<p>That’s right. The Technion ultimately had everything to do with the proposal as it was part of the only proposal that Cornell submitted. You cannot separate the partnership when talking about Cornell’s proposal and analyzing it relative to other proposals. Knowing this, I don’t see how anyone can say that Cornell’s and SU’s proposals were = at the start of things. Of course, and consistent with a point I made earlier, it would ultimately be a stretch to arrive at that conclusion anyway based on the parts of the proposals made public as there was obviously so much more to the proposals (keeping certain aspects of the proposals out of public releases is how these universities kept their competitive edge against each other). Thus, the reasons for my earlier reliance on several statements made by Bloomberg and Company, as they knew of the details behind each of the proposals. For the opposite reasons, I was unwilling to give much weight to speculative comments made by others not in the know. </p>
<p>But, as applejack and datalook pointed out, I think it is fair to argue (all of the evidence points this way and this hasn’t really been the point of contention) that Cornell would not have won if the Technion had not been a part of its proposal.</p>
<p>For the record, I have no comment on the campus’ prospects for success over all. I think time will tell what happens with that. I will say that I don’t think VC funding will ultimately be a problem and “close proximity” in a city like NY takes on a different meaning due to how nearly everything in NYC is connected via a good subway system. We’ll see, though. But, given that this project has the possibility of being the one thing Bloomberg can truly base his legacy on, I would not be surprised if the campus received additional “anonymous” funding for VC and other needs coming from Bloomberg himself. </p>
<p>Also, phantasmagoric, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but applejack’s point about your argument that Cornell won only because SU dropped out has nothing to do with an “inferiority complex,” but with your attempt to downplay Cornell’s win because you feel SU was beat out ultimately by a school you feel is inferior. I first got this sense when, earlier in the thread, you begin to list the ways that Stanford was “superior” to Cornell, even thought that had nothing to do with the conversation. I’ve mentioned several times in past posts that Cornell would have won even if SU stayed in the game, and you took issue with that. </p>
<p>In all seriousness, if, for argument sake, Cornell did win because it was willing to accept more of what the city requested (although the evidence is not clear as to how large of an impact this would have actually had on the final decision), one can give credit to Cornell for that. Contrary to your point about other schools not wanting to “cave,” one can spin things and say that Cornell won because it was more ambitious and hungry for the site. Alternatively, borrowing something from an earlier poster, one can say that SU lost because it was too timid and not willing to take a bold risk in this instance. Instead of putting a positive spin on matters (or even just leaving it alone for that matter), however, you have consistently sought to count that point as a negative against Cornell (and with nothing based on credible evidence to do so). For the record, Bloomberg mentioned on his radio show a few days after the winner was announced that the issue of toxic waste at the site was no real issue at all as nothing really had ever been built on that part of the island (apart from the hospital) to contaminate the site. As for my other points about restrictions in the contract, you’ve already read what I have to write about that.</p>