore:
it seems to me that Carlos Castro, and other coauthors
of the papers hep-th/0004152 and hep-th/0008056,
were not alone in describing El Naschie as having some
connection with DAMPT,
and
that it is unfair to attack them and leave all the others alone,
particularly
since those two papers have been revised
as described in comments to their xxx.lanl.gov postings:
"The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed.",
while
other references to El Naschie as being affiliated with DAMPT are
still up on the web for everybody (including me) to see.
Tony 1 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 13:06:20 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.145] (ip145.innerx.net [38.179.176.145])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id BA2B837908; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5fd1b84eafa@[38.179.176.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:54:57 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: LANL matter
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: Hk,!!!Q2e9Q<F!!-;[!!
Gary, here is a copy of a message that I sent to Carlos Castro,
in reply to a message that I received from him.
Also, since his message says that it sent a copy to
gabekkum@mediaone.net
which I think is an incorrect address, because I tried to use
it in sending you a copy of my reply to Carlos, and it bounced.
I have put a copy of the message from Carlos at the end of
my message.
Here is my message to Carlos:
=======================================================================
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:47:31 -0400
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: LANL e-print archive
Cc: gabekkum@mediaone.net, tsmith@innerx.net
Carlos, thanks very much for your message giving me some more
details about the situation with the LANL e-print archive.
You ask: "... David Finkesltein's journal.
I met a Doctor named Smith in his office who
knew a lot of group theory, is this you, Tony ? ...".
Yes, except that I am a Lawyer rather than a Doctor.
You say "... Now Paul Ginsparg is threatening
to ban Clark Atlanta University from posting papers
to Los Alamos if they DEFEND me !!! ...".
Do you have copies of any messages that Paul Ginsparg sent
making such threats ? The exact language of such messages
may be important.
Also, you say: "... Under the US constitution ... one has the right
to know who the alleged accuser is ? ...".
Regrettably, that is not always true.
Even in criminal cases, secret grand jury testimony may
be used in getting indictments against citizens of the USA.
In a less legalistic framework,
the widespread practice of anonymous refereeing of papers
submitted to journals for publication deprives authors
of papers of the right to know who is taking action against them.
I have done some refereeing myself, and I have made it a
practice to have copies of my (sometimes negative) referee
reports sent to the authors in my own name so that they know who
is disagreeing with them and why.
I think that a stronger legal point is your statement:
"... Censorship ... is illegal in the USA.
It goes against the first ammendment. It is a violation of
the basic rights a human has to express himself/herself.
Los Alamos is a Federal Agency funded with the US taxpayers money. ...".
You also say: "... Paul Ginsparg is accusing me of being a NUT ...".
The exact language of what Paul Ginsparg is saying may be important.
Do you have copies of his statments about you being a "NUT" ?
The term "NUT" is an emotionally charged term,
and use of it indicates that the user
may be more emotionally disturbed by,
rather than intellectually critical of,
the ideas of the person being described as a "NUT".
I will quote from the preface to a book, The Behavior of the Earth,
by Claude Allegre (Harvard University Press 1988), which book
deals with the concept of continental drift,
a theory advocated by Alfred Wegener as early as 1912,
but not accepted by the USA/British geological establishment
until after World War II. Claude Allegre says:
"... The newer an idea, the more shocking it is, and the more it disturbs
those who established their reputation before its emergence,
as well as
those whose intellectual security is upset by it.
Originality is a highly esteemed virtue as long as it is not TOO original.
...
To paraphrase Rene Girard's notion ...
the only tolerable originalities are those that are
differentiably original (in a mathematical sense).
The quantum jump in the evolution of scientific ideas is taboo ...".
I have read many of your papers, and (as you say) have had
conversations with you, and,
although I may not agree with every detail of your physics models
(because they are not exactly like my physics model,
and my personal preference is for mine),
I find that even those ideas of yours with which I do not
totally agree are interesting and thought-provoking.
As you say,
"... One should let the scientific community decide for themselves.
... scientists, and the public, have the right to know
about the latest developments and
the new theories and paradigms in science. ...".
Tony 1 Oct 2000
PS - Paul Ginsparg's apparent emotional problems with your ideas
may be due at least in part to your criticism of string theory.
For instance,
in hep-th/0004152 you and your co-authors say:
"... During 30 years of its development the string theory
demonstrated remarkable achievements in all but one respect:
there is no direct way to verify its theoretical results. ...".
You are saying "the emperor has no clothes",
which is NOT something the string theorists want to hear.
You may be correct when you say "... I am in competition with them
... . As usual, the bottom line boils down to money. ...".
It might be interesting to have a debate between string theorists
and alternative theorists, such as you (and me, for that matter),
with the debate being at a large center such as Stanford or Harvard,
and with attendance open to undergraduate and graduate students
who are early enough in their careers to have minimal vested interest
in existing paradigms,
and letting the students make up their own minds.
I will close by saying that my view of conventional superstring theory
agrees with Feynman's statement in the book Superstrings
by Davies and Brown, , Cambridge 1988, pp. 194-195):
"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. ...
I don't like it that they're not calculating anything. ...
why are the masses of the various particles
such as quarks what they are?
All these numbers ... have no explanations in these string theories -
absolutely none! ... ".
=====================================================================
Here is the message from Carlos:
=====================================================================
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
To: gabekkum@mediaone.net, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Censorship at Los Alamos part 2.
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 16:04:08 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
Dear Tony and Gary :
I am sending you the details of the story.
I was able to post papers from Italy because the ROBOT didn't recognize my
e-mail address .
It recognizes my Atlanta address. Now the robot knows about my Italian
address.
This is why I had to ask someone else to submit the papers from their
account.
The most recent paper with Jorge Mahecha went through the hep-th barrier
becuase it was sent from Mahecha's e-mail address in
Colombia, so the robot would not recognize it.
The first paper with Mahecha and El Naschie was removed because as we
suspected the zeroes were spurious due to
a bug in the Mathematica package and also after several e-mails exchanges
with some mathematicians.
However, prior to its removal, Los Alamos claimed to have received " an
official complaint " that El Naschie was not at
Cambridge. He is the chief Editor of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. For
years, and years, Cambridge, has received copies of
this journal and nobody has accused El Naschie of anything. Elsevier
publishers would have been in deep legal problems had el Naschie
not been affiliated at Cambridge. It takes just 2 seconds to go to the
Elsevier's web page for Chaos, Solitons and Fractals and you will
see El Naschie affiliation with Cambridge.
What did actually happen ? I think, I repeat : this is what I think,
Paul Ginsparg and his buddies wanted to find out El Naschie's e-mail but
could NOT find it.
All e-mail correspondence is handled by the secretaries of the journal. He
is an extremely busy person who wants to maintain his
privacy. So...since Los Alamos could not find his e-mail they immediately
jumped into the wrong conclusion that he was not in
Cambridge and sent us a two-day ultimatum to remove his affiliation from
Cambridge or else ALL of us will be ban for life
from the Los Alamos web. I was travelling in France and Spain at the time
so I never knew anything becuase I did not read
my e-mail on a daily basis, but Alex Granik and Jorge Mahecha at " gun
point " had to
remove El Naschie's affiliation.
We wanted to know who the were the " official accusers " of El Naschie but
our mesages were completely ignored.
Under the US constitution ( and British law ) one has the right to know who
the alleged accuser is ?
You do not give somebody a two-day
ultimatum like Hitler and Stalin did with Poland and Finland ?
A two day ultimatum triggered by an undisclosed denunciation !!! This is
illegal, this are TERROR tactics of
a totalitarian regime, not of a democracy.
Prof. Michael Green at Cambridge wrote a letter to Mohammed El Naschie to
his home address. Where did he get his address ?
>From the secretary of the Department at Cambridge !....
Now Paul Ginsparg is threatening to ban Clark Atlanta University from
posting papers to Los Alamos if they DEFEND me
!!! Who is the nut here ?
Please take a look at the papers of mine ( with Alex Granik ) on the
physics archives.
The last two papers on " the Logarithmic Corrections to the
Black Hole Entropy derived from the New Relativity" that have been
submitted to David Finkesltein's journal.
I met a Doctor named Smith in his office who knew a lot of group theory,
is this you, Tony ?
and after reading those two papers on the derivation of the logarithmic
corrections to the Black Hole Entropy , tell me if I am a NUT.
Paul Ginsparg is accusing me of being a NUT and this is why he is censoring
my work and removing it from the hep-th archives.
When you read the story below about Nuclear Phyiscs B , and all the other
details of the
Los Alamos saga, then you will understand where this suffocating censorship
and boycott
of the New Relativity started. Paul Ginsoparg is just a " pawn " of the
String Theory Mafia. He is acting on external pressure.
I was nominated for the Peter Gruber Foundation Award of 150,000 $ for the
New Relativity. This has pissed off many people because
I am in competition with them or their buddies. As usual, the bottom line
boils down to money.
Plesae Notice that the letter below contains additional material that Gary
never had.
I have edited a few things here and there in the letter below with all the
details.
The letter is NOT an exact copy to the letter sent to Fred Cooper who is
the Director of the Theory
Group at Los Alamos. He is the supervisor of Paul Ginsparg.
Unfortunaly, Fred Cooper is at the moment at Boston College. In any case
here are the details.
Best wishes
Carlos
Dear Dr. Cooper:
My name is Carlos Castro. I am a an associate research scientist at the NSF
Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems in Clark Atlanta University,
Atlanta, GA. , USA. And I am currently visting at the moment the Physics
Dept at
the University of Trieste, in Italy.
