place. Having never been in a position to decide the rules, I've spent my life studying them. Also you missed Kiefer being a member as well. Actually, I am playing on the greater beach of physical reality, beyond the antitheorists' members-only sandbox; where they hand one-another prizes for building castles in time and no-time alike. This is really quite entertaining when you think about it. When one sees all the fqxi members winning prize after prize, one begins to see why indeed "it is a good idea" that the judges must remain anonymous. There is an irony that while Smolin et al. generally come out against anonymity in the realm of science on the internet, their judges--those with the most power in the realm--retain full anonimity. Peter Woit writes: "The topic of blogs came up mainly in a section where Smolin discussed the ethical importance of scientists putting their name and reputation behind what they have to say about their science." --http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wor\\... 94 So the glaring question is, "Why won't the fqxi judges put their names and reputation's behind the selections of their friends/fqxi members for fqxi funding?" Woit's blog goes on to state: "Ginsparg went on to agree with Smolin about anonymity on blogs, comparing trying to have a serious discussion in such an environment to trying to do so in a Fellini movie, being attacked by dwarves wearing masks." Imagine if the referees at the Superbowl or in the NBA all wore masks. Imagine if the judges for