On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Jeff Ricker wrote:
> <snip> My completely unsubstantiated guess is
> that, on rare occasions, a chicken (aren't roosters male chickens,
> Stephen??) <snip>
In answer to that question, the answer is yes. I did say that I was a
city boy, and lacking barnyard learning, somehow thought that
"chicken" was the sexual opposite of "rooster". I have since verified
that a chicken is a fowl of unspecified sex, while roosters are, well,
roosters. I thank Jeff for bringing this to my attention. So if
someone says that a chicken is running around without its head, it may
or may not be a rooster. If we're ever going to resolve this incisive
issue, I suggest that future reports be clear on the sex of the
detached subject.
What does Ken Steele have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. I just
thought I'd mention that I enjoyed hearing the interview with him on
the subject of the non-existence of the Mozart effect on the
prestigious public-affairs radio programme "As It Happens", CBC
(Canada) radio last night. He spoke with great authority on the
subject. So that's what he sounds like!
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
