- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Here’s a version without the bad crop, comedy homicide, pointless circle around the punchline, and puritanical censoring
thanks
In his essay “To Tell a Chemist” (1965), Asimov proposed a simple shibboleth for distinguishing chemists from non-chemists: ask the person to read the word “unionized”. Chemists, he noted, will read un-ionized (electrically neutral), while non-chemists will read union-ized (belonging to a trade union).
Or some will say it’s spelled incorrectly
Onionized
Ah, because of the ions.
Took me eons.
Good luck finding the chemistry teacher, though.
As a leftist chemistry teacher, I read it as “having attained union”, rather than “not ionized”, so YMMV with this heuristic
ETA: (also, yeah, I have excellent job security until all public schools are abolished in the US)
My initial thought was “would chemists theoretically be less into labor protections than plumbers”?
I guess that puts me in a third bucket.
Am a chemist in your group. I read it the plumber way too. Took me several seconds to get it.
