| Author | Message | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
They'd better not | ||
| Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
|
Mumble? | ||
| Mezzoforte (Mezzoforte)
|
Euclid? Hippocrates? | ||
| (Stuccosalt)
|
Would something bad happen if they did? They: human? Male? Female? A group with some of both? Less than 10 people? Less than 100? 1,000?, 1 million? 1 billion? Unified by geography? Profession? Age? Hobby/interest? Blood? Something else? | ||
| (Stuccosalt)
|
Friday afternoon puzzle? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Haenlomal (Haenlomal) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 03:46 pm: Mumble? of course they'd better do that. How else would anyone make puzzles about them? By Mezzoforte (Mezzoforte) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 03:58 pm: Euclid? Hippocrates? neither, but an interesting line of thought  By (Stuccosalt) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 04:19 pm: Would something bad happen if they did? yes They: human? yes Male? yope Female? yope A group with some of both? yes Less than 10 people? this one Less than 100? 1,000?, 1 million? 1 billion? Unified by geography? Profession? Age? Hobby/interest? Blood? Something else? this one By (Stuccosalt) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 04:39 pm: Friday afternoon puzzle? no - I just posted it on Friday afternoon to fool you | ||
| John Morahan (Wunderland)
|
Are they specific, real people? any of them famous? all of them? Something they would do collectively? or each individually? | ||
| Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
|
Is the group some signficant affiliation? a government body? club? cult? military unit? organization that works together? family? business? people who do lateral puzzles? support group? police officers? similar? contemporaries? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 07:14 pm: Are they specific, real people? both any of them famous? no all of them? laeftr Something they would do collectively? this one or each individually? By Chuck Raby (Wildcard) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 10:19 pm: Is the group some signficant affiliation? yesish a government body? no club? no cult? no military unit? no organization that works together? yes family? yes business? no people who do lateral puzzles? what they do in their spare time is no concern of mine support group? no police officers? no similar? to what? contemporaries? yes, indeed This "group" is rather smaller than you think } | ||
| Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
|
A family unit? Include a mother? a father? children? relevant how many children? gender of children relevant? The group is two or more, so the group contains 2 people? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? Any fractional people included? Does the puzzle involve having children? is the title of the puzzle relevant? talking about squaring the number of people in the group? the number of children? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Chuck Raby (Wildcard) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 11:27 pm: A family unit? yes Include a mother? not yet a father? not yet children? and not yet relevant how many children? gender of children relevant? The group is two or more, so the group contains 2 people? this one 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? Any fractional people included? \b(not yet} Does the puzzle involve having children? no is the title of the puzzle relevant? yes, and there will be several bonus points available for working out why talking about squaring the number of people in the group? the number of children? not this kind of thing | ||
| Benjamin Moore (Zenith)
|
de facto relationship? engagement? wedding in near future? not planned yet? Is what they better not do related to a wedding? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Benjamin Moore (Zenith) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 11:21 am: de facto relationship? indeed, and about to become de jure as well engagement? yes wedding in near future? very much so not planned yet? it has been most carefully planned Is what they better not do related to a wedding? yes, indeed | ||
| Benjamin Moore (Zenith)
|
•Wedding ceromony, specifically: •Guest list •Venue •Families •Religion •Size •Musical Repotoire •Dress •Jewelery •Wedding Band •Reception •Guest List •Venue •Gift List •Food •Size •Music •Signing of the Register •Choice of Witness •Honeymoon •Destination •Length of Duration •Choice in accomodation •Choice in Transport | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Benjamin Moore (Zenith) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 12:02 pm: •Wedding ceromony, specifically: •Guest list •Venue this one, ish •Families •Religion •Size •Musical Repotoire •Dress •Jewelery •Wedding Band •Reception •Guest List •Venue •Gift List •Food •Size •Music •Signing of the Register •Choice of Witness •Honeymoon •Destination •Length of Duration •Choice in accomodation •Choice in Transport none of the others, I'm afraid | ||
| Damien Sullivan (Docd)
|
Were they planning an unusual venue for the wedding ceremony? If they did do what they had planned, would the consequence have been: Physical harm to one of them? both? Someone else? Something else? Financial harm? Legal trouble? Damaging to their reputation? Damaging to the stability of the ensuing marriage? Damaging to their, um, future reproductive potential? Were they planning to try to do something demonstrably impossible? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Damien Sullivan (Docd) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 12:45 pm: Were they planning an unusual venue for the wedding ceremony? very much so If they did do what they had planned, oh, they did most of what they had planned. One aspect, however, had they done it, would have caused... would the consequence have been: Physical harm to one of them? both? this one Someone else? Something else? Financial harm? Legal trouble? Damaging to their reputation? Damaging to the stability of the ensuing marriage? Damaging to their, um, future reproductive potential? Were they planning to try to do something demonstrably impossible? no - just somewhat inadvisable | ||
| Damien Sullivan (Docd)
|
Was the wedding venue a hazardous place to be in normal circumstances? Or was it only hazardous in view of what they had planned to do there? Would the plan have been just as dangerous for any couple with the same idea? Would the celebrant &/or guests be at risk of harm? The physical harm: Death? Blunt trauma? Penetrating trauma? Drowning or near drowning? Electrocution? Thermal injury? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Damien Sullivan (Docd) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 01:10 pm: Was the wedding venue a hazardous place to be in normal circumstances? yes Or was it only hazardous in view of what they had planned to do there? this made it rather more dangerous, though Would the plan have been just as dangerous for any couple with the same idea? yes Would the celebrant no &/or guests perhaps be at risk of harm? The physical harm: Death? perhaps Blunt trauma? this one, certainly Penetrating trauma? and this one, possibly Drowning or near drowning? Electrocution? Thermal injury? none of those | ||
| Damien Sullivan (Docd)
|
Were they going to jump from something(skydiving? Bunjee jumping?) to celebrate their marriage? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Damien Sullivan (Docd) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 01:20 pm: Were they going to jump from something(skydiving? Bunjee jumping?) to celebrate their marriage? no, but this is very much in the right forest... | ||
| Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
|
were they planning to do cliff diving? Does the wedding involve an airplane? the space shuttle? a glider? Hang glider? some kind of slingshot? trebu-- treb...catapult? a skyscraper? A tightrope? trapese? being shot out of a cannon? trampoline? parasailing? parachuting from something other than a plane? Into the Grand Canyon? |
