Do they have a net full of dead fish?
Has the dog been sexually abused?
Has the dog been physically abused?
Is the man above the age of consent in the state where he died?
Is his mother a member of the D.A.R.?
Is the lake normally lower?
Is it downsream from a dam?
5a: What do you mean by phsyically abused? I guess no.
5b: No
6: No
7: No
8: yes
Did the man drown before the dog?
Did the man enter the water before the dog?
Did the man enter the water simultaneously with the dog?
If the above questions are unanswerable because there were multiple entries, consider only the last entries.
Is the lake bigger than a breadbox?
Did the man enter the lake's waters from the shoreline?
From a boat?
From the air?
Was the dog holding a gun or other weapon? How about the man?
Is the lake above ground?
If yes, was it always?
22: I need a more specific time reference to answer that question.
22: Actually, on reflection, I'm answering no to both.
To generalize then: Was a weapon discovered at the scene?
Was an autopsy (sp?) performed? If so, was the cause of death for the man determined to be drowning? How about the dog?
Well, I don't know about the autopsy, but they didn't drown (see 19)
Were there abrasions on the man's body?
Were there wounds on the dog's body?
Can I make a guess at what happened?
Were their deaths shortly before they were found (say, 48 hours)?
33: were the wounds consistent with ones that would be caused by a gun? By a knife?
Has the lake existed in its current form for more than 10 years?
Eh, 42 was actually with regard to 35. WRT 33, were the abrasions consistent with dog bites?
Was the man skydiving shortly before his death? The dog? Were they skydiving over the lake?
44: yes
(One thing that's hard about this game is sometimes words can have more than one meaning, and then you're not sure how to answer.)
Is the man wearing anything out of the ordinary? A uniform? A jumpsuit? Scuba gear?
Does the lake freeze over in winter?
a. Did they die before entering the lake?
b. Are they in an advanced state of decomposition?
c. Have they been dead more than a month?
d. A week?
e. 48 hours?
Had the man ever eaten abalone before?
Were the abrasions and wounds consistent with being attacked by piranhas or other predatory fish?
54:
A. no
B. I don't know how fast bodies decompose under what circumstances. Actually, probably pretty decomposed, now that I think about it. Come to think of it, maybe the abrasions wouldn't show anymore, but that helped you guys so oh well.
C. No
D. Yes
E. Yes
55: No
At the time of death, was the man being attacked by a person? An animal?
Did the man die because he was tired of the motherfucking snakes on a plane?
Answer: LB killed Idealist after he made a joke about her strange desires, then attempted to make it look like one of Tia's stories by hiring the Ice Man from Spider-Friends to freeze the lake with the man's body in it.
Were they eaten by a former bassist and singer for King Crimson?
Is FL wrong that Iceman was ever a super-friend?
Crap, "Spider-Friends." That's less wrong.
65: No, 66: No, 67: Google is your friend
Was the death of either of them the intention of any person, including the dead man?
At the time they were found, did the lake intersect with a chronosynclastic infundibulum?
Is it relevant what year their death took place in?
If aksing the first question violates a norm of the game, please ignore it and the "if so" clause of the next question.
If so, did their death take place in a year post-1900?
Is the dead body actually a metaphor for w/d's reputation for accuracy in super-hero debates?
I bow to your expertise in Saturday morning children's cartoons.
74a: well, to some extent, kind of
74b: you can ask any yes or no question
74c: yes
75: it admits multiple interpretations
Is the time of year particularly relevant?
Were they eaten by a former bassist and singer for King Crimson?
Are you thinking of John Wetton, Boz Burrell, Gordon Haskell, or Greg Lake?
84: Does ya needs ta ask, (you Tony Levin forgetter, you)?
72: It's a reference to this.
Did they die while present on the frozen lake slightly before it unfroze?
Was the man blind?
84: Does ya needs ta ask, (you Tony Levin forgetter, you)?
Tony Levin only ever sang backup vocals, so I wasn't sure whether to include him or not.
Is the lake near an urban area? Is it far from any urban area?
