On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 03:10:08 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Monday, 7 November 2016 10:53:05 UTC, T i m wrote:


Given that I don't 'believe in' Astrology, I (broadly) seem to be a
classic Virgo. ;-)

I don't fit into any of that at all.

http://www.astrology-zodiac-signs.co...c-signs/virgo/

I didn't say you (or any / everyone) did.

Given any subset of humanity, there will be those who generally
considered 'normal' and those, who for whatever reason wouldn't be.
e.g. I've never been 'normal' because I have always been atypically
tall for my country / gender / culture (I'm only 6'2" but that is
still considered 'tall' not 'normal / average' by many).

So, most generalisation will also only 'generally' fit those who are
considered normal for whatever subject is being discussed. I for
example am more typical of 'most women' because of my disinterest in
football or fishing. I guess I'm not into 'spectator lek'
(stereotypical for a Virgo).

I guess the whole star-sign thing must fit 'most people' in general or
it wouldn't be followed by so many?

Cheers, T i m