'situation' Riddles

  • Let me open by saying that, the only reason I'm opening this thread is because it was decided before that, if we're gonna have these long, drawn-out 'situation' type riddles, they should have a thread of their own and not tie up the other one, so here goes.

    WB has done this type once before, and the rules are like this:

    1: Ask one question at a time about the riddle, and only 'yes' or 'no' questions please!
    2: Please don't double post or SPAM!!
    3: Once enough questions have been answered 'yes' to your satisfaction, please PM me to give me the whole scenario as you see it. I'll let you know via PM if you are not right,..... but will post the correct 'guessing' PM in here when someone has guessed correctly. (that way the partial correct guesses aren't used as 'cheats' for others! Makes it harder more interesting that way!)


    OK, here it is:

    A man saw something advertised at a certain price and went to buy it. An official refused to sell it too him even though the man could pay and other men and women were sold it. Later the man was very glad he had been refused.

    Why was he refused and why was he glad?


    There, let the fun begin!!
  • Is the product some form of medication???

  • No, it is not.

    Oh, just fyi, I'll try not to jump in here everytime I see a question, so as to avoid SPAMMING myself!! :unsure:
    Be patient with me if I let a couple-a-few questions gather up before replying!!

    Thanks!
  • Is the way it was advertised (TV, catalogue, shop window etc.) relevant?
  • Is the product not sold to him eatable (as in something you are supposed to put in your mouth and swollow)?

  • Nope, how it was advertised is not relevant, and
    nope, not eatable!! heheheheee... cute word!! :P
  • Was the "something advertised" a service? (Such as oil change, shoe repair, haircut, etc.)
  • Do you have to be a certain age to purchase the product?
  • is it s*x, and he wasn't sold to him because he was a ugly guy.
  • It is it because the advertisement was for fake arms but he already had arms so the assistant didnt sell it to him? He was then glad because it would have been a waste of money. you know i am right! :disco:
  • [quote]Originally posted by Susan B STAFF@Jun 5 2003, 11:55 PM
    [b] WB has done this type once before, and the rules are like this:

    1: Ask one question at a time about the riddle, and only 'yes' or 'no' questions please!
    2: Please don't double post or SPAM!!
    3: Once enough questions have been answered 'yes' to your satisfaction, please PM me to give me the whole scenario as you see it.

  • 1: Charger, sort of, yes.

    2: Spiderklown, No, you do not have to be a certain age to have purchased this ...... 'what is advertised'. ;)

    3: Bringiton and Matt Matt...... I think The1ve already made your answers clear to you! :2cool:

    I gotta tell ya's, I sure am enjoying this!! :woot:
  • If the fellow had been sold the "thing," would it have caused harm to come to him?
  • Does aviation have anything to do with it?
  • [quote]Originally posted by Susan B STAFF@Jun 6 2003, 07:56 PM
    [b]1:

  • Charger, a resounding YES!!


    EDIT:

    Total duh on my part!!!! :doh:

    WB, yes as well!

    Knowze, nope, nothing to do with aviation.
  • Oh Boy! OH Boy! OH BOY!
    Two in a row! :peace:

    Did the "something advertised" have a time limit on its use?
  • Was it a petrol fill up but his car had some kind of chemical in the tank that would blow it up? Just a guess! :think:

  • Charger, Yes it did.
    (I believe that makes 3 in a row!!)

    Ali..... once again...........

    [quote]1: Ask one question at a time, and only 'yes' or 'no' questions please!!!

    3: Once enough questions have been answered 'yes' to your satisfaction, please PM me to give me the whole scenario as you see it.
  • Did the advertsment have anything to do with petrol?
  • Was the service preformed by another person?

  • Ali: Nope, nothing to do with petrol.

    Crashkart: I don't really think that I said that it was a 'service' on the advertisement! ;) So, I can't answer that one. :cry:
  • I thought that you said to chargerfanchs that the product was a 'kind of' service! :unsure:

    Well anyway, does the product, (kind of service) involve another person then?

