plasmid

Think it kinda works except for the paint....and maybe a few other parts. Each of those would be at odds with the last line That fits with the painting, but I don't see how the first three lines would apply

What about going off wallpaper... I'm not quite sure what you're getting at? If you mean the moulding around the edges of a room, I think those often are held by nails. Another one that would fit 95% of it, but leaves a hanging clue about graininess suiting it well. The part about it being informal would be odd.

That fits everything pretty well except for the part about being flat and smooth in the last couplet. Good morning. Also fits most of it, but the bit about painting if the colors clash would be weird. I guess that wallpaper is not a poster, but it's very similar.

What did YOU think I was talking about!!?!

It seems that I Would likely fly If ever your grip should fail Unlike my friend I'll not depend On being held up by nails And all the while I'll show your style Enhancing surroundings quaint If colors clash Don't be abashed Just fix it up with some paint A useful trait That makes me great Is graininess suits me well Informal, sure That's my allure At least I'm not prone to smell Flat and smooth and open to a fling Confinement really isn't much my thing

Heck, I have enough trouble limiting it to singular answers when I write 20 line riddles!

Edit: whoops, just saw that Wilson already got #4, in post #4

... adding the Solved poll didn't work the first time

DudleyDude has this one. It was a little unusual in that many of the clues that seem like they would have a figurative interpretation are actually rather literal.

He wouldn't work so well with line 2 or have a clear reference for the varying day by day line. Interesting. He could be drawing the curious globes shut at bedtime, and enlightening people because sleep is critical for learning. The way I phrased line 8, it's sort of ambiguous whether it's referring to the corrupt peers or to the riddler itself, so I could give you that one (though I'm not sure if he has peers). Dreams would fit lines 11-12. The last stanza could refer to the foolishness of pulling all-nighters. I just can't think of a great way to make lines 5-6 and 9-10 fit with that one. Hi everyone... It's been a while I guess! Should I explain my answer or can everyone pretty much figure out how I got there? Welcome back, John B. DarthNoob had a similar guess; I'd argue that the role of the fools and the prudent in the last stanza would be inverted for those folks. This one has had some alternate answers that fit reasonably well (which I usually consider to be a flaw); hopefully the intended answer will be totally satisfying and give that "oh yeah, that's gotta be it" feel. It's been up for a few days so it might be time for a hint, or at least a rundown of the clues: - has "robes" - draws "curious globes" - does some "enlightening" - protects, while something similar distorts perception - long-winded only if you cast it away, with variable results depending on the day - slovenly folks only see imperfections after many days

Gotta run to work, but it looks like the biggest sticking points are the clue about not being long winded unless it's cast away, and the last line about only seeing imperfection.

Remember one of the rules that many Braindenners have repeatedly verified: what seems easy to the riddler is tough to the riddle-ee & vice versa.

Went looking for a warrior with flowing robes, huh? The last stanza would be odd; the slovenly fools wouldn't be more able to find imperfections than the prudent. Good point, I never said what the "rules" of the riddle are. The answers to my riddles are a single concrete object or animal or possibly famous person which virtually everyone ought to be familiar with (except for one riddle where I stated otherwise). Brevity would be a great answer if abstract concepts are allowed. I'm not sure how I would feel about a Shakespearean jester as an answer; it isn't what I had in mind, but if there's a particular one you're thinking of I could look at Wikipedia and see how well he'd fit the riddle. As for the third; they or anyone along those lines wouldn't fit the final stanza. As for "Ugh", yeah, this one turned out to be trickier than I anticipated. I suspect this is one that just kind of has to click right off the bat. Maybe the work/school crowd will give a fresh perspective tomorrow; too bad I won't get a chance to check in during the day. It could fit a lot of the riddle, although he's the one getting the enlightening rather than dishing it out. Hey Wilson. I'm sure that many would argue against that one having any relationship to the word "enlighten".

This one (like many others) would struggle to fit the clue about not being long winded unless it's cast away. They wouldn't have flowing robes, unless maybe they're ancient Greeks or Romans or something. I would definitely count him as a scholar; it would break the title's rule.

