From:    Stephen Matheson
To:      All                                    Msg #40, Oct-07-93 02:48PM
Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1

Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group
Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1 of 1)
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Message-ID: <2926b3$dvr@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins

From article <19931007.142239.259@almaden.ibm.com>,
by creichley@vnet.IBM.COM (Charles Reichley):

>> In article <19931006.130912.577@almaden.ibm.com>,
>> creichley@vnet.IBM.COM (Charles Reichley) writes:
>> >In <28urgm$rpf@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu writes:
>> [snip]
>> >> In article <28tr10$sca@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
>> >> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

[large deletion]

> [I'm deleting the Harper's Quote discussion, because I don't have
>  anything to add, or any great disagreement with Robert's response
>  Robert asked if I could fill in the blanks, and I can't -- Steve
>  suggested elsewhere that there was a tape,

When Mims contacted me about posting this article for him, he asked
if I thought he should also post the complete transcript of the
recorded call, with the uhs and ums included.  I hesitated, thinking
that it was probably rather long and tedious, and didn't think that
there was any real need to do this, as there didn't seem to be any
doubt that the quotes from Piel were real.  When I hesitated, he
quickly decided not to send me the material.  I then suggested that
he send it to me and that I deposit in the t.a archive instead of
posting it (assuming that it was judged important enough to be
put in the archive).

On the subject of the tape: I'm sure it still exists, and that it
is in Mr. Mims's possession.  When he sees these discussions, he's
likely to respond to the so-called skepticism.

[deletia]

> I'm adding something new here.  Robert has stated later in this article
> (and I might have deleted it when I get there) that he thinks SA had
> paid for the original 3 articles, had published 1, and merely didn't
> publish the other 2.

Point number 1 of the post by Forrest Mims, to which we all thought Robert
was responding, reads as follows:

  1. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN published three, not one, of my columns.

Check SA in 1990, or refer to the newspaper accounts in Oct./Nov.
1990.  (Do I need to post these again?)

[deletia]

This should help with the rampant confusion over what occurred
regarding the purchase and publication of Mims's columns:

From the Washington Post, Nov. 1, 1990, page D1:

  Last fall, after protracted negotiations, Scientific American
  undertook to publish three columns Mims had prepared, with no
  futher obligations, and Mims signed a waiver of his right to
  sue the magazine.

The last of the 3 columns appeared in the Oct. 1990 issue of
Scientific American.
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu