Didn't mean to win and don't have anything. Consider it open floor unless you want another fruity, awkwardly designed puzzle, which will come only in the presence of deafening silence.
J
Printable View
Didn't mean to win and don't have anything. Consider it open floor unless you want another fruity, awkwardly designed puzzle, which will come only in the presence of deafening silence.
J
A man commits a crime and is sent before the king. The king says, "Make a statement. If it is true I will feed you to the lions. If it is false you will be trampled by wild buffalo." How does he save his life?
This is going to be a self-referential one, isn't it?
"I will be trampled by wild buffalo."
Fire away...
Dead easy, this one, but fun...
There’s no such thing as a universally successful novel. Any work of fiction, however highly regarded, however solemnly revered, will evoke a negative response in some quarters. We all have a right to our opinions, of course, and Amazon gives a platform to the legions of the appalled, the disappointed and the indignant.
So – the idea here is to identify the well-known bestseller under review. The text of the critiques, though trimmed a little, is presented largely unedited and unprocessed, in order to preserve the full spluttering outrage of the contributors.
(The fourth one is just about my favourite critique of any book, ever.)
Qu’est-ce que c’est? Fa-fa-fa-fa….
I cannot believe how bad this book is, and I am only on page 94! It is a pointless, rambling piece of garbage. The movie moved along at a good pace and…was funny, depraved, interesting and horrorfic. The book just rambles along. If you want something that gives ou information on name-brand clothes, restaurants, perfumes, colognes and hair gels and interesting places to visit, this is the book for you. Go see the movie.
Oh my America, my….
After listening through half of the first audiocassette of this atrocious assemblage of adjectives, I hastened to the Amazon.com site to read what others had to say. I was so glad to see that there are others who agree with me that this book is so poorly written as to be unintelligible. After having to rewind the tape and listen over and over to seven or eight passages in the first twenty minutes, I just gave up. I still have no idea what she was trying to say. Believe me, Goethe she's not. And by the way, I get it. He has a weird chin. Get over it.
Not all moloko and cookies
The biggest problem that I felt it had was that if the same content would have been written by another author, it would have been called pornogrophy but because it was by <this author> it is called classic literature. Beating helpless people, raping women, and drinking some kind of spiked milk should not be something that is glamorized, but it should be something hidden with the rest of the works such as this trash.
The Classic American Breakfast
The "hero" of this tale spends the entirety of the book trying to force <something> upon a nameless skeptic. The "villain" turns down the offer several times, but the hero refuses to respect the man's right to say no, and badgers him incessantly until he caves under the pressure.
What disgusts me most about the end of the story is that once the man gives in, he is simply another addition to a pool of addicts. The author's tragic allegory for the rising drug use among young people that plagued his time period is brilliant, but certainly not appropriate for young children. <The main character> is too easily twisted to become a hero, opening the antagonist's mind to new things, rather than a metaphor for Satan as I believe was originally intended.
Gin a body meet a body
I never heard of this book before our daughter said she had to read it for high school English. As soon as the teacher started reading it in class our daughter said it was dumb, she wanted out of English class ,I want to quit school, and why do I have to listen to my teacher read all this foul language including the F word repeatedly. We said you don't and pulled her from the class. Christian or not if you have any moral compass at all <this> is a book to avoid. It talks about and seems to condone all sorts of sin,including prostitution. drunkeness, lying,blasphemy, and fornication. The Bible says whatsoever things are honest, true, just , pure, lovely, and of good report, if there be any virtue, think on these things . You can't think on these things reading "goddamn "245 times in a 200+ page book. Beware Parents. This book is filth ,pure and simple
...and where it’s going, no one knows.
I have to say, with all due respects to the author, this is the WORST book I have ever read in my life. It is disjointed and hops all over the place. There's no continuity at all. The prose is terrible. The back cover says it is funny without laughing, splendid art, a book without tears. Wrong! I am actually crying: that I paid so much money for this. I gritted my teeth to finish reading this book.
I guess I am not cerebral enough (or maybe too cerebral) because I--do--not--get--this--novel. I am always admirous of writers and wish to praise them for their efforts when I like the book, but I couldn't here. I gave it what I think it deserved. (And why does he keep saying 'so it goes' all the time. Geez, that phrase is just annoying me now. That phrase would be okay if it was used once or sparsely. But over and over again!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Save your money and buy something else!