Lately I have been subjected ( and my colleague Prof. Alex Granik ) to a
repeated series of
degrading incidents of CENSORSHIP : the systematic removal from the
hep-th-archives ,
and/or the transfer to archives others than the intended hep-th-archives,
of a collection of what I believe to be very important scientific papers
authored by myself,
and others co-authored with prof. Alex Granik. These papers on the New
Relativity Theory are
important because they may signal a New paradigm in Theoretical Physics and
potentially in all
branches of science; i.e one can obtain answers in a straightforwad
fashion to old problems
which took years to prove, for example.
I will just ouutline a PARTIAL list of the most recent preposterous and
malicious chain of
illicit incidents representing a monitored and systematic
CENSORSHIP and BOYCOT of our work ( in particular targeted to myself,
Dr.Castro ) by some members
of the scientific community :
1) On Aug. 24 , 2000 Prof. Granik sent the paper
"P-loop Oscillator on Clifford Manifolds and Black Hole Entropy"
Authors: Carlos Castro and Alex Granik
to be deposited to the quantum-physics archives. It was automatically
removed and subsequently
re-routed to the physics
archives ( physics/0008222) without any justification for re-routing. All
the letters asking for an explanation had been ignored.
2) Prof. Granik tried to cross list the above paper to
either the hep-th/archives ( where it belongs) or to the
quant-ph-archives, but received a
the standard reply : " this paper cannot be cross listed to the hep-th " .
" This paper cannot be cross-listed to the quant-phy "
3) A month later, on 9/25/00 another paper of ours entitled :
"Logarithmic corrections to the black hole entropy from the extended
scale relativity"
which had been successfully accepted by hep-th/archives and
assigned an ID hep-th/0009194 with the respective password was also removed :
When Prof. Granik tried to access the paper the following day it WAS NOT
THERE. Someone
removed it, manually, without even notifying us!
4) We tried to deposit the same paper once again
( on Tue., Se p.. 26), and once again the transfer went smoothly. The
paper has been assigned the ID number hep-th/0009214 and the respective
password. However when prof. Granik tried to access the paper he
encountered the
same problem: the paper was NOT there : it had been REMOVED illicitly once
again without
any notification.
5) Today ( 9/27/00) we tried to deposit our paper
"On quantum aspects of the logarithmic corrections to the black hole
entropy"
to the quant-ph/archives. Instead, it was automatically removed and
transferred to the physics
archives and assigned the following ID:physics/0009088. When prof. Granik
tried to
retrieve the paper he simply could not access the archive site, as if
someone was deliberately blocking his access to the site.
In view of the above-mentioned PARTIAL list of unpleasant ( mildly
speaking) incidents.
I have NOT mentioned the other illicit censorship and harassment actions
prior to this partal list of
degrading events. They are too painful to mention !
I am beginning to form the well founded impression that there are clear
signs of DISCRIMINATION
exercised against myself, a Hispanic scientist, Dr. Carlos Castro in
conjunction to my affiliation with a
predominantly Black University : Clark Atlanta University. The NSF research
center is located in
Clark Atlanta University.
This chain of illicit censorship actions and boycott of my work by some
mebers of the scientific community,
started with a well sounded and rigourous paper of mine ( Dr. Castro ) ,
that was accepted by the 2 referees of
a leading first class journal , Nuclear Physics B (NPB), and was ready for
publication.
However, at the last minute, it was prevented from publication , when the
paper was in " the printer " ,
due to the unprofessional and shameful intervention of a Berkeley Professor
( at the time )
The latter person had shown a " great interest " in my paper becase he had
worked in a similar topic as the accepted paper .
I believe the person involved was Hitoshi Ooguri, at UC Berkeley ( now at
Caltech Pasadena )
because he was the only member of the NPB Editorial Board
who has worked on the same topics as the accepted paper in question.
Prof. H. Ooguri had a " great interest in my work ".... Based on this
shameful behaviour
it all seems that for his own professional gain,
he had a great interest in preventing my paper from being published in a
top rated journal !.....
Paper that had been recommended for publication by the 2 referees.
When Dr. Carlos Handy, Co-Director of the CTSPS Center in Atlanta, legally
complained in a very polite fashion to NPB,
what Nuclear Phyiscs B ( NPB ) did , by their OWN admission ! , was to
look at the recent papers of mine ( Dr. Castro)
on the Los Alamos website and complained that the papers on the New
Relativity were outlandish.
Papers which had NOTHING to do whatsoever with the paper accepted initially
by the 2 referees of NPB !!!!
All this shameful conduct by the Los Alamos archives administrators, and NPB ,
is very dubious and illicit and suggests that there is a definite concerted
effort by some members of the
scientific community ( the string theory community in particular ) to
systematically boycott and CENSOR, at all costs,
any work pertaining to the New Relativity Theory and prevent it from being
made
public to a larger audience of scientists. The readership of the physics
archives is far, far less than the
readership of the hep-th-archives.
This is just the beginning of the " witch hunt " :
Now my work on the New Relativity is being " damped " into the physics
archives.
Then it will be damped to the garbage. Then I will be prevented from
posting anything I write on the Los
Alamos archives or publish in any journal. And afterwards , who knows, I
may probably will be outcast, jailed,
lynched and burnt at the stake...
I wrote an e-mail long ago to the administrators of Los Alamos warning them
that I will be taking this sahameful
incident to the Press and the Media; I will notify members of the US
Senate and Congress;
members of the Black and Hispanic Community; the American Civil Liberties
Union; etc......
and I will divulge these shameful incidents to the whole scientific community.
Therefore, I would like to ask you , as Director of the Theory Divission at
Los Alamos, to find the way to put an end to
these incidents and to resolve them ( in cooperation with the interested
parties, that is
us, the authors) before they will develop into a major problem, or in
another potential scandal for Los Alamos, with
unintended repercussions and all sorts of dire legal ramifications.
Censorship, discrmination, harassment, ..... is illegal in the USA. It goes
against the first ammendment.
It is a violation of the basic rights a human has to
express himself/herself. Los Alamos is a Federal Agency funded with the US
taxpayers money.
The systematic censorship , discrimination ; the " witch hunt " we have
been subjected to in the past months
by the administrators of the Los Alamos archives ; the suffocating boycott
of our scientific work by some mebers of
the scientific establishment is disgraceful, degrading, malicious, cruel....;
It is just unacceptable in a democracy. Especially at the beginning of a
New Millennium.
Using the excuse " this paper is not appropriate for so and so ..." is
preposterous.
One should let the scientific community decide for themselves. The young
scientists, and the public, have the right to
know about the latest developments and the new theories and paradigms in
science.
Sincerely,
Carlos Castro
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
------- End of Forwarded Message
=======================================================================
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 15:04:26 2000
Return-Path: <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net [24.131.1.59])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2827237A87
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:55:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mediaone.net (nic-31-c20-174.mn.mediaone.net [24.31.20.174])
by mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10114;
Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:55:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39D78882.21EBFF0D@mediaone.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:54:58 -0500
From: "Gary S. Bekkum" <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Organization: SCI vs PSI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,zh,zh-CN,zh-TW
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: LANL matter
References: <l03102801b5fd1b84eafa@[38.179.176.145]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: )j*!!=*R!!i4B!!o?Y!!
Thanks Tony.
It will be interesting to see how the "power of the internet" affects
this kind of political nonsense.
Gary
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 15:04:26 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A4C37A84
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01114;
Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:02:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010011902.VAA01114@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: Ginsparg
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:47:31 EDT."
<l03102800b5fd0984b060@[38.179.176.162]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:02:27 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: O4Ee9TP<!!MBE!!a9`d9
Dear Tony :
Thank you very much for your nice e-mail.
I am sorry that I though you were a doctor. Now I recall you being a lawyer
with an encyclopedic knowledge about the History of Physics.
As I suspected , the two papers on the derivation of the Black Hole Entropy and
its logarithmic corrections have now been removed from the physics archives and from the web, period.
A friend of mine just notified this two pieces of bad news to me. I checked if those two papers were on the
physics archives and now they have been removed.
Prof. David Finkelstein will be getting the hardcopies for his journal where we write a JOINT paper combining
the two into one. We wanted these papers in the hep-th archives because we wrote to Bekenstein and Majumdar
telling them about our results which by different methods arrive at the same results that took years to achieve.
Bekenstein and Majumdar did not even have the courtesy to respond. They may or may not have seen the papers in the
physics archives prior to their removal. I do not think they read the physics archives to start with. This is not
a derrogatory statement against the Physics archives, however people tend to read certain sections of the web only.
Yes; I may have been too emotional in my use of the language in some papers. I apologize for that.
I will be sending you the latex file of the paper for David so you can take a look.
Plesae call Dr. Carlos Handy in Atlanta at 404-880-8664
and e-mail to him : handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
and let him know that you know Prof. David Finkelstein and myself personally, etc....and I am sure he will
be able to give you the details of Ginsparg's foul play and threats. Let him know you are lawyer as well with a
deep knowledge of Physics and group theory.
Thank you
Hope to see you again in Atlanta and discuss other things more pleasant than these !
Carlos
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 16:30:01 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.177] (ip177.innerx.net [38.179.176.177])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id AA7B93739F; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5fd3e5d1af2@[38.179.176.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:29:15 -0400
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: Ginsparg
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu,
david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
X-UIDL: //?e9cE"e9kIB!![#;e9
I am sorry that more of your papers seem to be removed
from the LANL e-print archives.
You say that you "... may have been too emotional in ... language
in some papers ...".
I do not think that you are at fault there.
I think that it is proper to use emotional language in physics
papers, so that readers will know how you feel about the subject.
