brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Tue Aug 20 23:46:28 EST 2002


"Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m31y8xhskx.fsf at panix.com...
> Joseph A Nagy Jr <pagan_prince at charter.net> writes:
>
> > Tom Breton wrote:
> >
> > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>The only thing Marie Sklodowska discovered was how to convince a
gentile
> > >>scientist with radiation poisoning to marry her so she could take
advantage
> > >>of his weakened mental condition and convince him to give away half of
his
> > >>half of a Nobel Prize to her.
> > >
> > >
> > > I understood they were married long before he got radiation poisoning.
> > > ISTM she got half of that Nobel because of old male chivalry.  Nothing
> > > to do with radiation poisoning or Jews/Gentiles.
> >
> > And nothing to do with male chivalry. As I qouted before, she got
> > the prize because she EARNED it.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's just silly.  No man would have been given a
> Nobel prize for being Pierre's assistant.  You don't like hearing
> that, well, sorry.
>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >>Marie and her daughter set the French so far behind in nuclear
research that
> >  >>it's most likely she was part of a zionist plot to sabotage France
> >  >>http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > You know, I agree her accomplishments have been Feministly
exaggerated
> >  > out of all proportion, but I certainly don't agree she set back
France
> >  > or nuclear research.  AFAICT, she was a very capable assistant to
> >  > Pierre.  It's not a negative thing.
>
> >  Assistant my ass. You obviously didn't read the site, either.
>
> Yes, assistant, your ass.  Quoting some spin-doctor talking about
> "Marie's pivotal role" doesn't change the fact.  You've obviously put
> too much stock in what Feminists and chivalrists tell you.
>
>
> >  She wasn't, just a smart woman, which makes her Jewish in Mr. Knight's
eyes.
>
> >  Chauvenist pigs like Mr. Knight and yourself are a discredit to the
male of ANY species.
>
> I *knew* it!  The least bit of opposition, and the rabid name-calling
> starts already.
>
> That's the sort of emotional chivalry that keeps these notions going.
> Anyone can see that Marie Curie's is celebrated largely for her
> husband's work.  You don't like that, so you call me names, but that
> doesn't change the facts.
>
> And take a moment to consider: In light of what you just called me for
> nothing more than what I said, it's very clear that the whole issue is
> colored by chivalry and a misguided notion that you are somehow
> "defending" women by believing this.
>
> --
> Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom.  http://www.panix.com/~tehom

Well, Tom, I must admit that your points are right on target.  It's really
easy to strike a nerve when you're challenging a "religion" like Marie's
"accomplishments".  It's when the responses get this emotional that you know
that they know that you touched too close to the truth for comfort.  iow,
the reason for the emotionalism is to throw you off track so you can't make
an honest point.

Do feminists know that Marie was Pierre's lab assistant?  Of course they do.
Do they really think she was instrumental in his discoveries and
developments? Of course they don't.  This is why they have to throw this
sand in your eyes.

The Nobel Committee never even considered her for the award, and wouldn't
have if Pierre hadn't asked them to include her name on HIS half of the
Nobel Prize.

Is that proof that Pierre believed that she was worthy of the prize?  If he
really did, he certainly wouldn't have included his comment about this being
"artistic", would he?

John Knight









More information about the Neur-sci mailing list