If you want to solve it Jlo, I will give the answers. I am not as good at them as you are.

If you want to solve it Jlo, I will give the answers. I am not as good at them as you are.

Even better. I love playing them, but I question myself so much when I 'm answering your questions.

Oh... gee thanks JLo :o

No thanks. I don't know how much time I'll be able to keep up here. 2 weeks before the big exams and I feel like I have a lot to do :( I'll have to practice my physics and try to get used to my forgotten formulae.

We have faith in you Unky. Maybe you can use these as a little escape when you need to relax.

Even better. I love playing them, but I question myself so much when I answering your questions.

Ok, so that solves that. Whenever she wants to send the answer to me and post the puzzle, we can begin.

Okay, let me just start by saying I haven't followed all of the ones posted, so if I post one that you've already done, just let me know.

A man pushes a car to a hotel and knows immediately that he's bankrupt

Ok, I'm game.

Was he hurrying to the hotel?

Was he really bankrupt now?

Does he know who made him bankrupt?

Did he try to avoid his current situation of being bankrupt?

I know this one already. Have fun, Unky.

:( Okay, this leaves Adam, morgaine and me (and morgaine probably knows this one)

Sorry, JLo :(

Ok, I'm game.

Was he hurrying to the hotel? No

Was he really bankrupt now? Yes, he is bankrupt now

Does he know who made him bankrupt? Yes, I would say so

Did he try to avoid his current situation of being bankrupt? No, He couldn't avoid it.

Was he hurrying to the hotel? No.

Was he really bankrupt now? In the context of the puzzle, yes. (way to ask a hard question)

Does he know who made him bankrupt? Yes.

Did he try to avoid his current situation of being bankrupt? Yes.

Sorry, I guess I answered it wrongly Synn. I must have been thinking differently. I didn't know if you were doing it for the mean time or not.

Darn, leaves me and morgaine and since she probably knows it too, I'll be all alone waahh! :eek:

Is a woman involved?
Is a man involved?
Is the reason behind why he is pushing his car relevant?
Was this car his?
Is the nature of his bankruptcy illegal?

A man pushes a car to a hotel and knows immediately that he's bankrupt

Is a woman involved? Irrelavent

Is a man involved? Yes, the man pushing the car.

Is the reason behind why he is pushing his car relevant? I am really not sure how to answer this. I am going to say no to help keep you from straying.
Was this car his? Yes

Is the nature of his bankruptcy illegal? No

I'd say that the reason he was pushing the car IS significant, actually, but otherwise Adam is doing good :)

Off to more work... gah.

When I hear "bankrupt", I think of Monopoly. Was this "hotel" red? Was his car a little bitty thing?

The "pushing" COULD be moving his piece.

Ned's sister is very rich but Ned is not. She once told him her will left half her fortune to her husband & half to Ned. When he learned that she was dying, he decided to double his inheritance by killing the husband before her death. He became a used car salesman to have access to cars that were not recognizably his & hence would not be recognized when he went to murder the husband. He would also be more likely to be identified on the street if he were on foot. This puzzle is adapted from a TV show.

OK, so I kind of didn't make it today, and looks like you guys are already on another puzzle - don't know if I'll have time to read and catch up.

But... I told my brother the parts we had solved of this already, and after mentioning cutting the brake line (and me telling him I didn't think hubby would be driving the car), he immediately said that Ned was just going to kill the guy and use the car to take the body away, which would not be his own car, and that he could use a car that had already been sold and that someone was picking up the next day. He also mentioned that a used car would be better than new due to the mileage issue.

And I was amazed and said, "I bet that's it!" Well, he had the right idea anyway.

BTW, no I'm not going to kill you, and quite personally, I think figuring out the use of the car is a relevant part of the puzzle.

And one of my next questions was going to be if Ned was going to directly kill hubby... I did think of that but only after I posted last. Maybe that would have led me there. But I also expected it to already be solved since I never got on here today.

But hey, I get part credit. :D (Everyone who asks questions should always get part credit cause they help solve.)

I've been playing these since I was 13 and a teacher introduced us to them. It was our Friday game. She'd give us the puzzle on Wednesday, and we would write down questions to turn in Thursday. On Friday, she'd have the questions and answers on the board, and we'd solve the puzzle before doing any other classwork. Changed how I think about a lot of things, and really made it easier to "think outside the box". I've talked to others from that class throughout the years, and most of us have retained that ability to change perspective and see the puzzle from a different way.


I've been doing puzzles since I was a little kid, but not these kind. (I did my first one of these about 10 years ago, starting with a really hard one.)

But this is an interesting idea for school, cause I don't think anyone these days is taught how to think, in any kind of manner. I teach college students and feel like half of them are a bunch of little sheep running around.

Someone posted on the math forums a while back a puzzle their kid's teacher had given, a math puzzle. I thought it was a great idea. I really wish teachers would do more of this kind of thing.

I would do that if no one else wants to. I like giving Morgaine a chance to play since she's done so many of these. I'm only here for one more week, and then gone for the rest of the month to get married and go on our honeymoon. My mind is not exactly on work. :o

Oh bummer. Er... I mean, not about you getting married. Congrats!

I mean that you'll be gone for a whole month. I'm going to go into withdrawal.

(So what is your mind on. :p)

Actually, folks, no I haven't heard this one. (I'm not sure why everything thinks I know them all. Really, there's many, many out there I don't know. ;))

I think jm is right. At first it sounded kookie, until I really thought about it.

Just as a note, J-Lo, I would stop worrying so much about how you answer stuff. The very fact that you think so hard about it says something and I'd rather you think cause sometimes you need to -- I think about some of them very hard as well and all my answers are very intentional. And if I realize I've misled, I try to correct it - but that does happen. The only one thing I've noticed is that you seem afraid to project - that is, something not specifically stated in the answer.

J-Lo, since you're only around for another week, I think it's your choice: you want to host or want to participate?

J-Lo, since you're only around for another week, I think it's your choice: you wanna host or wanna participate?

I'll put up one. I have to go to Los Angeles this weekend, so if it isn't completed by Friday afternoon we'll have to finish it on Monday - but most of them seem to go faster than that. (And yes, I woke up again. :mad: )

The only one thing I've noticed is that you seem afraid to project - that is, something not specifically stated in the answer.
I guess I wasn't sure how much I could do that. I don't want to mislead anyone... but watch out, I'm going to project away now. ;)

Gordon faithfully takes the trash out daily, a task for which his wife is quite grateful. However, it so happened that on this particular day, his menial chore cost another man thousands of dollars. Explain.

I don't know where to start with this one... :confused:

Was there something in the trash that was valuable to the man?
Was the man someone 'anti-feminist'? (sp?)
Are Gordon and the man related by blood?
Do they know each other?
Does Gordon's wife have a relevant role in this puzzle besides being a wife?
Is death involved?
Is the money considered as a loss? Or as a 'missed gain'?

The only one thing I've noticed is that you seem afraid to project - that is, something not specifically stated in the answer.
I guess I wasn't sure how much I could do that. i don't want to mislead anyone ... but watch out, I'm going to project away now. ;)

Well, I'll tell you how I do it. And yes, sometimes I flub up. (I hate when I have to correct my answers, but it happens.)

I stop and ask myself whether a yes or no answer would change the situation at hand. For instance, I ask is Ned married. Well, would Ned have done something different if he had been married? That is something difficult to conjecture in that situation -- i.e. sure, maybe, but that's kind of really stepping out there and going where we can't really go, so I just say, no that wouldn't change anything. Would it change his sister's will? Nah - it would go to Ned and not the spouse. Would it change hubby's actions. Not in the least.

So I come to the conclusion that Ned being married wouldn't change anything and is therefore not relevant. Nor is it relevant to the setting or other things in the situation. His wife might wonder why he suddenly wants to be a used car salesman, of all the dang things, but that's not relevant either. :D

But... don't recall if you were even doing the midget in the circus thing. The midget shot himself and worked in a circus. Someone asked if anyone else heard the shot. That's not in the answer. Someone hearing the shot will not change the scenario in any way or affect the midget's behavior. However, it does matter that he's in a circus. The setting is relevant, and it's therefore relevant that there would be people around... somewhere. So likely someone heard the shot. It wasn't in the answer. But the setting is relevant, and that setting tells me someone likely heard that shot. Because I couldn't know 100% for sure (maybe they were all out at the bar drinking), instead of saying yes, I said probably. Probably gives the right idea, but at the same time says the answer isn't telling me, and that I'm "projecting."

I think very hard about anything that is not a very easy straight-forward yes or no. Whether everyone's happy with the answers I give or not I don't know. Just saying this is how I handle these kinds of questions. And sometimes it can be darn difficult as you are well aware.

And now you have a picture into the mind of Morgaine and how anal, detailed and analytical she is. (And why putting summaries together is just so "me." ;)) But then, I'm a math/accounting person, and a gamer, and many of us tend to be this way. My brother is like this. I'll ask why he's doing something and he says "Just being anal" and I totally understand.

Somehow this reminds me of the time he was talking about his games, and keeping game boxes, or the games themselves, or something I don't recall. (Many years ago.) And he wondered why he did this and went through a list of possible reasons, which included something like "Sentimental reasons? HUH?" Which had me totally cracking up. And finally just decided he was being nothing but anal. Which also cracks me up.

Sorry - I ramble even worse with a bit of, um, wine in me.

What we we doing?

What we we doing?

We we doing:

Gordon faithfully takes the trash out daily, a task for which his wife is quite grateful. However, it so happened that on this particular day, his menial chore cost another man thousands of dollars. Explain.

:)

I don't know where to start with this one... :confused:

Me neither. (And I should be in bed anyway. I'm predicting I'm going to really regret this when I have to get up.)


Is death involved?

ROTFL! You assume a death must be involved with everything?



Is the money considered as a loss? Or as a 'missed gain'?

You've been hanging around me too long or something. That "missed gain" is known as an "opportunity cost." ;)

Glad to learn the technical term :)

I don't know... since Synn sometimes just throw something which seems random and gets near to the solution, lol. I'm throwing this random death ;)

We we doing:

Gordon faithfully takes the trash out daily, a task for which his wife is quite grateful. However, it so happened that on this particular day, his menial chore cost another man thousands of dollars. Explain.

:)

I knew the puzzle. I just lost track of myself.

Was the man Gordon's neighbor?

Does "takes the trash out" refer to him taking trash from inside the house to a main garbage can/bin? (Versus taking the main garbage can to the curb for pickup, which I would not expect to happen daily. Just checking.)

Did Gordon accidentally smash garbage into Ned's used car and mess it all up and require repairs?

Do Gordon and the man work together?

Does the man know Gordon's wife?

Was the man ever at Gordon's house?

My gut is telling me this is a tough one. (I wonder if I'll get any breaks at work tomorrow to check in. Otherwise I'm out until evening.)

It was a bet! Gordon's neighbor bet the mailman that he could tell him EXACTLY when Gordon would be coming out of the house with the garbage. However, on this particular day, Gordon was sick with the flu, and didn't take out the garbage as usual, costing the neighbor a hefty bet with the mailman.

(I don't know this one--if this is the answer, I'll pee my pants)

Gordon faithfully takes the trash out daily, a task for which his wife is quite grateful. However, it so happened that on this particular day, his menial chore cost another man thousands of dollars. Explain.


I don't know where to start with this one... :confused: muwhahaha :D

Was there something in the trash that was valuable to the man? No
Was the man someone 'anti-feminist'? (sp?) No
Are Gordon and the man related by blood? No
Do they know each other? No
Does Gordon's wife have a relevant role in this puzzle besides being a wife? No
Is death involved? No
Is the money considered as a loss? yes-ish Or as a 'missed gain'? No

Off to a solid start. :D ;)


Was the man Gordon's neighbor? No

Does "takes the trash out" refer to him taking trash from inside the house to a main garbage can/bin? No (Versus taking the main garbage can to the curb for pickup, which I would not expect to happen daily. Just checking.) No :D ---> for this puzzle, that smiley = muwhahaha

Did Gordon accidentally smash garbage into Ned's used car and mess it all up and require repairs? No - I think that's the wine talking.

Do Gordon and the man work together? No

Does the man know Gordon's wife? No

Was the man ever at Gordon's house? No

My gut is telling me this is a tough one. I just looked. It took 84 posts, with multiple questions in each post. (I wonder if I'll get any breaks at work tomorrow to check in. I hope so. Otherwise I'm out until evening.)


It was a bet! Gordon's neighbor bet the mailman that he could tell him EXACTLY when Gordon would be coming out of the house with the garbage. However, on this particular day, Gordon was sick with the flu, and didn't take out the garbage as usual, costing the neighbor a hefty bet with the mailman. Another great guess - but No

(I don't know this one--if this is the answer, I'll pee my pants) ... lucky for you ... :D

Is there a bet involved?

