brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Mon Aug 26 19:45:08 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
>And there's the $64 million question.  Why did they have to ask Pierre in
>the first place? 

"They" didn't have to ask Pierre.  ONE person CHOSE to ask Pierre, in
a private letter that no longer exists.  It was not official
correspondence and it did not have to be done.

>And the answer is that there were many other men who'd
>published independent research findings, whereas Marie had published

Why did those other men not get the Nobel prize then?

And since Marie HAD published something, specifically her doctoral
thesis, you again are a LIAR.

>And the writings that would have demonstrated the line of thinking of this
>Nobel Prize winner were destroyed, at her request, in order to keep from
>re-opening "the scandal".

If they had been destroyed, then Pierre's letter would no longer

>> > It is not "admitted".  Pierre's letter may or may not have had
>> > anything to do with her getting the prize.  It was a letter to that
>> > "advocate" who obviously already thought she was worthy of
>> > consideration, not to the Nobel committee.
>> It seems odd that a letter mentioned so frequently mentioned in the
>> various histories is considered irrelevant.  If you say there are
>> credible historians who believe it was irrelevant, I won't argue, but
>> color me skeptical.
>Why didn't the committee suggest that Pierre share the Nobel Prize with his
>brother Jacques, who WAS renown, and who WAS published, in the field?  Or
>with Gerhard Carl Schmidt who "concidentally" discovered polonium at the
>same time as Marie?

Because they didn't think their work was worthy of a Nobel prize.

>As the wife and lab flunky of a Nobel Prize winner, she was already
>receiving the prize on behalf of her marriage,

Only a sexist would think that she is getting a prize because her
husband gets a prize.

>> Common sense says that the part of the story we're not getting is
>> favorable to Pierre.  You can call me what you like, but there's more
>> credibility in my observation than in any Feminist history.
>And the addition of words like "travesty if she didn't get the prize" and
>"vital to the discovery", which appear in none of the original writings.

Did I use those words as quotes?  No.  Then quit lying and saying that
I claimed them to be quotes.

>And, as you pointed out before, Pierre's contribution to the overall effort
>can't just be summarily dismissed, 

Of course not.  He got a share of the prize too.

>particularly since we have no documents
>that prove that Marie did any work on her own at all, and when we know that
>his work was very well documented.

Her doctoral thesis was for work that SHE did, not that her husband

>This prize could easily have been based solely on what he'd already done,
>for all we know.

Since the Nobel site says that she made the critical discovery BEFORE
he stopped work on crystals, there is no basis for such a claim.

>This, unfortunately, is what American feminazis believe, and it would still
>be rampant of the voters of California hadn't thrown it out in an
>overwhelming public mandate to outlaw affirmative action.

California is not the world.

>Particularly since France fell 1 to 2 decades behind the rest of the world
>in nuclear energy,


>which "marked the end of the Anglo-Saxon monopoly"


>and French Prime Minister Georges Bidault removed Marie's son-in-law without
>explanation from his position as high commissioner, and a few months later
>Irene (Marie's daughter) was also deprived of her position as commissioner
>in the Commissariat a 1'Energie Atomique. They devoted themselves henceforth
>to their own laboratory work and to teaching.

Already explained.  He expressed support of the Communists, and hence
was removed.  You are so "good" at ignoring that which you wish to


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list