Is it springtime when they're discovered? Is the lake just thawing out when they're discovered?
Were they at any point frozen into the ice?
89: Yeah, I remebered that condition after I 87ed. But what backup vocals they were!
88a: depending on your definition of slightly, yes
88b: no
99: the lake is far from any urban area
90: the lake is just thawing out when they're discovered
they were at no point frozen into the ice
Were they floating underneath the ice before it thawed?
Were they camping before they were killed?
Was the man fishing on the ice, and got pulled down underneath by a really big fish?
Is my best chance to make you exclaim "yes!" repeatedly in this sort of comment thread?
98: No. There's always room for improvement.
Was the man fishing on the ice, and got pulled down underneath to his death?
Shortly before entering the lake, was the man more than a few feet off the ground?
I prefer Botticelli, but I guess I can follow the advice in the post title.
Is the cause of death for both he and his dog the same?
Did the dog run out on to the ice, and the man ran after it?
Can I think of someone the next time around?
111: No, but here's some advice. If you have a question with multiple elements, break them down into the simplest elements, because sometimes I have to answer no when really there might be an elucidating yes to one part of it hidden inside.
112: yes
Were any other humans present (let's call present "on the lake") when they died?
Were any other animals?
I'm glad you don't have hypothermia/
Come over here an lemme warm ya up.
this might be stupid.
were they in a boat?
(With the fire in my loins.)
Was the death accidental? Were the man and his dog en route to someplace when the indicdent occurred?
Was their death caused by the temperature?
Did their cause of death leave any marks on their body?
Are the rumors about you & FL true? Will ogged be crushed?
Was the man aware that he was doing anything dangerous before he entered the water? Or did it take him by surprise?
Did the man have a purpose for being on the lake? Was it recreational?
131: No
132a: yes
132b: yes, see all of TMK's questions in this thread about marks and abrasions
132c: depends on the rumor
132d: he'll find solace elsewhere
Did the dog run onto the ice first?
Did the man then run after it?
Did the man run onto the ice first?
Did the dog then run after him?
OK, I'm guessing that this lake harbored the unspeakable evil of Yog-Sothoth. The man was walking his dog innocently through the woods, by his bad luck it happened to be the winter solstice, when the Elder Spirits are at their most active. As they passed the lake, man and dog were seized by Yog Sothoth's eldritch minions, rended and torn and sacrificed to the god. They were then pulled into the water as it froze, the god's bestial appetite for blood sated.
In 135, 134 should be 133d.
these are still a little hard to answer, but here's my effort at least misleading
136a) yes
136b) no
136c) no
136d) no
137, yes. A more hearty yes than to "did the dog run onto the ice first" for slight reasons of implication.
141: No
Does the age of the man (young teen, see 5, 11) have anything to do with the answer?
Was the man dead before entering the water?
Is the area around the lake wooded?
Was the man killed by falling icicles? An avalanche?
Was the man dragged onto the ice by the dog?
Was the man dragged into the water? By the dog?
Was the man riding on the dog, which is why you don't like the word "first"?
Did the dog drag the man onto the ice?
Did the man have abrasions before entering the water? Did he have any blood loss? Was he suffering from frostbite? From hypothermia (even if it didn't kill him)?
Was the man very hungry before dying?
Was the death caused in part by (a) carelessness or (b) poor planning on the part of the man?
150a) no
150b) no
I didn't like the word "first" because it implied something inaccurate about what the man was doing.
Did the man ever run on to the ice? Did the man go from not on the ice to on the ice by a volitional act?
Was the man being chased by something?
152a) yes
152 b) yes
152 c)no
152d) no
152e) no
153 no
154 yes to both
Did they die as the result of the kind of man and dog activity that has Santorum so worried?
156a) no
156 b) yes
157) at any time? yes.
158) irrelevant
160) no
Was the blood loss the cause of death? Was it serious? Was it caused by an accident with a knife? A gun?
138: as an aside, kicks at least 5 of the 7 kinds of ass. probably more.