Does the wife have anything to do with anything?

Did someone get hurt?

Did he miss a day of taking the trash out?

Ok, time for the questions. If they got it in 84 posts, we must squeeze as much question in a post.

Is the man far away from Gordon? (like less than a kilometre away)
Does the man work with the thrash?
Does the thrash (some product in the trash) contain something related to the man? (see my next question to see where I'm driving at)
Is the man involved in the manufacture of a product?
Does the man work to save the environment?
Does this happen in a TV show/movie?
Is it relevant why his wife is "quite" grateful instead of being simply "grateful"?
Does Gordon does something else besides taking the thrash out which the wife is not so grateful about?
Does Gordon do something else besides taking the thrash out which is relevant?
Does the man knows Gordon's wife?
Given Gordon hasn't done his 'menial' task, would the man still lose thousands of dollars?

Is there a bet involved? No

Does the wife have anything to do with anything? Not really

Did someone get hurt? No

Did he miss a day of taking the trash out? No




Ok, time for the questions. If they got it in 84 posts, we must squeeze as much question in a post.

Is the man far away from Gordon? No (like less than a kilometre away)
Does the man work with the thrash? No
Does the thrash (some product in the trash) contain something related to the man? (see my next question to see where I'm driving at) No
Is the man involved in the manufacture of a product? No
Does the man work to save the environment? No
Does this happen in a tv show/movie? I'm taking this to mean that you are asking if Gordon is an actor in a tv show/movie - No.
Is it relevant why his wife is "quite" grateful instead of being simply "grateful"? No
Does Gordon does something else besides taking the thrash out which the wife is not so grateful about? No
Does Gordon do something else besides taking the thrash out which is relevant? Yes-ish
Does the man knows Gordon's wife? No
Given Gordon hasn't done his 'menial' task, would the man still lose thousands of dollars? No, probably not.

I have to go into a meeting. I'll be back in a couple of hours - time for huge posts of questions.

Is Gordon's *job* taking out the trash in a building? (rather than taking out the personal trash at home?)

Is Gordon's *job* taking out the trash in a building? (rather than taking out the personal trash at home?)

Yes - this took the other puzzle probably 50 posts to get to. Good job. I'm thinking you guys will beat that other record. :)

Did the man place something in the trash (a contract, a check, whatever) that Gordon threw out?

Did the "something" in the trash fall there by accident?

Did the man place something in the trash (a contract, a check, whatever) that Gordon threw out? No

Did the "something" in the trash fall there by accident? There's a false assumption in this question.

Is Gordon a human being?
Have the man and Gordon seen each other at least once?
Is there anything unusual with the trash on that particular day?
Is there anything unusual happening at home when Gordon is out on that day?
Is Gordon aware that he is making the man lose that huge sum of money?
Is the man keeping a close eye on Gordon?
Is the wife related to the man in some way?
Is there someone else involved besides the wife, Gordon and the man?
Does Gordon take out trash in the same manner everyday? (ie he does the same thing besides taking trash out)

IS there anything in the trash itself that causes the loss?

Is Gordon a human being? Yes - interesting question
Have the man and Gordon seen each other at least once? Yes
Is there anything unusual with the trash on that particular day? No
Is there anything unusual happening at home when Gordon is out on that day? No
Is Gordon aware that he is making the man lose that huge sum of money? Well, after the fact, yes.
Is the man keeping a close eye on Gordon? No
Is the wife related to the man in some way? No
Is there someone else involved besides the wife, Gordon and the man? Yes
Does Gordon take out trash in the same manner everyday? (ie he does the same thing besides taking trash out) Yes

IS there anything in the trash itself that causes the loss? No

Is Gordon sick the day that the loss happens?

Is Gordon sick the day that the loss happens? No

Are there more than one more person involved?
Is the other person a man?
Does that person have anything to do with the trash?
Does Gordon know the additional person personally?
Does that person did something different on that particular day?
Did the man and Gordon see each other while the latter was taking out trash?
Was the man Gordon's neighbour?

Darn Gordon, speak up! What did you do? :(

Are there more than one more person involved? If by involved, you mean there are more than one person other than Gordon and the man who factor into this - yes
Is the other person a man? Man/Woman, Men/Women - could be any of these.
Does that person have anything to do with the trash? No
Does Gordon know the additional person personally? No
Does that person did something different on that particular day? No
Did the man and Gordon see each other while the latter was taking out trash? Yes
Was the man Gordon's neighbour? No

Darn Gordon, speak up! What did you do? Cute

Unky - you may want to reread the answers. You're missing something that has been mentioned. :)

Is the money considered as a loss? Yes-ish

I think I know where you're getting the puzzles from. ;)

I think I know where you're getting the puzzles from. ;)

Well, I did get that from that site, so you may know. :rolleyes: It works in some cases.

I haven't really looked at much at that site, so I don't know the puzzle itself.

But darn, before I could even look through the questions, a student has shown up and I got to go.

Did Gordon accidentally smash garbage into Ned's used car and mess it all up and require repairs? No - I think that's the wine talking.

Yes, and I thought it was terribly hilarious at the time. Actually, I still think it's funny, and trust me, my mind already just works that way without any help from wine.

OK, no one else has been around, and I'm finally home, which gives me a chance to sit back and come up with hopefully a million great questions. I'm home for the night, and off work tomorrow. Yah!

Yes, and I thought it was terribly hilarious at the time. Actually, I still think it's funny, and trust me, my mind already just works that way without any help from wine.

OK, no one else has been around, and I'm finally home, which gives me a chance to sit back and come up with hopefully a million great questions. I'm home for the night, and off work tomorrow. Yah!

I thought it was funny, also. :)

Good for you. I'm at work for a while longer. I'll check back in a while to see how many questions you have posted, and again later tonight. I'm hoping we can finish this tomorrow (or sooner) so it doesn't have to wait through the weekend.

So the wife is grateful because Gordon's bringing home a paycheck. That was rather deceptive

You said Yes-ish to the loss being money. So is the loss an item of value?

Is it relevant what kind of building it is?
Apartment/condo? Office building or some private business? Some public business like a store? Public service?

Does the man work at the building as well? Does he live in the building?

Do Gordon and the man come into direct physical contact with each other? (literally)
Do any of the other person/people (which I will call the 3rd party) come into physical contact with either the man or Gordon?

Is this third party a person or persons? Does it matter?

Are there other physical objects involved?

Is there a specific event which takes place while taking out the trash that causes this loss?

If so, does this event take place while Gordon is inside? Or outside? Did it take place while Gordon was taking out the garbage?

I have more but I think I need answers to these first.

There are some difficult ones to answer in here, so I did my best.


So the wife is grateful because Gordon's bringing home a paycheck. That was rather deceptive. Yes, and yes it was. :D

You said Yes-ish to the loss being money. So is the loss an item of value? No, money vs. an item. You'll understand the hesitation when you figure out the loss.

Is it relevant what kind of building it is? Yes, but only as detailed by your next questions.
Apartment/condo? No Office building or some private business? Yes Some public business like a store? No Public service? No

Does the man work at the building as well? No, he's not an employee of/at the building. Does he live in the building? No

Do Gordon and the man come into direct physical contact with each other? (literally) No
Do any of the other person/people (which I will call the 3rd party) come into physical contact with either the man or Gordon? No

Is this third party a person or persons? Are you asking if it is multiple people or something other than people? Does it matter? To some degree.

Are there other physical objects involved? Hmmm ... tough one to answer. I would say yes.

Is there a specific event which takes place while taking out the trash that causes this loss? Yes

If so, does this event take place while Gordon is inside? Yes Or outside? No Did it take place while Gordon was taking out the garbage? Yes-ish.
I have more but I think I need answers to these first.

I'm going to drive home now. I'll check back later.

There are some difficult ones to answer in here, so I did my best.

Some were difficult to ask. ;)


Is it relevant what kind of building it is? Yes, but only as detailed by your next questions.

That was difficult to ask to get the idea I was trying to understand, but I think your answer worked great. i.e. it's not important what type of business, but really only that it's some type of private business, right?


Is this third party a person or persons? Are you asking if it is multiple people or something other than people? Does it matter? To some degree.

When this was brought up, it was a little unclear to me whether it was just one person, or people plural. (I tried to underline the s in persons but guess that didn't work.)
Was that your assumption when you answered it does matter to some degree, that I meant singular or plural?


I'm going to drive home now. I'll check back later.

And I'm just starting work again. I forgot I have this little two-hour shift online after I get home from my other work. (New schedule. This dumb little shift on Thursday is hard for me to remember.) Hopefully it won't be busy. Timing of schedules hasn't worked very well today. :rolleyes:

Was the man a customer/client at the business?

Does the man work at the building as well? No, he's not an employee of/at the building. OK, was he doing work at the building, but not as an employee? (i.e. contractor or from another company)

Does Gordon carry the trash out (as opposed to rolling)?
Is the trash in bags when he takes it out?

Did Gordon bump into someone or something?

Was the man changing a light bulb? (Don't ask where that came from.) How many men does it take to change the light bulb?

You said they saw each other. Was this intentional or for some purpose? Or was this by coincidence?

Is Gordon the janitor? Does he do other forms of maintenance?

You said that yes Gordon and man had seen each other at least once before. How about more than once? You said they don't know each other, but does Gordon recognize this man by site?

Hmm... starting to fish a bit.

Some were difficult to ask. ;) Haha


That was difficult to ask to get the idea I was trying to understand, but I think your answer worked great. i.e. it's not important what type of business, but really only that it's some type of private business, right? Yes


When this was brought up, it was a little unclear to me whether it was just one person, or people plural. (I tried to underline the s in persons but guess that didn't work.)
Was that your assumption when you answered it does matter to some degree, that I meant singular or plural?
What threw me with your question was I couldn't answer with a yes or no - it required a "person" or "persons" reply. The assumption in the story is that it would be multiple people.

And I'm just starting work again. I forgot I have this little two-hour shift online after I get home from my other work. (New schedule. This dumb little shift on Thursday is hard for me to remember.) Hopefully it won't be busy. Timing of schedules hasn't worked very well today. :rolleyes: Well, I'll check back later.


Was the man a customer/client at the business? Kinda/sort of.

Does the man work at the building as well? No, he's not an employee of/at the building. OK, was he doing work at the building, but not as an employee? (i.e. contractor or from another company) Yes

Does Gordon carry the trash out (as opposed to rolling)? Irrelevant
Is the trash in bags when he takes it out? Irrelevant

Did Gordon bump into someone or something? No

Was the man changing a light bulb? (Don't ask where that came from.) No How many men does it take to change the light bulb? Just one, if there's a woman telling him how to do it. (sorry guys - it's just a joke)

You said they saw each other. Was this intentional No or for some purpose? Yes, but probably not the way you mean it. Or was this by coincidence? Not really coincidence (now I'm pulling my hair out)

Is Gordon the janitor? Yes Does he do other forms of maintenance? Not relevant

You said that yes Gordon and man had seen each other at least once before. How about more than once? You said they don't know each other, but does Gordon recognize this man by site? I assumed Unky's question to mean had they ever seen each other, versus for example the possibility that Gordon threw something away without the man being present. Gordon doesn't recognize the man.

Hmm... starting to fish a bit. I feel like you are so close. ;)

Work ended up being hectic, so I even ran over. Thursday is such a long day, I'm so glad I have Friday off. So no new questions for this second, but some clarifications...

(Not sure why this is getting so confusing.)


Was the man a customer/client at the business? Kinda/sort of.

But if he's doing some kind of work for the business, I would think this is a flat out no. Or is there really something more (weird) going on here?


Does the man work at the building as well? No, he's not an employee of/at the building. OK, was he doing work at the building, but not as an employee? (i.e. contractor or from another company) Yes

HA! See, I caught that you specifically said not an employee, instead of just saying no. :p


Was the man changing a light bulb? (Don't ask where that came from.) No How many men does it take to change the light bulb? Just one, if there's a woman telling him how to do it. (sorry guys - it's just a joke)

Well, I thought it was amusing.


You said they saw each other. Was this intentional No or for some purpose? Yes, but probably not the way you mean it. Or was this by coincidence? Not really coincidence (now I'm pulling my hair out)

Sorry. Obviously difficult to answer. I'll work on getting some clarifying questions there.

Speaking of clarifying, so having "seen each other at least once" just means now, in the scenario, right? They've never seen each other prior to this day, right? Something tells me this is not even terribly relevant.



Hmm... starting to fish a bit. I feel like you are so close. ;)

I really love when you say that when I'm still pretty clueless. :D I might be narrowing down the setting, but I still don't know what happened.

OK, off to find food and then I'll see if I can get 3 billion questions in first and beat Unky. ;)

You know, I've been so busy getting the setting and relationships, etc. that I totally forgot the guy lost something. LOL.

Are these other people employees? Are they customers/clients? Are they working with the man?

Is the man working for the garbage pickup company?

Gordon faithfully takes the trash out daily, a task for which his wife is quite grateful. However, it so happened that on this particular day, his menial chore cost another man thousands of dollars. Explain.


Work ended up being hectic, so I even ran over. Thursday is such a long day, I'm so glad I have Friday off. So no new questions for this second, but some clarifications...

(Not sure why this is getting so confusing.) It's probably my answers. :p

But if he's doing some kind of work for the business, I would think this is a flat out no. Or is there really something more (weird) going on here? There is something more unusual going on here.

HA! See, I caught that you specifically said not an employee, instead of just saying no. :p I thought I worded that well, and I'm glad you caught it.

Well, I thought it was amusing. You are funny.

Speaking of clarifying, so having "seen each other at least once" just means now, in the scenario, right? They've never seen each other prior to this day, right? Something tells me this is not even terribly relevant. Yes, they are just now seeing each other in this scenario. I think it's somewhat relevant.

I really love when you say that when I'm still pretty clueless. :D I might be narrowing down the setting, but I still don't know what happened. I was trying to be funny this time.

OK, off to find food and then I'll see if I can get 3 billion questions in first and beat Unky. ;)


Are these other people employees? Are they customers/clients? Are they working with the man? Yes, they are working with the man.

Is the man working for the garbage pickup company? No

Okay, I'll go catch a little TV and check back later.

Hm... Is Gordon doing the work that the man and his 'helpers' usually do and hence, the latter cannot do their work properly and hence, they lose?

Is there something in the trash that the man would use? (recycling for example)

Are the workers of the man 'angry' at Gordon? Because they would lose their jobs?

Does Gordon sent the trash to somewhere after taking it out?

Hm... Is Gordon doing the work that the man and his 'helpers' usually do and hence, the latter cannot do their work properly and hence, they lose? No

Is there something in the trash that the man would use? (recycling for example) No

Are the workers of the man 'angry' at Gordon? I'm sure they were annoyed. Because they would lose their jobs? No

Does Gordon sent the trash to somewhere after taking it out? Irrelevant

Quote:
Was the man a customer/client at the business? Kinda/sort of.

But if he's doing some kind of work for the business, I would think this is a flat out no. Or is there really something more (weird) going on here?

This is bothering me a little, so in the interest of not steering you wrong I think I have to clarify a little here. There is some sort of business-related relationship between the man and the business.

******

But if he's doing some kind of work for the business, I would think this is a flat out no. Or is there really something more (weird) going on here? There is something more unusual going on here.


There is a false assumption in this question.

Is the business employing the man and his workers?
- To do something relevant?
- To take out the trash?

Did Gordon take out and threw away something he shouldn't?

Is the business employing the man and his workers? No
- To do something relevant? No
- To take out the trash? No
Did Gordon take out and threw away something he shouldn't? No

Do the man and his workers have their company adjacent to the building where Gordon is a janitor?
Is Gordo throwing the trash somewhere he shouldn't?

Do the man and his workers have their company adjacent to the building where Gordon is a janitor? No
Is Gordo throwing the trash somewhere he shouldn't? No

Is it even relevant what the trash contains?
Is the action of taking the trash outside (from building to outside, excluding throwing it away) that engender the loss of money?
Were the workers so annoyed that they didn't want to work any more for the man?
Is there yet other people involved besides Gordon, his wife, the man and his workers?

OK, some more clarifying:

How about this: The man works for another company and that other company conducts business with this company? Hence, he's there working, AT the company, but not FOR the company? (It took me a while to find that I'd said "at" one place and "for" another place.) And, this could also explain how he could "sort of" be a customer/client, because his company is the client?

I hope this one doesn't cause further confusion cause I'm having a hard time articulating this right:
Are these other people employees? Are they customers/clients? Are they working with the man? Yes, they are working with the man.
When I re-read this, I realized that this could have been misinterpreted, and see that you did not answer the 3 questions. These were 3 individual questions. But I could see where it could be taken that I'm asking if the people work for Gordon's company, and working with this man. So I want to clarify that what you meant is what I did, that they do NOT work for Gordon's company, but that they "work with" the man as fellow workers. I hope I'm making sense. Unky has asked questions based on this exact thing and you haven't corrected him about it, so I'm for the moment assuming this is right.

OK, now that I have that out of the way... back to my other questions.

Is it even relevant what the trash contains? No
Is the action of taking the trash outside (from building to outside, excluding throwing it away) that engender the loss of money? No
Were the workers so annoyed that they didn't want to work any more for the man? No
Is there yet other people involved besides Gordon, his wife, the man and his workers? Yes, one other relevant character. :o

Is there yet other people involved besides Gordon, his wife, the man and his workers? Yes, one other relevant character. :o

LOL! You're going to make me crazy :p

Is this last person a man?
Is the work of this last person relevant?
Is this person in the building too?

Does it all happen in a movie studio? Theatre? (This puzzle seems so... improbable to occur in real life :rolleyes:)

OK, some more clarifying:

How about this: The man works for another company and that other company conducts business with this company? Hence, he's there working, AT the company, but not FOR the company? (It took me a while to find that I'd said "at" one place and "for" another place.) And, this could also explain how he could "sort of" be a customer/client, because his company is the client? I said kinda/sort of because they aren't exactly a customer or client of the business, but there is a business relationship. It was the first question that was tying the man to the business and I didn't want to just say no.

I hope this one doesn't cause further confusion cause I'm having a hard time articulating this right:
Are these other people employees? Are they customers/clients? Are they working with the man? Yes, they are working with the man.
When I re-read this, I realized that this could have been misinterpreted, and see that you did not answer the 3 questions. These were 3 individual questions. But I could see where it could be taken that I'm asking if the people work for Gordon's company, and working with this man. So I want to clarify that what you meant is what I did, that they do NOT work for Gordon's company, but that they "work with" the man as fellow workers. I hope I'm making sense. Unky has asked questions based on this exact thing and you haven't corrected him about it, so I'm for the moment assuming this is right. Yes, the other people work with the man. They do not work for Gordon's company.

OK, now that I have that out of the way... back to my other questions.

LOL! You're going to make me crazy :p You'll be in good company. ;)

Is this last person a man? Could be a man or woman.
Is the work of this last person relevant? Yes
Is this person in the building too? Probably not when the incident occurred, but this person does work there.

Does it all happen in a movie studio? Theatre? (This puzzle seems so... improbable to occur in real life :rolleyes:) No, it isn't in a movie studio or theater. Actually this puzzle is pretty realistic for the most part. Still, I think you should read some of your old questions and my answers. There's something in there. :D

Well, I keep rereading them and I think I lose myself in there :eek:

Okay, I'll try once more... and will edit this post if I have new questions.

I think we could use a summary, through post #568 (I've deleted some duplicates and shortened some of the clarifications and such.)

Is the money considered as a loss? Yes-ish. Or as a 'missed gain'? No
So is the loss an item of value? No, money vs. an item. You'll understand the hesitation when you figure out the loss.

Gordon:
Does "takes the trash out" refer to him taking trash from inside the house to a main garbage can/bin? No. (Versus taking the main garbage can to the curb for pickup, which I would not expect to happen daily. Just checking.) No.
Did he miss a day of taking the trash out? No.
Does Gordon do something else besides taking the trash out which is relevant? Yes-ish.
Given Gordon hasn't done his 'menial' task, would the man still lose thousands of dollars? No, probably not.
Is Gordon's *job* taking out the trash in a building? (rather than taking out the personal trash at home?) Yes.
Is Gordon a human being? Yes.
Does Gordon take out trash in the same manner everyday? (ie he does the same thing besides taking trash out) Yes
Is Gordon sick the day that the loss happens? No.
Does Gordon carry the trash out (as opposed to rolling)? Irrelevant
Is the trash in bags when he takes it out? Irrelevant
Did Gordon bump into someone or something? No
Is Gordon the janitor? Yes
Does he do other forms of maintenance? Not relevant
Does Gordon recognize this man by site? No.

man:
Was the man someone 'anti-feminist'? No.
Was the man Gordon's neighbor? No.
Does the man know Gordon's wife? No.
Was the man ever at Gordon's house? No.
Is the man far away from Gordon? (like less than a kilometre away) No.
Does the man work with the trash? No.
Does the trash (some product in the trash) contain something related to the man? (see my next question to see where I'm driving at) No.
Is the man involved in the manufacture of a product? No.
Does the man work to save the environment? No.
Does this happen in a TV show/movie? I'm taking this to mean that you are asking if Gordon is an actor in a tv show/movie - No.
Is the man keeping a close eye on Gordon? No.
Does the man work at the building as well? No, he's not an employee of/at the building.
OK, was he doing work at the building, but not as an employee? (i.e. contractor or from another company) Yes
Does the man live in the building? No
Was the man a customer/client at the business? Kinda/sort of.
But if he's doing some kind of work for the business, I would think this is a flat out no. Or is there really something more (weird) going on here? There is something more unusual going on here. Added later: There is a false assumption in this question. Also added: This is bothering me a little, so in the interest of not steering you wrong I think I have to clarify a little here. There is some sort of business-related relationship between the man and the business.
Is the man working for the garbage pickup company? No.
Is the business employing the man and his workers? No
- To do something relevant? No
- To take out the trash? No
Do the man and his workers have their company adjacent to the building where Gordon is a janitor? No

Is it relevant what kind of building it is? Yes, but only as detailed by your next questions.
Apartment/condo? No. Office building or some private business? Yes. Store or some public business? No. Public service? No.
Do Gordon and the man come into direct physical contact with each other? (literally) No.
Is there a specific event which takes place while taking out the trash that causes this loss? Yes.
If so, does this event take place while Gordon is inside? Yes. Or outside? No.
Did it take place while Gordon was taking out the garbage? Yes-ish.
Have the man and Gordon seen each other at least once? Yes. Added later: They are just now seeing each other in this scenario. I think it's somewhat relevant.
Did the man and Gordon see each other while the latter was taking out trash? Yes.
Was this intentional No or for some purpose? Yes, but probably not the way you mean it. Or was this by coincidence? Not really coincidence
Is Gordon doing the work that the man and his 'helpers' usually do and hence, the latter cannot do their work properly and hence, they lose? No

Was there something in the trash that was valuable to the man? No.
Is there anything unusual with the trash on that particular day? No.
IS there anything in the trash itself that causes the loss? No.
Is there something in the trash that the man would use? (recycling for example) No
Does Gordon sent the trash to somewhere after taking it out? Irrelevant
Did Gordon take out and threw away something he shouldn't? No
Is Gordo throwing the trash somewhere he shouldn't? No

other person/s:
Is there someone else involved besides the wife, Gordon and the man? Yes.
Is the other person/people involved a man? Man/Woman, Men/Women - could be any of these.
Does that person (3rd party) have anything to do with the trash? No.
Does Gordon know the additional person personally? No.
Does that person (3rd party) did something different on that particular day? No.
Do any of the other person/people (which I will call the 3rd party) come into physical contact with either the man or Gordon? No.
Is this third party a person or persons? The assumption in the story is that it would be multiple people. Does it matter? To some degree.
Are these other people employees? Are they customers/clients? Are they working with the man? Yes, they are working with the man.
Are the workers of the man 'angry' at Gordon? I'm sure they were annoyed. Because they would lose their jobs? No

Are Gordon and the man related by blood? No.
Do they know each other? No.
Does Gordon's wife have a relevant role in this puzzle besides being a wife? No.
Is death involved? No.
Do Gordon and the man work together? No.
Is there a bet involved? No.
Did someone get hurt? No.
Is it relevant why his wife is "quite" grateful instead of being simply "grateful"? No.
Does Gordon does something else besides taking the trash out which the wife is not so grateful about? No.
Is there anything unusual happening at home when Gordon is out on that day? No.
Is Gordon aware that he is making the man lose that huge sum of money? Well, after the fact, yes.
Is the wife related to the man in some way? No.
Are there other physical objects involved? Hmmm ... tough one to answer. I would say yes.

Morgaine, thanks for the recap. That is really helpful.

I don't know this is a big deal, but there was a part where Unky was asking about other people and it's been clarified that there were other people involved who work for the man and that Gordon doesn't know. At the time, I wasn't even thinking of the individual who is now being mentioned in post 571. This last person is separate from the others, but is being mentioned for a specific reason.

And Unky I still see a clue in there.

Oh yes, I'm sure that helped. :confused:

I'm trying to go over it now, but I keep spending more time adding stuff to my list than reading it.

Does Gordon get side-tracked while taking out the garbage?

