Sorry, we lived way out in the country--very far out in the country-- and not much contact with other people. Your comment not applicable.
Your comment about museum personel is absurd. Where is your scientific method in this? You've made an asumption and backed it up with your opinion. You claim to know all there is to know about all in the country. Laughable!
We did have indoor plumbing.
And don't "DUH" me. Your arrogance is amazing. Are you a Democrat?
You're being trolled, big time.
Then feel free to support your claim, as I suggested, by citing any contemporaneous or historical document of any sort which backs up your odd claims about what "scientists" allegedly said about Polio.
It's at least vaguely within the realm of possibility that some moron, somewhere -- perhaps one of your neighbors -- passed along an old wives tale about "polio from the ground" when you were a kid. But you didn't present "polio from the ground" as something you had just heard when you were young, you used it as an alleged example of "scientists" arriving at some absurd conclusion and disseminating it to the public. You were clearly trying to claim that there wasn't just one crackpot somewhere which held such an odd belief, you were claiming that this was a relatively widespread notion among the scientific community, and that they were obviously fools for believing such a stupid thing. If your claim is true, it shouldn't be hard to find records of such a position in journals, or public health advice printed in newspapers, or published announcements to that effect, etc. Go for it.
Lacking that, and given that several of us on this thread are quite familiar with the history of the epidemiology of Polio during this century and yet have not heard of such a notion being conventional wisdom at any time, we're going to have to call BS on your claim.
If you *do* manage to document it, I'll be quite happy to apologize for my skepticism and you can rub my nose in it all you like. That should be sufficient motiviation for you to spend a bit of time hunting for support for your assertion. But remember, showing the existence of an old wives tale to that effect isn't sufficient, you'll have to show that "scientists" were in the habit of giving such advice, since that *was* your original claim.
Your comment about museum personel is absurd.
Would you like to bet money on that? Say, twenty bucks?
Where is your scientific method in this? You've made an asumption and backed it up with your opinion.
I have more than that.
You claim to know all there is to know about all in the country.
No, I don't claim that at all. Stop make false charges against me. I don't *need* to "know all there is to know about all in the country" in order to know that what Newsgatherer claimed he heard museum guides say is entirely implausible on too many points to be even remotely possible. It has the form of the usual "creationist just so" story, made up from nothing but his own false preconceptions about how science "actually" works and how science exhibits "must" be presented. It has all the hallmarks of creationist fantasies about such presentations, and none of the characteristics of real-life museum exhibits or science presentations.
To those of us who *are* intimately acquainted with museums and the science behind the dating of fossils and other artifacts, his account is quite clearly simply made up -- and made up very poorly, due to his ignorance and misconceptions.
It's as clear as the obverse case would be if I were to claim that I had once visited a prominent Catholic church where the priest spoke from the pulpit in blue jeans and had made statements "admitting" that God was a fraud and that the story of King David on the ark with the animals wasn't workable, all while he spread Cheez Whiz on the eucharist wafers...
Anyone who had any *real* experience with Catholic churches and their practices would instantly recognize this as a fabricated piece of nonsense, too flawed on too many levels to even remotely be something that actually happened. And so it is with those of us who actually are quite familiar with museums, fossils, geology, and dating methods. Newsgatherer just made it up. He's lying. His story has far too many holes, of far too preposterous a nature, to be something that actually happened to him, not just once but several times, as he claims.
And don't "DUH" me.
This coming from the guy whose very first words on this thread were, "Give it up Ichneumon, you're sounding like an idiot"?
I'll make you a deal -- stop behaving like, well, yourself, and I'll stop DUHing you.
Your arrogance is amazing.
Thank you.
Good thing *you* haven't been arrogant yourself on this thread. Oh, wait...
Are you a Democrat?
Not at all. I am, however, very knowledgeable on a number of topics, and I don't take too kindly to those who aren't when they just make stuff up or speak complete nonsense in a belligerent manner. As the old saying goes, "better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Actually, I have no problem at all with people who are not very well versed on a subject. We're all neophytes on various topics. What I *do* take exception to is the people who are extremely unfamiliar with a topic, then use their delusions of competence to lecture, berate, "correct", and ridicule those people who do know the field. You know, like the way creationists who couldn't tell a retrovirus from a retroposon constantly attack the entire field and all professional practitioners of evolutionary biology, along with several other fields of science.