162a) for hypertechnical reasons of phrasing, I *think* the answer to this is no, but don't read too much into that
163b) yes
no to the rest of 163
damn, didn't close that link properly. sigh.
arg. in 164, I mean only to refer to 162. I get confused when answering the multiparts.
Was an animal chasing them?
Did the dog pull the man onto the ice?
Tia, do you not not not ever dislike not not me?
Did the volitional act involve a vehicle?
Did it involve any aid to motion (roller skate's, skis, anything other than the un-aided human body)?
When, in the post, you use the words "his dog" do you mean that the man had the relationship of ownership to a canine and that the same canine is the one which died in the same manner which he did, on a temporarily frozen lake?
168a)no
168b) I think three other people have asked this. including you! no.
Is there any evidence at the scene after the death as to how the death occurred?
If not, how can this be based on a true story? Because the guy just barely survived in the real one?
175a) There is.
Anyway, it's based on a true story. I took some liberties. In the real version the guy escaped death, but he easily might not have.
Were they being chased by a person? Was the person trying to kill the man?
177: no. No one else is around. I said that somewhere upthread.
Was the man being chased by anything? Did the chaser have anything to do with the man's death? Did what the man was being chased by cause the man's injuries?
I don't get it. If he was being chased by something at some point in time, but it wasn't human or animal...
179a). yes at some point
179b) yes
179c) yes
your last sentence contains a presumption not supported by what I said.
Before he died, did the man have a gun?
Was an animal chasing the man?
Was an animal chasing the dog?
Did the chaser physically injure the man?
Did the chaser physcially injure the dog?
Your answer to 168a ("was an animal chasing them?") was negative. Your answer to 177a ("were they being chased by a person") was negative. And yet "If he was being chased by something at some point in time, but it wasn't human or animal..." contains an invalid presumption. Hmm...
Well, it should go without saying that plenty of us would like to meet you.
What's wrong with that number?
181a: no
181b: yes
181c: yes
181d: yes
181e: yes
182: I stand by everything.
If this computer had Firefox, tabbed browsing would have prevented that. I have too many windows open.
It's a thoroughly immoral number. Have you heard what happened to 186?
OK, now your little semantic games are starting to unravel... *maniacal laughter*
Gotcha. Figured we need to separate the 'them'.
Did the man run onto the lake?
Did the dog attempt to defend the man from the chaser?
Can the chaser fly?
Is the chaser supernatural?
192a) no
192b) no
192c) no
192d) no. This is a totally plausible story. There aren't any supernatural elements.
Did the dog (the one that died) harm the man?
There aren't any supernatural elements.
Certainly not. The Elder Deities are foundational elements of our reality, nothing is more "natural" than they.
Is that which chased the man, but not the dog, an animal?
Was the man startled at being chased?
Did the chaser cause the wounds on the dog?
Did the man and dog die of starvation?
Does that make the dog "the chaser" in your answer to 181d?
Was the man also chasing the dog (in 181e)?
or was there a third party involved at some point?
could you edit comment 199 so we know which questions you're answering?
I deny that A can have the relationship to B "being chased by" at the same time that A has the relationship to B "is chasing." I therefore ask:
was the dog chasing the man prior to the man chasing the dog?
was the man chasing the dog prior to the dog chasing the man?
Did the dog cause his own wounds during the chase?
Sorry, yes, just a sec, I get all bolloxed with the multipart questions like I said.
It would be easier for the readers, perhaps, if you just edited all the comments with questions to add an answer to them directly. Is that doable, convenient?
204 was based on a misreading of 199, ignore it.
Yeah, a different format might help, with the answer enclosed in brackets. Sorry we keep asking repeat questions, but it's tricky: find the question, scroll down 5-7 comments, hope the numbers line up, remember the precise wording.
Cala, I edited
207) no
204) what? maybe you were confused by my messed up 199, which is now edited.
205) yes
208: it would probably easier for me just to type complete sentences, so I'll do that from now on.
Would it be fair to describe the dog's actions as 'attacking the man'?