  • Gosh, this is tougher than I expected!!

    Crashkart,..... it is sort of a service...... so, I guess that, yes, that 'sort of a service' would be performed by another person, sort of...... so hard to explain without really explaining!!!

    Yeah, then I'd have to say that 'YES' it would involve another person...... though not necessarily limited to just 'ONE' other person...... necessarily! ;)
  • If the man had been allowed to purchase the thing, would he have died as a result?
  • If the man had been allowed to purchase the thing, would he have gotten into trouble with the government?

  • WB: Yes

    RED: No
  • They say three strikes and you're out so I got a feeling this one's gonna be a no. ;)

    Did the "something advertised" involve a physician?

  • Aawwwww, sorry man, but 'no'. But hey, you're not out!! :D
  • Just to recap.

    The product is some kind of a service.

    It can involve more than One person.

    It is associated with, and would have inflicted, death.

    It had a time limit to its use


    And here's a list of the irrelevant crap. (so irrelevant, they won't even get capitals)

    medication

    advertisement its self

    edibility

    age

    aviation

    petrol

    The government

    physics/surgery

    thylacines

    I'll just assume that last one's irrelevant.
    ------------------

    Was the man aware of the risks before he tried to make the purchase?

  • What the h3ll is a 'thylacine'!?!?!? hahahahahaa!!!

    Nope, the man was not aware of the risk before he tried to make the purchase.

    (and the risk was not a tazmanian devil, either!) ;)
  • I hate NO answers but sometimes they help as much as the YES answers! :think:

    Did the other men and women who were sold the "something advertised" die as a result of purchase?
  • Does the something advertized involve sharp objects?

  • Charger: Yes. (there, that's better! :D)

    Spiderklown: Nope, it did not involve sharp objects.
  • Does it involve fire?
  • Back on track... 4 for 5! :disco:

    Did the "something advertised" involve travel?
  • Did the 'something advertised' (kind of service) cause death when the time limit ran out, or before?
  • So they all died of it and he couldn't get it. He wanted it at first but when he found out what it would have done to him he was relieved.


    The the folks that DID buy the thing/action/whatever intend to get themselfs killed?

  • Spiderklown: Yes it did, as a 'coincidentally' sort of thing.

    Charger: Yes, it did involve travel

    Crashkart: Nope, has nothing to do with a time limit.

    Manne: Nope, they did not intend to get themselves killed.

    Wow, there sure were enough of these for me today! :D
    I feel we're getting somewhere!! (but, where!?) ;)
    That's for me to know, and you all to find out!! :P
  • Did the 'something advitised' invole a type of transport with four wheel's?
  • Was the man refused because of his height?

  • Ali-g: No, it did not involve four-wheel transportation.

    Knowze: Nooooo, there was no problem with the man's height.
  • This may be redundant but I'll go with it anyways...

    Were other men and women sold the "something advertised" after the man was refused?
  • Did the 'some thing avitised' have any wheels on it.

  • Charger: Yes, others were sold this 'something advertised' after this man was refused.

    Ali Nope, no wheels at all were involved.
  • We all know what happens when I get three "YES" in a row. :doh: Time for a "NO".

    Was the man refused because of his weight?
  • Well, it looks to me as if every one, like me, is waiting for Speedie to answer Charger's question but Speedie, on the other hand, is waiting for another post or two before answering anything.

    Since my "roller coaster" theory has gone amiss, I'll have to find another train of thought for this question.

    Is a massive boat relevent in any way?

  • How right you are Mr. Gungk!! hehee..... you know me so well! :disco:

    Charger: Nope, weight was not the reason for the refusal.

    Knowze: YES!!!!!!!! :woot:
  • Now we're getting somewhere!

