# Mary Shelley didn't write Frankenstein! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 22, 2005, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331 "2005-06-22T08:56:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/61 "2005-06-27T16:03:54Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > Too save time I might try to put everything in context. Human reproduction is anathema to the cause of feminists and advocates of \gay\ science. They seek to turn every fertile man into an obedient eunuch and every woman into a discordant automaton. Such is there understanding of what Mary would have called ‘governance’. Even Germaine Greer would agree with this I believe(?) I think she now sees the fruits of her advocacy and regrets it all very much(?) But let’s resist shooting the messenger. The declining birth rate in her own demographic is enough punishment for the mischief. > > When I think of feminism and \gay\ science, I think of empty playgrounds and children with imaginary friends. I think of that Glen Campbell tune ‘Where’s the playground Susie ?’ I think of ‘mother’s little helper’. I think of lost mateship. I think of their attempt to murder an entire demographic with philidomide. All this because their intellectuals are incapable of reproduction. > > If I openly promoted a discourse that was anathema to human reproduction, then in all likelyhood, I would be dodging rotten tomatoes from all directions. Yet advocates of \gay\ science and feminism are able to get away with it. Why? Because they veil what they do in subterfuge. The hijacking of the Mary Shelley hoax is just one example in the many. Why do they do it? Because they wish to brainwash people into a belief that there are specific physiognomic markers in one subject(.i.e.,beta-sigma, P7 Chorea’s) that induce pathological markers in another subject. Put simply, they try to bolster the idea that heterosexual interaction is unhealthy to one or both of the partners in a relationship. Conversely, the behavioural sequences (usually alpha2,gamma1) endemic to both feminist and \gay\ discourses are made to seem inevitable and appropriate. Were it not for an act of God they probably would get what they desire. > > I leave you with this comment. Those who have seen the authentic work of Mary Shelley know her feelings on these sorts of matters. > "…They are bitter and cursed by God for the mischiefe(sic).’ (Mary Shelley,source: Vatican Library). > > Here ‘mischiefe’ takes on the meaning ascribed to it in the 15th century ‘Haydyn’s Case’. It seems that this mob have been around before. Feminists and gays are, for the most part, perfectly capable of having children, and okay with the idea of straights having sex and children. Like your argument about Mary Shelly, you’ve started with a very faulty premise. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/62 "2005-06-27T16:13:13Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > Touchy,touchy. Maybe if you were to read the lost manuscript ‘Maurice or The Fisher’s Cot’ thought to be an early work by Mary you would see: That the narrative is influenced by the rote learning of stories by her father. It is not a matter that should cause shame however! The writing of stories is often a cumulative process of learning handed down from parent to child. In the case of Frankenstein the evidence is very compelling that Mary had been taught the story by her father. For example, Mary could not have known things of science implicit to the story because women were not allowed to attend universities to learn the scientific discipline of medicine. Medical knowledge was the domain of men. This is why Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein. Now some people have tried to get around this fact by suggesting that Mary would put on her husbands’ clothes and pretend to be a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. This is a bit far fetched because a self-repecting Victorian women would never denounce her weak feminine demeanour just to look at a pack of old corpses. Those who believe Mary wrote Frankenstein are suffering from the brainwashing of modern feminism and the revisionism of gay science. In other words, you have all fallen for the biggest trick in a conmans book: False history. What if Mary had a person friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon? Let’s assume that Mary got the idea in her head to write a novel about a corpse being reanimated. Yet Mary knows basically zilch about medicine. In that case, she could: #1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. #2) Ask her male friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon to fill in the details about what might be needed medically to reanimate a corpse, and incorporate this knowledge into her novel. Wouldn’t #2 be more plausible? And William Godwin was a philospher, not a surgeon. It seems more likely that Mary would have based what she wrote from discussions with a surgeon than her political philosopher father. ---
**Author:** ![RiverRunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/977dab/32.png) [@RiverRunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RiverRunner)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/63 "2005-06-27T17:28:21Z")
What do you call a captain with two eyes? Aye, aye, cap’n! RR ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/64 "2005-06-28T01:54:17Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > Sorry for my previous mangled post. > There are, for example, many accounts wriitten in the late 18th century describing the public fascination with electricity and public demonstrations of devices like the Leiden jar (invented around 1742) or George Adams’ spark machine (invented around 1762). By 1785, Adams and others had invented electical devices that were widely used in medical treatment. Indeed. Benjamin Franklin purchased his electrical equipment from a man (Archibald?) who travelled around the colonies giving exhibitions to both male and female audiences of the wonders of electricity. This included work with what could be called a crude Van de Graaf generator that gave shocks and rasied the hair of young ladies. Franklin continued these demonstrations, but purely on a local level. Others still travelled the colonies and Europe demonstrating the wonderous effects of electricity , even if they did not understand it. The effect demonstrated on human bodies was obvious. It would not take too much imagination to perscribe wonderous life-giving properties to electricity, even before Volta and Galvani. But of course, that was more gay science. ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/65 "2005-06-28T07:28:04Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > Too save time I might try to put everything in context. Human reproduction is anathema to the cause of feminists and advocates of gay science. They seek to turn every fertile man into an obedient eunuch and every woman into a discordant automaton. The declining birth rate in her own demographic is enough punishment for the mischief. I’m a queer feminist with a son and an ornery husband. Please explain me. > [@uchtungbaby](#): > > Because they wish to brainwash people into a belief that there are specific physiognomic markers in one subject(.i.e.,beta-sigma, P7 Chorea’s) that induce pathological markers in another subject. Put simply, they try to bolster the idea that heterosexual interaction is unhealthy to one or both of the partners in a relationship. Conversely, the behavioural sequences (usually alpha2,gamma1) endemic to both feminist and gay discourses are made to seem inevitable and appropriate. Were it not for an act of God they probably would get what they desire. Whoa… are you trying to argue that _genetic markers_ are a hoax of some sort? Seriously, it looks to me like you are arguing “gay science” is behind genetic testing for Huntington’s Chorea and other genetic diseases with the intent of somehow destroying human reproduction by convincing people it’s unsafe to reproduce? I’m really hoping I am reading this wrong. What is this “act of God” you allude to? I have some guesses, but I doubt you are inferring anything nearly as crass and tasteless as I suspect. ---
**Author:** ![uchtungbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@uchtungbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uchtungbaby)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/66 "2005-06-28T07:51:10Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > In short, you have nothing to defend your statements with but a paranoid conspiracy theory. > > This thread has now become pointless. I realise it affects your sensibilities luv. Perhaps you could hold back your straining contensions and consider that we are all merely ‘wax and wire’. The ‘Hell-fire club’(HFC) has advised on governance for centuries. They were instrumental in gaining the power for women to have primary control over their children etc,. Many HFC’s of the 18th-19th centuries thought that the idea of giving women disciplinary control over their bodies might give the men more time to relax and smell the flowers. It was thought to be a fair exchange. The women of that time believed that “…the children hath the melodie of birds.” Obversely, the men found a glass of red wine and a quiet read of ‘Anatomie fur Divineers’ (Source: Vatican Library, Transitional Linguistic subject area.) a good precursor to watching executions in the main square of town. How things have changed? Feminists now claim to have praxis and freely conspire with the criminal incarnants that, occupy the jars of every anatomy department established prior to the twentieth century. Obviously, the ‘Majees’ of the late 19th century were slightly off the mark when they told other HFC’s (no doubt those ones on the turps at the time) that the resonances of these mischiefous people, would end once they were placed in jars containing what we now know of as formaldehyde. It is worth pointing out that they think they have won this vexing game but: Nobody wins when people play this ruse. They only prolong the inevitable. I am sure that the ‘Majees’ know that they will end their days as a discursive pack of old lampshades; and the rest of us; well we shall end our days doing the dance of the dodo (and I don’t mean Wilsons Disease). ---
**Author:** ![uchtungbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@uchtungbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uchtungbaby)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/67 "2005-06-28T08:04:35Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > What if Mary had a person friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon? Let’s assume that Mary got the idea in her head to write a novel about a corpse being reanimated. Yet Mary knows basically zilch about medicine. In that case, she could: > > #1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. > > #2) Ask her male friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon to fill in the details about what might be needed medically to reanimate a corpse, and incorporate this knowledge into her novel. > > Wouldn’t #2 be more plausible? And William Godwin was a philospher, not a surgeon. It seems more likely that Mary would have based what she wrote from discussions with a surgeon than her political philosopher father. I like the way you think! I am sure there is more to this story than meets the aye(sic)…I mean eye. My only disagreement with your view is that if you take a look at a portrait of Mary from that time you will notice that her features do betray the fact that she is a women. Her handsome and delicate shimmer would be easily detected by the physigonomic knowledge of the physicians that attended the lectures. The assumption that a man would not smell her beautiful body and run his fingers over her blushing cheeks betrays the womanliness of this person. ---
**Author:** ![uchtungbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@uchtungbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uchtungbaby)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/68 "2005-06-28T08:08:00Z")
> [@inkleberry](#): > > I’m a queer feminist with a son and an ornery husband. Please explain me. > > Whoa… are you trying to argue that _genetic markers_ are a hoax of some sort? Seriously, it looks to me like you are arguing “gay science” is behind genetic testing for Huntington’s Chorea and other genetic diseases with the intent of somehow destroying human reproduction by convincing people it’s unsafe to reproduce? I’m really hoping I am reading this wrong. > > What is this “act of God” you allude to? I have some guesses, but I doubt you are inferring anything nearly as crass and tasteless as I suspect. I am suggesting that the chorea’s are a form of post-hypnotic suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![blackhobyah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blackhobyah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blackhobyah)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/69 "2005-06-28T10:55:04Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > The ‘Hell-fire club’(HFC) has advised on governance for centuries. They were instrumental in gaining the power for women to have primary control over their children etc,. Many HFC’s of the 18th-19th centuries thought that the idea of giving women disciplinary control over their bodies might give the men more time to relax and smell the flowers. Which Hell Fire Club are you talking about? There were two famous ones, the best known being that formed by Sir Francis Dashwood in the mid-18th century. Francis Dashwood died in 1781, and his Hell Fire Club had disbanded some twenty years before that. The previous one was started early in the 18th century … but secret clubs of all kinds were a passion of the 18th century, I hardly think you can conclude from two such groups that they had enormous influence for centuries. They were more than likely a nice excuse for a bunch of wealthy men to indulge themselves in drink, drugs and debauchery, accompanied by a nice frisson of blasphemy to liven the mix. John Wilkes was a member of the Hell Fire Club and a supporter of female suffrage, but the Married Women’s Property Act was a project of William Gladstone after the General Election of 1880, and John Wilkes died in 1797, so it’s hard to see how much influence he could have had. The Married Women’s Property Act, which gave women control over their property wasn’t passed until 1882, by which time both John Wilkes and Francis Dashwood had been dead for nearly a century. > [@uchtungbaby](#): > > Obviously, the ‘Majees’ of the late 19th century were slightly off the mark when they told other HFC’s (no doubt those ones on the turps at the time) that the resonances of these mischiefous people, would end once they were placed in jars containing what we now know of as formaldehyde. In the interests of accuracy, I point out that everyone’s resonances are likely to end once they are placed in a jar of formaldehyde, I hardly think a warning to this effect is even slightly off the mark, although perhaps unneccesary for all but the most foolish. I’ve searched the Vatican Library catalogue for a copy of Anatomie fur Divineers and can’t find it. What is it about? I have to say that it would have to be a pretty incompetent cataloguer who would put a book which appears to be about fortune-telling into the linguistics section. As for the rest of your argument … with all due respect, I think that unless you can provide some evidence for your conclusions, I’d have to say that I think it’s of the same order as other conspiracy theories: entertaining fiction. There may be internal concordance for you, but if you want to convince anyone else, you’re going to provide some evidence outside your own imagination. ---
**Author:** ![blackhobyah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blackhobyah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blackhobyah)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/70 "2005-06-28T11:05:10Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > #1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. James Barry did, and graduated as a doctor from Edinburgh University in 1812. Her appearance was described as: " Her physical appearance was distinctly feminine. She was small and delicately built being only five feet tall, her face was pale and smooth with high cheek bones and sandy curls (dyed reddish in later life), a long nose and blue eyes. Her hands were small and delicate." She went on to a distinguished career as a doctor in the British Military Forces, and her sex wasn’t discovered until her death in 1865. Now I’m not suggesting that Mary Shelley did anything of the kind, but at least [one woman did](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/warslj/women_07.shtml). ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/71 "2005-06-28T12:37:05Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > I realise it affects your sensibilities luv. It is against the policies of this board for me to reply to this filthy attack on my intellectual integrity. It is also against the policies of this board to give any kind of objective description of the rest of your post. Moderators, I beg of you, move this thread to where it belongs. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/72 "2005-06-28T13:01:14Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > Moderators, I beg of you, move this thread to where it belongs. For what little my opinion in the matter is worth, I second this vote. ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/73 "2005-06-28T13:16:24Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > Slight hijack, please. > > What is the correct pronunciation of ‘Bysshe’? Traditionally: “bish” But Regency Hip-Hop culture popularized the alternate pronunciation: _ **bi-ASSHE!!!