Did someone already point out that there is a novel, by a famous, late author, occasionally discussed on this blog, which uses this as its central plot point?
I'm a goy; Weiner's a gentile, as are the rest of you lot. (Well, except for the surprisingly high population of lapsed Mormons lurking around the blogs.)
Is the drowned man hanging on a branch? Is he hanging from a rope?
For people talking about the original, deleted scenario, and movies, novels, or television shows mentioning it, you can follow this link to see them all listed. I don't recall either of those novelists being discussed on unfogged though. If you're still trying to keep yourself in suspense about the original one, don't do that.
w/d, one of the novels has been mentioned -- making the link a touch spoily of the novel (though honestly, it's not like knowing that really ruins the novel for you in any meaningful respect).
Osner, had he been drowned in a flood a while ago, washed into the forest, and remained there since?
Are the trees petrified like that awesome cross-section of tree on display in the gems and minerals section of the museum of natural history which I've been a big fan of since I was about four?
I prefer the scenario where the Dread Pirate Jack dove into the sea to retrieve a gold ring, got distracted by mineral glints in the water, and got entangled in the giant kelp forest, where he drowned and slowly rotted away. We have observed Captain Jack at a moment after he has mostly skeletized but before his clothing has rotted away entirely: the pistolet on his belt and his jewel-encrusted boots are heavy enough to create the "hanging" rather than "floating" effect.
Jackmormon's 53 gives me what I think might be a really excellent and complex way to play this game. At the beginning of the game, the host lays out a scenario and has a story to explain it in mind. As the game progresses, any of the contestants can think of their own story-line that matches the answers given by the host thus far. When the answers for their story-line diverge from the host's answers, they can jump in and say, "I'm starting an alternate version right here" and subsequently must give their own answers to each question in parallel with the host.
I like your idea for a variation, Jeremy, although the forking paths might become very difficult to keep straight. Of course, it might work better online, where we would have all the questions and answers archived.
Jackmormon -- the complexity of keeping the separate theads straight is to me the main attraction of my idea. It will break down however if people forget to sign their posts as I have seen happen occasionally.
Kermit, after being attacked by warbloggers who got the literal and figurative meanings of "frog" confused and stapled him to a wall, saying, "Maybe when you finally understand what Jesus felt you'll understand why we have to oppose Islamofascists"?
Um, you all seem to be misunderstanding the game. The game is not, you try to guess the answer. The game is, I give you the answer, and then you protest against the inadequacy of its various parts, thus allowing me to deliver the punch line. Slol, you can do this, right?
Oh. Weiner, I thought you meant the relationship between the nominal subject of the thread and your riddle was a red herring. Which also isnt' green. I don't get this joke either, really.
I was going to say, you know the story about the rabbi from Chelm, who was asked, "Rebbe, why is the water in the sea so salty?" and replied, "Because, you know, of all the herring in it."
Tia posted this scenario earlier today. Michael came on the comments and gave away the answer. Tia, in a fit of pique, deleted the post and comments. I then wrote to TIa that I had an alternate solution that I would field questions for. Tia graciously opened up a new thread for me to do so.
Those of us who like to keep up with the blog but cannot be there at every single moment do like to be able to read the comments and threads to which other comments refer regardless of whether or not a riddle has been spoiled therein.
I mean, people do read the archives here. I don't think they're looking for total suprises and this wasn't a case of too much personal information being revealed or of putting things out of the reach of search engines
There were about 17 comments when I deleted, eb, and they all pertained to a riddle game we weren't playing anymore. JO, I meant I was too annoyed with Michael to think about deleting his comment right when I made it, not that my decision to delete the post was hasty.
Is it something ridiculous?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:53 AM
Did someone already point out that there is a novel, by a famous, late author, occasionally discussed on this blog, which uses this as its central plot point?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:55 AM
Not at all, it is deadly serious.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:55 AM
2 -- yes they did. The scenario described in the movie is rather different from what happened in this story.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:56 AM
4: Did you notice I said novel, and author, not movie, and filmmaker?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:57 AM
slol, I tried to point it out, but by the time I hit 'post' the main post had been deleted, so my comment never showed up, not even for a second.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:58 AM
Jeremy, was the man murdered?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:58 AM
Osner, had there been a flood in the region recently?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:59 AM
5 -- missed that. I am not familiar with the novel you are talking about so I cannot guarantee that my scenario is different from its.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:59 AM
Possibly, we are the only nice Jewish goys around here.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:59 AM
7: No.