    Was the man refused the "something advertised" because of his citizenship?
  • Was this massive boat that Knowze speaks of holding anything illegal?
  • Hmmm, involved with death 'eh.

    Did the massive vessel come equipped with some massive fire power?
  • Was it involving the (Cue Celine Dion Music....) the Titanic??
  • Charger, Red, Knowze: NOPE

    Topper YUP!!

    Sooooo close!!! :woot:
  • I had a feeling it was the Titanic, it was a tossup for me.

    Was the man refused because of his race?

  • Knowze Yup..... but............

    We have ourselves a winner!! I got this PM this morning, from non other than our Charger!! (just read it now)

    [quote]A man saw an advertisement for passage on the Titanic. When he went to purchase a ticket he was refused because he was black. Later he was glad because it hit an iceberg and sunk.

    If This one isn't correct then I don't know what to do!

    BTW, I didn't know that there weren't any black people on the Titanic. How fortunate and sad at the same time (fortunate is obvious - sad as in discrimination)
  • Whew! I know KG was hot on my tail! :unsure:

    Seeing as how I really enjoyed this game I won't :stink: it up by posting some lame situation for you all to guess on. Instead, I'll leave it open for anyone who has one of suitable quality and is willing to take on the burden honor. :peace:

  • I've been asked by a couple of people to go ahead an put another one in here, so I'll give it another shot.

    I don't think this next one will be as difficult or time consuming as the last, but it's still a pretty good one!



    Mrs. McClutski went to buy some glue to fix the handle on her husbands favorite teacup. Being a member of SA (Shoppers Anonymous) she was always careful not to over spend. The store clerk was very helpful and handed her 2 tubes of glue. "Oh thank you dear but I only need one tube it's a small teacup" exclaimed Mrs. McClutski and left the store before the clerk could try to sell her another tube. When she got home she read the label "apply and hold for 30 seconds", but no matter how many times she tried the glue wouldn't hold. The glue was specifically for that application. She followed the instructions perfectly yet it wouldn't work.
    Why?


    There ya's go! Now remember the :rules: :

    Only one question per post, and only 'yes' or 'no' questions.

    Please PM me when you have a guess at the whole situation.

    Have fun!! :peace:
  • Ooh! Ooh! Let me guess first! :woot:

    Was Mr. McClutski mad his favorite teacup was broken?:blink:
    Just kidding! Was the composition of the teacup important? ( like ceramic, glass, etc.?)
  • LoL @ Charger!!!
    No, the composition of it was not an issue, but that matters not at all, since I've already gotten a correct 'guess' from Mr. Gungk!

    Was the glue a two part epoxy resin?

    I was gonna post this in the thread, but then I started thinking that it may be the answer.

    See ya 'round.
    [/b]


    That was posted around 6:45 this morning, so he's got it!!

    Mr. Gungk, make it a good one for us please!?
  • Thank you Speedie.

    After going through extensive medical studies, a man is told he is going to die within Three years. He is also told that there can be an operation organized for him in a year but, if he goes through with the operation, he will die there & then.

    The man spends half a year, dwelling on the situation & discussing it with his family, and finally makes his decision. After another six months, he goes through with the operation and dies.



    Why?

    ...And, perhaps, What
    (was wrong, the operation...)?


    I hope this is hard enough.
  • Did this operation involve the removing of a crucial organ?
    (i.e. heart, brain, lungs)
  • Is the man a Siamese Twin?
  • Red - Maybe, it's not that relevent really.

    Charger - Yes, yes he was. And here's me thinking this one'll last a whole page.
  • What a lucky guess! :disco:

    Was the three year diagnosis collective?
  • It was indeed collective Charger, but might I remind you...

    Originally posted by chargerfanchs@Jun 21 2003, 03:15 PM
    The man was a Siamese Twin and given three years to live if not separated. The decision to be separated would give one the chance to live with the other one dying. So after deliberation, one twin was surgically removed and gave his life so the other could live?



    That's all I needed for an answer, the floor is all yours.

    A special congratulations goes to Speedie for her Sex Change Operation...



    ...er, theory.

    Although it wasn't the answer, you might be interested in knowing that the surviving twin did have one, later on, which went terribly wrong (the surgon sneezed & created a new gender). But that's another story.

    Please, take it away Charger.
  • Yessiree! Two :peace: outta three! :blink:
    Time for the guesser to become the guessee!
    (I agree with what you're thinking right now... That was lame)

    I'll give it a shot but I won't guarantee it'll be any good!

    One day a boy was on his cell phone talking with his sweetheart. The conversation is interupted by loud and furious barking coming from the backyard. The boy runs outside to the backyard, only to find "Fido" cowering in his dog house. He crawls inside to comfort the family pet and when they both emerge they are in another country. The boy tries to call his sweethart back but his phone no longer works.

    What was "Fido" so upset about, why doesn't the phone work, and where are they now?


    Yes or No questions please. I'll post the winning PM (provided I can figure out how?!) ;)
  • was there some type of toto I mean tornado?
  • Prior to the events, were the boy & Fido on an international border (as in, say, within 2Km from one)?
  • Ahhh...Brilliant minds in motion Ladies and Gentlemen!

    Topper - YES
    Knowze Gungk - YES
  • Oh, I love this thread, so let me revive it.

    The Gunk and the Topper has done a superb job so far, I thinkI might take a stab at the answer.

    Could it be that the "Fido" were upset about an oncomming storm/tornado and that this wirlwind lifted the doghouse and moved it over the (I'll go ahead and guess here) MEXICAN border?
    :g:
  • For the purpose of moving this thread into 2006, we'll call that answer perfect.

    Rock and roll, manneman!
  • Allright, let's see what you people think about this one.

    On February 24:th Michelle Lark was in a fight, seven months later she was found dead in her apartment. The investigator, detective Larson, came to realize that Michelle had been murdered?

    How could dectective Laron come to this conclusion?
  • Yes or No questions, right? And only one question per post?

    Okay, were the fight and the murder related?
    (and don't say I just asked three questions) :bash:
  • No, mr Walrus, the fight and the murder were not related
  • Did the murderer stay at the scene of the crime to confess? :blink:
  • :D No, I'm sorry, the mrderer did not stay at the scene to confess.
  • Did this Michelle leave a suicide note written left handed with purple ink on a peach polyester leisure suit vest pinned to the stucco ceiling with hawk talons?

    Is there a knife involved in the murder?
  • Nope, no knife
  • Was detective Larson the murderer?
  • No, detective Larson did not comit the murder.

    Tell you what. This riddle will take a while to sort out if we keep playing by the rules so I'm gonna allow multiple questions, hope that's OK with everybody. When we are startig to get somewhat close to the answer we will return to original rules so that everybody has a chance of cracking the riddle.
  • Since you're allowing multiple questions...

    Were there any other dead bodies found in the apartment?
    Was there any blood found in her apartment?
    Did Michelle own a pet?
  • QUOTE(chargerfanchs @ Apr 17 2006, 04:10 PM) [snapback]61221[/snapback]

    Since you're allowing multiple questions...

    Were there any other dead bodies found in the apartment?
    Was there any blood found in her apartment?
    Did Michelle own a pet?
    [/b]


    No
    No
    No
  • No pets? I thought for sure there would be a parrot saying "Squaaaack - I'm a murderer and I'm going to kill you Michelle - Squaaaack!" Dang-nabbit!