Is it relevant to discover what the man's relationship with the business is?

Does he work for the IRS? (That would be the accountant in me speaking, not wine. ;))

The new mystery person:
Is this person Gordon's boss?
Is this an employee of Gordon's company?
Or, is this person working for/with the man, et al.

Does Gordon get side-tracked while taking out the garbage? No

Is it relevant to discover what the man's relationship with the business is? Yes - very relevant.

Does he work for the IRS? (That would be the accountant in me speaking, not wine. ;)) No :p

The new mystery person:
Is this person Gordon's boss? Yes
Is this an employee of Gordon's company? Yes - the boss is an employee of Gordon's company.
Or, is this person working for/with the man, et al. No

Do Gordon and the man speak to each other?

Did Gordon go into a room where the man was to collect the trash?

Ok, I thought about something.

Gordon takes out the trash everyday. The man and his 'workers' come in the building.

Right?

Hypothesis:
Those people are thieves and Gordon see them. So, Gordon becomes a witness and as such, the thieves cannot execute their 'task' to completion. Thus their lost of millions of dollars.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

More Questions:
Is Gordon doing anything illegal?
Are the man and his 'workers' doing anything illegal?
Is Gordon's boss doing anything illegal?

Do Gordon and the man speak to each other? They normally wouldn't, but I think they did due to the incident.

Did Gordon go into a room where the man was to collect the trash? I'm a little confused by this question. Can you verify what you are asking?

I might point out, Unky, that you established very early on that the loss was not a "missed gain."

Ok, I thought about something.

Gordon takes out the trash everyday. The man and his 'workers' come in the building.

Right? Yes ETA: Though I would say they are in the building.

Hypothesis:
Those people are thieves and Gordon see them. So, Gordon becomes a witness and as such, the thieves cannot execute their 'task' to completion. Thus their lost of millions of dollars. Good idea, but not in this puzzle.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

More Questions:
Is Gordon doing anything illegal? No
Are the man and his 'workers' doing anything illegal? No
Is Gordon's boss doing anything illegal? No

Did Gordon go into a room where the man was to collect the trash? I'm a little confused by this question. Can you verify what you are asking?

I'll try. Did Gordon go into a room, a room where the man was at, in order to collect up the trash that was in that room?

I'll try. Did Gordon go into a room, a room where the man was at, in order to collect up the trash that was in that room?

Much better - Yes. I just wanted to be sure we had it right.

I might point out, Unky, that you established very early on that the loss was not a "missed gain."

Yes I know :( I was thinking about it... and didn't know how to put it down, hence my other questions. Maybe something with drug dealing with the boss :eek: and they will lose the money if they can't accomplish their task...

Did Gordon see something he shouldn't have?
Did Gordon hear something he shouldn't have?
Is there a secret of some sort in this puzzle?
Was there a big noise in the building?

Yes I know :( I was thinking about it... and didn't know how to put it down, hence my other questions. Maybe something with drug dealing with the boss :eek: and they will lose the money if they can't accomplish their task... For the record, that's not the clue I've been hinting at. :D

Did Gordon see something he shouldn't have? Can you rephrase?
Did Gordon hear something he shouldn't have? No
Is there a secret of some sort in this puzzle? No, it's pretty straight-forward.
Was there a big noise in the building? No

Does the boss own the business? Or just work for it?

So Gordon and the man did not speak before the incidence happened? (I was trying to establish whether speaking was part of what led up to the incidence.)

Was the business they were conducting financially related. (Gotta get this out of my head.)(I don't mean indirectly like worth something, but like bank, stock, insurance, that sort of thing.)

Was the man et al in the room waiting for the boss?

Does the boss own the business? No Or just work for it? Yes

So Gordon and the man did not speak before the incidence happened? (I was trying to establish whether speaking was part of what led up to the incidence.) No

Was the business they were conducting financially related. (Gotta get this out of my head.)(I don't mean indirectly like worth something, but like bank, stock, insurance, that sort of thing.) No

Was the man et al in the room waiting for the boss? No

Was the man in the room conducting his business (without the boss I guess).

Did Gordon move anything in the room (besides trash).

Did Gordon see something he shouldn't have? Can you rephrase?

Um... I'll try... did Gordon see something he shouldn't have seen? (like some business strategy)

Was the boss communicating with the man through some telecommunication mode?
Did something happen on the moment Gordon opened the door which leads to the room in which was the man?
- Did something get out of the room? Someone?
- Did something get into the room? Someone?

Was the man in the room conducting his business (without the boss I guess). Yes

Did Gordon move anything in the room (besides trash). No

Did Gordon see something he shouldn't have? Can you rephrase?

Um... I'll try... did Gordon see something he shouldn't have seen? This needs tweaking. (Hah - sounds like You've Got Mail.)
(like some business strategy) No - not a business strategy.

Was the boss communicating with the man through some telecommunication mode? No
Did something happen on the moment Gordon opened the door which leads to the room in which was the man? Hmmm ... kind of
- Did something get out of the room? No Someone? No
- Did something get into the room? No Someone? No - just Gordon

Um... I'll try... did Gordon see something he shouldn't have seen? (like some business strategy)

Or a murder? :)

Or a murder? :)

Remember, no dead bodies. :D

No deaths ;)

Were they construction workers, remodeling, that sort of thing? Along those lines, electricians? Painters?

Did Gordon knock something over or spill something?

Are there any mistaken identities involved?

Did Gordon know the man would be in the room when he went in?

Even though he went in to take the trash, did Gordon do something for/with the man instead?

Remember, no dead bodies. :D

You didn't really think li'l anal old me with my list missed that, did you? I was just being funny. :p

Were they photographers?

Were they construction workers, remodeling, that sort of thing? Along those lines, electricians? Painters? No, none of those things.

Did Gordon knock something over or spill something? No

Are there any mistaken identities involved? No

Did Gordon know the man would be in the room when he went in? No

Even though he went in to take the trash, did Gordon do something for/with the man instead? No


You didn't really think li'l anal old me with my list missed that, did you? I was just being funny. :p Actually, I thought you were just joking.

Did Gordon take something else instead of trash?
Did Gordon destroy something accidentally?
Was the room dark?
Were the people in there carrying out an experiment of some sort?
Does the boss have anything to do with the puzzle at the time of incident?
Does the boss arrive later in the scenario to discover what happened?

Were they photographers?

No, but you are getting warmer. I'd feel bad about the hint, but this is how the other puzzle went and this hint was given. I could have said no-ish. :p Plus, we want to finish it in fewer posts than they did.


Did Gordon take something else instead of trash? No
Did Gordon destroy something accidentally? Destroy is not the right word, but he ruined something.
Was the room dark? No
Were the people in there carrying out an experiment of some sort? No
Does the boss have anything to do with the puzzle at the time of incident? Yes, but probably not in the way you might be thinking.
Does the boss arrive later in the scenario to discover what happened? I am sure he was informed about it. Whether or not he arrived is irrelevant.

Are they photodevelopers?

Though I already asked about the dark room...

Are they photodevelopers?

Though I already asked about the dark room...

No.

Are they photodevelopers?

Though I already asked about the dark room...

Yeah, your undark room ruined that idea. :(

Is the boss going to sue the man?

Was the man specifically doing this job for or about the boss?
If so, is that the only relevance of the boss?

Did the door hit something?

Were they decorators?

Were they portrait painters? (That makes no sense cause how many people do you need to paint a picture?)

Now I'm dejected. I loved the photographer idea. It was the first thing I thought of that made some reasonable sense. (And I was thinking of the development when I asked, not the photographer taking.)

Is the boss going to sue the man? No

Was the man specifically doing this job for or about the boss? No
If so, is that the only relevance of the boss?

Did the door hit something? No

Were they decorators? No

Were they portrait painters? (That makes no sense cause how many people do you need to paint a picture?) No


Are you guys getting tired of this yet? I still say there is something in the recap that should stand out.

(That makes no sense cause how many people do you need to paint a picture?)

Depends on whether a woman tells you how to do it. <snarkle>

Now I'm dejected. I loved the photographer idea. It was the first thing I thought of that made some reasonable sense. (And I was thinking of the development when I asked, not the photographer taking.)

You're idea was really on the right track. In the other puzzle, they suggested that and the person running the puzzle said that could have been an alternate solution. However, the real solution makes more sense.

I'm tired (I said last night I'd regret being up so late), but not tired of. Just stumped at the moment. I probably need to read the re-cap and just close my eyes for a while and ponder. (Maybe hold a purring puddy tat - that always helps everything.)

This is just a wild weird stab... but did the door opening cause some weirdo suction in the air and do... something, I don't know?

Did what the man and the workers have something to do with art?
- Does it involve paint?
- Does it involve light?
- Does it involve sculpture?

Did a strong wind blow when the door was opened?
- Did this make bank notes fly away through a window?

This is just a wild weird stab... but did the door opening cause some weirdo suction in the air and do... something, I dunno?

We were thinking along the same lines :p

I'm tired (I said last night I'd regret being up so late), but not tired of. Just stumped at the moment. I probably need to read the re-cap and just close my eyes for a while and ponder. (Maybe hold a purring puddy tat - that always helps everything.)

I'm getting a little paranoid now. I could have asked for clarification of a question early on, but it was so early on that I answered it in such a way I thought it would draw out more questions. I even asked a couple of friends about it and they agreed I should answer it the way I did. I hope you guys agree. :o


This is just a wild weird stab... but did the door opening cause some weirdo suction in the air and do... something, I dunno? No


Did what the man and the workers have something to do with art? It could fall under the classification of the arts.
- Does it involve paint?
Did what the man and the workers have something to do with art? It could fall under the classification of the arts.
- Does it involve paint? No
- Does it involve light? No
- Does it involve sculpture? No

Did a strong wind blow when the door was opened? No
- Did this make bank notes fly away through a window? No
- Does it involve light?
- Does it involve sculpture?

Did a strong wind blow when the door was opened?
- Did this make bank notes fly away through a window? No

Something more generic: did opening the door itself cause something to happen?

As a side note, if Gordon did not know these people were in the room, I would say the fact that they saw each other (i.e. were in the same place) was indeed "coincidental."

I have a vague memory of something I said I'd have to ask about and get some clarification. I'll have to see what that was. I've also looked at several things that have been "iffy" answers and tried to think what to ask to "un-iffify" them. Just haven't thought what to ask.

Somehow that reminds me of being Tartuffified. Anyone know Tartuffe?

Did what the man and the workers have something to do with art?
- Does it involve paint? No
- Does it involve light? No
- Does it involve sculpture? No

Interesting. You answered the three separate items, but not the main question. Was there another form of art then?

Something more generic: did opening the door itself cause something to happen?

As a side note, if Gordon did not know these people were in the room, I would say the fact that they saw each other (i.e. were in the same place) was indeed "coincidental."

Another tough one to answer... the opening of the door did not in itself cause a reaction with something else. I believe that is your question.


The problem I have with the word coincidental is that Gordon was going in to collect the trash, as has been established. Since he had a purpose to go in the room, I didn't see that as a coincidence.

Interesting. You answered the three separate items, but not the main question. Was there another form of art then?

I missed it. I went back and answered it almost immediately, but you clicked in there first.

Is the work of this last person relevant? Yes.

We haven't asked about this. (That's under "boss.") We've been concentrating on what the man and his workers do, and not what the boss does. (I have thought about how he would be relevant, but not about his actual job.)

We haven't asked about this. (That's under "boss.") We've been concentrating on what the man and his workers do, and not what the boss does. (I have thought about how he would be relevant, but not about his actual job.)

His specific job isn't important so much as that he's the boss.

The problem I have with the word coincidental is that Gordon was going in to collect the trash, as has been established. Since he had a purpose to go in the room, I didn't see that as a coincidence.

I was referring to Gordon and the man seeing each other while Gordon was taking out the trash. It's coincidental that they ended up in that room at the same time. i.e. they did not plan to meet there and did not set out to. Which is what I meant. (Don't worry about - just pointing it out.)

So, being the boss is his job.

So, being the boss is his job.

Yes, it's really all you need to know about his job. When you figure out what happened, his role comes into play.

Was it Gordon coming into the room that caused the incidence?

Was it something he saw that caused the incidence?

Was it Gordon coming into the room that caused the incidence? Yes

Was it something he saw that caused the incidence? No, I wouldn't put it that way.


Did we lose Unky?

Not quite, I'm trying to think of what might have happened and I'm out of questions for the time being :o

Does it have to do with music?
The recording of an album?

Not quite, I'm trying to think of what might have happened and I'm out of questions for the time being :o
I thought you might be off eating lunch. No school today?



Does it have to do with music?
The recording of an album?

No, not music.

:(

No, there will be no school until the exams. So, I'm home for this week and the next.

