In article <33tsnt$t7l at tierra.santafe.ede> cheryl at wijiji.santafe.edu (C. A. Stewart) writes:
>In article <33qs6i$d96 at darkstar.UCSC.EDU> quinones at orchid.UCSC.EDU (Cathy Quinones) writes:
>>I think it is worthy to discuss, if we end up agreeing that a
>>"scientist" can be defined in a variety of ways. I
>>agree with you, being a scientist isn't about having X number of
>>postgraduate degrees from this or that university, or having Y number of
>>publications by a certain deadline. It is about being having a curious
>>nature, looking at existing information in new ways and/or collecting new
>>information and (most importantly, IMO), asking the right questions.
>>If that is the criterion, then every 4-year-old is a scientist.
(and other warm, supportive thoughts deleted)
Well, guys, I will do the altruistic thing by sparing you the rest of
the above response. Now Cheryl isn't just happy to publicly tell me
I am not entitled to my opinions, she also sent me some very loving
e-mail (which amused me to no end!).
Does anyone have any other ideas for new threads? This one was going
well until I dared to contribute and the thought police cut in... (is
this a new, pernicious trend? Does the group now need a moderator? Or,
did we *get* a moderator and I missed the announcement?!)
////////// ////// // \\\ ~ /////
////// /\_/\_____ \\ /// quinones at biology.ucsc.edu ////
///// \"."/ \_// /// /////
/////// ///////////////////////Poicephalus rule!!/////////