187:7 INVALID +2

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 07:53:43 PDT

• Next message: Jesse Welton: "Round 187 Summary 1"
• Previous message: Jesse Welton: "187:7 INVALID +2"
• In reply to: Mark Nau: "Re: 187:7"
• Next in thread: Jesse Welton: "187:7 INVALID +2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

187:8   Mark Nau        2002-06-26 22:43:33 INVALID     +2
>
> A version of the correct reply would have you look at its first four
> letters. What does that mean? Ignore that. That's not my riddle. But
> future answers should also disguise themselves.
>
> I seem to have lost my train of thought. Sorry. A riddle, a
> riddle...OK.
>
> It is tension without a head, and what I get when I am put into a
> confused rant.

Validity: Same problem as the last rule.

Style: A decent riddle.  A good restriction.  A devious trick.  I like
it.

-Judge Jesse

--
Rule Date: 2002-06-28 14:53:56 GMT

• Next message: Jesse Welton: "Round 187 Summary 1"
• Previous message: Jesse Welton: "187:7 INVALID +2"
• In reply to: Mark Nau: "Re: 187:7"
• Next in thread: Jesse Welton: "187:7 INVALID +2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST