| Author | Message | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
We didn't do it | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
Did they? Are you part of 'we'? Result - murder? Accident? Death? Damage? Physical harm? Property loss? Theft? Victim - several? Individual? No real victim? Christmahanukwaanzadah relevant in this puzzle? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:58 am: Did they? they did, for sufficiently accurate values of "they" Are you part of 'we'? yope Result - murder? Accident? Death? Damage? Physical harm? Property loss? Theft? none of the above Victim - several? Individual? No real victim? this one Christmahanukwaanzadah relevant in this puzzle? this is not a Christmas puzzle, but... | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
A group of people ... doesn't do something. You're involved. Correct? How many? 3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 1,000, over? No malicious action was ... not done, right? The action that would have been done... would it have been done to the benefit of 'we'? Or to their loss? Are they trying to shift blame, or simply to deny everything? - Was this denial or whatever willingly given or was it forced; as in, this statement was released under pressure? | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
... err, wait, they *did* do something. Substitute that for everything above.  | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 01:05 am: A group of people ... doesn't do something. You're involved. Correct? no. "We didn't do it" is a somewhat cryptic statement; it does not refer to a group of people as such How many? 3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 1,000, over? the number of people to whom "we didn't do it" might apply is, I would conjecture, in the tens of thousands. (Of course, in terms of the world's population, those who didn't do it number in the low billions, but in the context of the puzzle...) No malicious action was ... not done, right? An action has most certainly been done; it might be inferred that I was in part responsible, but only by a silly person The action that would have been done... would it have been done to the benefit of 'we'? Or to their loss? neither. The action was done; many consider it, if anything, a good thing to have been done; some regard it as a bit of a pity that it was done; many are neutral about it Are they trying to shift blame, or simply to deny everything? - Was this denial or whatever willingly given or was it forced; as in, this statement was released under pressure? In avowing that "we didn't do it" I am trying neither to ascribe nor to avoid "blame", merely to correct a commonly-held belief | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 01:08 am: ... err, wait, they *did* do something. Substitute that for everything above. those who did do it could be counted on the fingers of one hand | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
So this puzzle is more conceptual and abstract than literal and concrete? - The action is more a big shift in some aspect of society, or a small effect that anyone, including myself, can notice, or something on a much smaller scale? Everyone included in this group human? Is the group bounded specifically or could anyone potentially belong to it? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 01:29 am: So this puzzle is more conceptual and abstract than literal and concrete? - this puzzle is not about any particular concrete thing; it is, however, about a particular action called "it", which "we" (including "I") did not not do, but a small group of other people did The action is more a big shift in some aspect of society, or a small effect that anyone, including myself, can notice, or something on a much smaller scale? the action itself is small; its consequences are widely known, though perhaps not universally known Everyone included in this group human? yes Is the group bounded specifically or could anyone potentially belong to it? those who belonged to it are long dead; no one else could join the club. What is done, is done | ||
| Ana Todorovic (Ana)
|
Is it somethink like taking credit for something someone else did? Like, when the national soccer team wins a championship, and we say - WE won! | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Ana Todorovic (Ana) on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Is it somethink like taking credit for something someone else did? people might suppose that I and a group of people like me had done something; but I and the group would not seek to take the credit Like, when the national soccer team wins a championship, and we say - WE won! not this sort of thing, but a good idea And hello again Ana | ||
| Ana Todorovic (Ana)
|
Hello to you too Phylosophy relevant? Other of your personal interests? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Ana Todorovic (Ana) on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 02:27 am: Phylosophy relevant? no Other of your personal interests? yes | ||
| Ana Todorovic (Ana)
|
Do these other people really really really think you did it, or is it just a figure of speech? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Ana Todorovic (Ana) on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Do these other people really really really think you did it, not even really or is it just a figure of speech? indeed - it is a silly play on words. But this is a silly puzzle | ||
| Tommy Petersson (Tommyp)
|
