http://www.xkcd.com/246/

;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:19:15 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>http://www.xkcd.com/246/
>
>;-)

I think that this is more you :)

http://www.xkcd.com/55/

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

no way!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://www.xkcd.com/246/

  It's funny that the problem works even with two doors and just one guard.
(Ie. the guard either always tells the truth or always lies, and you can
ask him only one question.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> http://www.xkcd.com/246/

"Why don't we just shoot one of them, and ask the other one all the 
questions we want?"

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> http://www.xkcd.com/246/
> 
> "Why don't we just shoot one of them, and ask the other one all the 
> questions we want?"
> 
there are three of them, but indeed shooting them all seems to solve the 
problem.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" wrote:
> there are three of them, but indeed shooting them all seems to solve the 
> problem.

No, their function is not to stop you from entering the passages. They will 
let you through all right. The problem is that once you've entered a 
passage, there is no way back (for some reason) so you have to choose the 
right one the first time. The function of the guards is to give you 
information which you may use to figure out which passage to choose.

Oh, and if you're not familiar with the original riddle:

There are two passages of which you must choose one. One of them leads to 
freedom, the other one to doom. Once you have chosen one, you are stuck with 
it. In front of each passage is a guards. One guard always tell the truth 
and one always lies. You don't know which does what. Now you must find out 
which passage to choose by asking the guards questions...

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> There are two passages of which you must choose one. One of them leads to 
> freedom, the other one to doom. Once you have chosen one, you are stuck with 
> it. In front of each passage is a guards. One guard always tell the truth 
> and one always lies. You don't know which does what. Now you must find out 
> which passage to choose by asking the guards questions...

Solving which one is which is actually easy. You just need to ask one of
them, if he lies precisely to half of the questions. If he speaks true,
he'll of course answer "no". If he always lies, he has to answer "yes".

> Rune


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> http://www.xkcd.com/246/

I saw a great solution where the wizard started explaining to everyone 
how the logic works and the warrior just shot one of them in the foot.

Left:  "Ow! You shot me in the foot!"
Right:  "No he didn't!"
Left: "I can't believe you just did that!"
Right: "Yes you can!"

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> There are two passages of which you must choose one. One of them leads to 
>> freedom, the other one to doom. Once you have chosen one, you are stuck with 
>> it. In front of each passage is a guards. One guard always tell the truth 
>> and one always lies. You don't know which does what. Now you must find out 
>> which passage to choose by asking the guards questions...
> 
> Solving which one is which is actually easy. 

The actual puzzle is that you only get to ask one question.

I've also seen it done with three creatures, one who tells the truth, 
one who lies, and one who picks at random. Except they don't speak your 
language: they speak a language where Jay and Dook mean yes and no, or 
maybe no and yes.

The solution is along the lines of "Would the second person answer Dook 
to the question of what the third person would answer if and only if the 
work Jay means "yes" in my language?"  Really convoluted, but it works out.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> There are two passages of which you must choose one. One of them leads to 
> freedom, the other one to doom. Once you have chosen one, you are stuck with 
> it. In front of each passage is a guards. One guard always tell the truth 
> and one always lies. You don't know which does what. Now you must find out 
> which passage to choose by asking the guards questions...

  The vast majority of people pose the problem like that, and they all get
it wrong. That's because that is not limiting the number of questions you
can ask, in which case the problem makes no sense as it becomes trivial.

  In the real problem you can only ask one question, period.

  (Curiously, that also means that having two guards is redundant. One
guard is enough.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>  The vast majority of people pose the problem like that, and they all get
> it wrong. That's because that is not limiting the number of questions you
> can ask, in which case the problem makes no sense as it becomes trivial.
>
>  In the real problem you can only ask one question, period.

Yes I see that now.

>  (Curiously, that also means that having two guards is redundant. One
> guard is enough.)

Sure, but having two makes the question trickier for ones who are unfamiliar 
with the riddle, because it makes it seem like there are more factors 
involved.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> >  (Curiously, that also means that having two guards is redundant. One
> > guard is enough.)

> Sure, but having two makes the question trickier for ones who are unfamiliar 
> with the riddle, because it makes it seem like there are more factors 
> involved.

