Jul 21, 2007

Comment of the Week

This week's comment of the week is actually two comments which offer opposing views on Congressman Udall's vote for reducing funding at SNL and LANL.

--Gussie

_______________________________________________________

Anonymous said...

Udall,

Please remember your vote at election time...it will help you cope and understand why you have to move on and increase your wealth once you are out of office (just like your buddy Bill). You are supposed to help the people you represent, not jump on the Democrat agenda and try to rebuild something that has already been working. You are gone...and to think I voted for you.

================================

Anonymous said...

Just so everybody doesn't think 10:49 AM represents everybody in Udall's district:

Congressman Udall,

Thank you for having the courage to vote for a reduction in funding for Los Alamos National Laboratory. It cannot have been easy to vote for the reduction, given that it will affect people in your voting district. However, most of us recognize that LANL has become redundant, a cold war relic.

If Congress, DOE, and LANL cannot change LANL's mission to something other than nuclear weapons research or plutonium pit production, then the entire place needs to be shut down.

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

The only people that I know of who are in favor of continued funding for LANL are those who work there, and the shopkeepers in town. It seems like almost all of the rest of us want the entire place to be shut down and cleaned up. As more and more news comes out about how LANL has been a bad neighbor all these years, under-reporting plutonium releases and contaminating the ground water with radioactive material and other toxic chemicals, the less we want them to be allowed to continue to do their business "up on the Hill".

Anonymous said...

"However, most of us recognize that LANL has become redundant, a cold war relic."

So, with numerous third world regimes building or close to building their own nukes and the future leadership and direction of Russia suspect, the ability to maintain and improve our own deterrent is not necessary? Is our plan to milk the current stockpile until the end of time with questionable verification methods?
Is the current weapons knowledge maintained by the staff of LANL disposable, never to be recovered?

Certainly we need to streamline lab operations and be more efficient, but I believe our core mission is still a critical one.

Anonymous said...

Poster 12:11 - What makes you think that LANL is critical to accomplishing those missions? There cannot be but a handful of your exalted experienced bomb designers left at LANL. There are two other nuclear weapons labs with expertise in this area: SNL and LLNL (notwithstanding the fact that LLNL wants to design an RRW weapon using tantalum, which would become activated upon detonation).

You typify the attitude of most LANL staff. You are not nearly as important as you would like us to believe.

Anonymous said...

Poster 12:11

Please name a third world regime that is close to building their own nukes, how long it will take them, what it will cost them, and whether it is likely to happen.

Your statement strikes me as the traditional fact free cry of wolf.

As to maintaining current weapons knowledge, you and your colleagues have blocked funding to do this for years (as part of job security - if I am the only one who understands what I do then I have lifetime employment).

It is time to make the knowledge repository complete and well done. The cost will not be that high.

Good luck

Anonymous said...

On the voting comment

In this country, there is one man one vote.

If Santa Fe votes for Udall and Los Alamos, to a person, votes against Udall, then Udall wins in a landslide.

Los Alamos residents could band together and form Political Action Committees to defeat Udall, but since this did not happen when NNSA picked their pockets to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per person during and after the transition, it is unlikely to happen now.

Just some practical politics.

P.S. Politicians are not worried by single voters who are anonymous. Thousands of organized voters with money worry politicians, not single anonymous voters without money.

Anonymous said...

Los Alamos voters should band together! After all, they need to keep the life style they have been accustomed to. For the have's and NOT the have nots! Money is all that ever mattered to you. It's apparent that your mommy didn't teach you morals and values when you were growing up! But you sure know about GREED!

Anonymous said...

Christ, this blog has flown off into simple and repeated hatred for Los Alamas workers.

I do work at LANL and am considering employment elsewhere. The issues facing LANL are relevant to the nation. This is what happens when the federal government and its citizens refuse to evaluate the value of a huge investment (I would estimate a few hundred billion have flowed into LANL over the last 60+ years) before handing it over to a for-profit company. This is a sad statement that somehow the employees are the enemy. We simply follow the rules that YOUR elected officials set up!!!! As far as I am conserned the entire country shares in this shame. It is no better than Iraq or the many other gross abuses of power. Great people and awesome scientists live here. They are willing to ditch their careers to serve the nation. Yeah they get paid pretty well, but not what my colleagues from grad school are making elsewhere.

I nkow this blog is now a tool to influence the politicians and the other policy makers. In fact your are unpaid servants of the otherside of an ugly greed filled political battle. Neither side by the way has your interest at heart.

We are neighbors and should be ashamed of the way we are bickering.

I would love to hear some creative solutions with REAL facts behind the issue that is being addressed.

Anonymous said...

4:17pm must know a different set of people in Los Alamos than I do. The ones that I know are not the selfless doing-it-for-the-good-of-the-country idealists he describes. Rather, they are by and large some of the more self-centered, ego-centric, and dysfunctional people I have met anywhere else I've ever lived.

Anonymous said...

Wake up and smell the plutonium, 4:17. The rest of New Mexico never really liked the people of Los Alamos all that much, mainly because of the well-earned elitist attitudes that Los Alamosans are known for. Now, the residents of Santa Fe and Albuquerque are just beginning to learn how badly lab management has lied to them over the years about plutonium releases. The recent finding of Pu in the Rio Grande for the first time ever has only catalyzed more dislike for the people up on the hill, and for what they do up there.

Anonymous said...

LANL exists because there are bad people out there in the world. Many seem to feel that the world is a peaceful, friendly, Bambi movie and we don't really need Los Alamos at all. I propose a small scale experiment: Let's pick a town , how about Santa Fe, and remove all the police, fire, and emergency medical services that aren't needed in such a wonderful peaceful world and see what happens!

Anonymous said...

Re: 5:29pm

There's that elevated sense of self-importance again. Try to get it through your head: LANL is redundant. LLNL can be the world-saving bomb designing laboratory. We don't need two of them.

And just for the record: LANL is not the world's police force, fire department, nor hospital emergency room. LANL is a place where they used to design nuclear weapons while releasing undisclosed amounts of plutonium and other environmental time bombs.

Those of you LANL employees who think you are continuing to be the saviors of the world just by the fact of your very existence have a very sad awakening coming.

Anonymous said...

I personally believe the intent of this blog is to accelerate the destruction of LANL. I would not be surprised if the site is being run by LASG or other anti-nuke activists, or just someone who has a vendetta with LANL. Their goal is to get the "shut the lab down" idea snowballing. I can't think of one positive, tangible thing that has resulted from this blog. The genius of it all is that they are using LANL employees themselves to destroy the lab. Maybe just a crazy conspiracy theory, maybe not. There is a deep hatred of LANL and everyone who works there that permeates this blog. Most people I know want improvements in management of the lab, not a shutdown, which is what this blog seems to be all about. Is this a blog for LANL employees or against them?

Anonymous said...

7/21/07 6:18 PM - to answer your question, it is a blog for LANL/LANS managers and not for LANL employees/

Anonymous said...

The US delegation to the 6 party talks on disarming North Korea has one technical member. Do you know where he's from? Los Alamos.

Do you know who went to Libya to dismantle their nuclear program? Los Alamos staff.

South Africa developed nuclear weapons. After apartheid collapsed do you know who went to dismantle their nuclear weapon program? Los Alamos staff.

LANL secured the nuclear materials in Kazakstan, LANL trains every single IAEA inspector before they go into the field, and LANL conducts international training for every country in the world on how to control and account for nuclear materials. Right there in Santa Fe.

LANL travels the world collecting and securing hazardous radioactive sources. Over 15,000 so far. Sources that could be used to make RDDs. LANL builds satellite instruments to monitor nuclear proliferation, and when the US Government detects radiation at border crossings who do they call? LANL, LLNL, and Sandia.

LANL does much more than design nuclear weapons.

Pakistan and India have successfully tested nuclear weapons. China and Russia still have theirs.

If you think Los Alamos is a cold war relic, you're an ignorant fool.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the comments that most of the posters on this blog are very anti-LANL, anti-Los Alamos, etc. Frankly, LANL employees are among the very-last group of people where it is considered appropriate to sterotype them and assign negative, biased comments to them as a group.

Try this exercise: replace the references to LANL employees in the various comments with another group (women, Mexican Americans, African Americans, etc.) Try this out, see how it sounds? Repugnant, yes? Then why is it considered acceptable to paint LANL employees with these negative, broad brushes.

Shame on you. I work at LANL, I know many others who do, and we're not anywhere near how some would portray us on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Will all you quit bashing Los Alamos. You are making it more difficult for me to sell my house and return to academia.

Anonymous said...

Those who don't like this blog shouldn't come here. It's as simply as that.

LANL is a slow motion train wreck, though, and I suppose, deep in their hearts, the blog hating critics know this to be true. That's why they keep stopping by. It's fascinating to watch as LANL crashes and burns under the leadership of NNSA and LANS. LANL's mis-management has crossed the tipping point towards a point of no return. Some staff admit this, while others are still hanging on in denial for just a wee bit longer.

Anonymous said...

12;07 pm;

Who is "the rest of us?" All you fading hippies in SF? You mention "under-reporting" of Pu releases. Who do you expect would have done the "reporting", and to whom? Those savants such as you, who in 1952 knew everything about plutonium, or those like you now, who still know nothing, but fear everything?

Anonymous said...

One cannot help but observe a bit more than the usual amount of mouth-foaming in the comments to this post. Someone must have hit a nerve.

I do like this one, though:

LANL is a slow motion train wreck, though, and I suppose, deep in their hearts, the blog hating critics know this to be true. That's why they keep stopping by. It's fascinating to watch as LANL crashes and burns under the leadership of NNSA and LANS. LANL's mis-management has crossed the tipping point towards a point of no return. Some staff admit this, while others are still hanging on in denial for just a wee bit longer.

Anonymous said...

Look people I think all the LANL hating posts are comming from only one person and I am pretty sure it is Chris Mechels.

Chris Mechels is says complete lies about LANL and the people who work at LANL. He is a very sad, bitter and utterly dishonest person. My understanding is that he worked at the lab at one time but was so bad that he was fired or was about to be fired.

Pinky and The Brain said...

All this from two comments about Udall? I think you struck a nerve, Gussie.

Anonymous said...

Udall reminds me of Clinton. Remember how Clinton visited Los Alamos in the 90's, gave the "LANL is vital" speech, then proceeded to freeze salaries the next day?

Anonymous said...

7/22/07 12:56 AM - the point of the blog is to feel free to comment on one's thoughts/opinions. You have done this before to other people. I am curious as to where do you come off trying to assign posts to certain people when you are a coward who hides behind an anonymous?

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

Something sure got the natives all riled up, Pinky. According to the comments seen on this post so far, there are the irrational LANL-haters, the irrational blog-haters, and there is the indispensable LANL that is the world's police force, fire department, and hospital emergency room all rolled up into one glorious package.

Further, we discover that this blog is either run by the Los Alamos Study Group or by Chris Mechels. Who knew? Did you know that? I didn't.

I don't know about you, but I'm kind of curious what other kinds of Loony Tunes we're going to see crawling out of the woodwork here.

--Gussie

Pinky and The Brain said...

I was also surprised to learn the blog was anti-LANL worker, pro LANL/LANS management. It will be interesting to hear what Mechels and the LASG have to say about these allegations.

Anonymous said...

Oh come now, 6:18PM, you can't truly believe this blog is intended to destroy the Lab? I've worked at the Lab 30 years now, and I know too many of the Lab digs on this blog are very much deserved. I've see the elevated sense of self importance up close, and the hostility that breeds inside the institution at those that criticize it. It's a rampant and widespread problem inside the Lab. And just because this blog enables the fee expression of opposing views doesn't mean the red menace has infiltrated our ranks. On the contrary, it's called democracy at work. It can get messy at times, but without it we become no better than North Korea. Unfortunately, with the administration we have inside the beltway these days, we're not all that different anymore from those we label as being part of the so-called axis of evil. We've met the enemy as they say, and the enemy is us.

