Yes, that Mr. Owl. Philosopher, pundit, collegian, and corporate shill. Only Mr. Owl has the wisdom to embrace uncertainty. Some would say that by cutting short the experiment by biting into the confection he proved himself unequal to the challenge posed by the boy, but I would defend his actions. First of all, the question was impossible to answer. There can be no final determinant of the how many licks question because of the variables involved. Size, roughness, and wetness of the tongue are just a few of the more significant variables. Mr. Cow*, for example, would surely require fewer licks than, say, Mr. Turtle. By ending the discussion as he did, Mr. Owl pointed out the absurdity of the question. I would also point out that while the spirit of the experiment may have been violated in the view of the boy, Mr. Owl did, in fact, answer the question accurately. Knowing that the answer must be necessarily different depending on the person licking the sweetmeat, he could only give the answer appropriate to his own circumstance. There was nothing in the phrasing of the question that prohibited biting. Therefore, Mr. Owl gave a correct answer in stating that it took only three licks, followed by a bite, to complete the assigned task. Any further effort on his part would be foolish, and Mr. Owl is by no means foolish.
Mr. Owl. Paragon of wisdom and candy fancier.
*And can someone explain Mr. Cow to me? By definition a cow is a female animal, but Mr. Cow is clearly not a female. Who is this gender bending bovine?
No comments:
Post a Comment