8: Not recently.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 10:59 AM
at least, I think what I was thinking of is what slol was thinking of. slol, was it Tia's original scenario?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:01 AM
10: Boy, that makes me think it's the same novel. I'm not a goy, though.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:02 AM
12: See, I missed all the excitement with the deleted posts and comments, so I got no idea what's going on around here.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:02 AM
13: Yes, you are. To a Mormon.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:03 AM
Mormons say "goy"?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:04 AM
Is a dam relevant to the solution?
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:04 AM
Ack -- sorry -- I am supposed to limit my participation in this thread to anwering questions, not asking them. And castigating malefactors.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:05 AM
I believe I can state with a high degree of confidence that slol is not Jewish.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:06 AM
They had an alternate solution to the drowned man in a tree thing on an episode of CSI.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:06 AM
17: No
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:06 AM
Was his body moved to the forest after he drowned?
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:07 AM
Had the man died in the past week?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:08 AM
22: No
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:08 AM
23: No
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:09 AM
Was his body hung in the tree post-mortem?
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:10 AM
19: What kind of surname do you think Lerner is?
20: People -- even Jews -- have mixed ancestry, you know.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:11 AM
I'm a goy; Weiner's a gentile, as are the rest of you lot. (Well, except for the surprisingly high population of lapsed Mormons lurking around the blogs.)
Is the drowned man hanging on a branch? Is he hanging from a rope?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:11 AM
26 -- the exact chronology isn't totally clear but I'd say no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:11 AM
28 -- Your question would fit perfectly into Dr. Seuss' classic "Green Eggs and Ham". The answer to it is, "on a branch".
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:12 AM
Ack, I thought of that and should have explicitly mentioned it. Or kept my mouth shut. In fact the mixed ancestry has been noted, hasn't it?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:13 AM
For people talking about the original, deleted scenario, and movies, novels, or television shows mentioning it, you can follow this link to see them all listed. I don't recall either of those novelists being discussed on unfogged though. If you're still trying to keep yourself in suspense about the original one, don't do that.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:15 AM
Given the answers to 23 and 26, had he died in a flood?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:15 AM
Had the man died in the past year?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:15 AM
33 -- yes. 34 -- no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:18 AM
Was there a tsunami involved?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:18 AM
36 -- no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:19 AM
Is there anything left of his body but the skeleton?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:20 AM
38 -- no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:21 AM
Was he a prehistoric man?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:22 AM
Is the man fossilized?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:22 AM
40 and 41: yes.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:23 AM
Are the trees alive? (To the extent that green n' growing trees can be said normally to be alive, that is; I'm not asking about Ents or anything.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:24 AM
Is amber involved?
Is a glacier?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:24 AM
43 -- No.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:24 AM
w/d, one of the novels has been mentioned -- making the link a touch spoily of the novel (though honestly, it's not like knowing that really ruins the novel for you in any meaningful respect).
Osner, had he been drowned in a flood a while ago, washed into the forest, and remained there since?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:25 AM
Was the man trapped on an island that existed during the ice age but ceased to exist later?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:25 AM
44 -- no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:25 AM
46 & 47 -- no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:26 AM
When you say "tree in a forest," you aren't referring to giant kelp, are you? Just checking.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:26 AM
Are the trees petrified like that awesome cross-section of tree on display in the gems and minerals section of the museum of natural history which I've been a big fan of since I was about four?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:26 AM
50 -- no. 51 -- yes.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:27 AM
Okay, I think I know what happened.
I prefer the scenario where the Dread Pirate Jack dove into the sea to retrieve a gold ring, got distracted by mineral glints in the water, and got entangled in the giant kelp forest, where he drowned and slowly rotted away. We have observed Captain Jack at a moment after he has mostly skeletized but before his clothing has rotted away entirely: the pistolet on his belt and his jewel-encrusted boots are heavy enough to create the "hanging" rather than "floating" effect.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:33 AM
Did the tree grow up through the skeleton?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:40 AM
Actually I think I don't know enough about how free-standing trees get petrified to avoid making an ass of myself.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:41 AM
53 -- that would be a good story for this scenario but it does not fit in with several of the answers I have given.