My criticism was not of your language,
but
was of the apparent emotional reaction by Paul Ginsparg,
who was NOT writing in a paper put up on the archive for everyone to read,
but
who appears to have been using emotional language to try to justify his
censorship and suppression of your ideas.
Your suggestion that I contact the other Carlos (Handy) is
a good one. He is a friend of mine, and I will try to go see
him at his office over the next few days.
Tony 1 oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 00:06:58 2000
Return-Path: <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C72537443
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20457;
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:11:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010021611.SAA20457@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: galois4@home.com
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with castro!
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:11:32 +0200
From: Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi) <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: 0TLe9:_7e9HFA!!Sobd9
Dear ALEX , CARLOS and TONY,
I am writing to all you because yesterday 1 October aroud 20:00 Italian time!
I was doing a search for Castro in the Physics archives, and I was surprised
That I didn't find the two papers on the Black hole entropy. I immediatly
called Carlos Castro and I notified him about the removal of the papers in the
archives. We did a new search several times over the FULL archives but the two
papers were not there!
I am really worry what is happening to Carlos, because today the papers are
again on the web! this means that there are PLAYING with him! I think this
situation is becoming exagerate and dangerous not only for him but for all the
scientific community!
If you need my testimony I am willing to send you an official letter.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Quiroz
Department of Theoretical Physics
Trieste University
Strada Costiera 11
Miramare-Grignano
TRIESTE - ITALY
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 00:06:59 2000
Return-Path: <galois4@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B84373E8
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:05:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001002170514.PMWH6495.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:05:14 -0700
Message-ID: <39D8C012.4B699D15@home.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 10:04:18 -0700
From: Alex Granik <galois4@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi)" <quiroz@ts.infn.it>,
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>,
"Tony,the lawyer" <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with castro!
References: <200010021611.SAA20457@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 8_i!!]59!!+0R!!$okd9
Dear Alex:
Thanks for your letter, since I have checked the papers yesterday , and they were
there. This prompted me to write a letter to Carlos telling him that the papers
are there. I did not checked them at the time when you did that, and therefore I
had an impression that nothing has happened.
I agree with you that this situation sets a dangerous precedent for a
professsional destruction of anyone who does not "march in step" with the
accepted orthodoxy. This begs a question: is the age of a new inquisition is
here?
I think that you should immediately notify the leadership of Trieste Center about
this dangerous incidents, thus mobilizing the powerful forces which could
successfully fight these swallows of new "dark ages".
On my side, I am ready and willing to testify ( in writing) and anywhere about
these nasty incidents of an intellectual "massacre"
Best wishes,
Sincerely,
Alex
"Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi)" wrote:
> Dear ALEX , CARLOS and TONY,
>
> I am writing to all you because yesterday 1 October aroud 20:00 Italian time!
> I was doing a search for Castro in the Physics archives, and I was surprised
> That I didn't find the two papers on the Black hole entropy. I immediatly
> called Carlos Castro and I notified him about the removal of the papers in the
> archives. We did a new search several times over the FULL archives but the two
> papers were not there!
>
> I am really worry what is happening to Carlos, because today the papers are
> again on the web! this means that there are PLAYING with him! I think this
> situation is becoming exagerate and dangerous not only for him but for all the
> scientific community!
>
> If you need my testimony I am willing to send you an official letter.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Alex Quiroz
> Department of Theoretical Physics
> Trieste University
> Strada Costiera 11
> Miramare-Grignano
> TRIESTE - ITALY
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 00:07:25 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.157] (ip157.innerx.net [38.179.176.157])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 15B6637084; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:08:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b5fefb6d1db9@[38.179.176.177]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:06:39 -0400
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: e-print archive matter
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: _@Xd9!]5!!gN0e9eN^!!
Today I went to CAU and talked to Carlos Handy and Alfred Msezane,
both of whom are sympathetic to your position in the e-print archive matter.
Carlos Handy said that he would contact some more people who
are involved with the e-print archives to try to find out more
of what is the actual official position of the e-print archives.
For his information, I am sending a copy of this to Carlos Handy.
Even though Paul Ginsparg may have said things like,
as you stated in your e-mail to me:
"... threatening to ban Clark Atlanta University from
posting papers to Los Alamos ..."
and
"... accusing [you, Carlos Castro] of being a NUT ...",
that
does NOT mean that the e-print archive has agreed or will agree
with such things or adopt them as official positions.
As of today (Monday 2 October 2000) I have seen listings
of 30 papers of yours still on the archive hep-th,
going back as far as 1993 (hep-th/9305157),
and
1 paper of yours (physics/0002019) on the general physics archive.
I notice that that paper, dated 9 February 2000, was sent
from your CAU e-mail address castro@ctsps.cau.edu
and
I wonder what were the circumstances that caused it to
be posted on the general physics archive instead of hep-th ?
I see that, of the two papers co-authored with El Naschie,
one (hep-th/0008056) has been withdrawn (as you said,
because of such things as a bug in the Mathematica package used in it),
and
the other (hep-th/0004152) has removed any reference to DAMPT
as an affiliation of El Naschie.
I myself don't know El Naschie's relationship with DAMPT,
except that it seems (for some reason unclear to me) to be
controversial and that it is stated in other places on the web,
so your paper is NOT the only place that refers to El Naschie
as having a DAMPT affiliation.
Unless and until the e-print archive takes further action
(such as removing or moving your papers, or refusing to
accept papers from CAU, etc.),
my suggestion to you for the time being would be to wait
and see what the e-print archive takes to be its official postion.
It may turn out that its official position might be
quite different from the things that Paul Ginsparg may have said.
hep-th/0009014 is the most recent paper that I see on
the listing of papers on the e-print archive with Carlos Castro as author.
Please let me know if and when anything further occurs,
and
if any future paper of yours is rejected by hep-th
when you try to post using your cau address castro@ctsps.cau.edu
please let me know the exact language of that rejection.
Out of curiosity, exactly what is your understanding
of the relationship between El Naschie and DAMPT ?
Tony 2 October 2000
PS - For your information, I have received e-mails from the e-print
archive, during 1999 and 2000 relating to submission that I made,
and here are some quotes from those messages:
"... Ordinarily we require an appropriate institutional affiliation,
so if you are trying to submit from a public access provider,
please use instead (for example) your university account. ..."
"... Ordinarily we prefer that submitters without institutional
affiliation submit to gen-ph@xxx.lanl.gov ...".
There is language on the e-print archive website saying
"... We reserve the right to reject any inappropriate submissions.
This archive should not be used to distribute non-technical information
(such as news or information about political causes of potential special
interest to the academic community).
Submissions of an abstract without an accompanying paper
will be rejected outright. ...".
Other than the above, I don't know of any stated policies of
the e-print archive about who can or cannot put up papers
on which archives, but my knowledge is incomplete and maybe
such things do exist somewhere.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 01:18:45 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.159] (ip159.innerx.net [38.179.176.159])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 54017370D4; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:19:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102801b5ff198399ea@[38.179.176.157]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:18:17 -0400
To: quiroz@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: papers disappear and reappear
Cc: galois4@home.com, castro@ts.infn.it, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu,
tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: G_-!!`!&!!Tk)e93K`!!
Alex, thank you for your message, which said:
============================================================
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
To: galois4@home.com
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with castro!
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:11:32 +0200
From: Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi) <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
Dear ALEX , CARLOS and TONY,
I am writing to all you because yesterday 1 October aroud 20:00 Italian time!
I was doing a search for Castro in the Physics archives, and I was surprised
That I didn't find the two papers on the Black hole entropy. I immediatly
called Carlos Castro and I notified him about the removal of the papers in the
archives. We did a new search several times over the FULL archives but the two
papers were not there!
I am really worry what is happening to Carlos, because today the papers are
again on the web! this means that there are PLAYING with him! I think this
situation is becoming exagerate and dangerous not only for him but for all the
scientific community!
If you need my testimony I am willing to send you an official letter.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Quiroz
Department of Theoretical Physics
Trieste University
Strada Costiera 11
Miramare-Grignano
TRIESTE - ITALY
===========================================================
There is a possible explanation
of those events that may be more positive:
----------------
Paul Ginsparg may have, on his own, removed some papers of
Carlos Castro from the archives on or about 1 October 2000;
Around that time, Carlos Handy may have been in communication
with higher-ranking people at the archives; and
The higher-ranking people may have decided that Paul Ginsparg was
acting improperly, and then have taken action to put the papers
of Carlos Castro back on the archives.
----------------
Maybe at some future time we will know exactly what happened and why.
Tony 3 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 10:12:05 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f120.hotmail.com [209.185.131.183])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF73E371AD
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:20:10 -0700
Received: from 140.105.31.36 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:20:10 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [140.105.31.36]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com
Cc: mahecha@fisica.udea.edu.co
Subject: Fwd: RE: Review of NUCPHB 7713
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:20:10 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F120NQptgFrYILo00009581@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2000 11:20:10.0991 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4AF47F0:01C02D2B]
X-UIDL: RP4!!CEmd9jAh!!/i^d9
Dear Alex, Carlos and Tony and Jorge :
Hereby I am forwarding the positive message from Elsevier publishers in
Holland ( who are the publishers of NPB ) where they were asking me to send
them the flopy disk with the file of the acccepted paper by their 2
referees. Notice thae November date.
As time passed by it is when H. Ooguri interfered and stopped the paper from
being published. NPB never deny that we guessed it was H. Ooguri.
Ooguri was a member of the Editorial Board who had expressed a great
interest in this paper ...This is a total contradiction with the excuse of
NPB not to publish the paper at the end. It was that
Ooguri ( we guess it was he ) complained that the paper was of
"no physical interest" , was " poorly written" and the analyis
was " superficial...."