Squeak, piggy, squeak
My daughter brought this home because her teacher forced this book on the class. I read it figuring it must be good. What a wrong impression!
Some English boys get trapped on an island where they become increasingly uncivilized and mentally sick. Some of the boys are murdered in group rituals and eaten. The unnessary violence in this book is a disgrace. Many people live without modern conveniences and do not exhibit this behavior. This book is not about the dark side of human nature - it is about one English teacher's sick mind.
The writing is overdone. The author must've made it his goal to use as many words as he could as symbolically as possible to portray his sick and violent fantasies. This is the worst writing I've ever laid my eyes on.
The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
I truly believe that <the author’s> sole purpose for writing this novel was to encourage anarchy, and to convince his readers to be subordinate to authority. Though society and government are not perfect, they are not as evil and as oppressive as <he> made them out to be. He creates a negative Utopia in hopes to make people hate their leaders and to disagree with any form of government. It is because of people like <him> that our nation, as well as other nations, are so dramatically torn by the opinions of citizens towards their leaders, and their leader's decisions. Also, at the end of this novel, <the author> leaves readers with a sense of hopelessness, by allowing his main character to be manipulated, tortured, and brainwashed into following what <he> inderectly refers to as government. Let's try to be a little more optomistic, and work on a happier ending, shall we?
‘Clueless’ is about right
Best I can figure this…woman stoll the plot of Clueless and rote a book. Too many coincidences to make me believe anything else. Why Alecia Sivlerstone doesn't sue <the author> is beyond me!
Like The Omen with sprinkles
This book paints a very negative picture of children. With the exception of the main character, all of the children are bad and are punished in cruel ways for their faults. Are most children fundementally bad and deserving terrible punishment, at the moment they least expect it? This book suggests it (especially to a child who might be reading it and cannot understand what "social commentary" is yet). This book fits right in with the Omen and Rosemary's Baby. It is a child-exploitation story. I recommend this book to adults who do not like children.
Scooby Doo it’s not
I cannot expreess how Malignant this book is. The amount of dogs that die in this book is two numerous to place in this review.Spme dogs are ripped apart and eaten by other dogs.Another dogs has both his legs broken and the dogs eat him as well. One dog is worked too hard and when he is too tired to go on his owner cuts of his head with a knife.....Must I go on further?Many other dogs die in this book. This is just the tip of the iceberg.My family is vegiterian we dont eat meat because we think it is wrong to kill animals, so in a "GREAT" book that all eighth graders have to read we should find this much gore? This book is more graphic than horror movies or very graphic video games. Many people die in this book.This book was composed on values of murder and animal creulty.It should have never been published.Some of this book seems as if it was written by a seven year old or a small child who is obseesed with gore and nothing else.
Compulsive carnivorous activity
I read this book and i became sick. This is for children????... What could a child possibly learn from a book like this? With the last sentence being, "shes dead of course"!... This should be taken off the market and the auther penalized. He should get another career. This, clearly, is not his calling.
American PsychoQuote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Slaughter House-5Quote:
...and where it’s going, no one knows.
Lord of the FliesQuote:
Squeak, piggy, squeak
1984Quote:
The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
EmmaQuote:
‘Clueless’ is about right
Charlie and the Chocolate FactoryQuote:
Like The Omen with sprinkles
Not sure how many of the above guesses are correct but, once again, I realise how unfamiliar I am with children's literature (English)...
Scooby do its not : Call of the Wild, or could be White fang. (I can't remember which is which.)
The compulsive carnivorous activity: could be There was an Old Woman Who Swallowed a fly. (A song that may have been made into a children's book.)
Gin a body meet a body: I once read a review very similar to this of Catcher in the Rye.
Not all moloko and cookies A Clockwork Orange.
The Classic American Breakfast: The diabolical Green Eggs and Ham.
The Shipping News is an unreadable book set in (Oh America my) New found land.
Yep - that's the lot. Scheh got six and Mick got six, so here's a tie-breaker just for you two... To give you both a chance (given that Mick seems to be up at some godforsaken hour to do something to animals), answers can be posted only after you've had your lunch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone other than <author> had written this then it would probably have ended up on one of the many vanity publishing websites that plague the Web. ...this has the feel of a commissioned piece, or the fulfilment of a book deal commitment rather than great literature. As a book this is a massive piece of self-indulgence. It is also inherently anti-Semitic in a way that only a book written by a Jew about Jewish culture and society could get away with.
