"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"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 Nobel committee discussion does, and indeed that speech you quote
also did, indicating that it was marie that noticed the phenomenon
that was significant enough that Pierre stopped working on his project
and switched to hers.
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1903/press.html
>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.
By your reasoning, where is your evidence that Pierre ever did any
"pivotal work"? I doubt whether you have the knowledge to understand
the papers they wrote, even if you can speak French.
>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).
That is NOT what the Nobel committee discussion says. It says that
she had a lab of her own. It says that Pierre was working on
something unrelated (crystals), and switched when he realized that
Marie was onto something important.
>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.
Thereby showing that you haven't the vaguest idea of what you are
talking about. Marie and Pierre Curie were never "fired". Your story
about Bidault refers to Irene and her husband Joliot, and an event
that took place in 1950, long after Marie was dead. Irene was a
little kid and not a commissioner at the time when Marie got her Nobel
prizes and Pierre died.
http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/chemistry/institutes/1992/FredericJoliot-Curie.html
gives more information:
>As a result of positions taken in support of the Communist Party,
> Joliot-Curie was removed from his position at the Commission by
> Georges Didault in April 1950. Accepting a position at the College de
> France, he refocused on laboratory research and teaching. He also
> dedicated himself to the advancement of the cause of world peace
> through his efforts as president of the World Organization of the
> Partisans of Peace. After the death of his wife Irene in March 1956,
> he succeeded her as head of the Radium Institute.
In other words, they were removed, not for being "stupid" or doing
something scientifically improper, but for not being "politically
correct" at the height of the Red Scare which brought us McCarthyism
in the US. Each of them in private life continued after this removal
in important positions, far more important than anything that you
will do, nincompoop.
http://www.netsrq.com/~dbois/joliot.html
>he was dismissed in 1950 from his post as high commissioner because of
> his statement that no progressive scientist would contribute his
> scientific knowledge for the purpose of war against the USSR. He
> retained his position, however, as a member of the French National
> Committee for Scientific Research.
>They devoted themselves henceforth
>to their own laboratory work and to teaching, from which not a shred of
>science or discovery ever emerged.
So you claim. Yet they got a Nobel prize for their research.
Furthermore, they raised two kids who also became scientists, though
they didn't win a Nobel prize. The daughter, Helene Langevin-Joliot,
had a distinguished professorial and research career and retired
within the last few years (she is around 75 years old).
Another little tidbit, from the Curie Institute site:
http://www.curie.fr/sr/cdrom/present/histoe.htm
>After Pierre Curie's death in 1906, Marie Curie became part-time
> lecturer, then professor ; she was the first woman to teach at the
> Sorbonne.
Obviously THAT was not due to her husband's "chivalry".
>> 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.
In other words, you don't know what the words mean, nincompoop. And
then you aren't a "normal person", so how would you know?
A travesty is a parody, and usually the word is a short representation
of the phrase "travesty of justice", meaning "injustice". The
scandals associated with Marie Curie were certainly a travesty of
justice.
http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/curie/
[her not being voted in the Academy of Sciences]
>This event attracted international attention and indignation.
...
>Marie stands up in her own defence and managed to force an apology
> from the newspaper Le Temps. The same day she received word from
> Stockholm that she had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
> However, the very newspapers that made her a legend when she received
> the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903, now completely ignored the fact
> that she had been awarded the Prize in Chemistry or merely reported
> it in a few words on an inside page. The Langevin scandal escalated
> into a serious affair that shook the university world in Paris and
> the French government at the highest level.
...
>There was no proof of the accusations made against Marie and the
> authenticity of the letters could be questioned but in the heated
> atmosphere there were few who thought clearly.
...
>On December 6, Langevin wrote a long letter to Svante Arrhenius, whom
> he had met previously. He described the whole situation, explained
> what circles were behind the smear campaign. He appealed to the Nobel
> Committee not to let it be influenced by a campaign which was
> fundamentally unjust. Nor, in fact, was it so influenced.
I left out the duel, which was described as a "farce". There are very
few examples in the history of science that could better be described
as sounding like a "parody" or "travesty".
As for "pivotal", the Nobel prize is given for pivotal work. You are
stretching argue with the word:
>From Mirriam-Webster:
>Main Entry: piv·ot·al
>Pronunciation: 'pi-v&-t&l
>Function: adjective
>Date: 1844
>1 : of, relating to, or constituting a pivot
>2 : vitally important : CRUCIAL
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Marie drew the conclusion that the ability to radiate did not depend
> on the arrangement of the atoms in a molecule, it must be linked to
> the interior of the atom itself. This discovery was absolutely
^^^^^^^^^^
> revolutionary. From a conceptual point of view it is her most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> important contribution to the development of physics.
^^^^^^^^^
(note that this paragraph describes work she did BEFORE Pierre
switched from crystal research)
Of her later work in isolating radium (after Pierre's death) that
earned her 2nd Nobel:
>Chemists considered that the discovery and isolation of radium was the
> greatest event in chemistry since the discovery of oxygen. That for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the first time in history it could be shown that an element could be
> transmuted into another element, revolutionized chemistry and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> signified a new epoch.
Do you disagree that the words used are incompatible with the
definition of "pivotal"?
>> 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.
What does it matter what Pierre wrote? He gave up his work to join
Marie's, which had already (per the above) produced an "absolutely
revolutionary" concept BEFORE he started.
>> 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?
Can't answer on topic, so you try to change the subject. What a
loser!
lojbab