    Were there any bills in her outgoing mail with payment in them? (Gas, electric, car payment etc.?)
    Was Michelle poisoned?
  • Bills in the mail, er, no. She did all her banking over the internet.
    Poisoned : YES!
  • Ok, so she was poisoned, but that doesnt explain how he knew this.

    was there a needle in her back between her shoulder blades?
    was there a crazy attack happy spider running around the room?
    was she covered in some sort of rash - like a poison ivy thing?

    hmmm :g:
  • Ok, so she was poisoned, but that doesnt explain how he knew this. Exactly!

    was there a needle in her back between her shoulder blades?
    No

    was there a crazy attack happy spider running around the room?
    Nope

    was she covered in some sort of rash - like a poison ivy thing?
    Njet


    hmmm :g:
    ...hmm indeed! :D

  • Let's see...was the other involved in the fight found to be in possession of some kind of poison?

    Maybe someone -else- poisoned her in the interim and it was assumed that the two were connected, even if they weren't.

    Yeah...that's it.
  • No sorry, non of the above are it.
  • Was it a slow acting poison?
    Did she happen to write on the floor in her puke (or well write some place) I have been poisoned Mr Policeman?


  • Did someone pay the investigator to come to this conclusion?

    Or maybe there was a bottle there with skull'n'crossbones? :P
  • Was it a slow acting poison? No, not per se
    Did she happen to write on the floor in her puke (or well write some place) I have been poisoned Mr Policeman?No

    Did someone pay the investigator to come to this conclusion?? Well I guess the city of Werever payed his salary and since he is a detective and his job is to come to conclusions about mursers and other mystries I guess : Yes.

    Or maybe there was a bottle there with skull'n'crossbones? :POr maybe there wasn't!
  • OK then

    was there a KFC bucket on the floor and a receipt from the day before nearby? :pooh:

    Did any of the police men kill her?

    was the poison ingested or administered in some was what our victim could not have done to herself?

    too much thinking to be done and only one brain to do it with :g:
  • No, no bucket.

    No, non of the policemen killed her.

    No.


    Keep asking you'll get there. Don't forget to read back and also re-read the intro...
  • So this is the 24th September - 7 months after the fight.

    where did the fight occur that night in February?

    who all witnessed the fight?

    what, other than the investigating office, was Larsons relationship to the victim?

    why do i even care about getting an answer to this? :g:
  • Majik, it's great that you're trying but the questions you're posing are kind of hard to answer with yes or no. :wacko:
    Please try to rephrase them a little later in the afternoon!
  • Fair enough.

    Did the fight occur in her appartment on 24 Feb?

    Was Larson a witness to that fight?

    Were there other witnesses to the fight?

    Was the fight a domestic incident?

    Did Larson have a relationship to the victim prior to death?

    Is the date that Larson said Michelle was murdered 24 Sept?

    Did the murder occur on 24 September?

    Did murder occur prior to day of discovery?

    Was the victim left in a position that she would have needed to some form of assistance to get into?

  • Fair enough.

    Did the fight occur in her appartment on 24 Feb??
    No


    Was Larson a witness to that fight??
    Yes


    Were there other witnesses to the fight??
    Yes


    Was the fight a domestic incident??
    No


    Did Larson have a relationship to the victim prior to death??
    No


    Is the date that Larson said Michelle was murdered 24 Sept??
    Not of importance


    Did the murder occur on 24 September??
    Not of importance


    Did murder occur prior to day of discovery??
    Yes, how else would you detect a murder? Unless you them psycics in that Tom Cruise movie.


    Was the victim left in a position that she would have needed to some form of assistance to get into??
    No


    Well done Majik. :) Now were getting somewere
  • Ok

    the murder did not occur on the day she was found?

    Did the fight occur on in a public place?

    Does Larson believe that any of the witnesses to that fight have any involvement in her death?

    Was the victim known to the police for reasons other than the fight and her demise?
  • Was the fight in on 24 Feb in any way related to her subsequent murder?

    Was there something in the room where she was found which would give rise to suggesting she was murdered?

    was there something about her body which would give rise to suggesting she was murdered?

    was the fight in feb at the police station?
  • No, question allready been asked by Charger btw
    No.
    Yes
    No

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion