Re: happy, but cautious by hendrimike	4-Mar-06/9:56 AM
Yes, a Tennessee evening, tobacco tall, corn in from the field, all is well.
Re: Lick up your ears by Dental Panic	4-Mar-06/9:51 AM
I laughed and related - a good read.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	4-Mar-06/9:42 AM
I found several "Sophie's Choice"'s listed. This one struck me as bleak contrast to the puzzle above. http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page473.html
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/9:09 PM
In stupidity is confidence, and in silly puzzles is stupidity.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/5:34 PM
"Sophie's Choice" was different. She had congenital twins joined at the head. She had to mark one of them to die or they would both perish. That's more than a question about words, it's about real issues. I enjoy solving puzzles and dancing around them when I think they are silly, but Sophie's choice was different.
Re: a comment on There by Dovina	3-Mar-06/5:15 PM
I wish I had your faith, brother. I'm a simple woman, not easily given to certitudes.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/3:17 PM
Thank you for noticing.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/3:07 PM
No, I think the introduction is inaccurately worded, leaving too many ambiguities. And the four programs are worsely worded. We are talking solely about accuracy of language here, and this example is a travesty!
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/3:00 PM
I have answered all of them!
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/2:54 PM
First, "exact scientific estimates" is either exact or it is an estimate, but not both. Second, a "psychology experiment" is not a logic experiment, which was the subject to begin with.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/2:44 PM
For my original answer, I chose to ignore the opening statement “Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people.” In doing so, I thought you might recognize the fault in the wording of Program 1A. My answer: “1A because with only me and 199 of my friends left in the US, admit it, the country would be a lot better off.” I thought just maybe my flippant answer would stir some doubt concerning this whole silly scenario. For my second answer, I decided to rely on that outside information and to add other outside information, forming another silly answer: “That depends only upon who gave the most to my campaign fund or who would make me look better. I am an elected leader, else I would not be making the choice.” The whole thing is about wording, and you have bungled it.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/2:21 PM
Original condition: “Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people.” This condition is not stated in any of the “programs.” It is therefore outside information. Revised condition: “Program D stands to kill everybody.” This condition is contrary to the wording of Program D. I matters not how much gogeldygoop you give as introduction. It matters how the statements, A,B,C, and D are worded. Otherwise the questionee can google up any sort of bunk, or dream it up as I did, and call it appropriate.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/1:50 PM
You have changed the problem (changed the subject again) when you say that everyone could be killed. Originally you said that only 600 people will get the disease, out of 250,000,000 +/- in the US. This whole scenario is bunk, because your four programs do not state the conditions, forcing the questionee to rely on outside information. If this is an exercize in the accurate use of language, as you say it is, then you fail.
Re: Wet Paint (A Blond Point of View) by Miggy	3-Mar-06/1:08 PM
How do you bring her her hidden lusts. She already has them. Maybe you mean that you reveal them. The last verse is good. The first verse and the chorus have potential, but need work.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/12:59 PM
It can certainly be quibbled with on several fronts.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/12:58 PM
I don't either.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/10:15 AM
Interesting, you say, "Don't be silly" rather than, "Don't act silly." It's like saying "Don't be woman." Surgery is available for curing womanhood, but nothing cures sillyness.
Re: a comment on There by Dovina	3-Mar-06/10:12 AM
Fear not, blood will not surely shoot or run. What surely exudes is prayer, when we least expect.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	2-Mar-06/4:48 PM
That depends only upon who gave the most to my campaign fund or who would make me look better. I am an elected leader, else I would not be making the choice.
Re: isomers by skaskowski	2-Mar-06/3:59 PM
The last verse is a heart-felt prayer of metaphoric rockheadedness, offered in contrition and deep appreciation for a Creator of stones and brains in parallel. The others commenting here should be ashamed of themselves for missing it.