55 -- one of your assumptions does not need to be made.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:45 AM
The assumption that I haven't already made an ass of myself?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:47 AM
57 -- no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:47 AM
Are the skeleton, tree, etc, all embedded in a rock?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:49 AM
59: yes
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:52 AM
Is a volcano involved?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:52 AM
I repeat 54.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:55 AM
61: no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:55 AM
62 -- no.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:56 AM
Wait, 29 seems to preclude the answer to 54 being 'yes', unless you're going to say "he wasn't hung in the tree."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:56 AM
65: I am not going to say that, and you are right that the answer to 54 is not "yes" as should be clear from my 64.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:58 AM
How about a mudslide?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:58 AM
67: yes.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 11:59 AM
66, yeah, it crossposted, and I was smacking myself on the forehead for being dumb.
So, um, have we settled it? The man drowns in a flood/mudslide combination, which deposits him in the tree, and then they all get petrified?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:01 PM
Jackmormon's 53 gives me what I think might be a really excellent and complex way to play this game. At the beginning of the game, the host lays out a scenario and has a story to explain it in mind. As the game progresses, any of the contestants can think of their own story-line that matches the answers given by the host thus far. When the answers for their story-line diverge from the host's answers, they can jump in and say, "I'm starting an alternate version right here" and subsequently must give their own answers to each question in parallel with the host.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:03 PM
69 -- yeah, that's about it. I was hoping for there to be someway to fit in his pet saber-tooth cat Mikey but it did not come up.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:04 PM
I'm not sure that he counts as hanging in a tree once they're all embedded in the rock, though.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:06 PM
72 -- poetic license.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:08 PM
Was the tree growing in the ground when the man got entangled in it?
No, wait, damn, I'm too slow.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:08 PM
poetic license
Ok, I've got one. What's green, hangs on the wall, and sings?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:09 PM
*My* scenario accounted for the hanging.
I like your idea for a variation, Jeremy, although the forking paths might become very difficult to keep straight. Of course, it might work better online, where we would have all the questions and answers archived.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:12 PM
hangs on the wall
is the answer to this going to be dependent on the green singing thing and the wall being embedded in rock?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:13 PM
No. (The answer is, a herring.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:14 PM
Jackmormon -- the complexity of keeping the separate theads straight is to me the main attraction of my idea. It will break down however if people forget to sign their posts as I have seen happen occasionally.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:14 PM
Now you're just trying to bait us quasi-Jews.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:15 PM
Oy, too slow.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:15 PM
Kermit, after being attacked by warbloggers who got the literal and figurative meanings of "frog" confused and stapled him to a wall, saying, "Maybe when you finally understand what Jesus felt you'll understand why we have to oppose Islamofascists"?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:19 PM
Um, you all seem to be misunderstanding the game. The game is not, you try to guess the answer. The game is, I give you the answer, and then you protest against the inadequacy of its various parts, thus allowing me to deliver the punch line. Slol, you can do this, right?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:24 PM
If by do this, you mean, run through the script from the joke, then sure. To recap:
One Jew says to another (for "one Jew" read Weiner, and for the sake of this joke, for another, read "slolernr")
"What's green, hangs on the wall, and sings?"
The other says,
"I don't know, what?"
The first Jew says, "A herring."
Now:
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:29 PM
But a herring isn't green!
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:30 PM
Right, I just put that in to make it hard.
(Thank you, I'll be here all night. Thanks, slol.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:31 PM
Oh. Weiner, I thought you meant the relationship between the nominal subject of the thread and your riddle was a red herring. Which also isnt' green. I don't get this joke either, really.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:32 PM
No, no, you screwed it up! You say, "Nu, so you paint it green."
Then I say, "But a herring doesn't hang on a wall!"
You say, "So you could hang it on a wall."
Then I say, "All right mister smarty-pants, but noway does a herring sing!"
Then you say, "Ah, I just put that in to make it hard."
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:33 PM
Christ I suck. I suck so bad, it isn't funny. Serves me right for trying to think about work when I should be commenting. Apologies, slol.
"You can paint it green."
"But a herring doesn't hang on the wall!"
"You can nail it to the wall."
"But a herring doesn't sing!"