Eric said...

Are there any people in this stream of comments who are willing to do something positive for the Lab and the community?

If so, I would love to know who they are and would like to talk to them so that something positive can happen.

Thanks,

Anonymous said...

"Is our plan to milk the current stockpile until the end of time with questionable verification methods?"

I thought that was the lab's explicit mission.

Anonymous said...

Eric,

Can't you please just go away? How about if you just hang out on your own blog, with your 17 whole visitors who visit it each day. The way you continue to try to drum up business for yourself here with your pathetic, transparent, self-serving little comments is really quite tiresome.

Anonymous said...

What everyone is missing about Udall is that if he wanted to have Los Alamos shift to other issues and priorities, he should have worked to define them, and then help provide funding. LANL doesn't determine its present and future programs. Congress does, via funding. If congress wants to see LANL move in a different direction, it can fund another direction.

What we have seen is plain and simple budget cutting, with no alternative in sight, and Udall voted for it. Udall doesn't have the talent to develop a consensus to move in a different direction. He doesn't have a talent, period!

Anonymous said...

6:36

Dude, we get it, already. Several others on this and other posts have characterized Udall's "LANL Has To Change It's Mission" speech as just that: a speech. All words, no substance.

Anonymous said...

7/22/07 5:33 PM - Eric is entitled to his opinion as are you. If you want Eric to "just go away" then I request that you do the same, you intolerant piece of two-faced trash who hides behind an anonymous name. Ask of Eric as you would of yourself. So, shut up or post your name when you go after Eric, ok?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Eric is getting the hang of this Anonymous posting thing.

Anonymous said...

7/22/07 8:20 PM Anonymous said...
"Sounds like Eric is getting the hang of this Anonymous posting thing."

8:15 PM here. And 8:20 PM, you are an ass. I am not Eric, just someone who is sick and tired of poeple like yourself who are cowards and insult others behind an anonymous name.

Anonymous said...

"...just someone who is sick and tired of poeple like yourself who are cowards and insult others behind an anonymous name."

He announced, anonymously. It would be funny, if the doofus didn't take himself so seriously.

Dr. Strangelove said...

Damn! We've been missing all the fun here!

Gussie -

You sure did provide some good anti-LANL bait with these two comments. Our first reaction was a sickening feeling in our stomach, making us want to go missing again/some-more... but then yours and Pinky's commentary on the commentary made us feel better.

It amazes us that anyone would call the LANL Blogs anti-LANL... at "worst" (or "best") they are pretty neutral.. aside from the commentary that is.

The commentary is widely polarized and well characterized by Gussie hisself's the irrational LANL-haters, the irrational blog-haters, and there is the indispensable LANL that is the world's police force, fire department, and hospital emergency room all rolled up into one glorious package. assessment.

There are kernels of truth in each of these positions and all of these comments. It is fascinating to read them generously with that in mind... and then read them with one's "bile meter" set on "sensitive"... the same comment can look equally "well intentioned" and "wildly rabid" (in most cases).

Don't hold your breath for more "Gone Nuclear" Postings, we just don't know if we have the energy for it right now... "morbid fascination" can be energizing, but it can also be exhausting...

We'll see.

- Doc

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

Doc,

Welcome back from wherever you've been hiding.

Every now and then it's educational to stick a nice, juicy worm on the hook, and dip it in the ol' fishin' hole just to see what kind of nibbles you get.

If you want to proceed past "educational", and move on to "entertaining", all you have to do is jig the worm up and down a few times.

--Gussie

Anonymous said...

"Frankly, LANL employees are among the very-last group of people where it is considered appropriate to sterotype them and assign negative, biased comments to them as a group." (7/21/07 10:07 PM)


Poster 10:07 PM, please look under: Elevated sense of self importance

Your comment is a good demonstration of this. Woe is us, because no one else can be labeled with stereotypes 'cept us poor, discriminated against folks up on the Hill.