213: It would not be fair to describe the dog's actions as attacking the man.
A volunteer with a web site (or who knows a wiki that would be friendly) could make a page listing and organizing all the questions as they're asked and answered. I would be one such volunteer, for future games.
216: The chase began playfully.
217: The man was not attacking the dog.
Did the dog initiate the chase?
If so, was it as a game?
Did the man think he was being attacked?
If so, did he respond by attacking the dog?
219:
The dog initiated the chase.
The dog thought it was a game
The man did not think he was being attacked.
He did not respond by attacking the dog.
Was the man asleep when the dog initiated the chase?
Was he startled by the dog's initiation of the chase?
Are the wounds on the man the result of the chase?
When the chase began, were they already on the ice of the lake?
The dog caused the injuries which caused serious blood loss in the man?
The man was aware that the dog caused these injuries?
The man wasn't asleep when the dog initiated the chase.
The man was startled by the dog's initiation of the chase
The wounds on the man are the result of the chase
They were already on the ice when the chase began.
The dog caused the injuries that caused serious blood loss in the man.
The man was aware that the dog caused these injuries.
After the dog caused the injuries, the man did not think he was being attacked by the dog?
The man was in an altered state of consciousness?
227: The man did not think he was being attacked by the dog.
No he was not in an altered state of consciousness.
Did the dog cause the wounds by biting? using claws?
By another kind of physical contact?
Or by the man trying to avoid the dog?
Are the injuries which the dog has serious?
If so, did the dog cause the serious injuries himself?
Did the injuries on the man cause the man's death?
Did the injuries on the dog cause the dog's death?
Did the dog run further onto the ice when the man was injured?
Did the man shout at the dog?
229: The dog did not cause the wounds by biting or using claws.
I guess I'll say yes, the dog caused the wounds by physical contact.
The wounds were not caused by the man trying to avoid the dog.
Did the man fall through the ice?
Did the dog fall through the ice?
Did the man break a bone?
Did the dog break a bone?
Were the injuries caused by falling on the ice?
230: The man, I guess, was aware of his injuries.
231: The dog has serious injuries. The dog caused the injuries. The injuries on the man caused the man's death. The injuries on the dog caused the dog's death. The dog did not run further onto the ice when the man was injured. At some point, the man shouted at the dog.
Both the man and the dog fell through the ice.
Did the dog injure the man while attempting climb out of the water back onto the ice?
234: They probably both broke bones. The injuries were not caused by falling on the ice
236: The dog did not injure the man while attempting to climb out of the water back onto the ice.
Did any of the man's injuries occur before he fell through the ice?
Did any of the man's injuries occur after he fell through the ice?
Did any of the dog's injuries occur before it fell through the ice?
Did any of the dog's injuries occur after it fell through the ice?
Was a structure present on the ice?
Was a fire/heat source present on the ice?
Were any of the injuries burns?
239:Yes, some of the man's injuries occured before he fell through the ice?
Maybe some others occured after he fell through the ice too, but it hardly mattered.
The same holds true for the dog.
240: A structure was not present on the ice. A fire/heat source of sorts was present on the ice. Some of the injuries were burns.
Were the writhing, wailing denizens of heck presont on the ice?
241: a vehicle was not present on the ice.
243: the writhing, wailing denizens of heck were not presont on the ice.
Did the man realize he was on ice before he fell through? (Take "before" not to mean "immediately before".)
Were the man and the dog dead before they fell through the ice?
248: I think this has been asked, and I'm not sure how long it would take them to actually die, so I could answer yes or no without it making a big difference, I think.
Okay, I'll ask it a different way:
Were the injuries they received prior to falling through the ice sufficient to cause their deaths?
Were the man and the dog injured simultaneously?
Did the man fall in the fire?
Did the dog fall in the fire?
The injuries they received prior to falling through the ice were sufficient to cause their deaths. They were injured simultaneously.
I didn't say there was a fire, precisely.
Was there a campfire? Was there a device containing an actual flame? Was there a lantern? Was the device hot on any exposed part?
