Mac at St Georges Hall-a night to forget.

[Wabbit]

To Wabbit

There seems to be some confusion with the c word and Yorrick Hunt at St Georges Hall.

It was at the Fairfield show that Ian allegedly called a woman in the audience a c*#t.
This being the same show where Ian ended up getting attacked by a fan.

It was St Georges Hall and obviously every other show that Ian thinks he's onto a winner by continually telling the Yorrick Hunt joke.

Surely he must be getting bored of it too but then this must be what happens when you have a seroious relationship with someone the same age as your daughter - knock knock jokes .


Yes and Ian also believes that women have never invented anything of worth, said in the same breath of saying he is not a sexist or anything...

Hi, no confusion here...... this thread is about St George's Hall and he did not call a woman the C word at St George's Hall.... that was my only point.... :-)

[black francis]

Yes Morty, that's exactly what happened to Rosalind Franklin, once again, her two male peers stole her work and got the credit for it. She didn't help out with the helix structure at all, she discovered it. It's all in that text I linked, but some people on here aren't able to read properly?

I am not familiar with the controversy but I read the contents of the link you provided and it seems to do little in the way of finger pointing. It seemed even handed and at least to me indicated all the participants added to the cumulative knowledge that ended up winning the Nobel Prize.

[JackT]

Rain knows better than to land on his windshield.

Windshield wipers invented by a man, btw.

[Wabbit]

I remember a rant years ago where he said that no important inventions are credited to women.

Does anyone else remember that?

he kind of puts us straight on this subject at Brighton gig (see my Brighton gig post)......

[insanejane]

Windshield wipers invented by a man, btw.

Not my words:

"Similar devices had been made earlier, but Anderson's was the first to be effective."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anderson_(inventor)

Not my words either, but yours:

"The very fact that we have to......come up with a list that includes "windshield wipers"......essentially validates Mac's assertions, IMO."

Are they a more important invention now, in your opinion, since they were invented by a man?

[JackT]

Are they a more important invention now, in your opinion, since they were invented by a man?

Why would they be? Pretty trivial invention, IMO, due to obviousness. It doesn't even make the top 1000 inventions by men.

[insanejane]

Why would they be? Pretty trivial invention, IMO, due to obviousness. It doesn't even make the top 1000 inventions by men.

Please explain why they're a "pretty trivial invention due to obviousness." I'm just curious since I seem to rely on mine a lot, even in California. Do you find them more (or less) trivial than say, cup holders?
Being obviously trivial, do you think they should be phased out in all future cars?

[JackT]

Please explain why they're a "pretty trivial invention due to obviousness." I'm just curious since I seem to rely on mine a lot, even in California. Do you find them more (or less) trivial than say, cup holders?
Being obviously trivial, do you think they should be phased out in all future cars?

I find them more trivial than, say, the internal combustion engine, or integrated circuits, or the polio vaccine. The implementation is obvious for none of those, whereas I think it's pretty obvious that you can, and should, wipe rain off of the windshield so you can see.

An abundance of useful things are nevertheless obvious and non patent-worthy: wearing clothes, seats, cup-holders, wiping ones self after using the toilet, etc. No I do not believe any of them should be phased out.

If you really believe that all inventions are of equal significance then there is a cognition problem that I will be unable to help with.

[insanejane]

I find them more trivial than, say, the internal combustion engine, or integrated circuits, or the polio vaccine. The implementation is obvious for none of those, whereas I think it's pretty obvious that you can, and should, wipe rain off of the windshield so you can see.

An abundance of useful things are nevertheless obvious and non patent-worthy: wearing clothes, seats, cup-holders, wiping ones self after using the toilet, etc. No I do not believe any of them should be phased out.

If you really believe that all inventions are of equal significance then there is a cognition problem that I will be unable to help with.

OK, but I don't remember saying that all inventions are of equal significance, so I don't think I have cognition problems. I've tried to drive with a broken wiper in a storm once, having only the passenger side window to look out, and it was very difficult.

And I developed temporary paralysis from the polio vaccine and had to be carried home from school. Also, my son had a very bad reaction to DPT, so I'm not a big advocate on the invention of vaccines, especially the most recent ones we're being bombarded with in the U.S.
But I thought that this was originally about Mac questioning if women had ever invented anything, and him using the term "cunt" which I find extremely derogatory.
I said before that it's a man's world and always will be, but I see no reason to use that word. If it wasn't directed at women, then maybe he should try switching to some "prick" or "scumbag" jokes for a while.

[In The Margins]

If it wasn't directed at women, then maybe he should try switching to some "prick" or "scumbag" jokes for a while.

Or how about leaving these types of jokes out all together?

He should adopt Jack"s masturbation joke. That gets a laugh every time.

[JackT]

Or how about leaving these types of jokes out all together?

He should adopt Jack"s masturbation joke. That gets a laugh every time.

I stole that joke from my brother.

[bluegrace]

Re Franklin. She should have recieved the Nobel as well to say the least. Has nothing to do with the fact that she wasn't around then. She should of course have been recognised for her work. And yes, they were all working on the same thing, and yes Franklin was regarded as an assistant, which she wasn't. And they stole her work and built their work on it behind her back, and went on to publish.

[fat cherry]

Re Franklin. She should have recieved the Nobel as well to say the least. Has nothing to do with the fact that she wasn't around then. She should of course have been recognised for her work. And yes, they were all working on the same thing, and yes Franklin was regarded as an assistant, which she wasn't. And they stole her work and built their work on it behind her back, and went on to publish.

talk about someone who cant read. yes she should have done but thats the nobel foundations rules. If your dead, you cant win. Bit unfair but then the nobel foundation chooses its own way, otherwise would barrack obama get the peace prize for, well being black. Also as I said despite the grey area of obtaining the data (apparently in an MRC report that was published and/or shown by an assistant) watson and crick's paper was one of three published at the same time in the same journal. SO if she hadn't snuffed it she probably wuld have shared the prize. Bu tthems the breaks. Marie curie, also a woman, got two you know.

[fat cherry]

since your so interested in reading you can download the originals here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/archive.html

[fat cherry]

I know I'm shootiung myself in the foot here but this but at the end of the watson and crick paper made me laugh (like you do):

So far as we can tell [the structure] is roughly compatible with the experimental data, but it must be regarded as unproved until it has been checked against more exact results. Some of these are given in the following communications. We were not aware of the details presented there when we devised our structure, which rests mainly, but not entirely on published experimental data and stereochemical arguments.

and the acknowlegement:

We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr M.H.F Wilkins, Dr R.E Franklin and their co-workers.