|
Post by alfromni on Oct 19, 2017 23:29:57 GMT
I'm for bed guys, so the given answer (as silly as I think it is) will be revealed later. You'll have probably figured it out by then anyway. Night all!
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 19, 2017 23:50:39 GMT
moviebuffbradThanks for the input. That's the answer I first thought of, and I think the most logical, but it's not the given answer (from a riddle blog btw.) Well, I'll throw one more guess out: he was told to kill himself by someone on the phone.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 20, 2017 0:38:54 GMT
alfromni Like brimfin , I haven't seen Dave, so I don't know what's happening in that scene. But... He threw his arms out and--I don't know, cut himself on a piece of glass? Was he having a stroke?
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Oct 20, 2017 3:22:26 GMT
Nalkarj , moviebuffbrad , brimfin Couldn't sleep, so I'll answer your question instead :-) Dave is practising the classic fisherman's boast, but using mechanical arms so to do. Does that help? :-)
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 20, 2017 18:52:04 GMT
alfromniThe classic fisherman's boast? "It was this big"? And he extended his arms and...? Really?
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Oct 20, 2017 19:00:54 GMT
NalkarjThat's it! Silly answer isn't it? The answer on the riddle blog is: "The man was talking to a friend on the phone when he foolishly described it to be ‘this big’ he smashed the glass and bled to death."[In the photo Dave is saying, "I once caught a fish, th..i..i..s big."] I said the given answer was silly and implausible, which is why I threw it open to other suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Oct 20, 2017 19:28:19 GMT
moviebuffbrad , brimfinAny more suggestions guys before closing this? Nalkarj has guessed the given answer which as said was silly, and why I threw it open to other suggestions. I think all your answers outshone the given one. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 20, 2017 19:31:17 GMT
Oh, no need to close it, alfromni! I liked coming up with the fun but goofy given answer, but I'm more than ready to come up with some more. Whenever such a notion pops into my head...
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Oct 20, 2017 19:38:11 GMT
NalkarjAs you wish....no problem. :-)
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on Oct 24, 2017 0:41:32 GMT
Nalkarj That's it! Silly answer isn't it? The answer on the riddle blog is: "The man was talking to a friend on the phone when he foolishly described it to be ‘this big’ he smashed the glass and bled to death."[In the photo Dave is saying, "I once caught a fish, th..i..i..s big."] I said the given answer was silly and implausible, which is why I threw it open to other suggestions. Yes, I have to agree that is a silly, implausible answer. Reminds me of a bit on TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES where they showed a cartoon with a foreign caption and gave it to four comedians. One had been given the correct answer to say, the other 3 just came up with their own jokes. The participants kept winning by picking the least funny response, because that would always turn out to be the correct translation.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 25, 2017 20:21:04 GMT
brimfin , alfromni , moviebuffbrad , DanaShelbyChancey , jervistetch , et al. OK, I've been searching for a good lateral-thinking logic puzzle, but I'm coming up with a blank thus far. I actually looked at Pete 's "what links these images" thread, amused at how we started this with that one in--May? May? Seems like ages ago! Anyhoo, I'm having difficulty finding a riddle, so I hope you won't mind this Author! Author! problem instead... (As with several of the other ones, I do have an idea for an answer, but it's by no means certain.) It's borrowed from a great 19th Century "riddle story," Cleveland Moffett's "The Mysterious Card." I only realized halfway though my synopsis how similar this tale was to Brimfin's "purple lurple" story; indeed, I wonder if that joke were inspired by "The Mysterious Card"--I mean, the writing on the card was even in purple! As stated, I think I have the beginnings of an answer, but--what say you? (Moffett did write a sequel, eventually, but it was a sci-fi story, a bit like Robert W. Chambers' The King in Yellow.)
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 25, 2017 20:40:45 GMT
Well, my first thought is the card says something about kiddie fiddling.
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on Oct 25, 2017 20:49:46 GMT
The Mysterious Card The card reads "Devenir tres tres en colere et ne pas dire pourqioi." That's French for "Become very, very angry and don't say why." The purple ink is a newly developed drug that has a hypnotic effect on anyone who touched it or the card and a dash of LSD to give the person an illusion to help make and keep them angry. It's being developed as a secret super-weapon; so far, so good.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 26, 2017 3:34:05 GMT
moviebuffbrad and brimfinThank you, fellas. Brad, I think the fundamental concern about its being anything "normally" reprehensible (if you know what I mean) is that someone like an experienced police-officer wouldn't freak out over it; he has probably seen it and a lot worse. Similarly, even if I showed someone an object with something wicked on it, he or she probably wouldn't just pick up and leave. I think it has to be something--different. (Another odd choice of words--I'm having trouble articulating the point!) Brimfin, the funny thing is that Moffett's explanation is a bit like that: "The Mysterious Card Unveiled" reveals that the card has some kind of formula on it such that whoever holds it looks to other people like a monster or demon (never exactly explained how), causing the other person to become repulsed, angry, and scared. Quite a good idea, though I suppose I was trying to think of a very naturalistic explanation... Thanks again, guys. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Oct 26, 2017 6:28:33 GMT
NalkarjThe Card I'm afraid I can't better the solutions already suggested but I do have a question regarding them which is... ...if the card itself had hypnotic and demonic effects etc on everyone who was shown the card, how is it that Jim didn't suffer the same effects regardless of language? The natural thing to do when given the card is to look at it. Ergo we are left with language. I can't think of anything written (French or otherwise) that would have the same effect of disgust on everyone. Especially in this current era. I think we're back to "Sleuth".