252: There wasn't a campfire.
There was at one point a device that contained a flame, if I understand the mechanism correctly.
There wasn't a lantern.
At some points, the device was hot on an exposed part.
Was the device designed for heating spaces? Was it designed for cooking?
The device was not designed for heating spaces or cooking.
Was the device powered on gasoline? Kerosene? Other-petroleum? Wood? Electricity?
See 242: "some of the injuries were burns".
Is that to me? You can be burned by a gun at close range.
The device was not a gun.
257: The device was not powered by any of those things.
Can someone summarize the earlier parts about an animal chasing the man or dog? I'm too lazy to reread 230 comments. By caused, but not with it's claws or teeth, it could be that the dog instigated said animal.
Was the device mechanical? Was it improvised by the man?
The dog is the animal chasing the man. Apparently it's all in fun, as far as the dog and man are concerned, until the accident happens. The dog isn't rabid or aggressive.
I'm not sure I know what "mechanical" means here. It was not improvised by the man.
Part of 263 is actually somewhat misleading.
Was the heat source present prior to the arrival of the dog?
Was the heat source present prior to the arrival of the man?
Did the man bring the heat source with him?
Did the dog bring the heat source with him?
The man brought the heat source with him.
Is the first sentence of 263 misleading?
Is the second?
Is the third?
See 227, 225, 218, 214, 211, 205 about the second sentence.
Did the chase begin playfully, then turn into an aggressive chase?
At any point, was the man running for his life? The dog?
The man was running for his life. The dog was not. The chase was never aggressive.
Was the man running because the ice was becoming unstable?
Could the dog be better described as following, rather than chasing, the man?
The man was not running because the ice was becoming unstable.
I don't know, this is kind of semantic. I think both words could be okay.
Was either of them travelling by hot air balloon at any point within 24 hours of thier deaths?
Neither of them were traveling by hot air baloon.
The man was hott. The dog had a psychotic break and thought the man was Alpo. Shortly after the dog started chasing him, the man turned into Alpo. Poisonous Alpo! The dog ate him and died.
275: see 104.
"Shortly before entering the lake, was the man more than a few feet off the ground?" "no"
Had the man been bleeding for more than a few minutes before he entered the water?
Have people been much less quick to guess than you would have imagined, Tia?
Was the dog running after the man with a stick of dynamite in his mouth, than, when it exploded, did great injury to the man & dog, and also shattered the ice, so they slipped under as they lay dying?
I didn't think so.
Have you read that Jack London story, Cala?
Their purpose there was recreational.
285: There purpose there was recreational, it's true.
What's recreational about trinitroglycerine?
Well part of the mystery is wtf he was doing with the dynamite. You're mostly there, now.
Yes, they were fishing with the dynamite.
So he was fishing with dynamite and the dog had been trained to fetch things thrown so the man was quite shocked to see the dog pick up the dynamite and come running back towards him and he ran away and I am not going to punctuate this
My days are peaceful now, and my night's sleep deep.
I'm confused about its truth status now, because I thought I read about it on the Darwin Awards site, and not in the urban legends section, but when I google around for it again, I get an urban legend that's slightly different from what I read, and a reference that's clearly to this story (and represented as true) in a sidebar elsewhere, but I can't find what I read. I'll have to read eb's Jack London story.
No ice in the London story (which is linked in 289 for those of you who don't click on or hover over the links).
DOTE
TROUT
I like to dote.
I like to dote
Upon the trout.
EXPLOTE
You will not
Dote on trout.
Ack, sorry. That was meant to be a smart-ass guess.
97 threw me off fishing.
Oops. In 299, 298 should be 297.
The "urban legend" part is that people get mixed up and say "dynamite" in place of "keening horde of the undead". Other than that, totally factual.
No need to apologize for guessing correctly if you were playing the game! The only time you shouldn't say the answer in the thread is if you knew it already.
This seems like a contest Tia would enjoy.
296 . . . 295 . . . 294 . . .
3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
EXPLOTE!
