Pokemon Universe MMORPG
Off-Topic Discussions => Other Chat => Topic started by: Frenchfry on July 04, 2011, 04:23:40 AM
-
A man in a suit is walking along a sidewalk when he suddenly remembers he had a meeting with a friend that day at a nearby cafe. He looks to his wrist, only to find that he has forgotten his watch. He hails the nearest car to ask the time. As the car slows to a stop, the rear window rolls down, and a man pokes his head out.
"Can I help you?"
"Yes, could you give me the time?"
"It is... four thirty-six."
"Thank you."
The window rolls up and the car continues on its way.
Question:
Who was the wealthiest person in this story?
Also, guesses don't count. Explain your reasons.
-
Something close to what Silver said.
Reasons for all.
Anyone-Who knews.
Guy in back-He could be in a limousine or anything else. But, he knew the time. But if he was so rich, why stop to help someone unimportant.
Guy walking-What Silvah said, but also, you would think he would be in a mobile vehicle if he was wealthy, or he could be some hobo, trying to get the time. But, he has a meeting so it should be important. Also he seems important, sense someone pulled over to talk to him, why? Also he has a watch, but forgot it. Also the meeting isn't that important, or he would have remembered, and he is out and about, so he must be going somewhere, possibly another meeting.
Or Cafe guy-He has a meeting, but don't know much about him.
-
From the information that has been given, the man in the suit will be the most likely answer.
There isn't enough information about the person in the cafe, and therfore can be anyone. It could be the president/ Bill Gates for all we know.
The man in the back seat of the car could easily be a man in the backseat of a taxi, or any other form of transportation really. You don't have to be rich to sit in the back.
The man in the suit on the otherhand, shows that his watch isn't one of the most expensive things he owns by forgetting it, as people usually remember things that they treasure. This shows that he can afford to not have it.
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the taxi driver, he's the only one who owns their own vehicle (that we know of)
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the taxi driver, he's the only one who owns their own vehicle (that we know of)
QFT
-
It never said it was a taxi, for all we know it could be a chauffeur who drives the car for the person in the back.
-
Alright, it's been a day.
The correct answer was:
The man in the backseat.
As Silver mentioned, you don't have to be rich to sit in the backseat of a car. However, if he were simply a passenger, in a taxi or his father's car, for instance, when the vehicle was hailed, wouldn't it have been the man in the driver's seat that would roll down his window?
Say, for example, you're sitting in the backseat of your father's car, and he's driving down the street. If a police officer pulls him over, are YOU the one that's going to roll down your window and ask what's wrong?
Knowing this, we can assume the driver is a chauffeur, immediately making him less wealthy than the man he's driving around.
The man in the suit went to check his watch for the time. His WATCH. Granted, some people use watches as fashion statements, but they should still have a cell phone with them. Any responsible adult has a cell phone, assuming they can afford one. A watch, you'll forget, because you don't actually need it for anything. Your cell phone? Not as much, especially when you have plans with someone that day. And as we all know, a cell phone has a built in digital clock. Silver also mentioned that he showed his watch wasn't precious to him/not the most expensive thing he owns. Watches can be cheap. Really cheap.
The friend at the cafe is only mentioned, and is not actually a character in the story, thus eliminating him as an option.
-
...and now for the Credits.
Man in Suit: Silver
Man in Back Seat: Frenchfry
Driver: Wailord
It sounds like what you guys used to do on IRC. >.>
-
It was the butler in the living room with the candlestick.
-
Watches can be cheap. Really cheap.
I agree but watches can be REALLY expensive too. Also, I don't know anyone who has a watch but would actually check the time on his cellphone, which would be ... you know... very dumb.
-
I tend to prefer my phone over my watch. x:
I actually dislike wearing my watch. I don't want it to get wet, I forget to put it on after washing hands and taking a shower. Stuff like that. My phone is pretty much always on me though.
-
I tend to prefer my phone over my watch. x:
I actually dislike wearing my watch. I don't want it to get wet, I forget to put it on after washing hands and taking a shower. Stuff like that. My phone is pretty much always on me though.
Just one question... why the hell do you have a watch then?
-
I tend to prefer my phone over my watch. x:
I actually dislike wearing my watch. I don't want it to get wet, I forget to put it on after washing hands and taking a shower. Stuff like that. My phone is pretty much always on me though.
Just one question... why the hell do you have a watch then?
I thought itd be a good idea since we're not supposed to have our phones at work, and it was super cheap, but I never use the stupid thing.
-
Oh god not another one.
A brother and a sister are arguing. Their mother, tired of their constant bickering, decides to punish them by making them stand on the same piece of paper for a full hour without being able to touch each other.
Assuming this is a standard sheet of printer paper, how did she accomplish this?
-
She tore the paper in half.
Not to difficult.
-
They each stood on the same piece, but at different times, an hour each.
-
She slid it under a door, one child stands on each side.
-
Oh god not another one.
A brother and a sister are arguing. Their mother, tired of their constant bickering, decides to punish them by making them stand on the same piece of paper for a full hour without being able to touch each other.
Assuming this is a standard sheet of printer paper, how did she accomplish this?
One foot per person.
Noone ever said both feet.
-
Without them BEING ABLE to touch each other, Silver. As in, the possibility is not there.
-
They each stood on the same piece, but at different times, an hour each.
I agree with leo.
-
Without them BEING ABLE to touch each other, Silver. As in, the possibility is not there.
The way you worded it made it sound like they were forbidden from touching eachother.