It's comments like this that really make my skin crawl when I hear them coming from the locals. I've frequently seen the "Los Alamos Attitude" by some of our local citizens when they are off the Hill, and it is quite disgusting to witness. Learn some humility and grow some thicker skin, 10:07 PM. And remember, if the shoe fits....

Anonymous said...

Just wondering...

if the computer mouse could detect illegal drug use everytime you click "publish", what would this blog's percentage of positive results be??

Now stare down at your mouse and think for a moment...

It makes you kinda wonder...

Anonymous said...

Now hang on 9:44, just how many times have LANL employees been bashed as a collective? "arrogant scientists", "culture problems" and the infamous "butthead cowboys" slur?

And not one of these statements has been made with the caveat "A small percentage of LANL employees..."

Anonymous said...

Sadly, 6:55am, there is a reason that LANL staff, and in fact Los Alamosans in general have a reputation for being elitist, self-centered, and possessing an elevated sense of self importance.

Anonymous said...

And that reason would be...?

Anonymous said...

Stupid question, 12:39pm. Go to your room. No plutonium for dessert for you tonight.

Eric said...

Just for fun.

Anonymous attacks on me have increased the Lab budget and the number of jobs in LA county how?

Are there any positive approaches at all?

Non illegitimi carborundum.

Anonymous said...

To the 7:36AM poster

Who are you? You just keep making stupid comments over and over. What evidence do you have that Los Alamos scientists are self-centered and elitists? I simply do not see this among the staff, also I know many people all over New Mexico and no one thinks this about the staff at Los Alamos. On the whole when compared to people in academics, the Los Alamos people are very modest. You simply are making s* up because you have some kind of weird agenda against Los Alamos. Perhaps you where fired from the lab?

Anonymous said...

Even though I should be used to it by now after having lived in Los Alamos for as long as I have, I am amazed anew at people like poster 2:03 who profess to not see any of the warts of Los Alamos society. When I first came here, I simply could not believe what a dysfunctional community it was. All of the those traits that previous posters have commented on: elitistism, self-centeredness, egotistism exist in abundance in Los Alamos like no place else I've ever been.

Maybe the ones like 2:03, who have this huge blind spot about Los Alamos and LANL are simply too inexperienced or asocial themselves to recognize these traits in others.

Anonymous said...

Anybody who doubts that there is a "cultural" issue at LANL just needs to go back to DOE HQ and ask around about how they like working with staff from Los Alamos. the phrase "They think their shit doesn't stink," is one of the kinder assessments you will hear.

I'm posting this knowing full well that it will be countered by a bunch of "but DOE is stupid" comments, all of which will really just underscore my point.

Anonymous said...

4:20 and 4:30 Postings: BRAVO!!! How they treat and/or think of employees off the hill is astounding!!!

Anonymous said...

4:35pm poster.

I do not think the people at DOE are stupid. However I do know you are a liar. I happen to know a fair number of DOE admins and they generaly have kind words for Los Alamos.

I would bet that 4:20, 4:35 and 5:12 are all the same person.

Anonymous said...

The DOE admins who are your imaginary friends don't really count.

My DOE friends continually rail against LANL's inability to even turn in the reports that are the metrics that get the DOE folks raises. While they love our science, they are not thrilled about getting yelled at by their managers just to cover up minor crap that LANL can't even bother to do.

Anonymous said...

7:35pm

You are full of it. You do not know a single person at DOE. You do not work at LANL so
STFU and get lost.

Pinky and The Brain said...

7/23/07 7:35 PM
Can you give us an example of the minor stuff LANL can't even bother to do?

Anonymous said...

Interesting comments. Have to wonder if certain posters even understand the meaning of irony? You rail against the comments that Los Alamos staff have been sterotyped by.... stereotyping all Los Alamos staff? Brilliant! Thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous said...

11:36 pm hits the nail on the head: people who point out how LANL folks are perceived outside of Los Alamos and they are called liars and told to shut the fuck up.

There is beautiful irony in that.

Anonymous said...

The LANL "attitude" and the local cult-of-Feynman from which many of the younger folk (ie, 65 yrs old and younger) seek to model their behavior. LANL-folk (and LASL-folk previously) have had role models that glorified semi-arrogant behavior. Discuss.

