So far the most notable and quotable string critics IMO have been the Nobel laureates Richard Feynman, Gerard 't Hooft, Sheldon Glashow, David Gross, Burton Richter, Philip Anderson, and Robert Laughlin. David Gross is a special case because he is himself a string theorist---maybe with Witten the most prominent and influential figure in stringdom. Gross is the only string theorist to be awarded the Nobel prize (it was for earlier non-string work) and he organized the prestigeous 23rd Solvay conference last year. His widely quoted remarks critical of the string Landscape were made at or around that elite conference. I have noticed recently some animosity against Gross in particular and string critics in general, here at PhysicsForums. It has involved ad hominem attack with derogatory remarks and what I believe is a serious misunderstanding of the critics' motives. Admittedly one can always suspect that there is, in someone's criticisms, an element of malice, or schadenfreude (delight in another's discomfort), or a sense of superiority. And IF YOU THINK DAVID GROSS OR THE OTHERS HAVE BASE MOTIVES please say so and explain why. But I want to explain why I think these Scientific Establishment guys have a serious concern and that they are leading the criticism of string research to protect the longterm interest of science----and PHYSICS CREDIBILITY in particular. I dont want to claim that ALL their motives are praiseworthy all of the time. Sometimes one of these guys may have made a wisecrack Feynman: String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. Laughlin: String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick. but let's not be too hard on the late Feynman, or Laughlin either. Apart from occasional wisecracks, however, some of the criticism we hear is obviously the result of much soul-searching and is thoughtfully expressed, and, in some cases, took considerable moral courage. I particularly respect David Gross' position. I think he is trying to do what is best for the longterm good of theoretical physics and as a leading US string theorist he is in a difficult situation. BTW obviously not all prominent US Nobel laureate physicists are critical of string Landscapism or string in general. For instance Steven Weinberg and Frank Wilczek seem quite tolerant and supportive. the point I would make here is that top people in the scientific establishment can DIFFER as to what is needed for the longterm health of the science community and the theoretical physics enterprise. Have to go, back later.