Charlie had hid

[Guest]

Punctuate this sentence so it makes sense.

The following characters are not allowed:

!~@#$%.

Jim where Ttim had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.

[Guest]

Jim, where Tim had had, "had," had had, "had had." "Had had," had had a better effect on the teacher.

[Guest]

correct: now add three more hads

[Guest]

Jim, where Tim had had, "had," had had, "had had." "Had had," had had, "had," had had a better effect on the teacher.

[Guest]

the last three don't make sense

[Guest]

Jim, where Tim had had, 'had had "had," had had, "had had."' "Had had," had had had been a better effect on the teacher.

[Guest]

take away the last had

[Guest]

Jim, where Tim had had, 'had had "had," had had, "had had."' "Had had," had had a better effect on the teacher.

sorry, typing all these hads makes my typing crpy.

[Guest]

yup!!

[Guest]

Upon Joining LM this was one of the first challenges I presented the other editors. NONE of them got it

[Guest]

I don't know what LM is, but I know I solved it because I am super cool.

[Guest]

oh sorry; LM = Literary Magic - a literary magazine owned by Reichman Media (literarymagic.com)

[Guest]

are you an editor of this magazine too?

[Guest]

No.

I work for Reichman Media. I used to work for Literary Magic until its executives set up the current structure. Originally Literary Magic Magazine was the only company.

[Guest]

Sry bout this here but how do all the hads make sense?

[Guest]

Sry bout this here but how do all the hads make sense?

They are all variations on past tense phrasing for something "having had" an effect on something else. Several of them are somewhat self referential.

Example:

Jim, where Tim had [put] "had had" had [put] "had." "Had had" had [resulted in] a better effect on the teacher.

[the parenthesis are words replacing had for clarification.]

Oh, and you can add another.

Jim, where Tim had had 'had had "had,"' had had "had had." '"Had had "had"' had had a better effect on the teacher.

I'm sure you could probably squeeze up to three more in there before melting the english language.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Sanjurjo

[EventHorizon]

Punctuate this sentence so it makes sense.

The following characters are not allowed:

!~@#$%.

Jim where Ttim had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.

How about this for adding more in.....

Jim, where Tim had "had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had", had "had." "Had" had a better effect on the teacher.

essentially....Tim just went hog wild writing had.

Tim is probably a robot and got stuck in a loop until his batteries ran out.

[Guest]

They are all variations on past tense phrasing for something "having had" an effect on something else. Several of them are somewhat self referential.

Example:

Jim, where Tim had [put] "had had" had [put] "had." "Had had" had [resulted in] a better effect on the teacher.

[the parenthesis are words replacing had for clarification.]

That's ridiculous. This sentence doesn't make sense unless you put the word "he" after the first "had had" quote. Even then, you're pushing it. Surely, this sentence wouldn't have a good "effect on the teacher."

[random7]

I believe that OP and savagegamer90 have it wrong. It should be:

Jim, where Tim had had “had had”, had had “had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

A relatively equivalent statement: Jim, where Tim had put “had had”, had put “had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

Or:

Jim, where Tim had had “had”, had had “had had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

A relatively equivalent statement: Jim, where Tim had put “had”, had put “had had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

Hopefully this thread isn't too old, and hence no-one will read this... I'm new to this forum...

[Guest]

What's wrong with:

"Punctuate this sentence, so it makes sense."

It doesn't say "punctuate the following sentence", so the sentence with all the "had"s can be discounted.

[Guest]

Punctuate this sentence so it makes sense.

The following characters are not allowed:

!~@#$%.

Jim where Ttim had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.

what about;

"Jim where Tim had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."

As you can say what ever you want and it is not hampered by laws of writing. For example you could say;

"Jim where Ttim had had had had had had had had badger had had had a better effect on the teacher. Wobble."

[Guest]

what about;

"Jim where Tim had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."

As you can say what ever you want and it is not hampered by laws of writing. For example you could say;

"Jim where Ttim had had had had had had had had badger had had had a better effect on the teacher. Wobble."

am i supposed to point out badger and wobble?

[Guest]

am i supposed to point out badger and wobble?

If you want, but why do you feel the need to?

[Guest]

What's wrong with:

"Punctuate this sentence, so it makes sense."

It doesn't say "punctuate the following sentence", so the sentence with all the "had"s can be discounted.

But that doesn't make sense. That sentence already made sense.

[Guest]

Punctuate this sentence so it makes sense. - Done! It says "this sentence" not "the following sentence" =]