You're joking about this right?
Of course not! If one committed adultery in those days one was ostracised something chronic! It was a social no-no. In spades.
Personally I call it a social no-no even today, but that's different because 2007 is a very different social structure to that of the 1930's.
If I believed you were a liar, I would have called you a liar. Instead, I call you two things:
(1) A person who has views that contradict mine
(2) A person who has yet to substantiate his claims
That equals calling me a liar. Enough said.
You're joking about this right?
Of course not! If one committed adultery in those days one was ostracised something chronic! It was a social no-no. In spades.
Personally I call it a social no-no even today, but that's different because 2007 is a very different social structure to that of the 1930's.
Surely Clinton knew that what he did with Monica would not be good for his career... yet he did it anyway. And I dunno, but I think he qualifies as fairly socially competent...
I'm also not that sure that adultery was that uncommon in the thirties, nor that it led to being ostracized necessarily... a lot of wives would look the other way if they found out instead of creating a scene.
It was a lot less common than it is now, Marieke. Clinton's a bad example because that was more recent (1990's), and also his statement that "I never had sexual relations with that woman" was about as socially incompetent as one could get. I'm not saying Clinton was socially incompetent as a rule, but that was a bad call on his part. Along with the fact that he had a history for it and never got punished properly for it (as would have happened in the 30's). Social ostracision was akin to a social death sentence then. That's why if anyone did do it they hid it. Einstein didn't - but then he didn't care about his social status. He already had the status he wanted through his work.
If I believed you were a liar, I would have called you a liar. Instead, I call you two things:
(1) A person who has views that contradict mine
(2) A person who has yet to substantiate his claims
That equals calling me a liar. Enough said.
No, it doesn't. Right now you're an idiot, but that's a whole other story.
Yes it does, and that remark needs to be withdrawn. It's not my fault if Einstein was in my school's textbooks and not in yours.
Marieke, as I said above to Simen, my school text books provided the facts. So it's not my opinion, it's fact. Is it being suggested that my school's text was wrong?
How about divorce rates? That's a pretty damning piece of concrete evidence.
No, because Clinton tried to hide it as he KNEW it was wrong. Einstein didn't try to hide because he DIDN'T know it was wrong - or he didn't care if he was told (which he probably was). That's the difference.
He kept his status because he was the best. It's a practical fact. It got to the point that it didn't matter what he did - which is why he didn't care. People did try to ostracise him, but the minute it affected his status there was resistance. Einstein did lose touch with a number of social circles because of his antics, but there were enough within his work to not matter as much as it otherwise would have. And that happened out of luck more than design - partly (and this IS an opinion I'm about to expouse here) the depression was biting deep into society and then WW2 ripped it apart.
*sighs*
Why is it when I try to explain what I have learnt in my life I constantly have to prove it with material that is in my memory and (to my knowledge) nowhere else? Why doesn't anyone believe me? THAT is why I tell people they are accusing me of lying BTW.
Yes it does, and that remark needs to be withdrawn. It's not my fault if Einstein was in my school's textbooks and not in yours.
I won't withdraw a truthful remark. And what do you know about my school's textbooks?
That they are obviously not as good as mine. And your remark was NOT true at all - and needs to be withdrawn.
You don't believe me. Ergo - "Timelord is a liar". Simple.
YES I DO!!!!!
In my memory from my school textbooks - from which I have been "quoting" as closely as I can (and that should also answer Jenna's question). But of course you don't believe me. So why bother if you don't want to learn as I did?
In other words, understanding an important person in our history shouldn't be taught? That's the most ridiculous thing you've said so far (in my opinion - just for a change!)
No, there is a difference between disagreement and a lack of belief. You, BTW, are committing the latter.
No - you are demanding evidence of what I say to be true. That isn't demonstrating a different belief on your part, that's attacking mine as a falsehood (a small difference but a visible one).
I think - at this point - that it's you who is beyond it, because of a rather more important factor. The inability or refusal to learn new information. I have information that is new to you - and you are rejecting it. So who is the negative influence on this conversation from the get go? Not me. I only became negative for different reasons.
You are refusing to listen. If a person puts their "fingers in their ears" it's polite to shout.
School text books NOT A USEFUL RESOURCE???? THAT has now taken over as the most ridiculous comment you've made!
With my rote memory? You're kidding me. The whole class will never forget Einstein because of the debate that ended up happening between me and a gang of bullies that the teacher had to mediate (and ended up siding with me - bless him). The bullies were doing the usual "he was nuts" line like all NTE's (of course I didn't know that at time as this was way before I was DXed with Aspergers) and I was striking back at them along similar lines to what I am now - except that now I have the Aspie explanation to back me up. I have never forgotten that.
There you go again! A heavily but poorly disguised "You're a liar" remark.
If you can't accept that you - in demanding evidence (that I have already provided) beyond just that false belief - are in effect calling me a liar, and you won't withdraw it, then the feeling is mutual.
Goodbye.
So you don't want to talk to critics, because that would be too much effort?
What's not worth the effort is me even talking to you about this - because you refuse to f***ing listen!! So why bother? Now do the board (if you wouldn't mind) as well as me a favour and shut up!
Talk to Simen, Erk. I'm acting in self defence! If he sees that as provocation then that's his problem, not mine.
Great pick up, M! Especially given that the Vaccine Court has now been provided with a lot of Andrew Wakefield's dirty laundry so the MMR blow up will get it's appropriate precedent in the US legal system. CAN CAN'T see that of course! (pun intended!)