Title relevant? Is this an (Aussie?) Englishish puzzle? Before "it was done", was there a discussion if it ought to be done? a public discussion? Did "doing it" require a physical effort? mental effort? Was "doing it" an irreversible action? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Tommy Petersson (Tommyp) on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 07:20 pm: Title relevant? the title is a slight misquotation from Cell Block Tango, a song in the musical Chicago. Velma sings, despite various interruptions from the Chorus and in defiance of the rules of English syntax: I didn't do it, But if I done it, How could you tell me I was wrong? It has no other relevance. Is this an (Aussie? no ) Englishish yes puzzle? Before "it was done", was there a discussion if it ought to be done? no a public discussion? Did "doing it" require a physical effort? this to a small extent mental effort? this primarily Was "doing it" an irreversible action? yes | ||
| Johanna (Buzzard)
|
I'm not sure I understand what is going on here, but I can start the LTPF list of woubit's non-philosophical personal interests... Does this have to do with: - bridge? - beer? - curry? - gin? - weightless poetry? - golf? - cricket? - other sport(s)? - Kris Delmhorst? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Johanna (Buzzard) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 01:31 am: I'm not sure I understand what is going on here, but I can start the LTPF list of woubit's non-philosophical personal interests... you seem to have pretty much finished it as well Does this have to do with: - bridge? - beer? - curry? - gin? - weightless poetry? this one - golf? - cricket? - other sport(s)? - Kris Delmhorst? | ||
| Johanna (Buzzard)
|
Is there a specific poem that is relevant to this puzzle? a specific poet? Is it necessary to identify it/him? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Johanna (Buzzard) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 01:59 am: Is there a specific poem that is relevant to this puzzle? yes a specific poet? yesish Is it necessary to identify it/him? yes | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
The few amount of people that did do 'it' - were they poets? 'It' - did it involve the use of some type of poetic device? Some type of literary device? A misquotation? A misspelling? Something that changed the English language permanently? If so, how many times have I used it in this posting? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 02:12 am: The few amount of people that did do 'it' - were they poets? yes 'It' - did it involve the use of some type of poetic device? well, it involved writing some poetry Some type of literary device? just rhyme and metre - the usual things (except in the works of Richard Shindell, of course) A misquotation? A misspelling? Something that changed the English language permanently? nothing like this If so, how many times have I used it in this posting? none | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
So, I *could* use it in English language, today? So I might have done it, at some point in my life? But it isn't done in common conversational English? Formal English? Shakespearian English? Un-necessary hy-phen era (18th century?) English? Earlier: Christmahanukwaanzadah relevant in this puzzle? this is not a Christmas puzzle, but... ... but, people that make up their own words from other words barrowed either from English or from some other language to give the mashed combination of words either a combined or a different literal meaning with different connotations and a therefore completely different meaning over time... they're relevant? Or is English manipulation in general relevant? I think that commercial will have some historical significance in a few decades... like the Daisy ad, or something. | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 04:37 am: So, I *could* use it in English language, today? well, I guess you could write a poem similar to the one in question, yes. There isn't any "device" involved here - this puzzle is just about a particular poem; your last post was not poetry, as far as I am able to judge So I might have done it, at some point in my life? for aught I know, you have written screeds of poetry But it isn't done in common conversational English? most people do not talk in rhyme Formal English? Shakespearian English? Un-necessary hy-phen era (18th century?) English? none of these Earlier: Christmahanukwaanzadah relevant in this puzzle? this is not a Christmas puzzle, but... ... but, people that make up their own words from other words barrowed either from English or from some other language to give the mashed combination of words either a combined or a different literal meaning with different connotations and a therefore completely different meaning over time... they're relevant? Or is English manipulation in general relevant? nothing is relevant except one particular very well-known poem, which is in Englishish, and its author, who was not the "we" of the puzzle statement. Sorry for any confusion. | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
Is the poet well-known? The poem? Wild guess - John Donne? | ||
| Shawn Franchi (Doctapeppa)
|
John Smith? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 05:28 am: Is the poet well-known? yes The poem? yes Wild guess - John Donne? no, but good thinking By Shawn Franchi (Doctapeppa) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 05:38 am: John Smith? no | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
E. E. Cummings? Was the poem written in the: 15th century? 16th? 17th? 18th? 19th? 20th? earlier? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 08:41 pm: E. E. Cummings? no Was the poem written in the: 15th century? 16th? 17th? 18th? 19th? 20th? earlier? the person who didn't write the poem didn't write it in the 18th century, so to spaek. The group who did write it did so in the 17th. This is all rather confusing, but I hope it may become clearer | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