Overall a passingly useful insight into a very caricatured view of Jewish life, with quite a few Yiddish words that I didn't know, most of them scatological. As a book it doesn't seem to try hard to do anything other than dump the authors problems on the reader...
...it just reads like a little boy trying to see how many dirty words he can get away with using.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the very short time it's going to take them to work that out, perhaps the rest of us can take another look at this review of Green Eggs and Ham, and consider the kind of superbly screwed-up mindset that produced it.
Green Eggs and Ham
The "hero" of this tale spends the entirety of the book trying to force green eggs and ham upon a nameless skeptic. The "villain" turns down the offer several times, but the hero refuses to respect the man's right to say no, and badgers him incessantly until he caves under the pressure.
What disgusts me most about the end of the story is that once the man gives in, he is simply another addition to a pool of addicts. The author's tragic allegory for the rising drug use among young people that plagued his time period is brilliant, but certainly not appropriate for young children. Sam is too easily twisted to become a hero, opening the antagonist's mind to new things, rather than a metaphor for Satan as I believe was originally intended.
It's The Challenge Cup Final today, so Lunch will be starting about now, be mainly liquid and finish around 4 o'clock - later if Leeds win.
I'll wait till then so as not to incur your roth.
Portnoy's Complaint.
Yep. Off you go.
[65 108 97 115 44] [112 111 111 114] [89 111 114 105 99 107 33] [73] [107 110 101 119] [104 105 109 44] [72 111 114 97 116 105 111 46]
ps. Those square brackets are not part of the message, I can't seem to get spacing without them.
I was about to apply some concentration to this but the sight of Arthur Askey - the least funny and most irritating little man ever to stand on stage* - put me right off.
*With the exception of Norman Wisdom.
Oh dear! :eek:There's too much reading of personal prejudices into this. I thought the whole point was to encourage people not to be closeminded about things. The writer clearly hasn't tried any Green Eggs and Ham. Maybe he/she should.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I've been working on this one, but just fiddling with the substitution cipher angle. I checked this guy's tunes on the web, and it was a nice break. Sounds like he had fun doing those songs. Was he maybe also beating the commies with cryptology, between the puns and zingers on those albums? A national hero? Or is he (much less dramatically) perhaps the source for the text of this encoded message or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
I'm sorry I put you through that billl.
All I shall say at this point is that it sounds like he should know the answer.
Hah, it came to me suddenly as I arrived home and sat down. I saw "Key" in the guy's name, and firgured, "Ask key", so this guy knows, I would ask him, hmm....
Nope, ASCII, is the clue, thanks. (I actually had solved for "poor" already via substitution...)
"Alas, poor Yorick! I know him, Horatio."
That's right billl. I'm always relieved when someone gets my clues, it shows I'm not totally odd.
Yeah, I know, it can sort of feel like one is being rude when no one gets it right away.
NEXT ONE:
I was 8 when Amy was born.
Now, I am twice as old as Amy, and half as old as my Brother Bob.
How old was Bob when Amy was born?
24?
__________________
Eight years ago Bob was 24.
I always think it's a bit rude if one does get it right away. That Scheherezade, for instance, zipping in there with her '24?' I mean, breathtakingly rude.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Yes, 24 is it. Sher was wise to save the 16 minutes by typing just the number.
Yay! Much obliged that you gentlemen leave the less challenging ones for me to "solve"! :willy_nilly:
A quick one:
At a cafe, the first 15 customers spend an average of £3 each. After a further 30 customers, the average amount spent rises to £9. What is the average spending by the last 30 customers only?
...18?Quote:
Originally Posted by scheherazade
Not the answer I have come up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
First 15 customers spend = £3 x 15 = £45
Average for all 45 customers = (£45 + ?)/ 45 = £9
? = total spent by last 30 customers = 8 x 45 = £360 [? = (8 x 45) because (45 + 8 x 45) is the same as (9 x 45)]
average spent by last 30 customers = £360 / 30 = £12
Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Yeah, that's exactly how I did it, except that at the last stage I divided 360 by 30 and got 18. Algebra I can do. Mental arithmetic - Im useless.
Incidentally, 'wrong' would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
It's having shillings part of your currency that created these bad habits.
Tuna Delight
There are four hungry kittens in an 80cm x 80cm kitten cage
- Each kitten can eat 100 ml of Tuna Delight for lunch, before getting full.
- There are two food bowls, each having a circumference of about 30 cm.