Why was he greatly interested in this paper if it had no phyiscal interest ?
It is bullshit.
It is clear that he was blocking this paper for what it may have been his
own professional interests.
I will be faxing you a copy of the NPB response to Dr. Handy's complaint
where they ( NPB) admit, by their own words, of having looked into the Los
Alamos web and found my papers on the New Relativity not main stream and
outlandish.
The New Relativity papers had NOTHING to do with the paper accepted by the 2
referees of NPB !
It was since NPB looked into my papers on the New Relativity on Los Alamos
that my problems STARTED. It is very clear to me that they are the ones who
contacted Gisnparg to censor my work on the hep-th archives.
Here is the e-mail of Elsevier Publishers of NPB :
Best wishes
Carlos Castro Perelman
..............................
>From: "Spijker, Pien van (ELS)" <p.spijker@elsevier.nl>
>To: "'Carlos Perelman'" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Review of NUCPHB 7713
>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:01:12 +0100
>
>Dear Professor Castro Perelman,
>
>Please send us the floppy disk with the file.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>Pien van Spijker
>
_____________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 11:26:06 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.176] (ip176.innerx.net [38.179.176.176])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 59AED371A4; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:15:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b5ff9bef9064@[38.179.176.159]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:14:23 -0400
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com, castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: H. Ooguri
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
quiroz@ts.infn.it
X-UIDL: ,W]!!&cDe9OWS!!;W-e9
Carlos, you say that it is clear to you that H. Ooguri "... was blocking
this paper for what it may have been his own professional interests. ...".
I wondered about who was Hirosi Ooguri, so I checked on the web and
found some things, including:
There is a 1995 biography of him at URL
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0215/profile.html
Here are some excerpts:
"... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
in the physics department [at Berkeley]. He arrived ... after four years
as associate professor at Kyoto University's Research Institute
for Mathematical Sciences.
A theoretical physicist,
Ooguri's specialty is quantum gravities and string theories- ...
... Ooguri ... also attracted by the theoretical physics group
at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ...
... Before even finishing his PhD at the University of Tokyo in 1989,
Ooguri was invited to spend a year at Princeton's Institute
for Advanced Studies.
He spent 1989-91 at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute
and 1992-93 at Harvard's Lyman Physics Lab. ...
... In Japan, he says,
faculty are always addressed as professor
and their status is almost priestly. ...".
My impression of Ooguri from material on the web is that:
1 - He is devoted to superstring theory, a theory that
is criticized by Carlos Castro (and by me, and also
by Richard Feynman, who said of superstring theory
"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
and is in the wrong direction. ...)".
2 - He is well-connected with the Berkeley-Harvard-etc superstring
establishment, which includes Paul Ginsparg.
3 - His Japanese cultural background is very authoritarian,
so he expects that anyone disagreeing with "authority",
including his "authority" as Full Professor of Superstring Theory,
should be put down and silenced.
As to Hirosi Ooguri's career since the 1995 biography,
I saw that in September 2000 he submitted,
from address <ooguri@theory.caltech.edu>
the paper hep-th/0009181,
so
it seems that Ooguri may now be at Caltech,
which also has a large contingent of superstring people.
Tony 3 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 11:31:54 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.176] (ip176.innerx.net [38.179.176.176])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 1F28237086; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5ffab3827d6@[38.179.176.176]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:29:50 -0400
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com, castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: typo error in message about H. Ooguri
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
quiroz@ts.infn.it
X-UIDL: 4($!!M6@!!F`a!!9N2!!
Among the typo errors in my previous message about H. Ooguri was the line
"... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
The line should have been
"... Today [1995] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
My apologies for that typo error, and any others that may be there.
Tony 3 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:15 2000
Return-Path: <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Delivered-To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Received: from ctsps.cau.edu (ctsps.cau.edu [205.129.163.2])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2649A371CF
for <tsmith@gmail.innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id NAA66026; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:45:48 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:45:48 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Message-Id: <200010031745.NAA66026@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Subject: Important
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
X-UIDL: ]eM!!UGC!!OC$"!FO`d9
I an sending you a copy of an e-mail note to Geoffrey West, who
is acting as group leader for T-8 in Los Alamos.
Tell me what you think. Don't send it to Castro, since I don't
want to betray the confidential nature of our interactions, yet.
Thanks.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:15 2000
Return-Path: <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Delivered-To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Received: from ctsps.cau.edu (ctsps.cau.edu [205.129.163.2])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF8D37082
for <tsmith@gmail.innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id NAA66028 for tsmith@gmail.innerx.net; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:26 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:26 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Message-Id: <200010031746.NAA66028@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
X-UIDL: b$5!!j"@!!R[Ne9MD(!!
>From handyman Tue Oct 3 13:42:46 2000
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id NAA50390; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:41 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:41 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman>
Message-Id: <200010031742.NAA50390@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: gbw@lanl.gov
Subject: Important
Cc: handyman
Status: R
Hi Geoffrey, sorry that things did not work out w.r.t. NSF proposal.
I have been in contact with Fred Cooper who indicated that you are the boss,
since he is away at Boston College.
There is a controversial (anti-string) scientist who we have supported for
some time as a ``permanent visiting scientist''. He is very colorful,
knowledgeable, and (I believe ) smart. His name is Carlos Castro.
He and his colleagues have been having a hard time with Ginzparg vis a vis
getting their articles on the HEP LANL archives.
Ginzparg said to Fred that Castro is a ``Nut''. In addition, he accused him
of having posted a paper with a false institutional affiliation by one of
his colleagues (M. Al Naschie) who is the chief editor of the Journal of
Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals (published by Elsevier). In any case, this
guy (Naschie) has listed his affiliation, for many years (and at many
public conferences), as DAMTP - Cambridge. Castro had no knowledge of the
legitimacy of this, and he and his colleagues removed the instituational
affiliation from their submited archive paper within the two day deadline
demanded by Ginzparg.
I recognize that Castro is controversial, and many people don't follow his
papers because of all the intricacies of his arguments. However, he has
colleagues, with whom I have talked, who are very sober and conventional.
I believe that much of his work stimulates the mind and is an honest
effort with no obvious technical fallacies. Of course, if a well documented
technical declination of his work is forthcoming, by a group of unbiased
physicists, then there is nothing more to say.
However, it does appear that the people that are giving him a hard time are
those that feel threatened by his anti-string posture. I have indicated to him
that in my opinion, the LANL archives are Federally funded, and he, Castro,
through our institutional affiliation, has the right to publish his articles there.
Ginzparg told Cooper that if my school continues to back Castro up, we will
be black listed from accessing the archives. In addition, he indicated that
I should be embarrased for supporting Castro. In the absence of any cogent,
well documented, rebuttal of his papers, I cannot subscribe to Ginzparg's
perspective. In fact, he has opened himself up for legal charges on many
fronts. By coincidence, one of the guys conversant with what is going on is
both a lawyer and a physicist (Tony Smith). Castro is a U.S. citizen, and
in the absence of any proof of the sort I have indicated, deserves to have
his papers respected in the manner indicated by the archives guidelines.
The situation is becoming nastier. I am appealing, on a personal level, that
in light of all the above, that you or Fred, allow Castro and his colleagues
to publish their works in the archives. I do not appreciate Ginzparg's
presumptuous attitude. Castro is prepared to take this matter to all and
any higher authority, including DoE, and minority members of Congress.
Again, without any hard evidence to the contrary, as outlined above,
I can only support him (Castro) in this.
Sincerely,
Carlos Handy
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:25 2000
Return-Path: <galois4@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAED8370E8
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001003184611.MRQN27630.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:46:11 -0700
Message-ID: <39DA2935.269D8A9A@home.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:45:10 -0700
From: Alex Granik <galois4@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>,
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>,
"handyman@ctsps.cau.edu" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>,
Alex Quiroz <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
Subject: Re: H. Ooguri
References: <l03102800b5ff9bef9064@[38.179.176.159]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: j`=!!#W&!!F)Ce91J]d9
It is rather interesting what Mr.Ooguri would have said about a work submitted
by R.Feynman with the words quoted by you
"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
I think all this super string stuff is crazy
and is in the wrong direction. ...".
I surmise that with all this Japanese reverence for authority he would have
held his mouth shut and only bowed.
SPeaking on scientific merits of the (super) string theory, why would not it
be more natural ( assuming a universal character of statistical laws) to
assume that there is infinity of dimensions which could not be reached by our
observations. The resulting ( measurable) number of dimensions emerges as the
averaged quantity , analogous to another statistical quantities ( say,
temperature, pressure, etc.). I do not see here anything more outlandish than
"compactification" of 26-dimensional string.
We are stuck with the dogma on the level of mediaeval church dogmas. Anyone
who is questioned the wisdom of it, is proclaimed not a heretic, bur an
outcast, promoting "outlandish" ideas, who is immediately excommunicated from
the holy church of string worshippers.
Thanks God that they don't have political power! Otherwise Carlos would be in
an asylum ( or killed, as it happened in this Century Utopian Societies: red
and brown Socialism).
Thank you for a very thorough, careful, and thoughtful approach to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Carlos, you say that it is clear to you that H. Ooguri "... was blocking
> this paper for what it may have been his own professional interests. ...".
>
> I wondered about who was Hirosi Ooguri, so I checked on the web and
> found some things, including:
>
> There is a 1995 biography of him at URL
>
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0215/profile.html
>
> Here are some excerpts:
>
> "... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
> in the physics department [at Berkeley]. He arrived ... after four years
> as associate professor at Kyoto University's Research Institute
> for Mathematical Sciences.
> A theoretical physicist,
> Ooguri's specialty is quantum gravities and string theories- ...
