Hacker News Reader

> "he attacked her" - is this true?

We would first need to define "attacked". There are verbal attacks, chain-saw attacks, and much territory between them.

Also, during the divorce proceeding, his soon-to-be-ex-wife primarily complained about his tendency to be lost in thought, not his tendency to attack her if she interrupted him. My point is that if he actually physically attacked her, she would not have needed to mention his annoying preference for calculus.

That is what I initially thought as well, but since abuse was more socially/legally acceptable back then, I thought it was also possible that it wouldn't register as hugely important in the complaint.

On the flipside: http://www.openculture.com/2013/08/richard-feynmans-letter-t...

He was human, with all our failings and emotions.

I have read that before no fault divorces it was common to make up something that someone did in order to be granted a divorce. It's sad, but I think what he is described as doing was seen as more reasonable back then.

Hitting your wife was also more acceptable back then.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bric-a-brac

Thanks.