So someone else (Poet 2) wrote a poem similar in some way? or related in some way through this puzzle? to the poem in question (written by Poet 1)? Poet 1's poem used the literary device, and Poet 2's poem didn't? Poet 1 and Poet 2 - male or female? sane or insane? alcoholic or not? Too bad this wasn't early 20th century, or I coulda narrowed him/her down easily. | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 09:06 pm: So someone else (Poet 2) wrote a poem similar in some way? or related in some way through this puzzle? to the poem in question (written by Poet 1)? yes, indeed, though more poets than one were involved in actually writing the poem that "we" are thought to have written, but did not Poet 1's poem used the literary device, and Poet 2's poem didn't? there wasn't any literary device other than those commonly used in poetry - rhyme and metre Poet 1 and Poet 2 - male or female? sane or insane? alcoholic or not? all the poets involved were male, sane, and not alcoholics. Of the poets collectively lumped together under "Poet 1", you have never heard; the poet known as "Poet 2" is world-famous, and so is his poem. | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
So Poet 2 is effectively a hack? Is Coleridge's 'Kubla Khan' relevant? Something similar? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 09:21 pm: So Poet 2 is effectively a hack? no, Poet 2 is justly world-renowned. He wrote some of the finest poetry ever created; he just didn't write this particular poem. Is Coleridge's 'Kubla Khan' relevant? no Something similar? no | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
Short ***** RECAP ***** A certain world-famous poem is, by most people, wrongly thought to be the work of a certain world-famous poet, who lived in the 18th century. The poem is in fact the work of more than one person; the relevant people (who were also poets of no particular renown) lived in both the 17th and 18th centuries (as far as is known). Despite the fact that the poet who didn't write it was a single individual, I assert that "we didn't do it", for a reason yet to be discovered. | ||
| L. Jacobs (Tweek)
|
Is the 'it', more or less, described in the puzzle statement something referred to in the poem? used in the poem? it's related to the poem, right? was 'it' the act of writing that poem, or attributing that poem to him? - I'm confused; how could 'we' not do 'it' if we can do it? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By L. Jacobs (Tweek) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:31 pm: Is the 'it', more or less, described in the puzzle statement something referred to in the poem? used in the poem? it's related to the poem, right? was 'it' the act of writing that poem, this one or attributing that poem to him? - I'm confused; how could 'we' not do 'it' if we can do it? apologies for confusion, but that is why this is a puzzle All will become clear when you have located the poet, and the poem - recall that it is written in "Englishish"; recall also that this is not a Christmas puzzle, but... | ||
| (Stuccosalt)
|
Hey, just got on board this one... How bout Robert Burns, Scotland, and Auld Lang Syne? | ||
| (Stuccosalt)
|
Um, to be clear, I mean how bout Burns as the poet, Scots as the 'we', and Auld Lang Syne as the poem. Oh, and not a Christmas puzzle, but a New Year's puzzle. | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By (Stuccosalt) on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 01:22 pm: Hey, just got on board this one... How bout Robert Burns, Scotland, and Auld Lang Syne? two out of three ain't bad... By (Stuccosalt) on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 01:23 pm: Um, to be clear, I mean how bout Burns as the poet, yes Scots as the 'we', no and Auld Lang Syne as the poem. yes Oh, and not a Christmas puzzle, but a New Year's puzzle. quite so | ||
| Johanna (Buzzard)
|
So this "we" would be your family, then? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Johanna (Buzzard) on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 02:47 pm: So this "we" would be your family, then? possibly, or any group of a number of unrelated people called Burn would do. I think that's enough - after all, we are well into the New Year by now, so ***** SPOILER ***** The poem Auld lang syne, sung throughout the world at midnight on New Year's Day, is believed by many to be the work of the great Scottish poet Robert Burns (1759 - 1796). It isn't - or at least, quite a lot of it isn't. Earlier versions of the poem are ascribed to the English poet Robert Aytoun and to the Scottish poet Francis Sempill. There are many simliarities between the song we know today and a poem by Allan Ramsay. Burns himself, in a letter to a friend, enclosed the lyrics of Auld lang syne and wrote that "There is an old song and tune which has often thrilled my soul". A rather tedious account of the whole business can be found here. What probably happened was that Burns adapted some of the older poems to his own purposes. But at what is now the year before last's New Year's Eve party, the subject of the authorship of Auld lang syne arose, and I was appealed to as arbitrator by two of my friends, who had struck a wager. "Come on, David" said one of them. "Given your surname, you ought to know who wrote Auld lang syne". "We", I said, "didn't do it." Well done everyone. The abridged version follows: Should auld acquaintance be forgot? Certainly not. Ask any Scot. | ||
| Dietmar Cremers (Feenwelt)
|
Harry: What does this song mean? For my whole life I don't know what this song means. I mean, "Should old acquaintance be forgot". Does that mean we should forget old acquaintances, or does it mean if we happen to forget them we should remember them, which is not possible because we already forgot them? Sally: Well, maybe it just means that we should remember that we forgot them or something. Anyway, it's about old friends. (When Harry Met Sally) |
