plasmid

To exclude it as a possible answer, of course.

Imaginative, but the 12th line and especially the last line are a real stretch; not something you would generally think of if you were told that answer. Let's see, I originally posted this on Friday night (my time) so any weekday warriors out there might not have had a crack at it yet. I'll give them a chance before posting clues.

It would be an understatement to say that I drew from the FAQ to write an overview of Phronism, the overview basically was an abbreviated version of the FAQ . It depends on how you would want to present Phronism to the other BrainDenners; I had envisioned giving them an overview covering the basics of the doctrine and practice of Phronism compared to other religions, and then we could follow with more detail on each of the separate topics. Since the questions seeksit had covered most of the important stuff you would need to know to get a basic understanding of Phronism and your answers were quite well written, I basically just took that and condensed it. If you prefer presenting everything in FAQ format, we could go that route instead. Separate overviews & FAQs are just how I tend to think. And I also wanted to keep it fairly short so other forum members would be more likely to read it.

Aren't those done with rock songs? Definitely no silence.

I realize I've taken quite a bit of liberty with my answer, and that other answers are probably closer, but it is what it is. Wow, it definitely is what it is, which is quite an imaginative answer. It can be made to fit, but if you were to go up to someone and tell them that answer without the explanation, they would probably be pretty incredulous, particularly with lines seven and eight. (White water rapids might also work there, but getting retaken by darkness...) I've got something in mind that will require little if any explanation and should hopefully give that mental click where you just know that you've got it.

I like your logic. I think erosion is pretty negligible, though: even the shuttle's modern reentry heat shields are reusable. Unless you're counting jettisoning the boosters and fuel tank as erosion, or stages of an old multistaged rocket? I could see how that would be a reasonable explanation; this is a riddle after all. But the last line still really doesn't seem like it could apply to a launch.

Fits with most of the clues, and forced me to do some Googling to make sure of what I had in mind. It turns out that although the geosynchronous and high Earth orbit ones simply run out of juice, the low Earth orbit ones do undergo a reentry that's visible from Earth, so that variety could fit the clues in lines 5-8. I'm not sure how you would interpret the end of the riddle though. Was the weirdness in my trying to give reasons why anything other than the correct answer wouldn't fit, or was it about hugemonkey's answer? I feel like the explanations force me to consider all the proposed answers carefully and see if they might fit instead of just saying yes or no, and serve as training to make me write riddles with enough clues to avoid having lots of potentially correct answers. (I don't like it when dozens of answers could potentially fit but you're expected to pick the specific one the author had in mind.) And it occasionally makes me learn a random fact, like about reentry from low Earth orbit vs geosynchronous orbit and how Sputnik 2 disintegrated in 10 minutes streaking across from New York to the Amazon, not leaving enough time for any observers to doze off. But I can see how from a guesser's point of view it might be weird to have someone point out why they think an answer doesn't fit. If you prefer: not it. Or if you were talking about hugemonkey's answer, then yes, he's being a loco-nut in the coconut.

When you say it like that it makes perfect sense, the meaning just wasn't clear at first. If the latest Laozi parable looks too much like one of my "I'm not a ..." riddles to have the desired effect, then the chants would have to come with that explanation attached to be properly understood by the public. Or be taught at the denominational level; after all, they're around for the express purpose of instructing people exactly how to worship, er, harmonize. But the concepts you just explained do seem like what we're going for, just weren't obvious from the chanted phrases. Must... avoid... cunning-linguist jokes. Don't want... to get... banned.

I realize that this might be interpreted the wrong way at first, but you don't really need to go telling everyone. I'm not saying at all that bisexuality is anything to be ashamed of, it's just that for most people it's not really any of their concern. Like unreality, I rarely bother to point out to people that I'm an atheist, but have no hesitation about saying that I am if I'm ever asked. Same thing when I was a vegetarian in Texas (Gasp! Nearly the equivalent of homosexuality!) It works out pretty well: if people know you well enough that it's any of their concern, then they know you well enough that prejudices won't get in the way – you're already pretty tried and true with them. In my experience, people who are already established friends don't tend to get fazed much... by ALL SORTS of crazy stuff that's come up. (Side note: When seeksit was talking about practicing telling people, the one thing you definitely want to be prepared for is if someone walks up to you and asks about it out of the blue because they heard a rumor or something; you'll want to be able to say "Yeah, that's right" without a flinch.) I also have similar sentiments as unreality about quantity of friends. I've pretty much always kept a pretty small number of friends, mostly other people who were into either playing music or who were into doing stuff that I considered to be genuinely fun and non-pretentious, even if it was a little nerdy and not cool enough for the cool kids. ("Cool kids" is a mild insult, by the way.) And I absolutely ABHORE clubs and bars and would rather sit through a lecture on capital gains tax credits and their influence on demand of inferior goods than go to a club or bar. So when I actually thought about it, and said "All right, I don't have a whole lot of friends, but would I REALLY want to be friends with X? Are they really fun or interesting to be around, or would they be like a preppie or a frat boy or something?" (No offense to the preppies or frat boys, but you go do your thing and I'll do mine.) After looking at it that way, I realized that my number of friends was right where it needed to be. Maybe that's the case with you, or if there are people that you think you might really like to hang out with then you could go ahead and try to approach them, but don't go diving into the shallow end of the pool.

