Go back
'nucular' warfare

'nucular' warfare

General

Vote Up
Vote Down

Deal with it, GB!

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
Deal with it, GB!
Did you ever consider...



That half the people you know are below average?

Also that if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off?


😀

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Did you ever consider... half the people you know are below average?
That's not necessarily true.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's not necessarily true.
True, but it is normally.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
Deal with it, GB!
RE; Rare Nordlys' Spelling Correction... thread title s/b "nucular waffare".


Per George W.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
RE; Rare Nordlys' Spelling Correction... thread title s/b "nucular waffare".


Per George W.
And tearists

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
True, but it is normally.
I don't believe that. I would expect that for about 50% it can't be true because they have an odd number of people they know, and for the rest it would be very unlikely. Of course there's also the question what "being (above/below) average" actually means.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
RE; Rare Nordlys' Spelling Correction... thread title s/b "nucular waffare".


Per George W.
😀

(I didn't know GB was also called Per!)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
Deal with it, GB!
Great Britian is dealing with it. Risestance is futile. Spelling is not my thing.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
RE; Rare Nordlys' Spelling Correction... thread title s/b "nucular waffare".


Per George W.
'nuclear' would be somewhat better, even in colonial-speak.
And NEVER trust a leader with the initials 'G' 'B'. It's a bad omen.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
I don't believe that. I would expect that for about 50% it can't be true because they have an odd number of people they know, and for the rest it would be very unlikely. Of course there's also the question what "being (above/below) average" actually means.
At first blush, our inclination is to associate 'average' with intellect or IQ. Context of 'average' really could refer anything'... height, weight,

annual income, chess play, health, spelling aptitude, etc. Would you entertain the 50% generalization with this clarification now in view?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
At first blush, our inclination is to associate 'average' with intellect or IQ. Context of 'average' really could refer anything'... height, weight,

annual income, chess play, health, spelling aptitude, etc. Would you entertain the 50% generalization with this clarification now in view?
Curiously, almost all people have more than the average number of legs, fingers, eyes, .....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
😀

(I didn't know GB was also called Per!)
Maybe short for person (as in xym... btw, resisted perv). Interesting

that nuclear and unclear are unintended linguistic family members.



🙂

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
At first blush, our inclination is to associate 'average' with intellect or IQ. Context of 'average' really could refer anything'... height, weight,

annual income, chess play, health, spelling aptitude, etc. Would you entertain the 50% generalization with this clarification now in view?
No. My arguments against it still hold. For some of the averages you mentioned, it would be more likely to be close to 50% than for others, but it's still highly unlikely that it would be exactly 50% in most cases.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Maybe short for person (as in xym... btw, resisted perv).
"Per" is a Scandinavian form of "Peter".