  I wonder if it could work with more doors than two (ie. still having
one guard and one question, or if it's impossible, perhaps two questions).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Rune wrote:
>>> There are two passages of which you must choose one. One of them 
>>> leads to freedom, the other one to doom. Once you have chosen one, 
>>> you are stuck with it. In front of each passage is a guards. One 
>>> guard always tell the truth and one always lies. You don't know which 
>>> does what. Now you must find out which passage to choose by asking 
>>> the guards questions...
>>
>> Solving which one is which is actually easy. 
> 
> The actual puzzle is that you only get to ask one question.
> 
> I've also seen it done with three creatures, one who tells the truth, 
> one who lies, and one who picks at random. Except they don't speak your 
> language: they speak a language where Jay and Dook mean yes and no, or 
> maybe no and yes.
> 
> The solution is along the lines of "Would the second person answer Dook 
> to the question of what the third person would answer if and only if the 
> work Jay means "yes" in my language?"  Really convoluted, but it works out.
> 
And in the puzzle stated in the top post, you'd have a change of 1/3 of 
being stabbed.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escribió:
> The solution is along the lines of "Would the second person answer Dook 
> to the question of what the third person would answer if and only if the 
> work Jay means "yes" in my language?"  Really convoluted, but it works out.
> 

My head asplode.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   (Curiously, that also means that having two guards is redundant. One
> guard is enough.)

Not the way I've heard the question asked, which is:

"Which door would the other guard say is the safe door?"

Either way, the door indicated is not the safe door.

I guess with a single guard, you could ask the question:

"If you were to lie to me, which door would be the safe door?"

So I guess it would work after all. <g>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:

> >   (Curiously, that also means that having two guards is redundant. One
> > guard is enough.)

> Not the way I've heard the question asked, which is:

> "Which door would the other guard say is the safe door?"

  With one guard you simply have to introduce the question with something
like "assume that there's another guard here and that he always tells
the truth if you always lie and vice-versa".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:33:19 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Invisible wrote:
>> http://www.xkcd.com/246/
>
> I saw a great solution where the wizard started explaining to everyone  
> how the logic works and the warrior just shot one of them in the foot.
>
> Left:  "Ow! You shot me in the foot!"
> Right:  "No he didn't!"
> Left: "I can't believe you just did that!"
> Right: "Yes you can!"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html

I've a soft spot for that solution too.

-- 
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

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:59:34 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   With one guard you simply have to introduce the question with
>   something
> like "assume that there's another guard here and that he always tells
> the truth if you always lie and vice-versa".

I suppose that would work as well, though my way of asking was much 
shorter.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I suppose that would work as well, though my way of asking was much 
> shorter.

  I don't think it works.

  Let's assume that door A is the save one and door B isn't.

  If you ask the question to the sincere guard he would answer "if I were
to lie to you, I would say that B is the safe door".

  That's the truth. Thus the lying guard would have to lie and claim the
opposite: "If I were to lie to you, I would say that A is the safe door."

  Thus you can't know which door is the safe one.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:30:38 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   I don't think it works.
> 
>   Let's assume that door A is the save one and door B isn't.
> 
>   If you ask the question to the sincere guard he would answer "if I
>   were
> to lie to you, I would say that B is the safe door".
> 
>   That's the truth. Thus the lying guard would have to lie and claim the
> opposite: "If I were to lie to you, I would say that A is the safe
> door."

Hmmm, I'm going to have to think about this one now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:38:08 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:30:38 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>>   I don't think it works.
>> 
>>   Let's assume that door A is the save one and door B isn't.
>> 
>>   If you ask the question to the sincere guard he would answer "if I
>>   were
>> to lie to you, I would say that B is the safe door".
>> 
>>   That's the truth. Thus the lying guard would have to lie and claim
>>   the
>> opposite: "If I were to lie to you, I would say that A is the safe
>> door."
> 
> Hmmm, I'm going to have to think about this one now.
> 
> Jim

OK, I think I've got it:

"If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was safe, 
which door would you indicate was safe?"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escribió:
> OK, I think I've got it:
> 
> "If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was safe, 
> which door would you indicate was safe?"
> 

Just shoot him on the foot!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:08 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> OK, I think I've got it:
>> 
>> "If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was
>> safe, which door would you indicate was safe?"
>> 
>> 
> Just shoot him on the foot!

