I don't know what penises you've been looking at, Jessica!

Okay--definition of scientist--does it include a) anthropologists b) archaeologists c) lingusts?

I read the linky and saw there were bunches of lengthy comments. Jumping to the concise comment I found something I could agree with...

I had a baby. It hurt like hell.

I suppose this is what I deserve since I popped in here to distract myself from all the work I am supposed to be doing. Doing work, considering orgasmic childbirth, doing work, maybe I should give that work thing another try.

ita: all three are social scientists. Many archaeologists would also qualify as hard scientists, as would many anthropologists, depending on their subspecialty.

In fact, I don't think it's possible to be an archaeologist nowadays without a solid grounding in biological science and chemistry. There's just too much going on.

Okay--definition of scientist--does it include a) anthropologists b) archaeologists c) lingusts?

Not sure about linguists (or lingusts), but the others are, I think. Although there might be hard and soft science?

I don't know what penises you've been looking at, Jessica!

...I don't think I should answer that one. DH sometimes reads this board.

My sister is *not* a scientist. I accept that some anthropologists are, but she sure isn't.

I had a long argument with someone who tried to convince me that I was a scientist, because I had a computer science degree and worked in IT, but I really couldn't convince her I wasn't. I guess I just have some expectations of science work (up to and including experiments) that maybe aren't valid. Having science as a background to what you do doesn't automatically make you a scientist, in my book. Not all doctors or nurses, for instance, are scientists, despite science driving what they do.

I have a Bachelor of Science in Accounting. Never considered for a moment that I was a scientist.

I think anthro/linguistics fall under the umbrella of social sciences, but it's a tough area to pin down. I probably wouldn't consider an economist to be a scientist, for example.

I have almost convinced myself to buy a "pack" of electronic cigarettes.

I've heard good things about them. If I could find a nicotine-free clove blend for them, I'd buy myself one. Because I MISS clove cigarettes. A lot.

My GOD. I'm having such communication problems. He just answers yes to everything, so I have to phrase my questions really carefully, or I'll go away with precisely the wrong impression.

He also has a tendency to default to saying things affirmatively, if there's any wiggle room. So he'll say "It works" even if something fails a test case, because failing the test case was actually executing a given portion of code.

It's so weird. And kind of creepy.