- A kitten's paw can absorb/accumulate up to 10 ml of Tuna Delight.
- A kitten's head has a "diameter" of roughly 6 cm.
- Kittens generally don't walk backwards.
Assuming the kittens are in every way as predictable as robots, how can one easily use the minimum amount of Tuna Delight to ensure the proper feeding and filling of the kittens, and what is that minimum amount?
EDIT: The puzzle has been slightly altered and has been re-expressed in post #1275, sorry...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I looked at the question and did nothing, knowing it had billl written all over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Yep - this is another one to leave to bill.
Bill! Bi-ill! BI.....! ...oh. Hang on....
Bugger.
when feeding livestock a good rule is to give them only what they can clean up in 15 minutes.
However I don't seem to understand this problem. You state each kitten can eat 100ml of food, then ask how much food is needed for 4 of them, - or have I missed something?
Urgh, you're right. I was trying to control the parameters in order to avoid a certain problem, but ended up removing most of "the puzzle" from the puzzle. Let's say that the goal is to give them 100 ml each, but the kittens won't necessarily be full if they have that much. I'll repost with this slight adjustment (only the first criterion is affected).Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Four hungry kittens, and we want each to get 100 ml, although each would eat more if they could... (Also, I'm willing to be flexible with the answer if a good explanation can be given.)
Tuna Delight
There are four hungry kittens in an 80cm x 80cm kitten cage
- Each kitten should eat about 100 ml of Tuna Delight for lunch.
- There are two food bowls, each having a circumference of about 30 cm.
- A kitten's paw can absorb/accumulate up to 10 ml of Tuna Delight.
- A kitten's head has a "diameter" of roughly 6 cm.
- Kittens generally don't walk backwards.
Assuming the kittens are in every way as predictable as robots, how can one easily use the minimum amount of Tuna Delight to ensure the proper feeding and filling of the kittens, and what is that minimum amount?
My thoughts so far.
The question seems to be HOW to feed the kittens ( I presume) so they all get exactly 100ml of Tuna.
The easiest way would be to take two out untill the first two have finished their 100ml, allowing them a bowl each at opposite corners of the cage. then swop the kittens over.
Allowing two kittens per bowl INSIDE the cage would not ensure fairness and is there enough room anyway?
Perhaps the question is hinting that you place the bowls OUTSIDE the cage and let the kittens reach through the mesh and get 10ml at a time.
However, this is making assumptions about the size of kittens heads and paws in relation to the cage mesh. Also this is a billl question, so where's the maths? Should we be working out how many 6cm circles fit in a 30 cm circle?
Great job! You got it, Mick, just as I expected you might. Put the bowls at opposite ends, and guide a pair of kittens to each bowl. They'll each be able (due to the size of their heads and the bowl) to get access to the food in their bowl, but they won't get any more than just their front paws in the food while they're eating. Of course, the possibility of paws accumulating food means we have to account for the front paws of each kitten soaking up 10ml each, so we need 480ml of tuna divided evenly between two bowls, with the bowls set in opposite corners.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Your other ideas about removing kittens and feeding individually are, of course, even better--butrequires another cage or the kittens being held, or some safe way to keep them contained and safe, which I hadn't considered.
Well, there we are. I wanted to try and create something particularly cute to contemplate, but the math and geometric aspects were maybe not as crisply interlocking and ingenious as the puzzle otherwise deserved. Still, its gotten all the attention it probably should in rather short order, so no harm done. Sometimes, that's all we ask when the puzzle spotlight steers suddenly into our face.
Hang on a minute, How did I get it, I'm still confused.
Thank God for that - it's not often that I understand neither the question nor the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
I think bill's moved onto a higher plane.
You did suggest a viable solution (which was out of the bounds I had been considering, but not unreasonably so), and suggested (without realizing it) that an important element (two kittens per bowl) of my imagined solution would be a poor way to maximize efficiency and fairness.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
It's a good point, esp. if one of the kittens is bigger, or there's some health issue, etc., but I was thinking in terms of a situation where the kittens were roughly competitive and had enough room to get their fill. But, even with my attention to head size and bowl size, it remains the case that even the slightest edge in initial positioning could result in a less than ideal distribution of the Tuna Delight.
In awarding your near-comprehensive analysis the victory, I thought I might try to sweep the whole thing under the rug with my last post, shoe-horning on a crown made of my own solution, intending to convey a spirit of jest and exasperation, but instead ratcheting the disaster up a little more.