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 27, 2017 2:05:09 GMT
I think alfromni 's point here is completely correct, which makes answering this one so difficult. As stated, when I first read "The Mysterious Card," I had a few ideas for a rational solution (it's presented as a mystery tale, albeit an unsolved one, in the manner of the "riddle tale"; it's only the sequel that makes it sci-fi/fantasy). They're not solid, but if anyone wants to run with them, be my guest. (I suppose I'm in the mood for logical analysis this evening; I just finished a boatload of work and quickly read Ellery Queen's fun Double, Double. Apologies, as I probably will go on too much, as usual!) 1. We know it can't be something that "...would have the same effect of disgust on everyone," as Al put it. (Especially in the current era, yes, though the story was originally written in 1896.) It cannot be something normal, but nasty, in French either--as brimfin picked up on in his explanation. 2. .˙. The words themselves, whether implying something reprehensible or not, do not matter. There must be something else. 3. Let's try reducing the problem to what must necessarily be true for it to work. (I tried to do something similar with my solution to the birthday puzzle, but it fell apart--not a portent for this problem, I hope!) That is to say, may the message of the mysterious card be directed at a particular individual? At Burwell? Well, no, as he can't read it. Then who else? 4. Who reads the mysterious card? The hotel manager, the policeman, and Mrs. Burwell. In other words, they are the only people for whom we're sure that the card has meaning. It's implied that it's something that would be reprehensible to anyone who can read French, but we know (Point 1) that that's not true. 5. Two ways we could go with this: conspiracy or past connection. In both, I think the primary goal was to have Mrs. Burwell, who can read French, read the mysterious card. 5a. Conspiracy (and Past Connection): the man with the green spectacles, the mysterious woman who gave Burwell the card, the policeman, and the manager are all in on the conspiracy. The intention is for him to be forced out of France and to give his wife the card. I'll write some thoughts on why in a moment. How to effect the diplomatic action? Easy; if it's a conspiracy, use some insider in the embassy. Either way, make Burwell dazed and confused, and force him back home. 5b. Past Connection Only: The policeman, the hotel manager, and Mrs. B all have some past connection with Monsieur Vert and Mademoiselle Mystérieuse ( ça m'amuse, au moins!) and, thus, the card. In this scenario, no one is actively plotting to throw Burwell out of France; all of them simply presume something about him from his possession of the card. 6. But why, and what's on the card? Well, here I was reminded of a similar problem [with a solution this time!], Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Adventure of the Dancing Men." There, a gangster was sending messages via a stick-figure code to a woman who married Holmes's client. I thought of something similar here; what if the card contained some kind of secret message, known to former participants in some past organization? It would apply to both scenarios. Let's say it's a spy agency or something, and anyone with the card is an agent of--the enemy, maybe? It's the enemy code? Thus the repulsion upon seeing it. Or perhaps a sign of their own organization, to show that sleeper agents are being activated? 7. Again, the point is for Mrs. B to see it and know (e.g.) that the spy agency was up and working again. When she says, "you monster!" it could be at her husband (because she thinks he's part of the group) or not directly at him (nothing specifies it) but rather at whoever the spymaster is. Whew! OK, yes, a few flaws, but I kind of liked the concept...
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 14, 2017 23:39:05 GMT
OK, once again with the hope of getting this thread up and running again (for the gang-- alfromni , brimfin , Pete , now moviebuffbrad and DanaShelbyChancey --and extending a warm welcome to anyone new who may be interested! ), here's a quick riddle that you'll probably be able to get in a second, but still...
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Nov 15, 2017 11:26:49 GMT
Nalkarj An example of semantics. He was born in front of (i.e. before, his father. His father was a witness of his birth.) His mother died in childbirth (of him). He became a cleric and married his sister at her wedding ceremony. I would query the word "murders". Yes the cause of the mother's death is child birth, but that is NOT murder.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 15, 2017 12:49:28 GMT
alfromniRight on all accounts, including “murder.” I wasn’t thinking clearly: the word used is supposed to be “killed.”
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on Nov 17, 2017 2:19:10 GMT
OK, here’s my guess on your puzzle: (without checking alfromni's response) Born before his father: The word "before" can simply mean “in front of”, like “He appeared before the judge.” Therefore, if his father was present at his birth, as many fathers are, and was standing near the delivery area – or if he had to deliver the baby himself in an emergency – the baby would be born “before his father.”
Murders his mother: This is the toughest one, and this probably isn’t right, but it's the best I can come up with. I looked up the definition of murder, but it had no real alternative except that a flock of crows is called a murder, and you can murder a play if you perform it badly, but how would a play become your mother? My best guess is this. He and his mother have a hobby; they both like to bowl. But he scores in the 220’s on average, while she’s lucky to get a 78, and rarely gets a spare or strike. Thus, every time they bowl, he really murders his mother, scorewise.
Marries his sister: That’s an easy one. He’s a priest, and he lawfully married his sister to her husband. These days, you don’t even have to be a priest or a judge to marry people; you can just get a license. My oldest nephew is a lawyer and he recently married my brother to his wife. I like to tell people, “My nephew married my brother,” and see their shocked looks before I explain it.
|
|