> ... Ooguri ... also attracted by the theoretical physics group
> at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ...
> ... Before even finishing his PhD at the University of Tokyo in 1989,
> Ooguri was invited to spend a year at Princeton's Institute
> for Advanced Studies.
> He spent 1989-91 at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute
> and 1992-93 at Harvard's Lyman Physics Lab. ...
> ... In Japan, he says,
> faculty are always addressed as professor
> and their status is almost priestly. ...".
>
> My impression of Ooguri from material on the web is that:
>
> 1 - He is devoted to superstring theory, a theory that
> is criticized by Carlos Castro (and by me, and also
> by Richard Feynman, who said of superstring theory
> "... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
> I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
> and is in the wrong direction. ...)".
>
> 2 - He is well-connected with the Berkeley-Harvard-etc superstring
> establishment, which includes Paul Ginsparg.
>
> 3 - His Japanese cultural background is very authoritarian,
> so he expects that anyone disagreeing with "authority",
> including his "authority" as Full Professor of Superstring Theory,
> should be put down and silenced.
>
> As to Hirosi Ooguri's career since the 1995 biography,
> I saw that in September 2000 he submitted,
> from address <ooguri@theory.caltech.edu>
> the paper hep-th/0009181,
> so
> it seems that Ooguri may now be at Caltech,
> which also has a large contingent of superstring people.
>
> Tony 3 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:26 2000
Return-Path: <DavPaulson@aol.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43BC371E0
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DavPaulson@aol.com
by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id k.ca.aeb5b68 (16790);
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavPaulson@aol.com
Message-ID: <ca.aeb5b68.270b8703@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:01:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Oxmoor offer
To: tsmith@innerx.net
Cc: CHTedhinds@cs.com, wadhinds@mint.net, RAChase@aol.com,
hinds@transport.com, KSA@dunn-carney.com, windrg@ctel.net,
DJD@dunn-carney.com, BGM@dunn-carney.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
X-UIDL: 3UQ!!_c9e9>]k!!,eLd9
It's a little difficult to ascertain how the earnest money offer will look
once drafted. However, if the offer includes those terms that you proposed,
it would be looked upon favorably. The buyer may not want to tie up $500,000
for six months or close in that same time frame, but any thing is possible.
Here are some general questions that I have. Either you or others may
respond.
1. Does the proposed price come close to perceived fair market value?
2. Should the seller pay only one-half of the real estate commision because
we are unrepresented? Should the sellers have their own agent who is
reponsible to them and gets the 5% compensation for that?
3. Does anyone on the seller's side expect a 5% fee (however it's described)?
Dave Paulson
From ???@??? Wed Oct 04 20:25:27 2000
Return-Path: <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from ctsps.cau.edu (ctsps.cau.edu [205.129.163.2])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECD137012
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:35:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id TAA52376; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:34:34 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:34:34 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Message-Id: <200010042334.TAA52376@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Re: message
X-UIDL: ^>;!!B6@e9Lk7e9YAgd9
Thanks for the reply. At this point, I don't to
jeopardize any friendly resolution to this problem.
Thanks again.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:13 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f293.hotmail.com [209.185.130.232])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2635B3709B
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:32:05 -0700
Received: from 193.2.6.183 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:32:04 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [193.2.6.183]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, galois4@home.com, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
Subject: Re: H. Ooguri
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:32:04 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F293y0GbD5hpIG50000b347@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2000 15:32:05.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A51F810:01C02EE1]
X-UIDL: Y+?!!=Hjd9DnN!!1?0!!
Status: RO
Dear Tony ( and Alex and Carlos ) :
Thank you so much for your research and e-mails. I am in Slovenia for a week
giving some talks on the New Relativity.
I fax Carlos Handy and Alex Granik copies of the e-mail letter sent by NPB
where they said that they had looked up at my work on the New Relativity and
found it outlandish.
>From that moment on is when I began to have problems with Gisnparg.
The paper accepted by the 2 referees of NPB had nothing to do with the new
Relativity papers but with sigma models on Anti De Sitter Spaces; the large
N limit, Chern-Simons p-branes and W geometry.
H. Ooguri was the only Editorial Board member of NPB, at the time, who
had worked on this topic of Large N limit and Anti De Sitter spaces.
It is for this reason that I believed it was he who acted
unprofessionaly in preventing my paper from being published after the 2
referees had accepted it. NPB never denied that we knew it was
Ooguri.
It was very nasty for NPB to do what they did. Firstly , they never answered
the questions that Carlos Handy raised to them. And , in addition, to add
insult to injury, they themselves admitted looking into my work on the New
Relativity and found it outlandish.
Since afterwards the problems with Ginspartg began it does not take to be
Sherlock Holems to deduce that they contacted Ginsparg and
warned him that Castro was posting " nonsense " on the hep-th archives.
This was Ginsparg's motivation to look into my work and to censor and
suppress it from that moment on. Otherwise why would Ginsparg care ? they
are hundreds of papers sent every single day to the web ?
I hope thi helps in explaining why Ginsparg decided to go after me.
Thank you
Best wishes
Carlos Castro Perelman
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
>To: perelmanc@hotmail.com, castro@ts.infn.it
>CC: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
>quiroz@ts.infn.it
>Subject: H. Ooguri
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:14:23 -0400
>
>Carlos, you say that it is clear to you that H. Ooguri "... was blocking
>this paper for what it may have been his own professional interests. ...".
>
>I wondered about who was Hirosi Ooguri, so I checked on the web and
>found some things, including:
>
>There is a 1995 biography of him at URL
>
>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0215/profile.html
>
>Here are some excerpts:
>
>"... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
>in the physics department [at Berkeley]. He arrived ... after four years
>as associate professor at Kyoto University's Research Institute
>for Mathematical Sciences.
>A theoretical physicist,
>Ooguri's specialty is quantum gravities and string theories- ...
>... Ooguri ... also attracted by the theoretical physics group
>at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ...
>... Before even finishing his PhD at the University of Tokyo in 1989,
>Ooguri was invited to spend a year at Princeton's Institute
>for Advanced Studies.
>He spent 1989-91 at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute
>and 1992-93 at Harvard's Lyman Physics Lab. ...
>... In Japan, he says,
>faculty are always addressed as professor
>and their status is almost priestly. ...".
>
>
>My impression of Ooguri from material on the web is that:
>
>1 - He is devoted to superstring theory, a theory that
> is criticized by Carlos Castro (and by me, and also
> by Richard Feynman, who said of superstring theory
> "... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
> I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
> and is in the wrong direction. ...)".
>
>2 - He is well-connected with the Berkeley-Harvard-etc superstring
> establishment, which includes Paul Ginsparg.
>
>3 - His Japanese cultural background is very authoritarian,
> so he expects that anyone disagreeing with "authority",
> including his "authority" as Full Professor of Superstring Theory,
> should be put down and silenced.
>
>
>As to Hirosi Ooguri's career since the 1995 biography,
>I saw that in September 2000 he submitted,
>from address <ooguri@theory.caltech.edu>
>the paper hep-th/0009181,
>so
>it seems that Ooguri may now be at Caltech,
>which also has a large contingent of superstring people.
>
>
>Tony 3 Oct 2000
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:19 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f232.hotmail.com [209.185.131.49])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E9A3732C
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:01:05 -0700
Received: from 193.2.6.52 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:01:05 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [193.2.6.52]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net
Cc: mahecha@fisica.udea.edu.co, quiroz@ts.infn.it
Subject: Annals of Physics Cyber-night-mare
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:01:05 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F232i95HfqR77bi0000c86b@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2000 17:01:05.0837 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E6015D0:01C03080]
X-UIDL: 6nS!!TZ%!!oX,e9I_/!!
Today is the SECOND day I have been bombarded with more than 30 e-mails from
people ALL over the world who cannot understand why Annals of Physics
assigned ALL of them the name " castro " and my
Atlanta e-mail. These people are going crazy. E-mails are being sent over
and over and over again to them...
Could you please contact Annals of Physics and explain to them what mess I
am in because by some " error " hundreds of persons are getting copies of
the sample e-mail I am including below.
Please NOTICE the LAST lines of the e-mail:
" You are currently subscribed as castro@ctsps.cau.edu "...."
to see that " someone " is using my name " castro " and my Atlanta e-mail as
the Universal name and e-mail assigned to ALL of these people ???
Is this related to the Los Alamos problem ?????
Here you have another representative copy of the 20-30 e-mails received
today...how many more will I receive in the next days ?
Again, please FOCUS on the LAST lines of this e-mail sent to another person
whom I do not know. They assign him the name of " castro " and my e-mail in
Atlanta !!!!
Is this an ERROR from Annals of Physics ?????
Notice that this e-mail is sent to Annals of Physics telling them that they
are very confused as to why Annals of Physics will assign them the name of
"castro" and my Atlanta e-mail address ????
Ciao
Carlos
>From: "Joan Dargan" <joan_dargan@harcourt.com>
>Reply-To: "Annals of Physics" <annals@lists.academicpress.com>
>To: "Annals of Physics" <annals@lists.academicpress.com>
>Subject: FREE Access to Abstracts for Annals of Physics
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:57:25
>
>Special 40 Year Anniversary Issue
>ANNALS of PHYSICS
>FREE access to abstracts available
>
>The Annals of Physics, published by Academic Press, was founded forty years
>ago in response to a need for a general journal in which intelligibility
>was emphasized and constraints on length were relaxed. It was hoped that
>the consequent freedom would lead to the publication of papers developing
>important ideas in sufficient detail to make them accessible to the
>informed reader. The special 40th anniversary issue includes examples of
>the quality, importance, and diversity of papers published in the Annals.