Not what I had in mind but it is a pretty good one. A lot of these governmental-type answers depend on how favorably you view your government (is it the fools or the wise who praise or reject it?), but this one would fit the clue about being long-winded when it's cast away. I'm debating whether to call this an alternate solution; the "enlightening" part would be the biggest stretch - flags may be found at schools but I won't give them credit for teaching the classes. There's still an answer for the cynical people out there. Occasionally I'll hear an answer that seems to work as well as the one I had in mind and will accept it as an alternate solution, like the chili burrito to "I'm not a terrorist" or fishing pole for "I'm not a crazy army commander". Considering each answer and seeing how well it would fit gives me some training on how to write a riddle that wouldn't have too many possible solutions, but also wouldn't be too obvious. In this case, that wouldn't quite fit the part about not being long winded unless it's cast away. A shaman would fit, but I would call it too close to being a scholar by another name in another culture. A witch (or variety thereof, maybe allowing for the Good Witch of the East who might provide protection) wouldn't have an obvious way of fitting the third stanza. I'm not sure who the corrupt peers might be with that one, or if it would fit the long-winded clue.

They're folks I'm not familiar with. I suppose they help in the protection of your soul, but I don't see how the third stanza might be interpreted with them. I could see the last stanza as a critique of the weatherman who predicts a 10% chance of rain when you see the showers outside , but I'm not sure who the corrupt peers would be. This could fit much of the riddle, but they aren't typically known for doing very much enlightening of others.

How well that answer fits the riddle would depend on how you view yours, I suppose. But even for those who view it in the most favorable light, I would say it doesn't fit the part about not being long-winded. That would fit most of the riddle well, except for the part about not being long winded unless it's cast away. This one could make sense with the long-winded clue but wouldn't provide much protection. And I quite like the idea of others writing such riddles; after all, I got started only after I was amazed at what Shakeepuddn had done. I like the "curious globes" that it would be alluding to, and the alternate meaning for "enlightening"! The last stanza would seem odd, though; I would expect the prudent to reject it while the fools do not.

Bedecked in flowing robes Assuming my humble station I draw the curious globes And strive to enlighten my patron The task I've taken up Providing you with protection Unlike my peers corrupt Distorting your sound perception I shall not be long winded Unless I am cast away Results might be quite splendid Or varying day by day The prudent give me praise The slovenly fools, rejection For after several days They only see imperfection

Really good question, iklop. It's true that being able to tell which actions will lead to the greater good is difficult if you don't define exactly what the greater good is. Most religions lay down a set of commandments to guide behavior, and like octopuppy said we did that in only the most general terms. But I would assert that despite their claims of divine guidance, even the other religions actually DON'T define what good is. Not in any practical way, at least. They claim that God has sent clear instructions from on high in the form of their holy texts, but people's interpretations of those texts have been so wildly different that in practice they have offered no guidance at all – just look at the Southerners who used the Bible to support slavery, or the Jihadists who use Islam to support suicide bombings. But just because other religions don't offer great guidance is no excuse for us not to. Deciding which course of action is best for humanity is potentially very complex, and the best we can do is have the brightest available minds take on each question as it arises and see if they can come to a consensus. The yearly councils could decide if any denominations are so out of line that they need to either straighten up and fly right or be booted from Phronism. If it's not so clear-cut, then let each denomination take whichever approach seems best and "run the experiment" of taking that path; then visitors to the denomination can see what happened when they took that approach and decide if it's right. Granted, it might be a hard call to tell what is really "best" for the world, but hopefully people are generally wise enough to be able to make the call on which of two options are better if they see the results, and if it's still a tough call then the two options might be about equal. Advantages of Phronism over other religions are that 1) questions of right and wrong can be decided given the current situation rather than having to be specified by us founders in an era that might completely change over time, and 2) everyone knows that no one is carrying the word of God... if you say that suicide bombing is the way to go, then you'll have to be able to explain why that would make humanity better, you can't just say that Phronism compels you and you'd better not question it. (That kind of stuff should be weeded out by the yearly councils though.) It's not perfect because it does depend on people using their own fallible judgement to decide what's right, but it still seemed better than us trying to write rules that would fit any situation. Even "do not kill" might not have been great guidance during World War II. That's the reasoning we went with. Do you think there are some specific things that we need to spell out more clearly as being right or wrong in the core Phronist doctrine, rather than leaving it up to yearly councils and individual denominations? If so, we can certainly consider them.

I'm actually quite pleased to see that an atheist thinks that Phronism is just telling people to do what a good atheist would do, without even considering it to be a full-blown religion. That tells me that it might be a Good thing. Regarding the question of whether Phronism is a religion or a philosophy: I'm more concerned with how it would work in practice. If you were a Phronist, would you want to be a part of a traditional religion as well? If you were the type of person who wanted to be involved in a religion, then would Phronism fit the bill? If the answers are no and yes respectively, then for all practical purposes Phronism would accomplish what is intended, and whether or not you want to call it a religion or a philosophy seems little more than an academic exercise. As far as drugs, Phronist doctrine would encourage listening to people who know what they're talking about and who offer advice that they genuinely believe is in your best interest. Marijuana is to my knowledge mostly harmless, aside from the legal and social problems it could get you into. I suggest weighing whether or not getting high is really worth running the risk of getting into legal trouble. Maybe it is. But please don't drive when you're high. I'm also not aware of any widely accepted long term consequences of LSD, although you definitely would want to make sure you're in an environment where a bad trip won't have serious consequences. Cocaine, meth, vitamin X and the like are more dangerous. Coke can cause seizures, brain hemorrhages, and a combination of coronary artery spasm with a high heart rate and work load that can potentially give you a full-blown heart attack. Even worse, if you show up in an ER with an MI and deny having done coke, then one of the standard drugs we give to people having heart attacks can interact with cocaine to actually worsen the spasms. When you see thirty-year-olds having heart attacks, cocaine's usually to blame (not teenagers collapsing on a basketball court – that's from something else). As for heroin... geez, just look at a junkie. FUBAR. You really don't want that. But if you do decide to, then at least use clean needles so you don't give yourself HIV or hepatitis or endocarditis. But back on topic, suppose people did start practicing Phronism. Would they be the type of people you would want to have in your neighborhood? Would their practices be sustainable, or would Phronism be doomed to spiral into decay until it's nothing more than a bunch of intolerant idiots listening to televangelists? Are there ways we could tweak it to make it better?

Yay, Izzy's gonna jump in! I'm kind of tempted to hold off posting on RD so you can give us some perspective on how this comes across to someone who hasn't followed the original thread. I like Octopuppy's reorganization, and now that I registered at Dawkins and confirmed that you can use spoilers I think that's the way to go. I would modify it slightly, and trim the second three things for the goals of the project. [Aside on the question of whether this is Phronism vs current religion or Phronism vs no religion: I guess the question should really be "a world with Phronism vs a world without it"] On another forum, a few questioning minds took up a fascinating challenge. For atheists it is all too easy to dismiss religion as silly and pointless, but the fact that religion is widespread across virtually all civilisations indicates that humans have a natural tendency to be religious: it is a very real if not entirely rational phenomenon. If religion is to exist, then must it carry many of the negative attributes so often attributed to it such as intolerance and closed-mindedness, or might it be possible to design a religion that avoids these pitfalls while attempting to promote the type of morality and solidarity which many religions profess, enough so as to have a net positive impact on society? This raises the tantalising question of what humanity should ideally be striving towards: a world without religion, or a world with better religion. With that in mind we took up the following challenge: to create a religion whose effect on humanity is as positive as possible. Our goal is that the religion will be: 1) viable (able to win converts) 2) benign (not constraining the thought processes of the believers, and not imposing on or marginalizing non-believers) 3) a force for good (we do want people to act morally and shape a better tomorrow after all) Here is the fruit of our labours: Phronism