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:33 PM
See, that way it's funny.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:34 PM
How do you say "pwned" in Yiddish?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:35 PM
a drowned man is found hanging in a tree in the forest. What happened?
hurricane Katrina?
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:36 PM
[slinks off]
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:36 PM
83-90: That is funny.
Hmm. I may be more Jewish than I have been led to believe.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:37 PM
I was going to say, you know the story about the rabbi from Chelm, who was asked, "Rebbe, why is the water in the sea so salty?" and replied, "Because, you know, of all the herring in it."
But then Google found me this.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:39 PM
That is funny.
Hmm. I may be more Jewish than I have been led to believe.
As Colbert said the other night, everyone knows Jews have no place in comedy.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:41 PM
There needs to be a special name for this variation of the Weiner-pwn.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:41 PM
The Lerner-pwn?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:43 PM
JM, you know how you told me to email you, and I did, and then I began to wonder if you ever check your email?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:43 PM
96: I have been pwned by Unfogged's formatting demands; the second line was also a quotation from MAE.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:45 PM
91: My internet research has led me to believe that a direct translation could be garmogt or darmogt.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:46 PM
101 -- surely it would be garmwgt or darmwgt?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:49 PM
"owned" would be "farmogt"; I think a direct translation would involve a typo involving a substitution of a key one over.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:51 PM
Oh -- OK, misunderstood.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:52 PM
Ack, slo. Not often, it's true. (Going right now.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 12:55 PM
How about, fwrmogt? That keeps the w-ishness and non-pronouncibility of pwned and still relies on a close-key typo.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:01 PM
Who mistypes w for a?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:08 PM
Who mistypes w for a?
Retards, that's who.
Posted by Joe Drymwlw | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:12 PM
"...my previous, now deleted post."
?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:35 PM
"Jeremy has said he'll field questions on his alternate scenario, so come play with Jeremy, guys!"
Is there a link?
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:35 PM
Tia posted this scenario earlier today. Michael came on the comments and gave away the answer. Tia, in a fit of pique, deleted the post and comments. I then wrote to TIa that I had an alternate solution that I would field questions for. Tia graciously opened up a new thread for me to do so.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:39 PM
(So no link is necessary. This comments thread is the one where I answered questions. Matt W. got the answer up above, at 69.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:40 PM
It wasn't a fit of pique. There wasn't any point left to the post, and anyone who came across it would just have gotten the riddle spoiled.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:48 PM
It wasn't a fit of pique.
But you described it as such, on Alameida's thread.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:53 PM
Matt W. got the answer up above, at 69.
Ahem.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:53 PM
Oh -- sorry Chopper -- yeah I guess you got the answer and Matt W. summarized it succinctly.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:55 PM
Those of us who like to keep up with the blog but cannot be there at every single moment do like to be able to read the comments and threads to which other comments refer regardless of whether or not a riddle has been spoiled therein.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:56 PM
Look I called you "noble" on the next thread over, isn't that enough for you?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:57 PM
I mean, people do read the archives here. I don't think they're looking for total suprises and this wasn't a case of too much personal information being revealed or of putting things out of the reach of search engines
...unless... was the drowned man one of us?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 1:59 PM
Glug
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 2:06 PM
There were about 17 comments when I deleted, eb, and they all pertained to a riddle game we weren't playing anymore. JO, I meant I was too annoyed with Michael to think about deleting his comment right when I made it, not that my decision to delete the post was hasty.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 2:12 PM
Not sure I see the distinction but OK. My "fit of pique" description is withdrawn.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 2:13 PM
Michael's been known to get me hot and bothered, too.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 2:21 PM
The distinction, JO, is that I wasn't deleting the post to be pissy. I didn't think its presence added to the blog.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 2:25 PM
By that criterion, though, an awful lot of comments would have to go.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 2:28 PM
Michael came on the comments
There's a lot of that going around.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-24-06 2:31 PM
If you are going to delete a thread, please don't post followups. This multi-headed blog is confusing enough as it is.
Posted by Charles Watkins | Link to this comment | 02-25-06 12:22 AM
124. ... Wonder if I'm the only one who thinks, of late, that Tia's presence doesn't add to this blog either.
Posted by Chaim | Link to this comment | 02-25-06 2:07 AM
It's very likely you are.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-25-06 2:40 AM
Yeah I wouldn't think that would be a very common sentiment among Unfos.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-25-06 5:29 AM