Hacker News Reader

Comment by hydroxylGroup | Hacker News Reader

  > during which time he attacked her

Still sounds kind of vague. What, precisely, does the word "attacked" refer to?

View on HN

  > threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture.

That could be polite speak for, "totally lost his shit when when I interrupted a derivation"

If someone trashed my knick-knacks and smashed my furniture for what would be normal personal interactions, I too would ask for a leave of absence.

It's important to remember that before the days of no-fault divorce false allegations of cruelty were commonly made to justify the split to a judge. Both parties to the divorce would agree on the story in advance and testify to the same under oath. It amounted to widespread ritualized perjury and was one of the major deciding factors in the passing of no-fault statutes.

This is all to say, take the allegations of extreme cruelty with a grain of salt.

That would be a form of "threatening" or maybe "menacing", and yeah, it's intimidation, but I wouldn't count it as an attack.

He attacked her, AND he threw bric-a-brak, AND he smashed furniture. Not attacked her by the last two, but in addition. The man was undoubtedly brilliant, spoke well and wrote well.

I don't think it useful, or likely to be accurate, trying to presume his homelife based on his public appearance.

So, like maybe he gave her a black eye, and a fat lip? Did her clothes get ripped? Was there lasting evidence of a serious assault?

Did he knock her down a flight of stairs, and the kick her the stomach until she shat blood?

Or did he just kind of push her aside, or grab her by the wrist, and shove her around and yell a lot, after she stood in a doorway between him and his bongo drums?

Did he overpower her and then hold her down and spit in her face? That might constitute serious psychological abuse, and then again maybe it might not be abuse at all according to some people.

Maybe he put her over his knee and spanked her? (some people might enjoy that sort of thing at the time, and then complain loudly about it later)

What does "attacked" mean?

What on earth are you implying? She talks about outbursts and violent rage. It is not relevant to wonder if she enjoyed spanking. Your whole post makes me feel rather uncomfortable.

But that's how smears work. The whole point is to cause deep consternation, because dangerous questions might reflect poorly upon the person that asks them.

So, when confronted with a delicate social scenario that threatens our better intentions, an awkward silence is produced, and everyone's mind races at the grey areas, and 12 people will diverge in 12 directions, guided by assumptions based on personal experiences. But in considering the possibilities, we realize the fact that we are in a situation where we cannot comfortably clarify certain details.

It's important to pick apart details when two people are mutually compromising each other's reputation. It's important to discern who is the agressor, or the possibility that it's an equal match between evenly paired beligerents.

This is where "preponderance of evidence" comes into play. If the situation is criminal, often times that is immediately evident. Serious physical abuse produces serious results. Psychological abuse is more questionable, but criminal psychological abuse generally results in a person that is very obviously broken by profound events.

If something sounds like gossip, then it's more or less a civil disagreement. Sure, emotions may run hot with a gossipy scandal, but at that point it's the social implications of reputation at stake. Serious, within the scope of a professional career, and as an open-ended slow burning problem for the reputable, but that sort of damage is indirect and have yet to completely unfold.

But this is how blackmail works. Is it vapor, smoke and mirros? If there are Ugly dirty details, let's see them. Otherwise, it's simply mud slinging to produce voids of inormation, so that imaginations and simple minds can run wild.

To imply that she accused Feynman of cruelty because she enjoyed getting spanked sexually and then 'changed her mind' is not "asking the dangerous questions"... it is just weird and uncalled for. You're not doing a hero's work, you're just being mildly chauvinistic, and on top of it all trivializing sexual abuse.

Be critical of the basis of her claims all you like. I encourage scepticism. But learn from the others in this thread and keep the criticism relevant and appropriate.

I don't know why you're asking us this question.

I've had my wife throw items at me. It definitely felt like an attack as opposed to mere threats or menacing.

Reading the letters would help. A physical attack. "Choking"

But I would highly doubt her credibility having read her smear letter and the questioning methods they did those times, and the four years needed for the divorce.

p64: from an "Los Angeles Times" report 7/18/56 "His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into violent rage, during which time he choked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture."

The other citations left out the choking part literally: "...the appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums. His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture."

I wonder what she wrote on the deleted 13 consecutive pages attachment at the end about his "Evidence of Disloyalty" and "Personality and Character", that the even the FBI decided to delete it. And a second questioning about 2 specific points brought nothing specific, so it was only this famous single letter. I find it interesting how she made up the numbered list of arguments which sound like FBI wordings, probably influenced by the questioning method.

She is summarized by the FBI as "She said that her personal feeling is that FEYNMAN is without character or acceptable moral fiber. She ... emphatically he is not acceptable to her as an appointment to any position with the U.S. Government which would require moral character and emotional stability." (p188) And she refused to furnish a signed statement on these allegations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com