Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>>   If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
>> It's too trivial.
> 
> Well, I disagree with that as well.  Within the confines of the riddle 
> itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is 
> undefined within the scope of the riddle.  Being undefined doesn't mean 
> it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a 
> question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
> 
> Q.  Why is a duck?
> 
With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:31:09 +0100, andrel wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>>   If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
>>> It's too trivial.
>> 
>> Well, I disagree with that as well.  Within the confines of the riddle
>> itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is
>> undefined within the scope of the riddle.  Being undefined doesn't mean
>> it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a
>> question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
>> 
>> Q.  Why is a duck?
>> 
> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?

Conical? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:31:09 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>>   If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
>>>> It's too trivial.
>>> Well, I disagree with that as well.  Within the confines of the riddle
>>> itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is
>>> undefined within the scope of the riddle.  Being undefined doesn't mean
>>> it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a
>>> question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
>>>
>>> Q.  Why is a duck?
>>>
>> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
> 
> Conical? ;-)
> 

I did my best to construct a interesting sequence of punctuation 
characters that actually makes sense and then I blow it by such typo. :(

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:02 +0100, andrel wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:31:09 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any
>>>>>   sense.
>>>>> It's too trivial.
>>>> Well, I disagree with that as well.  Within the confines of the
>>>> riddle itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other
>>>> things is undefined within the scope of the riddle.  Being undefined
>>>> doesn't mean it can't be done - most people don't think outside the
>>>> scope of a question being asked, particularly in the case of a
>>>> riddle.
>>>>
>>>> Q.  Why is a duck?
>>>>
>>> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
>> 
>> Conical? ;-)
>> 
>> 
> I did my best to construct a interesting sequence of punctuation
> characters that actually makes sense and then I blow it by such typo. :(

LOL, but given that this is a povray group, "conical" just makes it that 
much funnier. :-)

YKYHBRTTMW.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel escribió:
> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?

Nitpick: afaik, quotes are supposed to be used the other way around. 
First double quotes.

With a coMical answer of: "Why the '?'?"?

Or use <q> HTML tag (ass-u-ming the browser supports it), which 
(standard says) will put the correct quotes for the current language, 
even handling nesting.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:04:56 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Or use <q> HTML tag (ass-u-ming the browser supports it), which
> (standard says) will put the correct quotes for the current language,
> even handling nesting.

Assuming also that you post in HTML, which on newsgroups is generally 
considered bad form.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escribió:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:04:56 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> Or use <q> HTML tag (ass-u-ming the browser supports it), which
>> (standard says) will put the correct quotes for the current language,
>> even handling nesting.
> 
> Assuming also that you post in HTML, which on newsgroups is generally 
> considered bad form.

That was a half-joke.

Note that <sarcasm> is not considered a valid tag by W3C standards, yet 
people use it on newsgroups :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:04:56 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>> Or use <q> HTML tag (ass-u-ming the browser supports it), which
>>> (standard says) will put the correct quotes for the current language,
>>> even handling nesting.
>>
>> Assuming also that you post in HTML, which on newsgroups is generally 
>> considered bad form.
> 
> That was a half-joke.
> 
> Note that <sarcasm> is not considered a valid tag by W3C standards, yet 
> people use it on newsgroups :)

How about <div id="sarcasm"> ? :-)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> That was a half-joke.
>>
>> Note that <sarcasm> is not considered a valid tag by W3C standards, 
>> yet people use it on newsgroups :)
> 
> How about <div id="sarcasm"> ? :-)

Then you can't have multiple sarcasms per post, since IDs must be 
unique. 'class' may work though :)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:26:21 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:


>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>
>>> That was a half-joke.
>>>
>>> Note that <sarcasm> is not considered a valid tag by W3C standards,  
>>> yet people use it on newsgroups :)
>>  How about <div id="sarcasm"> ? :-)
>
> Then you can't have multiple sarcasms per post, since IDs must be  
> unique. 'class' may work though :)

Sarcasm can't be used with class, you must upgrade to wit instead.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message