Anonymous said...

7:35 here. Sure PATB. One prime example is:

The office I deal with most requires quarterly progress reports. There is virtually no substance to these reports. You just have to say that you are making progress and doing excellent work. NNSA (sorry, I earlier generalized to DOE) staff collect these reports into a big folder, which no one ever looks at, very similar to the LDRD annual report CD. Attached to this folder is a page that lists each national lab, and the percentage of reports that were turned in on time each quarter. Every other lab had 100%, LANL had several 0%. I don't recall if LANL had some non-zero% / non-100%.

The program manager had to (and still has to) turn in this collated report every quarter. And he had to answer why his funded people didn't turn in reports.

This is all minor crap. The reports were never read, but they were only one paragraph. Because LANL made the PM's job uncomfortable, he was less inclined to fund LANL.

It was probably sloppiness, and not intentional on the part of LANL, but that is not good enough.

Anonymous said...

The most cogent argument I've seen on this thread is that DOE staff don't like LANL because LANL staff don't turn in the reports that help DOE staff get good raises.

Now are we talking about reports on programmatic work? Or regulatory compliance reports?

For the technical/ programmatic work, I have been in the shoes of the PI's, and also have been the PM interacting with DOE. PI's do not particularly enjoy having to spend their time explaining schedule variances and developing corrective actions for R&D projects. Frankly, it is hard to estimate how long it will take to accomplish something that has never been done before. We - DOE and LANL - have also trained our PI's to ask for more budget than they need, because we always, ALWAYS, reduce their funding at some point during the project. The annual Continuing Resolution cycle, with its procurement holds followed by rushing to submit PR's in advance of the 90-day SUP "aging period", not to mention our abysmal turnaround on any HR action required to staff a project, means that scope and budget variances are almost a given.

I'd estimate about 30% of LANL Program Managers, and 30% of DOE Program Managers, really understand this. The chances of the entire reporting chain being able to grasp this problem are quite small. Earned Value is the Gospel! If it's in the baseline it must be True! Long live BCWP!

Now... on the arrogant LANL scientist front. Yes, there is a contingent, and I can't say how large it is across the Lab but I have certainly encountered pockets, that truly believes in their hearts that they know better than any LANL or DOE program manager. This is the "just give me the money and leave me alone, I'll do good work" crowd. They'll promise to work on a specific problem that's of importance to the program, then when they score the funds they'll turn right around and spend the money on whatever interests them. When challenged, they'll justify their actions in terms of publications generated, postdocs hired, etc. Their line managers usually give them phenomenal raises for this behavior.

If a PM sees through this act and refuses to consider funding them again, the backstabbing is fierce. The PM is called an idiot, doesn't know good research when it hits them in the face, doesn't understand what their own program really needs. We know better! Hah!!

Folks, there is plenty of arrogance and stupidity on both sides of the canyon.

Anonymous said...

My example was reports on programmatic achievements.

But don't underestimate the negative power of making someone's job difficult.

If your choice were equally good science from ORNL and LANL, and ORNL made your job easier and LANL made your job harder, which would you choose?

Anonymous said...

The comments above are interesting, especially the last one, but it is entirely negative, though factual.

Does anyone have any positive plans for a better future? Even a part of a plan would be a help.

Anonymous said...

10:07PM makes reference to "Mexican-Americans" and we all know what that means--Hispanics whose ancestors arrived here in New Mexico in 1598 with Juan de Onate'. Never mind that New Mexico fell under the Spanish flag for over 200 years and under the Mexican flag for a mere 20. And never mind that most Hispanics of northern New Mexico have roots going back before the Pigrims landed at Plymouth Rock. In the minds of so many of the Los Alamos immigrant croud--a brown person is a Mexican...period. Well folks, wake and smell the chili. You're in New Mexico...NOT Mexico. And the indegious folk you so casually label as Mexican-American (don't see anybody labeling the so-called white folk as German-American or Bulgarian-American or Swiss-Amerian, nowdo you?)... anyhow we so-called Mexican-Americans didn't just recently cross the border as so many of you would like to believe. The border crossed us, damn it!