>
>FREE access to abstracts available at
>http://www.idealibrary.com/links/toc/aphy/281/1
>
>Interested in submitting to Annals? Author instructions available at
>http://www.academicpress.com/www/journal/ph/phifa.htm
>
>To receive Tables of Contents for all future issues of Annals, with free
>access to abstracts, register for IDEALAlert
> http://www.academicpress.com/ideal-alert
>
>ANNALS of PHYSICS
>Quality and Leadership in Physics Publishing
>http://www.academicpress.com/aop
>
>IDEAL (R) is a registered trademark of Harcourt, Inc.
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to annals as: castro@ctsps.cau.edu
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>leave-annals-164749K@lists.academicpress.com
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:24 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40EF373B3
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 17:34:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001007213407.RYIH6495.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:34:07 -0700
Message-ID: <39DF9680.92A9C488@home.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:32:48 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Pisano <appisano@me.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Al Shaw <alshaw@etch-eshop.innerx.net>,
"Al. Van der Merwe" <avanderm@odin.cair.du.edu>,
Aleksandr Simonic <support@winedt.com>,
Alex Quiroz <quiroz@ts.infn.it>,
"Alfred Shroeder( for Carlos)" <a_schoeller@hotmail.com>,
Alik Markus <markus@CS.bgu.ac.il>,
Anita Riccobono <jricco@attglobal.net>,
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>,
Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>,
"Collett, Alison (ELS)" <AS.Collett@elsevier.co.uk>,
Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@email.com>,
Dodik <Guthrie@Mary.Fordham.EDU>,
George Chapline <Chapline1@LLNL.gov>,
"H. John Caulfield" <hjc@dubois.fisk.edu>,
"handyman@ctsps.cau.edu" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>,
Igor Rafalovich <zmk1@psu.edu>, Jason Harlow <jharlow@uop.edu>,
Jim Hetrick <hetrick@uop.edu>,
John caulfield <jcaulfield@vallnet.com>,
John Johnson <jjohn@redstone.army.mil>,
Jorge Manecha <mahecha@ictp.trieste.it>,
Kirk McDonald <mcdonald@puphed.princeton.edu>,
Lee Tajbaksh <ltaj@euler.ME.Berkeley.edu>,
Mail Administrator <Postmaster@home.com>,
Nathan Zingg <zingvent@gte.net>,
Net Tech Support <support@ix.netcom.com>,
Papool Chadhouri <papool@jps.net>, Paul Heller <heller@greencrd.com>,
Ralph Lewis <ralph.lewis@dartmouth.edu>,
Sheila Slavin <slavin@me.berkeley.edu>,
Stan Berger <SABerger@maya.me.berkeley.edu>,
"Tony,the lawyer" <tsmith@innerx.net>,
Vince Panico <Vpanico@vms1.cc.uop.edu>, Yura G <y_granik@yahoo.com>,
Yura Vizitei <"Yura Vizitei"@home.com>,
Yura Vizitei <Vizitei@aol.com>
Subject: Change of address
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: *p@e9`Qp!!g^!!!U0?!!
My E-mail address has changed to
agranik1@home.com
My E-mail did not work for 2 days.
Alex
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:33 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f196.hotmail.com [209.185.130.106])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4393A482
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:59:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sun, 8 Oct 2000 05:59:28 -0700
Received: from 209.239.68.213 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:59:28 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [209.239.68.213]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: agranik1@home.com, handyman@aol.com, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Re: Letter and Mohammed
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:59:28 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F196r960lsCXcS60000d8e5@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2000 12:59:28.0708 (UTC) FILETIME=[97D38040:01C03127]
X-UIDL: '<"!!M)'e9h+bd99=Y!!
Dear Carlos and Alex and Tony :
Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter that Ginsparg wrote to
Carlos ; the letter that Carlos wrote to G. West, etc....everything to Prof.
Mohhamed el Naschie. His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
ALL information pertaining to this sad incident.
Do not worry, West and Coper are not on trial here . It is US.
Do not FORGET that Mohammed's name is been SMEARED all over the WEB .
His FAX in England is :
011-44-1932-866-245
Phone : 011-44-1932-862-988
Thank you .
About the Annals of Physics. I got today about 40 e-mails with the same
story. Everybody has been assigned my name castro and my Atlanta e-mail.
This is just a cruel bad joke from a computer hacker who may know Ginsparg .
I cannot prove it but WHY will Annals of Phyiscs have MY name
in the first place. I never subscribed to it; never sent a paper to them;
etc....
It seems that I am at the bottom of the list and everybody is going crazy
with a bombardment of e-mails from Annals of Phyiscs assigning them the
subscription.
Best wishes
Carlos
>From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
>To: Al Pisano <appisano@me.berkeley.edu>
>CC: Al Shaw <alshaw@etch-eshop>, "Al. Van der Merwe"
><avanderm@odin.cair.du.edu>, Aleksandr Simonic <support@winedt.com>, Alex
>Quiroz <quiroz@ts.infn.it>, "Alfred Shroeder( for Carlos)"
><a_schoeller@hotmail.com>, Alik Markus <markus@CS.bgu.ac.il>, Anita
>Riccobono <jricco@attglobal.net>, "Carlos Castro (Spallucci)"
><castro@ts.infn.it>, Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>, "Collett,
>Alison (ELS)" <AS.Collett@elsevier.co.uk>, Dimi Chakalov
><dchakalov@email.com>, Dodik <Guthrie@Mary.Fordham.EDU>, George Chapline
><Chapline1@LLNL.gov>, "H. John Caulfield" <hjc@dubois.fisk.edu>,
> "handyman@ctsps.cau.edu" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>, Igor Rafalovich
><zmk1@psu.edu>, Jason Harlow <jharlow@uop.edu>, Jim Hetrick
><hetrick@uop.edu>, John caulfield <jcaulfield@vallnet.com>, John Johnson
><jjohn@redstone.army.mil>, Jorge Manecha <mahecha@ictp.trieste.it>, Kirk
>McDonald <mcdonald@puphed.princeton.edu>, Lee Tajbaksh
><ltaj@euler.ME.Berkeley.edu>, Mail Administrator <Postmaster@home.com>,
> Nathan Zingg <zingvent@gte.net>, Net Tech Support
><support@ix.netcom.com>, Papool Chadhouri <papool@jps.net>, Paul Heller
><heller@greencrd.com>, Ralph Lewis <ralph.lewis@dartmouth.edu>, Sheila
>Slavin <slavin@me.berkeley.edu>, Stan Berger
><SABerger@maya.me.berkeley.edu>, "Tony,the lawyer" <tsmith@innerx.net>,
> Vince Panico <Vpanico@vms1.cc.uop.edu>, Yura G <y_granik@yahoo.com>,
> Yura Vizitei <"Yura Vizitei"@home.com>, Yura Vizitei <Vizitei@aol.com>
>Subject: Change of address
>Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:32:48 -0700
>
>My E-mail address has changed to
>
> agranik1@home.com
>
>My E-mail did not work for 2 days.
>
>
> Alex
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 14:52:37 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.130] (ip130.innerx.net [38.179.176.130])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 55B45370AC; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b608fb92b781@[38.179.176.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:40:29 -0400
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Mohammed el Naschie matter
Cc: agranik1@home.com, handyman@aol.com, tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: 12f!!ZG)e9i!A!!+j9!!
Carlos (Castro), you said in e-mail:
"... Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter
that Ginsparg wrote to Carlos [Handy];
the letter that Carlos[Handy] wrote to G. West,
etc....
everything to Prof. Mohhamed el Naschie.
His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
ALL information pertaining to this sad incident. ...".
I am not sure that is the best way to proceed.
Although I am a lawyer, I am only actively licensed in
the state of Georgia, USA, so anything I say should be
regarded as personal opinion and/or advice with respect
to my understanding of Georgia law only.
There seem to be at least two people who may have been damaged here:
----------------------------------------------
1 -
---
Carlos Castro,
who was for a time restricted in his access to the Los Alamos archives,
and who may have been called a "nut" by Ginsparg in some
communication, and who has been inconvenienced by the Annals of Physics
matter.
I hope the Los Alamos archive access mattterhas been resolved,
so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.
As to being called a "nut" by Ginsparg, I am not sure that
has been pubilcized very widely, and, even if it has,
maybe Ginsparg is entitled to his opinion that I am a "nut",
that Carlos (either one or both) is/are a "nut",
or anybody else is a "nut", so I am not sure that litigation
about that would be a good idea.
As to the Annals of Physics matter, if it has caused inconvenience
and if it can be proven to be a deliberate act intended to cause
damage, maybe it could be the basis of litigation,
but I don't have any facts about who caused it,
and I don't think that Carlos Handy has any such facts, either,
so the search for facts about that should be directed somewhere else.
----------------------------------------------
2 -
---
Mohammed el Naschie,
whose institutional affiliation with DAMPT was removed from
at the paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
If he is (and has been at all material times) affiliated with DAMPT,
then I think that he has been damaged by that removal,
because when I read those papers without a DAMPT affiliation,
and compare with earlier papers on the web such as at URL
http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
which do list a DAMPT affiliation,
I think that he is no longer affiliated with DAMPT,
and (since DAMPT is a prominent institution with a good reputation)
I may not take his paper as seriously as I might if I thought
he were still affiliated with DAMPT.
Therefore, I do think that litigation might be in order with
respect to the removal of the DAMPT affiliation of Mohammed el Naschie
on the paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
particularly since that abstract page explicitly statee:
"... The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed ...".
