JBowtie -- please stand up! NOW with mystery riddles to solve!

[Verequus]

Who said we are dealing with a normal traffic situation?

I've stated already, that Mrs. Smith didn't race and had a normal car, so I've concluded that you meant a normal traffic situation. I could have been wrong, though.

Was this a traffic situation? If so, was it a normal traffic situation?

If you call "driving a car" a "traffic situation", yes, but what do you mean with normal? After my definition, yes.

 

[Verequus]

1. was she driving a car?

Yes.

2. did she almost have a car accident?

No.

not to be too captain obvious . . .

Sometimes, this could be even the solution, but not here.

 

[Knight Otu]

If you call "driving a car" a "traffic situation", yes, but what do you mean with normal? After my definition, yes.

Anything that does not look like it could come straight out of an action movie. Not car chases, or having someone on the car roof and the like. I guess you're including car chases of any kind into race?

 

[Verequus]

Anything that does not look like it could come straight out of an action movie. Not car chases, or having someone on the car roof and the like. I guess you're including car chases of any kind into race?

No, such things aren't included, as the car chase is.

 

[jdrakeh]

Nice try, but it is wrong. Really wrong. I haven't even seen a riddle yet, which had such an answer, so you can exclude this for every riddle I'm going to post. Would be too boring.

Then your riddle is broken - a riddle, by design, provides enough information to deduce a logical conclusion (see the Romeo & Juliet riddle). This statement coupled with a question doesn't do that. It might as well read:

"Timmy likes the color green. What happened?"

That is, the first part has little (if anything) to do with the second part as worded. It's possible that the ridddle itself is valid, merely worded in such a way as to make no sense (for a riddle, anyhow).

 

[Verequus]

Then your riddle is broken - a riddle, by design, provides enough information to deduce a logical conclusion (see the Romeo & Juliet riddle). This statement coupled with a question doesn't do that. It might as well read:

"Timmy likes the color green. What happened?"

That is, the first part has little (if anything) to do with the second part as worded. It's possible that the ridddle itself is valid, merely worded in such a way as to make no sense (for a riddle, anyhow).

It isn't the type of riddle you are thinking of. If it would be entirely self-contained, then I had no need to state, that questions can be posted. Basically, you need to think of situations, where the given information fits and ask, if you are right. If not, then try again, until you get it right. It is as simple as that.

 

[jdrakeh]

It isn't the type of riddle you are thinking of. If it would be entirely self-contained, then I had no need to state, that questions can be posted. Basically, you need to think of situations, where the given information fits and ask, if you are right. If not, then try again, until you get it right. It is as simple as that.

Note that the Romeo & Juliet riddle was entirely self-contained, as it suggested certain elements that related to the question and, indeed, suggested its solution. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Here you have a non-sequitir, rather than a true riddle (i.e., the question "What happened?" is not connected to the statement that prcedes it within the context of the paragraph as written). There is no way to figure out a solution with the information provided and, instead, one must haphazard random guesses until one 'gets it right' - which is no more a riddle than "I'm thinking of something. What is it?".

 

[escherblacksmith]

That I will disagree to. without the knowledge of the broken aquarium, the 2 fish on the floor is not the only potential answer.

I would not consider Romeo and Juliet to be a self-contained riddle.

that said,

1. did Ms. Smith drive too fast?

 

[jdrakeh]

That I will disagree to. without the knowledge of the broken aquarium, the 2 fish on the floor is not the only potential answer.

I would not consider Romeo and Juliet to be a self-contained riddle.

In the traditional manner of presentation it is (traditionally, broken glass is mentioned in the riddle itself) - but you're right, as it appeared in this thread, it too, was a simple non-squitir with no clear answer rather than a true riddle.

 

[Verequus]

The problem seems to be luckily cleared.

1. did Ms. Smith drive too fast?

You mean, if she broke a speed limit? Even if she had done it (which is certainly possible, but I'm not familiar enough with the regarding regulations to tell that), it would be irrelevant to the solution, as no policeman was watching her car.