Does the work of the 'workers' has to do with sound?
Sight?
Smell?
Taste?

I'm a little out of questions too.

I keep looking at this money vs item thing at the very top and wondering if there's something I can ask about that, but don't know what. Something gets "ruined" but not "damaged."

We need to establish what these people do, and how the boss is involved, probably in that order.

Twice when "seeing" something was brought up, the answer has been "not quite right." (It needs tweaked.)

I think there's where we need to concentrate. Although I'm not sure what the clue is supposed to be that's in that list. I might be dismissing something important.

I'm just tired and can't really think about it anymore. So I'm going to get my contacts out, feed cats, etc. think while I'm doing it, and maybe check back in one more time before climbing in bed.

:(

No, there will be no school until the exams. So, I'm home for this week and the next.



Just in time for her to take off on a honeymoon? Well, then I guess me and you will be doing one. Oh, wait, you said you had to study - maybe this can be for breaks.

The music idea was interesting.

Were they FILMING something? (You know, like movies.)

I probably need to go to bed. I've been working while we are playing, but I still have work to finish tomorrow.

Unky - No to all of your questions.

I feel like this has gotten more complicated than it really is. :o The money thing - we know it involves a loss of money, but it wasn't cash thrown away, stolen, etc. "It cost a man thousands"

The clue is early on in the game.

Were they FILMING something? (You know, like movies.)

YES! Yay - now we are on a roll. I have a huge smile on my face.

YES! Yay - now we are on a roll. I have a huge smile on my face.

Of course, now we have to stay up and finish this. :p

So... Gordon entered a room where the man and the workers were in a play/scene. As Gordon opened the door, he was immediately in the film and ruined it. Hence, the film was to be redone and the man has lost millions of dollars.

Is that... it? :confused:

So... Gordon entered a room where the man and the workers were in a play/scene. As Gordon opened the door, he was immediately in the film and ruined it. Hence, the film was to be redone and the man has lost millions of dollars.

Is that... it? :confused:

The only question is how the boss was involved, but keep it simple...

Unky, you seem disappointed. I told you it wasn't that crazy. ;)

Hm... they had a deadline to meet and since the movie was to be started over again, the man won't be able to give the film strip to the boss.

That doesn't seem too convincing... :(

The director of the film (the man) would get fired? :o

Hm... they had a deadline to meet and since the movie was to be started over again, the man won't be able to give the film strip to the boss.

That doesn't seem too convincing... :(

The director of the film (the man) would get fired? :o

Think along the lines of why Gordon would enter the room when filming was going on.

Did Gordon know his boss was away?
Did Gordon think his boss was under attack and rushed through the door?

Did the man think that the boss was entering the room to get the film instead of Gordon?

Somehow I knew when I said it that filming was correct. It just fit.

Ruined versus damaged.

I never did think it was literally money that got lost, like thrown out or blew off in the wind. I figured it was something of value. But I see now why you said not at "item." More like waste.

But I don't get how the boss fits in either. I was thinking about that while getting ready for bed and just couldn't figure, other than he'd be ticked off probably.

He entered the room to get the trash. Did the boss tell him to do it cause he wanted to ruin the film for some reason?

Did Gordon know his boss was away?
Did Gordon think his boss was under attack and rushed through the door?

Did the man think that the boss was entering the room to get the film instead of Gordon?

No to all. Keep it really simple. :) Gordon was only going in the room to dump the trash, his normal job.

Somehow I knew when I said it that filming was correct. It just fit.

Ruined versus damaged.

I never did think it was literally money that got lost, like thrown out or blew off in the wind. I figured it was something of value. But I see now why you said not at "item." More like waste.

But I don't get how the boss fits in either. I was thinking about that while getting ready for bed and just couldn't figure, other than he'd be ticked off probably.

He entered the room to get the trash. Did the boss tell him to do it cause he wanted to ruin the film for some reason?

Shall I just post the solution? It's a pretty obvious reason, but I think we are all tired.

Well, on the one hand I can't handle the idea of not solving it. Just like how filming just sort of popped in my head out of the blue (while half asleep), the boss thing is probably something that would just have to pop in your head.

I realize Gordon just went in for the trash. That part is simple. But nothing is coming to me about the boss.

And yes I'm very tired. I'm already going to be hitting afternoon if I want to get a good night's sleep for a change. While I hate giving up, I also don't feel like waiting until tomorrow just for this one thing.

Did the boss tell Gordon previously not to go into that particular room but Gordon forgot?
Did the boss give a deadline to Gordon to take out the trash from all the rooms of the building previously?
Did Gordon think that his boss was in the room?

Well, on the one hand I can't handle the idea of not solving it. Just like how filming just sort of popped in my head out of the blue (while half asleep), the boss thing is probably something that would just have to pop in your head.

I realize Gordon just went in for the trash. That part is simple. But nothing is coming to me about the boss.

And yes I'm very tired. I'm already gonna be hitting afternoon if I want to get a good night's sleep for a change. While I hate giving up, I also don't feel like waiting until tomorrow just for this one thing.

Okay, I'm going to post the answer now and head off to bed. You must really be tired, and I have to be up in 3-4 hours. Don't look if you want to think about it some more. It's really a minor part of the puzzle, though. :)



Gordon is a night janitor at an office building (or other workplace) where he daily takes out the trash, a task for which his wife is grateful (because it pays the bills!)

One day, a major filmmaker approaches the building owner and managers about using the building for a film shoot. They agree, and alert most of the staff and management of the situation. However, they neglected to tell Gordon.

At the beginning of Gordon's normal night shift, he goes from room to room collecting trash. Imagine his surprise when he stumbles on the film crew shooting in one of the rooms! Unfortunately, he ruins a particularly long take that required some setup.

The film that ran through the camera was ruined, and it cost the actors and crew some time in resetting the scene and reshooting. Even a few minutes of lost time on a big-budget film set can add up to thousands!




The boss neglected to tell Gordon, so he was unaware of the filming. Good night now.

Sleep tight JLo :)

I don't think I'd have solved it that soon :p

One day, a major filmmaker approaches the building owner and managers about using the building for a film shoot. They agree, and alert most of the staff and management of the situation. However, they neglected to tell Gordon.

You're right. That's pretty minor. I thought I typed this, but maybe I only thought it. But I was thinking why wasn't there a sign on the door not to enter? It didn't really occur to me about someone telling him about it.

Although it did occur to me that the building was just some building and that they were using it for the filming. (Hence, you saying the type of business wasn't important, cause it if had been a studio, that would have been relevant.)

Oh, and I'm perfectly aware of what it cost them to lose a bit of filming time. That's a lot of the cost of a movie, and years ago they simple couldn't afford to be doing 3 billion takes and editing so much like they do nowadays.

Anyway, I'm a goner. Just glad I'm off tomorrow.

So, how is everyone today after that long night? I zonked out pretty quickly and slept like a baby, and finally got myself a good night's sleep.

Just curious what everyone's schedules are. Are we going to be able to get any playing in?

I feel refreshed :)

I'm game for another one now :p

Can you wait? Or will you go into withdrawal? I think J-Lo is disappearing. I'm getting ready to go to bed (earlier than usual). But I can maybe start one tomorrow. Unless Synn or jm drop by, you'll probably be mostly on your own until Monday, if Adam comes back around.

How long are you good for until you have to go into study mode?

You know, what the heck. I'm starving and want to eat something before going to bed (and will probably read a little bit to chill out). So I can start one. If you get any questions in before I actually go to bed, I'll answer them to get you started.

I just don't know how much time I'll have tomorrow. Saturday's are iffy. So this might just be a little more of a delayed reaction.

Can't say this is the best puzzle in the world, but I was looking for something different. I also do wonder if I should give credit to the person who created it, but I'll worry about that later.

A man is lying dead in the sand, apparently trampled. What happened?

Is the sand the sand of a beach?
Are there more people involved besides the man?
Are there animals involved? One?
Are there vehicles involved? One?
Was his death an accidental death? Murder perhaps?

Is the sand the sand of a beach? That's one possibility.

Are there more people involved besides the man? Yes.

Are there animals involved? One? No.

Are there vehicles involved? One? No. (Interesting idea.)

Was his death an accidental death? No. Murder perhaps? Yes.

Are there more than one person?
- If there is one person, is that person the murderer?
- If there are more than one person, are there two? Three? Even more?
- Is the gender of the person(s) relevant?

I guess we take the beach one then?
Is it relevant how high on the beach the corpse is?

Was the corpse beaten to death?
Is the motive behind this relevant?
Was the corpse previously tortured?

Are there more than one person? No.
- If there is one person, is that person the murderer? Yes.
- If there are more than one person, are there two? Three? Even more? N/A
- Is the gender of the person(s) relevant? According to the answer, it's a man, but it's not terribly relevant.

I guess we take the beach one then? See note below.
Is it relevant how high on the beach the corpse is? No.

Was the corpse beaten to death? Sorta. (Don't really like the word "beaten.")
Is the motive behind this relevant? Yes.
Was the corpse previously tortured? No.

About the beach... It might be easier to solve in the long-run if you found a 'more distinct' location. But it might be easier to find that location if you found other things first, I'm not sure. I'll leave it up to you what line of questioning you prefer for now.

Is it relevant how high on the beach the corpse is? No.


Oh darn, I'm already fixing answers. I was thinking elevation. I suspect you were thinking proximity to the water. IF it were on a beach, it would not likely be really close to the water, but otherwise still no.

Okay, I'll try not to focus on the beach too much for the time being.

Is money involved in the motive?
Is there theft involved?
Did the murdered want to take revenge?
Was the murderer jealous of the victim?

Oh darn, I'm already fixing answers. I was thinking elevation. I suspect you were thinking proximity to the water. IF it were on a beach, it would not likely be really close to the water, but otherwise still no.

Yes, I was thinking about it's proximity to water. Ok, noted down :)

Is money involved in the motive? No.

Is there theft involved? No.

Did the murdered want to take revenge? No.

Was the murderer jealous of the victim? Not really.

Did they fight each other?
Was the reason more 'emotional'?
Or was it about some materialistic item?
Was any of the two sane?

I'm in Los Angeles this weekend, but I still had to see what was going on in here. :confused: I'll be around on and off until Wednesday evening, then I'm off until November.

So, a new puzzle:

It says "apparently trampled". Did someone stage him to look trampled?
If so, was it staged to look like he was trampled by animals?
Or was it staged to look like he was trampled by people? (I'm thinking about cases where people have been trampled by crowds at concerts or store sales or huge events of some sort, etc. Could it be any of these?)

Was the man killed elsewhere and dumped at the beach?

You said to find a more distinct location. Is it important to find where on the beach he was found? For example, a lifeguard stand? Or is it important to find where the beach is? For example, some exotic location? Maybe Africa?

Is the murder victim famous? Rich?

You said the murderer was “not really” jealous. Did the man have something the murderer wanted?

He was sort of beaten to death. Was he crushed?

Sorry, work was really busy so I suspect Unky is now in bed. But then, Saturday's are always busy - just a matter if I get a few minutes to spare here and there.

Did they fight each other? Do you mean like boxing or fist fight or karate? If so, no.

Was the reason more 'emotional'? Yes.

Or was it about some materialistic item? No.

Was any of the two sane? Quite personally I don't consider most killers sane, but we'll say yes. ;)

[QUOTE=Just Looking;2546430]I’m in Los Angeles this weekend, but I still had to see what was going on in here. :confused: I’ll be around on and off until Wednesday evening, then I’m off until November.

Hey, what the heck are you doing here? I'm confused too... girl, you're supposed to be having a nice wedding and honeymoon and forgetting about us. Not that I might your being here at all, and new hubby can play too, but I have a feeling he has other things in mind. ;)

It says "apparently trampled". Did someone stage him to look trampled? Yes.

If so, was it staged to look like he was trampled by animals? Yes.

Or was it staged to look like he was trampled by people? (I’m thinking about cases where people have been trampled by crowds at concerts or store sales or huge events of some sort, etc. Could it be any of these?) No.

Was the man killed elsewhere and dumped at the beach? No, he was left where he was killed.

Is the murder victim famous? Rich? Both irrelevant.

You said the murderer was “not really” jealous. Did the man have something the murderer wanted? No. (Don't make too much of that. Jealousy is not really the best word and projects too much into it, and it's really much simpler than that.)

He was sort of beaten to death. Was he crushed? No.


You said to find a more distinct location. Is it important to find where on the beach he was found? For example, a lifeguard stand? Or is it important to find where the beach is? For example, some exotic location? Maybe Africa?

Seems I opened a hornet's nest with that one. That isn't what I meant. The puzzle doesn't say exactly where it is and I don't know. A beach is a possibility. If you were to figure out another location I have in mind, it might more quickly lead to what they were doing. But if you figure out what they were doing, then a beach works fine and you'd understand what other type of location it also could be. So just depends which you think of first and you can pursue either line of questioning. Country doesn't matter.

I hope that makes sense. (See, this happens to me too, so stop being so paranoid. :D)

Our wedding is next Saturday. I'm in Los Angeles for my final dress fitting. Yep, don't think he'd be too happy with me if I was playing here during our wedding/honeymoon. :p

Well, if he was staging it to look like he was trampled by animals, three obvious thoughts are: Is it related to a safari? Is it related to a circus? Is it related to a ranch of some sort?

Actually, I suppose I should figure out what type of animals. This is relevant, right? Dogs? Elephants? Horses? Sheep? Cows? Haha - this could take a while. Okay, is it a wild type of animal? Domesticated?

It's an emotional reason: Revenge? Despair? Anger? Love? Hatred? Fear? Guilt? Depression? Envy? Frustration? Shame?

Our wedding is next Saturday. I'm in Los Angeles for my final dress fitting. Yep, don't think he'd be too happy with me if I was playing here during our wedding/honeymoon. :p


Ah, I see. So busy & hectic - this is maybe a nice distraction to chill back out. We don't want you all stressed out. (Good thing this isn't a hard one.)

So, you think this might take a while? I think you are already heading very much in the right direction.

Well, if he was staging it to look like he was trampled by animals, three obvious thoughts are: Is it related to a safari? Is it related to a circus? Is it related to a ranch of some sort? No to all.

Actually, I suppose I should figure out what type of animals. This is relevant, right? Yes.
Dogs? Elephants? Sheep? Cows? No.
Horses? Yes. (That didn't take any time at all.)
Okay, is it a wild type of animal? Domesticated? Doesn't matter.

It's an emotional reason: Revenge? Despair? Love? Fear? Guilt? Depression? Envy? Shame? No.
Anger? Yes.
Hatred? Frustration? Possibly these as well.

Latest puzzle, starting #656 (how did we get that many posts?)

A man is lying dead in the sand, apparently trampled. What happened?

Ah, I see. So busy & hectic - this is maybe a nice distraction to chill back out. We don't want you all stressed out. (Good thing this isn't a hard one.) Yes, it is a nice distraction. :)


Were the man and the murderer related? Were they in business together? Co-workers? Boss/employee?


Horses? Yes. Horses and the sand - this makes me think of the wild horses that run on the beach in Hawaii, near Waikiki I think. Are there wild horses on the beach? Is the reason for the murder related to the horses? Are the horses part of a horseback riding business? Are they race horses?


Anger? Yes.
Hatred? Frustration? Possibly these as well.

Is there a land dispute involved?

Were the man and the murderer related? Were they in business together? Co-workers? Boss/employee? Relationship unknown.

Horses? Yes. Horses and the sand - this makes me think of the wild horses that run on the beach in Hawaii, near Waikiki I think. Are there wild horses on the beach? Possibly.

Is the reason for the murder related to the horses? Assumption made, but no.

Are the horses part of a horseback riding business? Are they race horses? Assumption made.

Is there a land dispute involved? No.

Horses? Yes. Horses and the sand - this makes me think of the wild horses that run on the beach in Hawaii, near Waikiki I think. Are there wild horses on the beach? Possibly.

Is the reason for the murder related to the horses? Assumption made, but no.

Are the horses part of a horseback riding business? Are they race horses? Assumption made.

Is there a land dispute involved? No.

Is it my assumption that there are multiple horses that is wrong? Is there only one horse involved? Was one of the men riding the horse? If so, was it the man? The murderer?

Is there a game involved? A sport?

Off the wall, but are we talking about real horses or fake horses?

Is a battle involved? A war?

Does this occur during modern times?

You told Unky that animals were not involved. That could mean they were not real? Or it could mean that the murderer staged it to look like the man was trampled by a horse, but really there were no horses anywhere?

Would the authorities have reason to believe the man murdered had been riding a horse? Owned a horse?

Does this have anything to do with Sleepy Hollow or Ichabod Crane?

You said you don't like the word "beaten". Was it one blow that killed him?

Was the man doing something that made the murderer angry at that moment? Or was this a problem that had been occurring and reached the point of murder?

Had the murderer seen the man prior to the time he killed him?

Was staging the murder to look like a trampling by horses (or horse) symbolic? Or was it just to avoid getting caught?

Was the man doing something illegal? Immoral? Was he doing something that caused the man to hate him (or become angry or frustrated) at that moment he killed him?

Some day I've got to remember this place shuts down every night around this time and stopped trying to post.



Is it my assumption that there are multiple horses that is wrong? Is there only one horse involved? Was one of the men riding the horse? If so, was it the man? The murderer?

You're still making the same assumption with this whole line of questioning. See your other question below.

Is there a game involved? Yes. A sport? Um, I wouldn't call it that, you might, but close idea.


Off the wall, but are we talking about real horses or fake horses? Same assumption.

Is a battle involved? A war? No.

Does this occur during modern times? Yes.

(That's an interesting question. I'm even more convinced now that I know where you've gotten your last couple of puzzles from.)

You told Unky that animals were not involved. That could mean they were not real? Which still involves the same assumption. Or it could mean that the murderer staged it to look like the man was trampled by a horse, but really there were no horses anywhere? YES!!!

(You asked if it was staged. Then you asked if it looked like animals, and then horses. Somewhere after that you created horses, fake or otherwise. There are no horses in the scenario. I could project that horses could be around, currently or at some point in time, simply as part of the setting. But if so, they aren't involved in the scenario.)

Would the authorities have reason to believe the man murdered had been riding a horse? Hmm.. never thought about it. Yes, they'd have reason to believe he could have been riding one. Owned a horse? Not necessarily.

You said you don't like the word "beaten". Was it one blow that killed him? Yes.

Was the man doing something that made the murderer angry at that moment? Yes. Or was this a problem that had been occurring and reached the point of murder? Could've occured before but not relevant.

Had the murderer seen the man prior to the time he killed him? Yes.

Was staging the murder to look like a trampling by horses (or horse) symbolic? No. Or was it just to avoid getting caught? Yes.

Was the man doing something illegal? Immoral? No.
Was he doing something that caused the man to hate him (or become angry or frustrated) at that moment he killed him? Yes.


Does this have anything to do with Sleepy Hollow or Ichabod Crane?

I had a very good laugh over this one. While I suppose something like this could happen in Sleepy Hollow, and while it would also be perfectly plausible, no. No Ichabod or vanTussels or trees that spring alive, and alas, no Johnny Depp either.

Is, what the dispute was about, relevant?
- Is that about something the victim said?
- Is that about an object?
- Is that about a person?
(I know those last two are quite improbable as no more persons are involved and that there are no materialistic reason, but to be on the safe side)

If it was about something the victim said,
- Was that an insult concerning the game?
- Was that more of an annoying remark?
- Was that perhaps more about bragging?

Is the game an entertainment not involving prize money?
- If so, is a ball (or balls) involved?
- Are guns involved?
- Are weapons involved? (sword, arrow, lance, etc)

ETA: Hi JLo, thanks :o

I had a very good laugh over this one. While I suppose something like this could happen in Sleepy Hollow, and while it would also be perfectly plausible, no. No Ichabod or vanTussels or trees that spring alive, and alas, no Johnny Depp either.

Good thing I didn't ask about ghosts. It was one of my possibilities. :p

Okay, so there is a game, possibly a sport, involved. Is it a game that is normally played in the sand? Is it volleyball? Football? Frisbee? (I really have my hopes up for volleyball, as that makes sense with the question about sand, but that really seems like a sport to me.) Kite flying? Building sand castles?

Was the anger over the man beating the murderer at the game?

Did the murder occur at day? Night? Is it relevant?

Did the game involve something that was used as the murder weapon?

I keep reading one of your replies: Did they fight each other? Do you mean like boxing or fist fight or karate? If so, no. Could this mean they were competing against each other?

ETA: Hi Unky. Good questions.

Welcome back. If I stay awake long enough, we might solve this tonight.

Is, what the dispute was about, relevant? You just created a dispute, but yes. (Anger doesn't imply dispute but there was one, yes.)
- Is that about something the victim said? Yes.
- Is that about an object? Yes.
- Is that about a person? No.
(I know those last two are quite improbable as no more persons are involved and that there are no materialistic reason, but to be on the safe side)

Sorry, I believe that was misleading. Because of the way the line of questioning went when you ask about an item, I took that with a different meaning. There is an item "involved."

Oh heck, did I just dig another hole? (Sorry, brain fart or something.)

If it was about something the victim said,
- Was that an insult concerning the game? No.
- Was that more of an annoying remark? It would be annoying, but probably not how you mean.
- Was that perhaps more about bragging? Not really.

Is the game an entertainment not involving prize money? Not in this case, or so logic would dictate.
- If so, is a ball (or balls) involved? No.
- Are guns involved? No.
- Are weapons involved? (sword, arrow, lance, etc) No.

Thanks for the welcome :)

Hm... then it means that the puzzle does involve money? (I asked about money earlier and the response was in the negative)

Is it a game we normally have in a casino? (cards, roulette, slots, dice etc)
Is it a game concerning luck? Skill? Prediction?

Good thing I didn't ask about ghosts. It was one of my possibilities. No ghosts that I'm aware of. (But since they like to hide, you never know.)

Okay, so there is a game, possibly a sport, involved. Is it a game that is normally played in the sand? Not familiar with the game and had to check Wiki - never thought it was that complicated. Looks like normally it would be sand, yes. Seems like dirt would do as well?

Is it volleyball? Football? Frisbee? (I really have my hopes up for volleyball, as that makes sense with the question about sand, but that really seems like a sport to me.) Kite flying? Building sand castles? None of the above. (Sorry about the volleyball, and I would have called that a sport, yes. Looks like Wiki might consider this a "sport.")

Was the anger over the man beating the murderer at the game? It's not known who was beating whom.

Did the murder occur at day? Yes. Night? I doubt it. Is it relevant? From a light perspective, not a time perspective.

Did the game involve something that was used as the murder weapon? Yes.

I keep reading one of your replies: Did they fight each other? Do you mean like boxing or fist fight or karate? If so, no. Could this mean they were competing against each other? They're competing but not a "fight competition."

Hm... then it means that the puzzle does involve money? (I asked about money earlier and the response was in the negative) No.

This is why I don't ask "not" questions. You asked if this was a game not involving money, and I said not in this case, meaning not involving money in this case. "Not" questions are very confusing.

Is it a game we normally have in a casino? (cards, roulette, slots, dice etc) No.
Is it a game concerning luck? No. Skill? Yes. Prediction? No.

Is it a game/sport that involves a stick? My first thought was polo, but that is on horseback - and there are no horses. :D

Was the problem that the man cheated?

Is the game something like Dungeons and Dragons?

Does it have anything to do with dirt bikes? Off road vehicles?

Is it a game/sport that involves a stick? No.

Was the problem that the man cheated? No.

Is the game something like Dungeons and Dragons? In sand? No.

Does it have anything to do with dirt bikes? Off road vehicles? No.

Was the weapon used long and thin?
- Or not that long and thick like a baseball bat?
- Is a racket involved in the game?
- Was precision involved too?
- Was shooting/throwing something involved?

Sand castle? (:p)
Kubb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubb)?

Was the weapon used long and thin? No.
- Or not that long and thick like a baseball bat? No.
- Is a racket involved in the game? No.
- Was precision involved too? Yes.
- Was shooting/throwing something involved? Yes.

Sand castle? () -- Yeah, I thought that was pretty amusing too.
Kubb? No. (Never heard of it.)

I think that it'll be difficult to guess a game we have surely never heard about :(

Is it relevant why they played the game in the first place?

Are they part of some group/club/sect?

Is the projectile the murder weapon?

Should we know which part of the victim's body received the blow?

Is the material with which the projectile is made of relevant?

Did they bet on something?

I think that it'll be difficult to guess a game we have surely never heard about

No, I meant I've never heard of Kubb. I had to go to the link to see what it was.

Is it relevant why they played the game in the first place? No.

Are they part of some group/club/sect? Irrelevant.

Is the projectile the murder weapon? Yes.

Should we know which part of the victim's body received the blow? Um... if you knew the type of weapon, you'd know. Knowing where would probably only eliminate some stuff and otherwise not be too useful.

Is the material with which the projectile is made of relevant? Yes.

Did they bet on something? Possibly, but not really relevant.

I was meaning the game itself as you have to see whether it was practised only on sand and you found that it can be performed on dirt too, not the Kubb, I too didn't know what that was :p

Hm... the game doesn't involve any ball, is played on sand or dust, consists of throwing a projectile... right?

Is the projectile made of metal? Wood? Ceramic?
Does the projectile fit easily in the hand of the murderer?
Is it bigger than a hand? Bigger than an arm?

I was meaning the game itself as you have to see whether it was practised only on sand and you found that it can be performed on dirt too, not the Kubb, I too didn't know what that was

Oh. I know the game - vaguely. One of those things you screw around with as a kid, but I never got into that much. So I don't know "official" things about it.

I didn't "find" that it could be played on dirt. I just think it would work. J-Lo simply asked if it was usually played on sand, and I found yes it is. I also saw a picture that looked like dirt, or something. I've known people to play it on other surfaces, but "officially" it's supposed to be sand.

I also started doubting the beach thing after looking on Wiki. But I just found a site that specifically talks about playing on a beach. :)

Hm... the game doesn't involve any ball, is played on sand or dust, consists of throwing a projectile... right? Yes.

Is the projectile made of metal? Yes. Wood? No. Ceramic? No.
Does the projectile fit easily in the hand of the murderer? Yes.
Is it bigger than a hand? Uh, a little. Bigger than an arm? No.

With that I'm off to bed. I keep trying to go earlier and somehow I always managed to stay up just as late again.

Have a good sleep :) I'll think over it and might not have any questions until some time :)

Is it horseshoes? (This has to be it. :D )

Did the man insult the murderer? Did he call him a name? Insult his play? Was there a dispute over who got closest to the stake?

Did the murderer hit the man in the head with a horseshoe? The chest? The stomach? (I'm thinking those are the only blows that would kill him.) Wait, I bet it's his neck?

I think you got it JLo. I don't know this game and on a search, I found 'horseshoe' but I thought about another game I don't know how it's called. You have a long hammer and has to hit a ball through metal 'doors' and lastly make it hit a pin. The thought of a ball immediately made me think that it couldn't be it... well... let's see how it goes :)

It's a pretty common game here, especially at picnics. You actually throw horseshoes at a stake. The goal is to ring it - that is, the horseshoe goes around the stake. You get points for that, throwing a horseshoe that leans against the stake, or if neither happens then the person closest to the stake gets a point.

It fits the puzzle, but I still don't know what caused a dispute.

Horseshoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoes)

The game you are thinking of is croquet.

PS - I'm going back to bed. It's still early here. :)

Hello:

I've got one I want to post, but I don't want to interrupt an ongoing game. Will someone PM me WHEN it's a good time??

excon

PS> No, it's not a good one. You smart people will be able to figure it out on your first try...

Well, if you can be here like you are nearly everywhere on the forum... :)

Is it horseshoes? (This has to be it. ) Yes. :D

Did the man insult the murderer? Did he call him a name? (I'm thinking horse's a**.) Insult his play? Any of these could've happened.
Was there a dispute over who got closest to the stake? Yes.

Did the murderer hit the man in the head with a horseshoe? The chest? The stomach? (I'm thinking those are the only blows that would kill him.) Wait, I bet it's his neck? It actually doesn't say, but I've assumed it would have to be his head.

I think you got it JLo. I don't know this game and on a search, I found 'horseshoe' but I thought about another game I don't know how it's called. You have a long hammer and has to hit a ball through metal 'doors' and lastly make it hit a pin. The thought of a ball immediately made me think that it couldn't be it... well... let's see how it goes :)

You gave yourself a clue when you looked at Kubb. It said right in there it was a cross between something and horseshoes. And there's the "horseshoe" thing.

But I then also started worrying that you might not know what this game even was, since I'd never heard of Kubb. That hadn't really occurred to me until then.

And that's croquet you're speaking of. Used to play that a lot as a kid. We had a big back yard, though it had a lot of bumps and such.

Is it horseshoes? (This has to be it. ) Yes. :D

Did the man insult the murderer? Did he call him a name? (I'm thinking horse's a**.) Insult his play? Any of these could've happened.
Was there a dispute over who got closest to the stake? Yes.

Did the murderer hit the man in the head with a horseshoe? The chest? The stomach? (I'm thinking those are the only blows that would kill him.) Wait, I bet it's his neck? It actually doesn't say, but I've assumed it would have to be his head.

Okay, so the two men were playing horseshoes. There is a dispute as to who is closest to the stake. The murderer gets angry and hits the man with a horseshoe, killing him. I wouldn't be surprised if this has happened before and the killer is frustrated with the man. To cover this up, the murderer removes the stakes and takes the horseshoes with him, and moves the sand around to erase footprints. He tries to make it look like the man was trampled by a horse. I have this image of him using the horseshoes to add to the effect by putting prints in the sand.

Do we need to figure out anything else, or is this it? Should be page ExCon?

It fits the puzzle, but I still don't know what caused a dispute.

Someone did ask about that, maybe even you. I don't have a lot of time to look it up right now. I was just trying to get questions answered real quick.

Hello:

I've got one I want to post, but I don't wanna interrupt an ongoing game. Will someone PM me WHEN it's a good time???

excon

PS> No, it's not a good one. You smart people will be able to figure it out on your first try...

How about when this one is finished, which should be no time, if it hasn't already. (Sorry, I'm just trying to catch these posts in order so I don't miss anything. So I don't know what's ahead.)

I can PM you. And it doesn't matter if it's not "good." It's nice to alternate between easier ones and harder ones.

I'm sorry - I really have some junk I HAVE to get done in a short time before I have to work, so I don't have time to finish looking through these. I'm just sure, however, that someone's got this solved.

Okay, so the two men were playing horseshoes. There is a dispute as to who is closest to the stake. The murderer gets angry and hits the man with a horseshoe, killing him. I wouldn't be surprised if this has happened before and the killer is frustrated with the man. To cover this up, the murderer removes the stakes and takes the horseshoes with him, and moves the sand around to erase footprints. He tries to make it look like the man was trampled by a horse. I have this image of him using the horseshoes to add to the effect by putting prints in the sand.

Do we need to figure out anything else, or is this it? Should be page ExCon?

We have a winner. :)

Sorry for the delay - work on Saturday and Sunday is just very hectic.

This is really pretty darn close. There isn't anything about it having happened in the past, but it wouldn't surprise me either. And there's nothing about erasing footprints - I don't see the need for that cause the dead guy could've been walking and not ON a horse. (Or so the police could surmise.) He does remove the stakes and horsehoes though. And he very likely could've dropped a few to make some prints but it doesn't say.

So overall, very close to the original and nothing else to solve. :)

Side notes: I would call horseshoes a recreation not a sport, but that's me. Also, the reason I originally said the dispute wasn't over an object is because the dispute itself was over how close the horseshoes had been to the post, which can be judged by the sand as well - so I wasn't thinking of the dispute being over the horseshoes themselves. I didn't think about it being misleading. (My bad.) If I'd been asked if material items were "involved" I would have answered that differently. (But enough of defending myself. :D)

As for the beach - yes, it can be played there. But they have stuff like that in parks and such. I figured if someone thought about a park, you could get to the whole game/recreational thing a lot faster, but wasn't sure how quickly anyone would randomly come up with something like a park. But you got to the game thing pretty easily anyway so it doesn't matter. I did consider the plausibility of the cover-up on a beach. Would horses ever be on a beach so that the police would believe this? But then you mentioned wild horses on a beach so I decided that was OK. And a park could have horseback riding so that would've worked too. I admit, I was pretty iffy on all that.

Hello:

Glad that one got solved... I've actually got two. The first one's easy.

You're in a square cabin. There's a window in each wall. Each window faces south. You look out one window and see a bear. What color is the bear??
--------------------------

THIS one is going to be harder... You're on a ship in the northern hemisphere headed south. In your room, you have a table, a bed, a fan, a sink and a toilet. Using one or a combination of those items, you'll be able to tell WHEN your ship crosses the equator.

What will you use, and why?

excon

We have a winner. :)

Sorry for the delay - work on Saturday and Sunday is just very hectic.

This is really pretty darn close. There isn't anything about it having happened in the past, but it wouldn't surprise me either. And there's nothing about erasing footprints - I don't see the need for that cause the dead guy could've been walking and not ON a horse. (Or so the police could surmise.) He does remove the stakes and horsehoes though. And he very likely could've dropped a few to make some prints but it doesn't say.

So overall, very close to the original and nothing else to solve. :)

Side notes: I would call horseshoes a recreation not a sport, but that's me. Also, the reason I originally said the dispute wasn't over an object is because the dispute itself was over how close the horseshoes had been to the post, which can be judged by the sand as well - so I wasn't thinking of the dispute being over the horseshoes themselves. I didn't think about it being misleading. (My bad.) If I'd been asked if material items were "involved" I would have answered that differently. (But enough of defending myself. :D)

As for the beach - yes, it can be played there. But they have stuff like that in parks and such. I figured if someone thought about a park, you could get to the whole game/recreational thing a lot faster, but wasn't sure how quickly anyone would randomly come up with something like a park. But you got to the game thing pretty easily anyway so it doesn't matter. I did consider the plausibility of the cover-up on a beach. Would horses ever be on a beach so that the police would believe this? But then you mentioned wild horses on a beach so I decided that was OK. And a park could have horseback riding so that would've worked too. I admit, I was pretty iffy on all that.

I was thinking mostly of erasing all indication there had been a game of horseshoes, and the killer would want to get rid of his footsteps - or at least I would if I were to kill someone. ;) I think describing horseshoes as a game is best. I don't think it's a sport either. I don't think the question and answer about being over an object was misleading - they weren't disputing who would get the horseshoe, just who would get the point. I think the game went well and was fun. It was even more fun because of some of the tangents - like my thinking there were actually horses involved. :confused:



Hello:

Glad that one got solved... I've actually got two. The first one's easy.

You're in a square cabin. There's a window in each wall. Each window faces south. You look out one window and see a bear. What color is the bear????
--------------------------

THIS one is gonna be harder.... You're on a ship in the northern hemisphere headed south. In your room, you have a table, a bed, a fan, a sink and a toilet. Using one or a combination of those items, you'll be able to tell WHEN your ship crosses the equator.

What will you use, and why?

excon

I've read the first one so I'll disqualify myself.

I'm working on the second one. I'm thinking it has to do with how the water swirls in the sink or toilet - i.e. clockwise vs. counter-clockwise. At the equator there would be no swirl in the toilet or sink. Is this right?

I don't think the question and answer about being over an object was misleading - they weren't disputing who would get the horseshoe, just who would get the point.

Yeah, I guess that's how I was thinking. That makes me feel better.



I think the game went well and was fun. It was even more fun because of some of the tangents - like my thinking there were actually horses involved.

LOL. I'd say it probably didn't help when you asked if there were wild horses and I said possibly. Except that is a correct answer - they just weren't involved. (But I think you created horses before you ever said that. Just just SO badly wanted those beautiful wild horses. We can pretend we were in Hawaii if you like.)

You're in a square cabin. There's a window in each wall. Each window faces south. You look out one window and see a bear. What color is the bear??

White.

Yeah, I guess that's how I was thinking. That makes me feel better.



LOL. I'd say it probably didn't help when you asked if there were wild horses and I said possibly. Except that is a correct answer - they just weren't involved. (But I think you created horses before you ever said that. Just just SO badly wanted those beautiful wild horses. We can pretend we were in Hawaii if you like.)

I love Hawaii. One of my best friends and his girlfriend got engaged there in June. They saw the wild horses on the beach one night and thought it was magical. What a special memory. :)

I wonder when I do the puzzles how much info to give. You could have just said yes, no, etc. and not clued me in about the assumption. The game would have been much longer, though as I reread the questions I did see Unky's question about whether animals were involved. Just due to that, I would have questioned you. Anyway, I notice in other puzzles that people indicate "false assumption", so I guess that's standard.

I think you're right about the sink and toilet. I know there is something to that. Although that's more of a science puzzle than lateral thinking puzzle. (We had a riddle/puzzle thread somewhere. What happened to it?) I think the fan would be totally mechanical and that wouldn't matter.

Unky'll know that one.

I'm trying to see if I can find something obscure that Adam may not have found, cause he seems to know them all. I was hoping he hadn't heard the horseshoe one but didn't know if it'd last until Monday. 'Course I didn't expect us to get a second person to help. Really difficult for just one person to solve these.

Anyway, let's see if we can find a more obscure one that Adam can play too, since he should be back on tomorrow morning. And I'm off tomorrow so I should still be able to be here, if if it doesn't get solved in the morning.

J-Lo, are you still able to be here often enough to host one more? If so, you can do one.

Have you ever thought about trying to make one up yourself? I'm working on that. I'd been thinking about that for a while, but when you mentioned one came from a TV show, it occurred to me that I can get something from TV, game, book, something.

I also have a bunch of those two-minute mysteries. Anyone ever done those?

Anyway, I notice in other puzzles that people indicate "false assumption", so I guess that's standard.