If litigation is to be pursued,
it seems to me that relevant material evidence would include
any and all communications (e-mail or otherwiee) relative to
the process by which the affiliation was orded to be removed,
which may have been an order issued by some person or persons
connected with the Los Alamos e-print archives.
Such communications may involve individuals such as Ginsparg, Cooper,
and maybe others who are in some way part of the Los Alamos e-print archives.
It seems to me that the best evidence would be the communications
among such individuals at the Los Alamos e-print archives,
and that
the most direct way to get that best evidence would be by request
(or by legal discovery procedure if request does not work)
directed to
the Los Alamos e-print archive itself
and to
the individuals that are part of the Los Alamos e-print archive.
It also seems to me that any copies of communications that
Carlos Handy or anybody else
(who is not a part of the Los Alamose e-print archive
beyond his role as a contributor from time to time)
may or may not have would not be the best evidence,
and
might only be useful in the event that the Los Alamos e-print archive
and/or its individuals are not accurately responsive to requests
or legal discovery proceedings that seek copies of such communications.
Further,
third parties such as Carlos Handy may feel that as a matter of
courtesy they should not be the ones to disclose copies of
communications from others, if the others themselves can provide
the copies directly.
Therefore,
it is my opinion that requests and legal discovery should first be
directed to the Los Alamos e-print archives and its individuals,
and
only if that does not produce satisfactory results
then
requests and/or legal discovery procedures
should be directed to third parties such as Carlos Handy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I primarily communicate by e-mail,
and not by fax or by telephone (I do not even have a fax machine),
and since the only addresses you gave for Mohammed el Naschie
are fax and phone,
I am asking that you, Carlos (Castro), please send a copy of
this (however you want to do it, maybe by printing it out and faxing it)
to Mohammed el Naschie and/or his lawyers.
If you will send me e-mail addresses for them,
I will be happy to communicate with them directly by e-mail.
Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 19:31:13 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from uop.edu (MailServ.bannet.uop.edu [138.9.5.3])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DC20374DE
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:54:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com
([138.9.48.51])
by mailserv.cc.uop.edu; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:56:38 -0700
Message-ID: <39E3834C.6B6D5CF2@home.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:59:56 -0700
From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>,
Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mohammed el Naschie matter
References: <l03102800b608fb92b781@[38.179.176.146]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: D2/!!_jD!!RdUd9(n"e9
Hi, Tony,
1) I am not a lawyer at all, but it seems to me ( from a logical point of view)
that your proposal is the best way to proceed.
Actually, whoever is going to initiate the litigation procedure would require an
internal correspondence ( memos, E-mail, etc.) of the archives pertinent to the
above incident. This will make clear who really was instrumental in giving an
"order" to proceed with the ultimatum to remove Prof. M.El Naschie affiliation.
2) You write
"I hope the Los Alamos archive access matter has been resolved,
so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it."
I am not so sure about that since our ( Carlos's and mine) last experience with
our latest paper indicated that we have been effectively banished from both
hep-th
and
quant-ph
archives. This is despite of the fact that we complied with their ultimatum to
remove prof. M.El Naschie affiliation.
In fact, I have received this ultimatum ( issued on 8/13/00) only on 8/17/00 nd
therefore was able to surrender to it on the same day, that is on 8/17/00. The
latter, formally, was past due, since the "ultimatum" expiration date was
8/15/00. This could be held against us. But once again, I have a proof that I
have received the notification about the archives demand only on 8/17/00.
Moreover, the E-mail from the archives acknowledged our compliance and did not
pursue the threat to ban us from the respective archive ( hep-th).Therefore it
comes as a complete surprise that in fact we have been banned from the archives (
without further warning).
Sorry to burden you with this details, but since you are under the impression
that this problem has been satisfactorily resolved, I have decided to provide
some additional information.
Best regards,
Alex Granik
Tony Smith wrote:
> Carlos (Castro), you said in e-mail:
>
> "... Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter
> that Ginsparg wrote to Carlos [Handy];
> the letter that Carlos[Handy] wrote to G. West,
> etc....
> everything to Prof. Mohhamed el Naschie.
> His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
> ALL information pertaining to this sad incident. ...".
>
> I am not sure that is the best way to proceed.
>
> Although I am a lawyer, I am only actively licensed in
> the state of Georgia, USA, so anything I say should be
> regarded as personal opinion and/or advice with respect
> to my understanding of Georgia law only.
>
> There seem to be at least two people who may have been damaged here:
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> 1 -
> ---
>
> Carlos Castro,
> who was for a time restricted in his access to the Los Alamos archives,
> and who may have been called a "nut" by Ginsparg in some
> communication, and who has been inconvenienced by the Annals of Physics
> matter.
>
> I hope the Los Alamos archive access mattterhas been resolved,
> so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.
>
> As to being called a "nut" by Ginsparg, I am not sure that
> has been pubilcized very widely, and, even if it has,
> maybe Ginsparg is entitled to his opinion that I am a "nut",
> that Carlos (either one or both) is/are a "nut",
> or anybody else is a "nut", so I am not sure that litigation
> about that would be a good idea.
>
> As to the Annals of Physics matter, if it has caused inconvenience
> and if it can be proven to be a deliberate act intended to cause
> damage, maybe it could be the basis of litigation,
> but I don't have any facts about who caused it,
> and I don't think that Carlos Handy has any such facts, either,
> so the search for facts about that should be directed somewhere else.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> 2 -
> ---
>
> Mohammed el Naschie,
> whose institutional affiliation with DAMPT was removed from
> at the paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
> If he is (and has been at all material times) affiliated with DAMPT,
> then I think that he has been damaged by that removal,
> because when I read those papers without a DAMPT affiliation,
> and compare with earlier papers on the web such as at URL
> http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
> which do list a DAMPT affiliation,
> I think that he is no longer affiliated with DAMPT,
> and (since DAMPT is a prominent institution with a good reputation)
> I may not take his paper as seriously as I might if I thought
> he were still affiliated with DAMPT.
>
> Therefore, I do think that litigation might be in order with
> respect to the removal of the DAMPT affiliation of Mohammed el Naschie
> on the paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
> particularly since that abstract page explicitly statee:
> "... The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed ...".
>
> If litigation is to be pursued,
> it seems to me that relevant material evidence would include
> any and all communications (e-mail or otherwiee) relative to
> the process by which the affiliation was orded to be removed,
> which may have been an order issued by some person or persons
> connected with the Los Alamos e-print archives.
>
> Such communications may involve individuals such as Ginsparg, Cooper,
> and maybe others who are in some way part of the Los Alamos e-print archives.
>
> It seems to me that the best evidence would be the communications
> among such individuals at the Los Alamos e-print archives,
> and that
> the most direct way to get that best evidence would be by request
> (or by legal discovery procedure if request does not work)
> directed to
> the Los Alamos e-print archive itself
> and to
> the individuals that are part of the Los Alamos e-print archive.
>
> It also seems to me that any copies of communications that
> Carlos Handy or anybody else
> (who is not a part of the Los Alamose e-print archive
> beyond his role as a contributor from time to time)
> may or may not have would not be the best evidence,
> and
> might only be useful in the event that the Los Alamos e-print archive
> and/or its individuals are not accurately responsive to requests
> or legal discovery proceedings that seek copies of such communications.
>
> Further,
> third parties such as Carlos Handy may feel that as a matter of
> courtesy they should not be the ones to disclose copies of
> communications from others, if the others themselves can provide
> the copies directly.
>
> Therefore,
> it is my opinion that requests and legal discovery should first be
> directed to the Los Alamos e-print archives and its individuals,
> and
> only if that does not produce satisfactory results
> then
> requests and/or legal discovery procedures
> should be directed to third parties such as Carlos Handy.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since I primarily communicate by e-mail,
> and not by fax or by telephone (I do not even have a fax machine),
> and since the only addresses you gave for Mohammed el Naschie
> are fax and phone,
>
> I am asking that you, Carlos (Castro), please send a copy of
> this (however you want to do it, maybe by printing it out and faxing it)
> to Mohammed el Naschie and/or his lawyers.
>
> If you will send me e-mail addresses for them,
> I will be happy to communicate with them directly by e-mail.
>
> Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 19:51:12 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.146] (ip146.innerx.net [38.179.176.146])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 75B5137329; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102802b609589cf826@[38.179.176.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:17 -0400
To: agranik1@home.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: e-print archive access
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, perelmanc@hotmail.com
X-UIDL: <m;e9l-H!!5GGe931gd9
Alex, when I said
"... "I hope the Los Alamos archive access matter has been resolved,
so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.",
you replied
"... I am not so sure about that ...".
Have you checked (by trying to submit a paper to hep-th or quant-ph)
since the middle of last week, about 4 or 5 October 2000 ?
I suspect that maybe things may not have been straightened out
more than a few days before then,
but that maybe last week would be when they may have been straightened out.
My guess as to the timetable is based on the times at which
papers seemed to disappear from the archive (around 1 October 2000)
and the times when the papers seemed to reappear (a day or so later)
plus adding 2 or 3 days for bureacratic systems like the archives
to reach a state close to equilibrium.
If you still, as of now (10 October 2000), are denied access
to hep-th or quant-ph, then there may still be a problem with
access to the Los Alamos e-print archives,
and maybe litigation will be needed to resolve the issues.
Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Wed Oct 11 22:51:06 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f120.hotmail.com [209.185.131.183])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB92371FF
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:59:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:59:16 -0700
Received: from 195.29.173.226 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:59:16 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [195.29.173.226]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, agranik1@home.com
Cc: a_schoeller@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Law suit
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:59:16 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F120tcUpZ68pIEy00000bdd@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2000 16:59:16.0896 (UTC) FILETIME=[97180200:01C033A4]
X-UIDL: 8$^d9Go,e9^@+!!`'"e9
Dear Tony :
Thank you so much for your advice. I understand that Carlos Handy is in a
bind here because of his friendship with West and Cooper.
