|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from sarafina
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 17:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
When does 80 equal more than a 100?
(reply to this comment)
| from Nick
Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 13:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
A hunter starts out at his base camp and decides to go south the 1st day.After 5 miles he stops for the night. Next morning he wakes up and goes 3 miles east where he finds and shoots a bear. He drags the bear 5 miles north and is at his base camp.
What color was the bear?
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Gar
Thursday, October 23, 2003, 14:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
A religious man was on a humanitarian mission in the jungles of Brazil when he gets caught by cannibals. Because he trespassed into their territory they vowed to kill him. But since he was religious they decided not to eat him, but instead give him his choice on how he would die. They told him he had 2 choices:
1. Die by poison
2. Die by fire
The way he decided this was they would give him his last words; if his last words were;
1. true the would kill him by poison, if they were
2. false they kill him by fire.
He thought and thought and came up with an answer that stumped them. They had to let him go.
What were his last words? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Hydra
Thursday, October 23, 2003, 17:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, this is just a stab in the dark, but I believe his lasts words were something to the effect of, "You will kill me by fire". If they killed him by fire, it would be true & therefore they should actually kill him by poison. BUT, if they were to kill him by poison, then the answer would be false & they should kill him by fire, which makes it true & on and on in a circular sort of way, meaning that whatever they decided to do, the guy would be in the clear unless they decide to poison and burn him at the same time, in which case it really doesn't matter because either way he's dead.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Hydra
Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 09:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Which animal, if annihilated off the face of the earth, could reappear by the 1000's within a year? No insects, germs, bacteria, gene mutation, dna manipulation, blah blah, etc.
Answer to number 1: Grandfather, father, grandson. Answer to number 2: I think this one is a little old, but what the heck: Electric train = no steam. Answer to number 3: Grandfather clock. Answer to number 4: The math is done improperly, but haven't the time to write it through here step by step.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From Hydra
Friday, October 24, 2003, 10:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
It wouldn't be a person because although you were to die and be annihilated, if the entire human race was annihilated....end of story.
The answer is surprisingly simple. A mule. A mule is a hybrid animal and is both sterile, as well as the combined offspring of a horse and a donkey. Annihilate the mules, and within a year, you have thousands more. Logically, this applies to all other hybrids as well. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jpmagero
Thursday, October 30, 2003, 18:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think that's very logical. It's not a given that they will reproduce, something has to make it happen (human intervention). In that case, any type of reproduction that can be done artificially would cause the species to survive (or revive from) annihilation. I suppose then you could include any bird that has laid eggs that hatch after the mother dies, or reptiles that lay eggs etc.
My too sents(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]