plasmid
-
Posts
1756 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Everything posted by plasmid
-
A seemingly important point about this riddle: it does not merely ask how the patient became comatose, it asks for an analysis that would amaze Dr Short. I'm always a bit reluctant when there's a clue that doesn't seem to fit, but here goes.
-
I'll play this round. I PMed some pseudocode to unreality.
-
Similar to JustMe's answer I know, but I'd go with a
-
LOL, you should be a Phronist!
-
Hardly one to sit out a "not a" riddle...
-
Shakee gets this one on the nose, or beak as the case may be
-
Believe me I am not, my friend, Tellurian, everyone knows My rays in several lines extend Each cardinal and pair of the rose But just a glimpse you'll catch of me If life now appears to be short Blackness hence is all you'll see And few might believe your report Though stuff of lore from ages past From living I now will be freed Dispersed into this ocean vast In death do I scatter my seed
-
Ever fascinated by the last line talking about the cursed ring...
-
Wow, this one is a toughie all right. Going mainly by the last couple of lines, I'd guess (even if that is a little redundant)
-
Plainglazed takes it with the answer that's bound to make a rough landing on the alien world.
-
You know, I've never seen one of those before. So of course it wasn't what I had in mind. From what I could glean from wikipedia, the riddle may have to switch which parts of the set it's talking about between the second and third stanzas: the second speaks of one being stationary while the other is mobile (a frame and a wheel) and the third speaks of role reversal (two different wheels from a set), but it might be a perfectly good alternate answer.
-
-
Your analysis seems spot on, that's the only bit that doesn't seem to fit. And I like that answer, it seems like something that would be worth a riddle of its own.
-
They may do a bit of dancing on the way down, but they don't really switch between roles of hub and orbiter to any noticeable degree.
-
Along with the first two lines, the last two lines were included to help rule out dancing in particular, since it would otherwise be such a good alternate answer.
-
Not sure, as I don't do it. That could fit with a lot of the riddle, but there's a clue in the second stanza about propulsion that would be left hanging. Hi Wilson, I'm glad to be on vacation at the moment. Not that; when I read the first draft of this riddle and realized that there could be a lot of human pairs that would fit, I went back and revised the second line to rule out most such possible answers, and the first line to further rule out any sibling duos.
-
Though not alive, these planets fly Since birth do their paths interlace One orbits 'round and whizzes by The other remains in its place Peculiar planets, they're not spheres Their physics may seem like a jest The mobile one whose path now veers Propelled by the one that's at rest From time to time their roles reverse The hub and the satellite switch For such is how the pair traverse No telling now which one is which Predict their path? That's surely tough It's tortuous, twisted, and curled And landing's bound to be quite rough When reaching an alien world
-
There's actually a pretty good Wikipedia article on the issue. It looks like it might not be an issue for a whole lot longer.
-
Ok, getting back to the original point of the thread, There's one very good argument I can think of for using intuition as well as evidence and reason in deciding what is likely to be true. Ever try to solve a math problem for a real life application (say deciding how much money to budget for a task), then get an answer and say "wait a minute, that looks like it must be off by a few orders of magnitude", and then go back and find out that you left out a decimal point in the middle of your calculations? Reasoning, at least when applied by real people in real life, is fallible, and sometimes those errors can be caught by intuition. And you already made a case about evidence occasionally being fallible with the example of UFO sightings. So when it comes to the real point of the thread, As I've said, logic is fallible when applied by any particular human at any point in time. A very common logical fallacy is to think that if you reject one part of a theory (like the existence of a god) then you must reject the entire theory (including all the lessons about morality that come with the religious package). If a human with faulty reasoning thinks they face a false choice of having to reject religion and morality both or adopt them both, then maybe they're better off choosing to be religious based on their intuition. The best counterexample of faulty reasoning leading to catastrophe is someone deciding that a loving god doesn't exist (they're more likely to arrive at this conclusion because of a bad life experience than from sitting down and reasoning it out, but regardless...) and therefore "rationally" (in their minds) deciding that the rules of morality that come along with their religion must also be rubbish. So for individual humans prone to logical traps, intuition comes in handy from time to time.
-
Shakeepuddn takes it for the win. And of course the most satisfying sound for any riddle writer is the
-
Hehe, with that clue it sounds like although I'd struggle to make the snowy ground clue fit.
-
I like the way this fits with the first stanza, but seems to conflict with the bit about bending. Ha, in this case to succeed would probably be a minor sin! Having trouble making the one-fanged serpent fit though, perhaps a tattle-tale, but a baby with only one tooth would be too young to tell on you.
-
Could fit with much of it, but the kinship to Atlas in particular would remain unexplained. Would fit many of the clues as well, although I'm not sure what the one-fanged serpent would be if this were the answer Not what I had in mind; the connection to Atlas and the serpent remains elusive Neither of those, either
-
-
I can see how that would fit with everything from the sixth line onward. One sticking point is that in the second line, the two limbs would have to be atop the grin instead of beneath for it to fit. Not what I had in mind.