This is very similar to a chess question.
2 people played a round of best 2 of 3 games of chess.
They each won 2 games.
There were no ties.
How is this possible?
A: They weren't playing eachother.
Same thought proccess
So revised answer is they stood there at different times.
-
Without them BEING ABLE to touch each other, Silver. As in, the possibility is not there.
The way you worded it made it sound like they were forbidden from touching eachother.
This is very similar to a chess question.
2 people played a round of best 2 of 3 games of chess.
They each won 2 games.
There were no ties.
How is this possible?
A: They weren't playing eachother.
Same thought proccess
So revised answer is they stood there at different times.
Which is exactly what I said. :P
-
Your answers are flawed.
If they stood on the paper at different times, one could easily go and touch the other, and vice versa when they switch. If they ripped it, it wouldn't be the same piece of paper anymore. It would be two pieces of paper. If you are able to simply slide a piece of paper under a door, then the children could slide their fingers under and touch each other's feet.
Answer: Make a wall of plastic wrap that forms a barrier between them, stretching all the way to the ground.
If you are going to be all technical and say they could simply bust through the plastic, then you deserve to rot in hell.
-
I'm pretty sure a piece of paper going under a door doesn't mean fingers would fit through too. Also, since they have to stand on the paper, if they tried to get fingers under it, they would likely not be standing on the paper anymore.
-
Most doors have enough space for fingers, to eliminate friction from the floor. I'm pretty sure an average family would have these kind of doors in their house.
-
Both the kids were incorporeal.
Solved.
-
Wait, did she lay both kids on the floor, feet touching sole to sole (so they were like o|< >|o), and then she slipped the paper in between their feet?
-
Haha, nice. I'm not sure that would count as standing though.
-
It... wouldn't.
Sos yeah. Fred is winRAR.
The end.
-
You didn't answer it, because Fred Never gave an answer. -.-''
-
She slid it under a door, one child stands on each side.
-
A man in a suit is walking along a sidewalk when he suddenly remembers he had a meeting with a friend that day at a nearby cafe. He looks to his wrist, only to find that he has forgotten his watch. He hails the nearest car to ask the time. As the car slows to a stop, the rear window rolls down, and a man pokes his head out.
"Can I help you?"
"Yes, could you give me the time?"
"It is... four thirty-six."
"Thank you."
The window rolls up and the car continues on its way.
Question:
Who was the wealthiest person in this story?
Also, guesses don't count. Explain your reasons.
Well, the answer has to be the guy that the other guy is meeting. Driving up in a car does not mean you're rich, and the guy that needed the time must have some amount of money, but the fact that he works for someone else means that the someone else that he works for must be the most rich.
-
Alright, it's been a day.
The correct answer was:
The man in the backseat.
As Silver mentioned, you don't have to be rich to sit in the backseat of a car. However, if he were simply a passenger, in a taxi or his father's car, for instance, when the vehicle was hailed, wouldn't it have been the man in the driver's seat that would roll down his window?
Say, for example, you're sitting in the backseat of your father's car, and he's driving down the street. If a police officer pulls him over, are YOU the one that's going to roll down your window and ask what's wrong?
Knowing this, we can assume the driver is a chauffeur, immediately making him less wealthy than the man he's driving around.
The man in the suit went to check his watch for the time. His WATCH. Granted, some people use watches as fashion statements, but they should still have a cell phone with them. Any responsible adult has a cell phone, assuming they can afford one. A watch, you'll forget, because you don't actually need it for anything. Your cell phone? Not as much, especially when you have plans with someone that day. And as we all know, a cell phone has a built in digital clock. Silver also mentioned that he showed his watch wasn't precious to him/not the most expensive thing he owns. Watches can be cheap. Really cheap.
The friend at the cafe is only mentioned, and is not actually a character in the story, thus eliminating him as an option.
Not quite true in my opinion. The wealthiest men have a watch just to show they are luxurious, and rich people don't keep phones on them, they generally have someone to call people for them. Back to the watch thing... Maybe this man often forgets his watch because it is so expensive that, when walking by himself, is likely to be stolen. Paranoia from being rich. He looked down at his watch because he regularly wears it, but forgot he isn't in company of others and he took it off. The suit says he has a lot of money to spend, i mean really... who wears a suit JUST to visit a friend? Granted it might not be his only destination today, he also is EATING in a suit. he wouldn't do that if he didn't want to ruin his suit, but wait... the rich can just buy another. O.o
And also, if one walks along the street on the right side and needs to ask for the time, and they ask that from a car, i'm pretty sure the one to answer will be either a passenger, or GASP another passenger because the driver would be concentrated on the road ahead, or on the light that will change. Perhaps this guy was walking because his driver was late, or the car that was transporting him broke down. It might have been faster to walk, or perhaps he was too rich to sit on the bus with lowlifes that might steal the watch he should have been wearing.
Anyways the moral of my whole spiel is: DON'T EAT RASPBERRIES
...And my answer is the man walking. I am pretty sure i made several valid points and if you still aren't convinced, the man in a suit is Chuck Norris. I win :p
-
Did I just see a Chuck Norris joke?
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr68q7MyALjbm_1jttBDRBbfLGkRJp3kVnD5U_AoPaODNcr4d4)
-
No response to my logic i see... and i'm pretty sure i had the best response that made sense
-
No, actually, it wasn't accurate. Flawed logic everywhere. However, I really don't feel like explaining why I had the correct answer to my own riddle and you didn't.
That, and this thread kind of died already.