Dave Peaslee - who had worked with Weisskopf just before me at MIT, he had left MIT by the time I arrived - Dave Peaslee was then at Columbia and he wrote up this idea and why it wouldn't work, but very obscurely - it was not easy to read his letter but since I had done the same thing I was able to understand his letter. Then I went to the Institute for Advanced Study on a visit in the spring of 1952 on my way to Europe. I had awarded myself the Murray Gell-Mann travelling fellowship to Europe and I was going to pay my first visit to Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. And when I stopped in Princeton, visiting the hospital or there also for a minor surgical procedure, I was invited to give a little talk at the Institute for Advanced Study. Oh no, perhaps I wasn't invited to give a talk. Anyway, I visited - I guess I was in Princeton anyway - and I visited the institute and visited my old colleagues there. And they asked me if I understood what Peaslee's letter was about, because they had read Peaslee's letter and they couldn't understand it. And I said yes, I hadn't read it very thoroughly either, but since I had worked out the same ideas I could explain my ideas, and it was an idea for how the strange particles could be explained but it was an idea that was flawed and I would explain the flaw. So they hustled me into the conference room and the seminar room and I gave what amounted to a seminar. I described the idea and then I described how - I was going to describe how electromagnetism would prevent it from working and so on. Well, in fact I did that. I described the idea and I described how electromagnetism would prevent it from working, and then I gave an example. I said, "Suppose for example the v one zero?" which is what we later called the lambda, I mean yes, what was called the lambda later on - this was in June, or May - May probably, May 1952. And the names lambda and so on weren't given until 1953 at the conference at Bagnères-de-Bigorre - which I didn't attend unfortunately. Anyway, in May 1952 I presented the idea and I told about why electromagnetism would ruin it and then I started to give an example. I said, "Suppose the v one zero is a member of a multiplet, and isotopic multiplet with i = 5/2". Now of course there's the difficulty that i = 5/2, that's lots of charged states and nobody had observed a great many multiple charge states such as i = 5/2 would have. But I was going to assume that somebody might discover them some day later, and I would still explain how the idea would function and then why it would be ruined by electromagnetism. I had explained it in general and I was now going to explain it in the specific case. However, instead of saying i equal 5/2, I said i equal one - just a slip of the tongue. But as soon as I said it I realised that if it were i equal one there would be no problem: there was no way that electromagnetism could convert i = 1 into i = 3/2; whereas it could easily convert i = 5/2 into i = 3/2. And then I went through in my mind as I stood there all the reasons why i equal one would be thought to be impossible and I couldn't see that any of them held water. So I said "I think this is it! I think this is the explanation". Well everybody pooh-poohed it, and they said, "Well, we don't understand what you're talking about and this doesn't seem like a very good idea, and this is just a special case and what we have already been saying," and so on and so forth. So I didn't pursue it further at that moment.