Yes, that's standard. It's also common to say it anyway, even when it does fit. Like when Unky asking if the dispute was over whatever, when it had never been established about a dispute. I chose to answer it, but it's "fair game" to still say "assumption made" and not say that's it right. If people make too many assumptions, I'll actually do that just to try to nip it in the bud and sort of remind people not to. (I think I did that once early on.)

And it's up to the host how much they want to give away in their answers, by qualifying, etc. Some people stick as much as possible to just yes, no and irrelevant, and take the statements VERY literally. The don't like a "word," they can say no and that's it. It does take longer that way and makes it more difficult, but is a fair way to play. I personally find it easier to not be so stringent about that.

I think you're right about the sink and toilet. I know there is something to that. Although that's more of a science puzzle than lateral thinking puzzle. (We had a riddle/puzzle thread somewhere. What happened to it?) I think the fan would be totally mechanical and that wouldn't matter.

Unky'll know that one.

I'm trying to see if I can find something obscure that Adam may not have found, cause he seems to know them all. I was hoping he hadn't heard the horseshoe one but didn't know if it'd last til Monday. 'Course I didn't expect us to get a second person to help. Really difficult for just one person to solve these.

Anyway, let's see if we can find a more obscure one that Adam can play too, since he should be back on tomorrow morning. And I'm off tomorrow so I should still be able to be here, if if it doesn't get solved in the morning.

J-Lo, are you still able to be here often enough to host one more? If so, you can do one.

Have you ever thought about trying to make one up yourself? I'm working on that. I'd been thinking about that for a while, but when you mentioned one came from a TV show, it occured to me that I can get something from TV, game, book, something.

I also have a bunch of those two-minute mysteries. Anyone ever done those?

I will only be here until 5:00 or 6:00 on Wednesday - whatever time I leave work that day. I'm pretty sure I won't get much work done this week, but my firm is great. They know how hard I work and they are already teasing me about this week being a bust. :o

I have a couple of possibilities. I have thought about making one up. The site I used for the last couple is full of that - either people making up puzzles about something that happened to them or something historical.

I don't know the two-minute mysteries. Maybe we should get one of each going. I'll send you a PM to make sure you don't know the ones I'm looking at. Give me a couple of minutes. :)

Okay, we are assuming we got Excon's answers right, so I'm putting up a new puzzle.

He lied about his age but he was telling the truth. How could this be?

Don't know how much time I'll have tonight but I'll try. There's other stuff I should be getting done, and oughta try to leave this as checking in here and there.

Did he lie to another person or persons (as opposed to himself)?

Is it relevant whom he lied to?

Did this person really exist?

Was he born on February 29? :p

Was he a human? (We're going to get that one on every puzzle now.)

Is what he was telling the truth about also his age?

Don't know how much time I'll have tonight but I'll try. There's other stuff I should be getting done, and oughta try to leave this as checking in here and there. Same here. I need to get to bed at a decent hour and I still have things to do tonight.

Did he lie to another person or persons (as opposed to himself)? Yes

Is it relevant whom he lied to? Yes - though the solution would work anyway

Did this person really exist? Yes

Was he born on February 29? No, but interesting thought.

Was he a human? (We're going to get that one on every puzzle now.) Yes

Is what he was telling the truth about also his age? No - good question

OK, new kind of 'puzzle.' For anyone interested, I've started some things called mini mysteries. They're actually mysteries, as opposed to puzzles, but they require some of the same kind of thinking. Don't know how well these will go over, but we'll try them.

The one advantage is that you don't have to worry about your schedule. You can solve what you see, and there aren't any questions to follow. You only need check if anyone's solved it yet or not. (And still guess on your own even if they haven't.)

The disadvantage is they're hard for me to type up. I can't type quickly, but copying something off a book is difficult.

For those who can't seem to find new threads:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/games/short-mysteries-513301.html#post2547748

Is this person still alive?

Is/was this man famous or relatively well-known?

Is/was this person a country leader of sorts (president, prime minister, king, dictator, etc.)?

Is the referenced "his" in the setup referring back to the "he" who lied? (i.e. he lied about his own age)

Is this person still alive? I assume you mean in real life vs the puzzle - No

Is/was this man famous or relatively well-known? No

Is/was this person a country leader of sorts (president, prime minister, king, dictator, etc.)? no

Is the referenced "his" in the setup referring back to the "he" who lied? (i.e. he lied about his own age) yes

Yes, I meant in real life. I can't imagine he'd be dead in the puzzle and still be able to tell anyone anything. (Unless you want to bring the ghosts into it.)

Was his occupation relevant?

Was his station in life relevant?

Does "lie" here mean telling something that was factually untrue?

Does "telling the truth" here mean something that was factually true?

Or, does "telling the truth" here mean only what he thought to be the truth but perhaps was not?

I assume this is someone we would not know of through knowing your basic history? (i.e. just some story handed down that your average person would not know)

Are there particular circumstances surrounding this lie that are relevant? (How's that for an open-ended question.)

Does "age" mean his actual chronological years of being alive out of a womb?

Is the setting in which this lie telling took place relevant? (Take it any way you like: country, type of area, building, whatever. If you say yes I'll narrow it down later.)

Are the people he told the lie to relevant?

(Note that I'm trying to distinguish between circumstances, as in events or relationships, etc. versus setting like the type of location, or both if relevant.)

Based on the assumption this is someone we don't know of (since he wasn't famous), would it be relevant to know the time he lived in?

Yes, I meant in real life. I can't imagine he'd be dead in the puzzle and still be able to tell anyone anything. (Unless you want to bring the ghosts into it.) Haha - the ghosts. I thought you might be thinking he was dead in the course of the puzzle.

Was his occupation relevant? This is tough to answer. Maybe ask it in another way.

Was his station in life relevant? No

Does "lie" here mean telling something that was factually untrue? yes

Does "telling the truth" here mean something that was factually true? Yes

Or, does "telling the truth" here mean only what he thought to be the truth but perhaps was not? No


I assume this is someone we would not know of through knowing your basic history? (i.e. just some story handed down that your average person would not know) yes - correct

Are there particular circumstances surrounding this lie that are relevant? (How's that for an open-ended question.) Yes

Does "age" mean his actual chronological years of being alive out of a womb? Yes

Is the setting in which this lie telling took place relevant? (Take it any way you like: country, type of area, building, whatever. If you say yes I'll narrow it down later.) The setting could be one of many. You'd be better off skipping this.

Are the people he told the lie to relevant? Yes

(Note that I'm trying to distinguish between circumstances, as in events or relationships, etc. versus setting like the type of location, or both if relevant.) The circumstances are relevant.

Was he aware that he was lying?

Did he ever die and come back to life?

Are these other people actually people plural?

Are they relatives?

(Did you miss the one in #719 or still thinking?)

I think this is all for now. I really need to concentrate on my other stuff for a while, but I'll be back a bit later and see what else I can cough up.

He lied about his age but he was telling the truth. How could this be?
Was he aware that he was lying? Yes

Did he ever die and come back to life? No

Are these other people actually people plural? One person.

Are they relatives? No

(Did you miss the one in #719 or still thinking?) Sorry - missed it. Based on the assumption this is someone we don't know of (since he wasn't famous), would it be relevant to know the time he lived in? Yes to get to the specific answer, but it could have happened at any time. I don't expect you to get the story it's based on, only how it could be true.

I think this is all for now. I really need to concentrate on my other stuff for a while, but I'll be back a bit later and see what else I can cough up.I'll be going to bed soon. If I wake up, I'll check in - but I'm finally sleeping better.[/QUOTE]

Okay... if you insist...

Did he lie about his birthday?
- Birth hour?
- Birth year?

Location of birth?
(Maybe he was travelling when he was born, and the certificate said he was in the later country where in fact, he was born in the previous country)

Okay... if you insist... It's much more fun when you play. :)

Did he lie about his birthday? Only his age.
- Birth hour?
- Birth year?

Location of birth? No
(Maybe he was travelling when he was born, and the certificate said he was in the later country where in fact, he was born in the previous country)[/QUOTE]

Did he lie to a relative of him?

Would his answer be different at a different time, but still holds true and false at the same time?

Did he lie to a relative of him? No

Would his answer be different at a different time, but still holds true and false at the same time? No. He definitely lied about his age.

Did he lie to someone he knew?
- Was it his friend?

Did he had a good reason to lie about his age?
- Was his life put at sake?

Was the truth he said related to a general truth?
- To something else about him?
- To this someone he lied to?
- To some other relevant detail?

Did he lie to someone he knew? He didn't know the person prior to this.
- Was it his friend?

Did he had a good reason to lie about his age? Debatable, but Yes, he thought so.
- Was his life put at sake? No

Was the truth he said related to a general truth? Yes
- To something else about him? No
- To this someone he lied to? No
- To some other relevant detail? Yes

Was this truth related to:
- The space?
- Psychology?
- Physics?

Did he thought that the 'someone' was on the 'wrong' track and wanted that person to know the truth?

Was the 'someone' famous?
- Was this person related to a judiciary system?
- Related to some sovereignty?
- Related to politics?

If I wake up, I'll check in - but I'm finally sleeping better.

I've been sleeping great the last few days. Now if I could just sleep earlier.

Was this truth related to:
- The space? No
- Psychology? No
- Physics? No

Did he thought that the 'someone' was on the 'wrong' track and wanted that person to know the truth? No

Was the 'someone' famous? No
- Was this person related to a judiciary system? No
- Related to some sovereignty? No
- Related to politics? No

Okay... if you insist...

You exaggerate, sir. I merely mentioned it. :p


Would his answer be different at a different time, but still holds true and false at the same time? No. He definitely lied about his age.

Was the truth he said related to a general truth? Yes.
- To something else about him? No.
- To this someone he lied to? No.
- To some other relevant detail? Yes.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding these questions.

Did he tell the lie, and tell the truth at the same time? i.e. he only said one thing and that was a lie and the truth both?

You exaggerate, sir. I merely mentioned it. :p



I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding these questions.

I twisted his arm on the Mysteries thread. :)

This is what the questions meant to me:

Was the truth he said related to a general truth? Yes.
- To something else about him? No.
- To this someone he lied to? No.
- To some other relevant detail? Yes.

What he said could be deemed truthful (a general truth), but what he said was not something else about him (e.g. his clothes were the age he lied about). It had nothing to do with the person he lied to - it could have been any person and his lie would still be truthful. The relevant detail is what you are trying to figure out - how could he have told the truth when we know he lied. There is a detail that makes it all make sense.

Did he tell the lie, and tell the truth at the same time? i.e. he only said one thing and that was a lie and the truth both?

Yes

Was his occupation relevant? This is tough to answer. Maybe ask it in another way.

Was his occupation relevant to the circumstances but not to the lie itself?

Guess I don't get what "general truth" is supposed to mean. Since I already asked if the truth was also about his age (and therefore not something else), I'm going to pretend that this is not important to me.

Was his occupation relevant to the circumstances but not to the lie itself?
No. There is something to this line of questioning, but it's just a little "off".

Don't worry, Unky. History is not my forte either. Or at least, there's many 'popular' history topics I don't know. There are a few things I know a decent amount about cause they happen to interest me.

I know where she got this from and the "historical" type puzzles they do don't generally require a knowledge of history, so I didn't let that scare me.

Was his occupation relevant to the circumstances but not to the lie itself?
No. There is something to this line of questioning, but it's just a little "off".

I'm thinking. :) I marked it in red as something to ponder.

Did he not have an "occupation"?

I take general truth as things like "The sun rises at the east and sets at the west".

Did he know that what he was saying was true?

Did he not have an "occupation"?

No.

And go to bed! That was my break. (I suddenly remembered I had to mail a bill tomorrow and had to walk it down to the mailbox down the street.) But I'm getting back to my stuff for a while anyway.

You just can't resist when there's another question, can you? I know how that is. :)

I take general truth as things like "The sun rises at the east and sets at the west".

Did he know that what he was saying was true?

Ahhh, it's not something like that.

Yes, he knew it was both a lie and the truth.

My bad. I asked a "not" question, so now I don't understand your response. Let's turn it around.

Did he have an occupation?

And go to bed! That was my break. (I suddenly remembered I had to mail a bill tomorrow and had to walk it down to the mailbox down the street.) But I'm getting back to my stuff for a while anyway.

You just can't resist when there's another question, can you? I know how that is. :)

I can't. I laid down for 2 minutes, and got up to see if there was a question. Unky was here... I couldn't leave. Then you came along... :)

I am so wide awake. Okay, I am going to bed in 25 minutes, tired or not.

My bad. I asked a "not" question, so now I don't understand your response. Let's turn it around.

Did he have an occupation?

Went right over my head. No

Does it involve a war?
Did he lie to someone dying?