Anonymous said...

7/22 12:56PM is so naive to think only one person in the whole universe has a bone to pick with Los Alamos. How about the 33 Hispanic homesteaders and their descendants who were kicked off the Pajarito Plateau so the world's most affluent community could be built there? What about the thousands of families, downstream from Los Alamos, who now worry about their water supply becoming toxic because of LANL's historic disregard for everyone; including their own community of Los Alamos? What about a world community in constant dread over threat of a nuclear annihilation, and the strangle hold of the military-industrial complex that institutions like Los Alamos bolster and legitimize? What about the victims of world conflicts, including those killed in the nuclear genocide we unleashed over two Japanese cities in the 1940s? And yet, the only person in the whole universe 12:56PM thinks could possibly resent Los Alamos is Chris Mechels? Unbelievable…yet so characteristic of the thick-skull mentality the institution is infamous for being.

Anonymous said...

8:32am Sez:

"And yet, the only person in the whole universe 12:56PM thinks could possibly resent Los Alamos is Chris Mechels? Unbelievable…yet so characteristic of the thick-skull mentality the institution is infamous for being."

LANL has always been known for having Real Smart People on staff who Know It All. The 12:56pm person whom you reference is just one of them. All attempts to show him and the other like-minded tunnel-visioned people in the lab community how Los Alamos and its people are viewed by the outside world will fail. You just can't tell some people anything: they are too opinionated, egotistical, and blind to the world around them accept any other point of view but their own.

Anonymous said...

There seems to be poster who keeps
saying that Los Alamos staff are arrogant, dysfuctional and imcompetent. Also that everyone outside of Los Alamos hates it
for having such a bad reputation.

The poster has never given any hard evidence for any of these claims. I have lived in New Mexico for some time now and I simply do not see any of the things that this poster is saying. I also find it dishonest for the poster to post multiple times with the intent to make appear that multiple people are aggreeing with him when it is obvious from the writing style that it is all comming from the same person. For example (8.32 and 9:14).

I think the blog is now becoming useless.

Pinky and The Brain said...

7/24/07 11:41 AM,
That same guy drives a car too. It doesn't make your car useless. Cheer up, if you see through it others will too.

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

I've been watching this thread with some bemused interest. I was just waiting for the previous post (11:41am) to appear before adding my 2 cents. Waiting, because I knew this post, or one very much like it would be coming.

I couple of observations: anybody who can state with assurance that he can differentiate one Anonymous poster from another, or state with assurance that two different Anonymous posts were made by the same person is a legend in his own mind. The posts are Anonymous. There is no way to know who the authors are.

However, in spite of this obvious bit of reality, we have a poster who clearly thinks he's smart enough to know who the other posters really are. And, having made that claim, he now declares this blog to be useless.

Welcome to LANL, where there exits a contingent who always knows best, and who are ever wrong. Or arrogant. Or egotistical. You know who they are.

--Gussie

Anonymous said...

I confess, I confess. I have posted every comment under the name "anonymous," including that of 11:41. I have been holding a dialog with myself, and using different writing styles.

I also confess that I have no connection to LANL and have never had one. I am a SF-based LANL manager, whose sole purpose is to destroy LANL, move all science to LLNL, and make profits off of RFS.

11:41 - You, I mean me, outsmarted me and caught me.

K. Boland said...

"There seems to be poster who keeps saying that Los Alamos staff are arrogant, dysfuctional and imcompetent." --11:41

And this "person" is looking for hard evidence? How stupid are some people?

HEY YOU, DUMBSHIT! GO LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!! THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE.

Anonymous said...

I have observed this thread for the past few days. A number of dubious accusations have been made about Los Alamos National Laboratory and the people that are employed at the laboratory. The majority of these allegations are simply vacuous rants that are poorly reasoned and have little to no connection with reality. If the authors are so
confident of their positions then they should sign their names. I contend that little value should be placed on anonymous posts.

Charles Reichhardt
olson@cybermesa.com