Whether or not Mohammed's lawyers decide to file a law suit I am entitled to
a copy of the official letter that Gisnparg wrote to Carlos Handy. I am the
one who is being accused. It is my right to ask Carlos for a copy of this
letter. Irrespective of whether a law suit may take place or not.
It will be almost impossible for me to get any grant money from the NSF, let
alone a permament position from now on. You must not forget that it was NPB
who contacted Paul Ginsparg ( of course, we have no way of proving it ..)
and complained that the New Relativity is outlandish, etc...Ginsparg is just
one piece of this intellectual " massacre " as Alex Granik put it.
Mohamed's journal has recently received pressure to prevent my work from
being published. Who knows how many other journals have been coerced as
well.....
By the way, Mathematical Reviews asked prof. Matej Pavsic to review my
paper that Mohammed published in his journal :
Hints of a New Relativity principle from p-brane QM
and it was very positive. Prof. Pavsic invited me to Slovenia to give talks.
Mathematical Reviews dedicate themselves to review published papers in
journals. I was actually invited to become a reviewer myself. I declined.
Mohhamed's integrity has been tarnished, let alone the scandal in Cambridge,
and the implications for the future of his journal, etc.....
Who is going to support me in the future ?
What journal will publish papers on the New Relativity besides Foundations
of Physics and Mohamed's journal or David Finkelstein's journal ( assuming
he is happy with the submitted paper on Black Hole Entropy )
I don' t wish a law suit because of the potential financial benefits for
myself but because this people need a lesson to be taught. Imagine how many
people have been destroyed and will be destroyed by this inquisitorial
attitude of " pocket Napoleons " like Ginsparg.
Another thing that I want to stress : The New Relativity is NOT anti-string.
On the contrary it is an EXTENSION of it. Unfortunately, Carlos Handy did
not rephrase it in the correct way to his letter to G. West. I want to make
sure things are absolutely clear so no misunderstandings occur among us.
I understand that there is a very deep conflict of interest for Carlos Handy
becuase of his friendship with the bosses at Los Alamos, but this thing is
now beyond his hands.
I appreciate your advice . Let us have the lawyers see the letter from
Gisnparg to Carlos Handy and we can then see how to proceed in a reasonable
and civilized way. But one cannot stand still doing nothing.
Whatever happens, I just want to say that I have contacted a journalist from
the New Yorker and the editor of a leading Colombian newspaper has spoken to
a close friend of mine about publishing this story. The APS has been
notified as well by the Colombian Association of Physics about this
incident.
I don't want you to think that I want to get as much publicity as possible
from this sad incident but one has to stand up to injustice.
The most likely thing that the bosses of Los Alamos will do is to damp this
problem into oblivion. I honestly think they are not interested in justice.
They are interested in avoiding any sort of potential problems for
themselves and for their institutions.
I have two close friends of mine in Helsinki and Austria who wisely have
stated many times :
The system is not interested in justice, but only in due process.
Both of them have suffered horrible injustices from the cruel scientific
establishment and they regret NOT having gone to the press to let the world
know their story.
Thank you
Best wishes
Carlos
>From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
>To: perelmanc@hotmail.com
>CC: agranik1@home.com, handyman@aol.com, tsmith@innerx.net
>Subject: Mohammed el Naschie matter
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:40:29 -0400
>
>Carlos (Castro), you said in e-mail:
>
>"... Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter
>that Ginsparg wrote to Carlos [Handy];
>the letter that Carlos[Handy] wrote to G. West,
>etc....
>everything to Prof. Mohhamed el Naschie.
>His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
>ALL information pertaining to this sad incident. ...".
>
>
>I am not sure that is the best way to proceed.
>
>Although I am a lawyer, I am only actively licensed in
>the state of Georgia, USA, so anything I say should be
>regarded as personal opinion and/or advice with respect
>to my understanding of Georgia law only.
>
>There seem to be at least two people who may have been damaged here:
>
>----------------------------------------------
>1 -
>---
>
>Carlos Castro,
>who was for a time restricted in his access to the Los Alamos archives,
>and who may have been called a "nut" by Ginsparg in some
>communication, and who has been inconvenienced by the Annals of Physics
>matter.
>
>I hope the Los Alamos archive access mattterhas been resolved,
>so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.
>
>As to being called a "nut" by Ginsparg, I am not sure that
>has been pubilcized very widely, and, even if it has,
>maybe Ginsparg is entitled to his opinion that I am a "nut",
>that Carlos (either one or both) is/are a "nut",
>or anybody else is a "nut", so I am not sure that litigation
>about that would be a good idea.
>
>As to the Annals of Physics matter, if it has caused inconvenience
>and if it can be proven to be a deliberate act intended to cause
>damage, maybe it could be the basis of litigation,
>but I don't have any facts about who caused it,
>and I don't think that Carlos Handy has any such facts, either,
>so the search for facts about that should be directed somewhere else.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>2 -
>---
>
>Mohammed el Naschie,
>whose institutional affiliation with DAMPT was removed from
>at the paper at
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
>If he is (and has been at all material times) affiliated with DAMPT,
>then I think that he has been damaged by that removal,
>because when I read those papers without a DAMPT affiliation,
>and compare with earlier papers on the web such as at URL
>http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
>which do list a DAMPT affiliation,
>I think that he is no longer affiliated with DAMPT,
>and (since DAMPT is a prominent institution with a good reputation)
>I may not take his paper as seriously as I might if I thought
>he were still affiliated with DAMPT.
>
>Therefore, I do think that litigation might be in order with
>respect to the removal of the DAMPT affiliation of Mohammed el Naschie
>on the paper at
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
>particularly since that abstract page explicitly statee:
>"... The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed ...".
>
>If litigation is to be pursued,
>it seems to me that relevant material evidence would include
>any and all communications (e-mail or otherwiee) relative to
>the process by which the affiliation was orded to be removed,
>which may have been an order issued by some person or persons
>connected with the Los Alamos e-print archives.
>
>Such communications may involve individuals such as Ginsparg, Cooper,
>and maybe others who are in some way part of the Los Alamos e-print
>archives.
>
>It seems to me that the best evidence would be the communications
>among such individuals at the Los Alamos e-print archives,
>and that
>the most direct way to get that best evidence would be by request
> (or by legal discovery procedure if request does not work)
>directed to
>the Los Alamos e-print archive itself
>and to
>the individuals that are part of the Los Alamos e-print archive.
>
>It also seems to me that any copies of communications that
>Carlos Handy or anybody else
> (who is not a part of the Los Alamose e-print archive
> beyond his role as a contributor from time to time)
>may or may not have would not be the best evidence,
>and
>might only be useful in the event that the Los Alamos e-print archive
>and/or its individuals are not accurately responsive to requests
>or legal discovery proceedings that seek copies of such communications.
>
>Further,
>third parties such as Carlos Handy may feel that as a matter of
>courtesy they should not be the ones to disclose copies of
>communications from others, if the others themselves can provide
>the copies directly.
>
>Therefore,
>it is my opinion that requests and legal discovery should first be
>directed to the Los Alamos e-print archives and its individuals,
>and
>only if that does not produce satisfactory results
>then
>requests and/or legal discovery procedures
>should be directed to third parties such as Carlos Handy.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Since I primarily communicate by e-mail,
>and not by fax or by telephone (I do not even have a fax machine),
>and since the only addresses you gave for Mohammed el Naschie
>are fax and phone,
>
>I am asking that you, Carlos (Castro), please send a copy of
>this (however you want to do it, maybe by printing it out and faxing it)
>to Mohammed el Naschie and/or his lawyers.
>
>If you will send me e-mail addresses for them,
>I will be happy to communicate with them directly by e-mail.
>
>
>Tony 10 October 2000
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Thu Oct 12 10:42:00 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27714370B9
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001012042101.OHTT5267.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:21:01 -0700
Message-ID: <39E53BEF.CAFE61CC@home.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:20:00 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: e-print archive access
References: <l03102802b609589cf826@[38.179.176.146]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: )2\d9o:md93cIe9OCWd9
Tony,
UNfortunately, I did not have anything new to submit to the archives. My doubts
stem from the fact that when I tried to cross-reference our "ill-fated" paper
"shoved" from hep-th to the physics archive , I received the same answer all
the time:
" This paper is inappropriate for cross-referencing"
This experience prompted me to be rather skeptical about their willingness to
place anything under my name in the hep-th( quant-ph) archives.
I did not try lately to cross-reference the above paper, but somehow I know
that this will be rejected.
Thanks for your support.
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Alex, when I said
> "... "I hope the Los Alamos archive access matter has been resolved,
> so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.",
>
> you replied
> "... I am not so sure about that ...".
>
> Have you checked (by trying to submit a paper to hep-th or quant-ph)
> since the middle of last week, about 4 or 5 October 2000 ?
>
> I suspect that maybe things may not have been straightened out
> more than a few days before then,
> but that maybe last week would be when they may have been straightened out.
>
> My guess as to the timetable is based on the times at which
> papers seemed to disappear from the archive (around 1 October 2000)
> and the times when the papers seemed to reappear (a day or so later)
> plus adding 2 or 3 days for bureacratic systems like the archives
> to reach a state close to equilibrium.
>
> If you still, as of now (10 October 2000), are denied access
> to hep-th or quant-ph, then there may still be a problem with
> access to the Los Alamos e-print archives,
> and maybe litigation will be needed to resolve the issues.
>
> Tony 10 October 2000