I can't see how that one would fit with the erosion mentioned in line six.

That would fit very well with the end, but not the second or eleventh lines.

or Little danger of being lulled to sleep during the first event, simply not enough time. The second doesn't fit the clues about silence or airplanes so well.

The stars and meteors, as the title says, are what this riddle is meant to sound like while actually describing something quite different. The Bat Signal is a pretty creative answer, but the last three lines I don't think would apply to it. Fireflies doesn't seem to fit terribly well with lines 6-7.

cuz gotta think there will need to be others. Another interesting one I hadn't considered. The conundrum would be that in order to be scheduled in the first line, you would have to be an airplane, which would make the 11th line kind of messed up. More guesses to come.

Wow, that is a really good answer. I knew I excluded the more modern kinds, but the "airplane" line really is the only one that excludes that answer. Not what I was going for, but I can see how with only one clue not fitting you would want to give it a shot and see if I had some sort of explanation for it in mind.

Sure enough, you're right! Maitreya requires not only that people stop practicing, but that the faith be completely forgotten. Thank the Essence we've got you on board, seeksit! That justifies the disappearance; as for re-appearance I guess now we just need to decide whether we want to tell a grand story about how Maitreya goes about appearing and reintroducing Phronism. Miracles I guess are out? Just a quiet congregation of adherents to be told of the meeting at Samarkand? Dare we even go so far as to mention an online discussion forum?? Both dawh and unreality are right: we don't really want to accept all of Maitreva's teachings about renouncing the physical world. With most of the parables, I've tried to incorporate elements from the leaders' respective religions that we want to include in Phronism but sort of ignore the inconvenient parts. The most simple solution would be to have Maitreya start Phronism, but to again pick and choose carefully what parts of his dogma to mention. Another option would be to make Maitreya be just one person among a group similar to the Samarkand crowd, along with Elijah (especially if Malachi is the Seventh Shepherd) and Jesus' second coming and Douglas McArthur and the Terminator and anyone else who wants to come back, so the beliefs can get diluted a bit. I think I'd be more inclined to go with the first option at this point though. I agree with practically everything unreality said. The chants from the monk (now Buddha) parable can, should, and shall go – vestigial remnants from bygone days when Obama was our messiah. The Laozi parable on responsibility does get muddled a bit because I'm trying to do several things, and it would certainly make no sense at all unless the Confucius parable were read immediately beforehand. In the Confucius parable, the message at the very end is of course open to debate: I think it conveys one of the core principles of Phronism – that all people influence society and should act together for everyone's benefit – which I would like to keep, but on the other hand it is sort of socialist. In the Laozi parable I was trying to prevent people from overinterpreting the end of the Confucius parable, and address issues of assuming responsibility for your actions versus blaming society for your circumstances (the closest I think I can come to "free will vs determinism" in the pre-Newtonian era), and on top of that throw in a little wu wei to make this seem like something Laozi would do. Quite a bit to chew off. If it still seems scattered and disjointed even after reading the Confucius parable, then that's probably because it is, and it can go. Either way, I'll see if I can rewrite it to get the main message across more succinctly and unambiguously, for it does worry me when even a BrainDenner says something is unclear. I'll plan to re-compile everything soon, after deciding whether/how to include a responsibility/free will/determinism parable, and whether we want to give a rough outline of the story of Maitreya re-introducing Phronism to the world (or just hold off on that until the next thread).

I don't see it fitting terribly well with lines 6-7. Too much like the title's exclusion. Something I'm not familiar with in my past and current geographic area. Do they rise from a horizon? A good one, but wouldn't call for silence.

When scheduled to shine, from horizons we rise Now airborne traversing the darkest of skies With people observing our tortuous route We're giving direction to those most astute Our tails recapitulate paths where we flowed As screaming across, over time we erode 'til nothing but brightness is left in our wake And then, even that will the darkness retake To those who have gathered, while brilliance persists Behold exhibitions you don't want to miss Ignoring the airplanes, just gaze on our light Maintaining a silence, or scorn you'll incite Remember, if anything hoping to reap You'd better avoid being lulled off to sleep

Interesting. Even though I never pointed it out, I was thinking almost the exact same thing as dawh about the golden rule. That's why in the "Self description of Phronism for a modern audience" in my summary earlier I said "Do unto others what will benefit them most" instead of the regular golden rule, to subtly finesse the issue away. But also like octopuppy I thought that it was a very minor detail overall and so I hadn't commented on it until now. And I shall never comment on it again. The origins of Phronism problem is also one that I've been considering. Even with the destruction of the old texts for the reasons that dawh mentioned, it does seem fishy that not so much of an outside mention of Phronism survived in any other text. Plus, we don't even have so much as an eighteenth-century book on Phronism from the people who have supposedly been passing the legends down through the ages. Unlike the golden rule thing, this I think is very important because it seems like a completely incredible story could ruin the religion at the outset... the only reason I've stayed silent is because I don't have a good answer for it, aside from hiring our own archaeologists and historians to investigate (who will of course be completely impartial despite the fact that we pay their salaries). Political support from a group with an interest in seeing our religion flourish might also help (just as it did with the Protestants) so I propose that the master plan include befriending atheist organizations that might like to see a faith whose core doctrine states that you must heed the advice of rational outsiders. Finally, after re-reading that last parable myself, I realized it needed a bit more to keep it on track with the choice vs determinism question, so slightly revised: Laozi was awoken in the night as a farmer barged into his dwelling. Surprised but not unsettled, Laozi asked the man what he was doing. "I've come to take whatever I wish," was the farmer's reply, "for your friend Confucius told me the other day that I was responsible for a thief stealing my crops. If that is they way you Phronists think, then I will steal from you and the fault will be your own for spreading such teachings." Laozi remained calm and asked, "By what reasoning did Confucius say that you were responsible for that theft?" The farmer answered, "He said that I gave the thief no way of supporting himself without stealing, and so I was to blame." Laozi then asked the farmer, "Then why do you now steal? Do you have means of supporting yourself without stealing?" The farmer realized that he did not need to steal, and that he was acting out of anger over Confucius' accusation rather than out of necessity. But he stubbornly replied, "That is beside the point. If the thief was sent by the Essence to punish me for Samarkand's society, then so I am sent by the Essence to punish you for the flaws of Phronism. Such is your version of justice. Now go back to sleep and I will take what I please." To that Laozi answered, "You say that the Essence sent you? Consider this. Strike a beast and it will move. Give it a harness and it will move in the direction you wish. It is a wonderful thing to be able to guide so much power and to move without moving at all. Still you do not exercise complete control over the animal: any horse would have the sense not to run into a burning fire or jump off a cliff, and it will take charge of its own destiny. We all take part in the flow of the Essence. Just like a horse and rider, so a person and the Essence join forces to make their way through the world. Would you call a horse that jumps off a cliff foolish and deserving of its fate? So too is the person who says that the Essence guided him to act foolishly when he should have known better. "Now in your case, how does the Essence guide you? Tell me which way you would go if you did not struggle against it. Does necessity compel you to steal? Do the laws allow you to steal and go unmolested? Where would you expect to find my foot if you were to steal from me? And what did Confucius say to do with the thief that stole from you the other day?" The farmer recalled what had happened to the thief, and realized that even though he was driven to steal by his circumstances he was still held accountable for his actions. The farmer did not stay to answer Laozi; he dropped all we was carrying and fled. Having thus used the Essence to guide the farmer back on course, Laozi returned to sleep without having to use his foot.

Is that why people keep quoting the original riddle? When you're looking at a riddle's thread there's a box in the upper right called Options next to the ratings stars. Click it and change the display mode to "Linear+". That way, no matter what page you're on, it will show the riddle at the top of the page. And once you set it in one thread, that'll be the way you'll view all the threads from then on. Oh, yeah, there's also the riddle to answer.

Just missing the [url= at the beginning. Needs to have the "url=" between the opening bracket and the address. If you like, when you're writing your response, you can click the button in the top of the editor window that is right under the Fonts selection box -- it has a little green plus with a strange looking green thing behind it and will say "Insert link" if you hold the mouse over it -- and use that dialog box to make the editor set up all the url tags and such in the message window. Then copy and paste it into the poll title. Or just not mess with linking, either way.