That wouldn't get you the right door, though. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escribió:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:08 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Just shoot him on the foot!
> 
> That wouldn't get you the right door, though. ;-)
> 

Yes it would, didn't you see Darren New's post on this thread?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:15:18 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:08 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Just shoot him on the foot!
>> 
>> That wouldn't get you the right door, though. ;-)
>> 
>> 
> Yes it would, didn't you see Darren New's post on this thread?
> 
> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html

No, I missed that one somehow.....Now I have to explain why I'm laughing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
> > OK, I think I've got it:
> > 
> > "If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was safe, 
> > which door would you indicate was safe?"
> > 

> Just shoot him on the foot!

  It wouldn't work in the original situation where you can only ask *one*
question (which implies that you can interact with the guards just once).

  If you can ask them limitless questions or interact with them in an
unlimited way, the task becomes trivial.

  I thought about another way of restricting the situation: The guards
will never answer to questions (or to actions) which would directly reveal
whether they are lying or telling the truth. (The solution to the original
problem never actually reveals which one is lying and which one is telling
the truth, and thus it's still a solution in this situation.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:47:27 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   It wouldn't work in the original situation where you can only ask
>   *one*
> question (which implies that you can interact with the guards just
> once).

I disagree - there's no explicit implication in the original riddle for 
this.  That would be a matter of interpretation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I disagree - there's no explicit implication in the original riddle for 
> this.

  If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
It's too trivial.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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:

> 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 :)

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

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 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 :)

...or be more specific... to whit:

<div id="irony">
<div id="satire">
<div id="stinging rhetoric">

:)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Sarcasm can't be used with class, you must upgrade to wit instead.

Now *that* is funny!

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:32:57 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

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

Sarcasm can't be used with class, you must upgrade to a guillotine instead :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:50:15 -0200, 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.

Ah, I was humorically challenged yesterday for some reason, and forgot 
the smiley as well. :-)

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

True.... :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:32:57 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:26:21 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> 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 :)
> 
> Sarcasm can't be used with class, you must upgrade to wit instead.

Nice one, Phil. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> andrel escribió:
>> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
> 
> Nitpick: afaik, quotes are supposed to be used the other way around. 
> First double quotes.
Not in Matlab, and that is what I write most. I could have gone for 
double quotes in stead of double quotes (English might be a bit 
ambiguous here) and written '''''?''''?''?'*. Yet, I think I liked the 
regular '?' better.

> 
> With a coMical answer of: "Why the '?'?"?
Intended was canonical but it could have been a typo for that as well.
> 
> 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.
Using <q> would have spoiled the effect of having a string (no pun 
intended) of punctuation marks.


* This is getting to look like some of our old matlab code. In matlab 
you have callback strings that are interpreted as commands, so they can 
contain functions with strings as parameters, some of which are commands 
in itself... I think we had pathological cases of 16 quotes in a row. I 
am glad I changed my style a bit.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:51:38 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:32:57 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:26:21 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
>> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> 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 :)
>>
>> Sarcasm can't be used with class, you must upgrade to wit instead.
>
> Nice one, Phil. :-)

TY

"You know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
"At least it shows I have some form of wit"

"Sarcasm is the last refuge of the incompetent"
"And tired platitudes their first"

-- 
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

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:12:49 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Nice one, Phil. :-)
> 
> TY
> 
> "You know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" "At least it shows I have
> some form of wit"
> 
> "Sarcasm is the last refuge of the incompetent" "And tired platitudes
> their first"

I'll have to remember those two. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4 Feb 2008 11:55:38 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:12:49 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Nice one, Phil. :-)
>> 
>> TY
>> 
>> "You know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" "At least it shows I have
>> some form of wit"
>> 
>> "Sarcasm is the last refuge of the incompetent" "And tired platitudes
>> their first"
>
>I'll have to remember those two. :-)
>

How about violence is the first resort of the righteous? :)


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:55:38 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:12:49 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Nice one, Phil. :-)
>>
>> TY
>>
>> "You know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" "At least it shows I have
>> some form of wit"
>>
>> "Sarcasm is the last refuge of the incompetent" "And tired platitudes
>> their first"
>
> I'll have to remember those two. :-)

So long as you verbally add the copyright symbol I'm happy :-P Oh and yes  
those were my replies in two real-life conversations. Sometimes I'm more  
awake then others, in every sense of the phrase.

-- 
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