"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:9i47mucf84331l5v4gk4gnnkpstkbr1pqa at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >1) Pierre Curie's answer,
>> His answer to WHAT?
>> The question of what he was answering is what determines who is
> "spinning". He was answering a private letter asking him WHY Marie
> Curie was not nominated even though it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE that she
> had done the pivotal work.
>
Where's your evidence that she ever did any "pivotal work"? Not even Pierre
or Mittag-Leffler even hinted this was the case.
The only thing that was "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" then is that she was a lab flunky
who also happened to be the wife of the lab manager (who had learned much
from his own father, Becquerrel, and a host of other associates Marie didn't
even know).
What you feminazis "think" is "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" today is based on the most
naked spin story in history. To get there, you must studiously ignore that
the STUPIDITY of the Curie's was finally discovered and they were summarily
FIRED by the Prime Minister Georges Bidault [not "the Nazis" as you claim]
who removed him without explanation from his position as high commissioner.
A few months later Irene 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, from which not a shred of
science or discovery ever emerged.
> >dated 6 August 1903, has been preserved. He
> >wrote, 'If it is true that one is seriously thinking about me (for the
> >Prize), I very much wish to be considered together with Madame Curie with
> >respect to our research on radioactive bodies'. 'Do you not think that
it
> >would be more satisfying from the artistic point of view, if we were to
be
> >associated in this manner?' (plus joli d'un point de vue artistique)."
>> > a) Does his letter say anything about "Marie's pivotal role"? No.
> > b) Does it claim that failing "to acknowledge [it] would be a
> >travesty"? No.
>> Does it matter what he said? It was not HIS choice; it was the Nobel
> committee's choice.
Not even the Nobel Committee used the words "pivotal" or "travesty" with
respect to Marie, so where did these words come from? Zionists? Feminazis?
Jews? Certainly not normal people.
>> >2) If Pierre really agreed with Mittag-Leffler that Marie should be
> >included in the prize, then wouldn't he write: "it would be important to
> >recognize Marie's contribution to my research" rather than "it would be
more
> >satisfying from the artistic point of view"? Yes.
>> Not necessarily. That could be taken as presumptive and offensive -
> telling the Nobel committee what it should do. It is polite for him
> to speak of his emotional response "satisfying", but it would not be
> polite for him to say "important" since it was not his role to decide
> what was important.
NO writings of Pierre ever use these words, refer to his lab flunky [and
wife] as "pivotal", suggest that the Nobel Committee's decision was a
"travesty". This is pure feminazi spin, and you're buying it just like it's
snake oil.
>> >3) Professor Becquerel got in the best dig when he said in his
Presentation
> >Speech: "This makes us look at God's word in an entirely new light: 'It
is
> >not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for
> >him'" [READ: Listen up, King of Sweden, Marie got a Nobel Prize for
being
> >a lab flunky--and the wife of the lab manager--while I had to bust my
butt
> >to get your silly prize].
> >http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1903/press.html>> You missed something that negates this conclusion. Throughout the
> speech he makes reference to both "M. and Mme. Curie", or to
> "Professor and Mme. Curie", except for once:
> >"The first discovery in this field was made at approximately the same
> > time by the German Schmidt and by Mme. Curie, both of whom found that
> > thorium possesses radioactive properties to about the same degree as
> > uranium."
>>> >Feminazis have taken this chivalrous gesture on the part of intelligent
men
> >to reward their "help meet", and turned it into an excuse for women to
> >divorce their husbands, abandon their children, and pursue independent
> >"careers" which women couldn't be successful or happy in for millions of
> >years to come.
>> They seem to think they are successful and happy in them. And so do
> their bosses, except of course when THEY are the boss. An increasing
> number of women are found at the top of businesses. This must rankle
> a poor nincompoop like yourself.
>> lojbab
Knowing that 55% of the responses of American 12th grade girls were either
statistically insignificant or lower than if they'd just guessed, that of
the 45% of the responses which were statistically significant, they scored
higher than boys on only 2.6% of the test and lower on 24.4%, yet only 14%
of American women believe men are more intelligent than women, ought to make
even the most die-hard "liberal" like you question the wisdom of such a
policy?
http://christianparty.net/timssphysics.htm
No?
You "liberals" [read: feminazis, jews, niggers, faggots, and other muds]
don't seem to comprehend the magnitude of the problem. This ONE question,
H01 http://christianparty.net/timssh01.jpg on which girls scored higher
than boys (42% vs. 38%, a 4% difference) involved no calculations, no
reasoning skills, no intelligence, no demonstration of performance. It was
a pure memorization question. All they had to do was remember a simple
physics principle, and 4% more girls than boys remembered it. This means
that girls WERE *taught* physics principles, right along with boys (if not
even more effectively than boys).
But the instant reasoning, intellect, calculations, or intelligence were
required, the girls froze up. They not only got it WRONG, but the amount by
which they scored lower than if they'd just guessed exceeded the 3% standard
error on 23% of the questions!
Without the memorization questions, these girls would have scored ZERO.
And you don't think that putting them "at the top of businesses" isn't why
the stock market just lost $7.2 TRILLION of its value?
Why not?
John Knight
