I thought that he promoted elegance above correctness and above honesty, and I was put off by that. And especially after studying with Viki Weisskopf who explained that the important thing was to enlarge our understanding of physics, not to present a lot of shiny mathematical material. It's fine, of course, I have no objection to mathematics being elegant and I've written papers about why elegance is a suitable criterion in the choice of a correct theory and so on and so forth, but it should be used in connection with original and correct material. I was a student in Cambridge when Julian presented some fantastically elaborate mathematical formalism for dealing with quantum field theory: for example quantum electrodynamics. He used some weird looking symbols to avoid Feynman diagrams. Later on, by the way, when I spent that term in Massachusetts the early part of ’63, I rented Julian's house, and I looked all over to see where he kept his hidden Feynman diagrams. There was a locked room, the landlord's locked room, and I assumed that the Feynman diagrams were in there. In any case, to go back, when I was student he presented this fancy scheme. And then he tried not only to show how to do the expansion and perturbation theory, which was basically the same as Feynman's diagrams in some other notation, but he also claimed that he was able to put the whole thing in some sort of closed form, or something that was nearly closed form, and that it was the entire theory. But he had blinded himself with this fancy formalism and didn't notice that he was leaving out all photon-photon scattering. Pauli pointed it out to him. I think that it’s… elegance for its own sake is not the point; the point is elegance in the service of advancing our understanding of science.