The qualifier was on average Englishman, not average number of pants, which raises the even more pressing question as to what comprised an average Englishman--and it sounds as though that average is defined by having one pair of pants.
Now, what would an unaverage Englishman have? It could be as you suggested none, or it could be perhaps a great many.
I suppose this is a better measure than IQ of qualifying people qua people.
1 comment:
Dear Sir,
The qualifier was on average Englishman, not average number of pants, which raises the even more pressing question as to what comprised an average Englishman--and it sounds as though that average is defined by having one pair of pants.
Now, what would an unaverage Englishman have? It could be as you suggested none, or it could be perhaps a great many.
I suppose this is a better measure than IQ of qualifying people qua people.
Interesting indeed.
shalom,
Steven
Post a Comment