** _ ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/74 "2005-06-28T14:47:35Z")
**uchtungbaby** , you are invited to broaden your SDMB horizons. Please visit the [BBQ Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323146). ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/75 "2005-06-28T15:48:16Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > I am suggesting that the chorea’s are a form of post-hypnotic suggestion. Huntington’s chorea is a form of post-hypnotic suggestion? Oh my. Please join me in the already existing Pit thread. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/76 "2005-06-28T16:39:38Z")
Methinks uchtungbaby uses the term ‘HFC’ with the same meaning that we more conventional conspiracy-buffs use ‘Illuminati’. Also, I do wonder if the names John Tyler Kent or Lyndon LaRouche mean anything to him? ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/77 "2005-06-28T16:43:12Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > What if Mary had a person friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon? Let’s assume that Mary got the idea in her head to write a novel about a corpse being reanimated. Yet Mary knows basically zilch about medicine. In that case, she could: > > #1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. > > #2) Ask her male friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon to fill in the details about what might be needed medically to reanimate a corpse, and incorporate this knowledge into her novel. > > Wouldn’t #2 be more plausible? And William Godwin was a philospher, not a surgeon. It seems more likely that Mary would have based what she wrote from discussions with a surgeon than her political philosopher father. I don’t know about him being a surgeon, but the only one of the Shelley circle to have completed a spooky story besides Mary was Byron’s physician John Polidori. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/78 "2005-06-28T16:45:44Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > I realise it affects your sensibilities luv. Perhaps you could hold back your straining contensions and consider that we are all merely ‘wax and wire’. The ‘Hell-fire club’(HFC) has advised on governance for centuries. They were instrumental in gaining the power for women to have primary control over their children etc,. Many HFC’s of the 18th-19th centuries thought that the idea of giving women disciplinary control over their bodies might give the men more time to relax and smell the flowers. It was thought to be a fair exchange. The women of that time believed that “…the children hath the melodie of birds.” Obversely, the men found a glass of red wine and a quiet read of ‘Anatomie fur Divineers’ (Source: Vatican Library, Transitional Linguistic subject area.) a good precursor to watching executions in the main square of town. > > How things have changed? Feminists now claim to have praxis and freely conspire with the criminal incarnants that, occupy the jars of every anatomy department established prior to the twentieth century. Obviously, the ‘Majees’ of the late 19th century were slightly off the mark when they told other HFC’s (no doubt those ones on the turps at the time) that the resonances of these mischiefous people, would end once they were placed in jars containing what we now know of as formaldehyde. > > It is worth pointing out that they think they have won this vexing game but: Nobody wins when people play this ruse. They only prolong the inevitable. I am sure that the ‘Majees’ know that they will end their days as a discursive pack of old lampshades; and the rest of us; well we shall end our days doing the dance of the dodo (and I don’t mean Wilsons Disease). What the hell are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/79 "2005-06-28T17:06:24Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > For some reason, I don’t have access to an 1831 preface at the moment (the Net link I pursued didn’t come up & I don’t have time to look for others), but I do know that there is a reference in it to the use of galvinism & to “the pale student of unhallowed arts” infusing his creature with a spark of life from some machinery. > So electrical references to the monster’s creation do exist there tho not in the text of the novel. I just looked it up- paragraphs 9 & 10 in the 1831 Intro. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/80 "2005-06-28T18:38:47Z")
**uchtungbaby** , you are welcome to express opinions here, but you need to read the Forum descriptions, and you probably need to read a few more threads to get the hang of this place. We’re not like other discussion boards you may have seen. First, this forum is for discussion of the staff report. That means that you can offer evidence or opinions, whether historic or literary, on whether Mary Shelly wrote _Frankenstein._. You have offered your opinions, and you have been asked for evidence (and provided with evidence countering your opinions, so now you either provide evidence or you walk politely away and say, “We’ll agree to disagree.” Second, you may NOT offer conspiracy theories or your sentiments about feminism or any other such drivel, not in this forum. Such comments are completely out of line in this thread, and in this forum. You want to do that, go to the forum called Great Debates or the BBQ Pit. Third, you may NOT offer personal insults to posters in this forum. Such comments are not appropriate for this forum. You want to make snide and nasty personal comments, go to the forum called the BBQ Pit. This thread has gone as far as it’s going. **uchtungbaby** , if you have come to our Message Boards to engage in interesting (polite!) discussion and commentary, you are more than welcome. If you have come here solely to provoke a response, then see [What is a troll?](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtroll.html) and understand that it’s a bannable offense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331.md?page=3)