Chief Kno-tah
3 messages in this thread |
Started on 2003-03-26
RE: Chief Kno-tah
From: leger de maine (legerdemaine@hotmail.com) |
Date: 2003-03-26 00:32:56 UTC-05:00
So long as I'm picking nits...
The art of the clue is to say it with as few words as possible.
It would appear that Mr. Costley has attained the unattainable
(although, I'd argue that to be considered a valid clue, someone, somewhere,
someday, must be able to decipher it and find the box. Otherwise, you're
just playing with yourself.)
I'd like to point out, before you lay claim to the mantle of most
minimalist cluemonger, that it took you a very long paragraph to explain
that your clue was completely without substance. It is possible that someone
(or even many) have already beat you to the punch here, and there are other
boxes out there that achieve perfect cluelessness, because the clue
writer(s) understood that the mere mention of the existence of the non-clue
was in fact, a clue itself.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Chief Kno-tah
From: bcostley (bobbyeubanks@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2003-03-26 05:57:23 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "leger de maine"
wrote:
>
> So long as I'm picking nits...
>
> The art of the clue is to say it with as few words as
possible.
>
> It would appear that Mr. Costley has attained the
unattainable
> (although, I'd argue that to be considered a valid clue, someone,
somewhere,
> someday, must be able to decipher it and find the box. Otherwise,
you're
> just playing with yourself.)
I know at least one person has figured out generally where it is.
But one must also find the four-leafed clover in the patch so
withhold the crown for the moment.
>
> I'd like to point out, before you lay claim to the mantle of
most
> minimalist cluemonger, that it took you a very long paragraph to
explain
> that your clue was completely without substance.
Yep. I debated quite a while on whether or not to have the
explanation. Leaving the explanation out would have certainly been
scantier.
It is possible that someone
> (or even many) have already beat you to the punch here, and there
are other
> boxes out there that achieve perfect cluelessness, because the
clue
> writer(s) understood that the mere mention of the existence of the
non-clue
> was in fact, a clue itself.
Indeed. I've even found a box without using any clues (they exisited
but were at the time unpublished). So I've at least accomplished the
ultimate in the other direction. Although I guess in that I wasn't
actually looking for that particular box - or any box - and rather a
hiding spot, it doesn't really count.
My wife smiled when she read this, but whether her red grin is
significant, I can't say.
>
> So long as I'm picking nits...
>
> The art of the clue is to say it with as few words as
possible.
>
> It would appear that Mr. Costley has attained the
unattainable
> (although, I'd argue that to be considered a valid clue, someone,
somewhere,
> someday, must be able to decipher it and find the box. Otherwise,
you're
> just playing with yourself.)
I know at least one person has figured out generally where it is.
But one must also find the four-leafed clover in the patch so
withhold the crown for the moment.
>
> I'd like to point out, before you lay claim to the mantle of
most
> minimalist cluemonger, that it took you a very long paragraph to
explain
> that your clue was completely without substance.
Yep. I debated quite a while on whether or not to have the
explanation. Leaving the explanation out would have certainly been
scantier.
It is possible that someone
> (or even many) have already beat you to the punch here, and there
are other
> boxes out there that achieve perfect cluelessness, because the
clue
> writer(s) understood that the mere mention of the existence of the
non-clue
> was in fact, a clue itself.
Indeed. I've even found a box without using any clues (they exisited
but were at the time unpublished). So I've at least accomplished the
ultimate in the other direction. Although I guess in that I wasn't
actually looking for that particular box - or any box - and rather a
hiding spot, it doesn't really count.
My wife smiled when she read this, but whether her red grin is
significant, I can't say.
Re: [LbNA] Re: Chief Kno-tah
From: Fudrick (fudrick@attbi.com) |
Date: 2003-03-26 11:53:30 UTC-08:00
I may have done even better, finding a letterbox before it was a letterbox!
I went to Kennedy Creek to plant boxes for the recent Weblos outing. As I
was wandering around looking for good hiding places, I came across a good
spot that would have a good orienteering clue. When I looked, it appeared
someone else had found it already, so I decided to log in. I reached in and
found a videocassette case. When I opened it, there wasn't a letterbox, but
just a note: "This spot reserved for Evil Glenn"! I logged in on the back
of the reservation!
Fudrick
----- Original Message -----
From: bcostley
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Chief Kno-tah
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "leger de maine"
> wrote:
> >
> > So long as I'm picking nits...
> >
> > The art of the clue is to say it with as few words as
> possible.
> >
> > It would appear that Mr. Costley has attained the
> unattainable
> > (although, I'd argue that to be considered a valid clue, someone,
> somewhere,
> > someday, must be able to decipher it and find the box. Otherwise,
> you're
> > just playing with yourself.)
>
> I know at least one person has figured out generally where it is.
> But one must also find the four-leafed clover in the patch so
> withhold the crown for the moment.
>
> >
> > I'd like to point out, before you lay claim to the mantle of
> most
> > minimalist cluemonger, that it took you a very long paragraph to
> explain
> > that your clue was completely without substance.
>
> Yep. I debated quite a while on whether or not to have the
> explanation. Leaving the explanation out would have certainly been
> scantier.
>
> It is possible that someone
> > (or even many) have already beat you to the punch here, and there
> are other
> > boxes out there that achieve perfect cluelessness, because the
> clue
> > writer(s) understood that the mere mention of the existence of the
> non-clue
> > was in fact, a clue itself.
>
> Indeed. I've even found a box without using any clues (they exisited
> but were at the time unpublished). So I've at least accomplished the
> ultimate in the other direction. Although I guess in that I wasn't
> actually looking for that particular box - or any box - and rather a
> hiding spot, it doesn't really count.
>
> My wife smiled when she read this, but whether her red grin is
> significant, I can't say.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
I went to Kennedy Creek to plant boxes for the recent Weblos outing. As I
was wandering around looking for good hiding places, I came across a good
spot that would have a good orienteering clue. When I looked, it appeared
someone else had found it already, so I decided to log in. I reached in and
found a videocassette case. When I opened it, there wasn't a letterbox, but
just a note: "This spot reserved for Evil Glenn"! I logged in on the back
of the reservation!
Fudrick
----- Original Message -----
From: bcostley
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Chief Kno-tah
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "leger de maine"
>
> >
> > So long as I'm picking nits...
> >
> > The art of the clue is to say it with as few words as
> possible.
> >
> > It would appear that Mr. Costley has attained the
> unattainable
> > (although, I'd argue that to be considered a valid clue, someone,
> somewhere,
> > someday, must be able to decipher it and find the box. Otherwise,
> you're
> > just playing with yourself.)
>
> I know at least one person has figured out generally where it is.
> But one must also find the four-leafed clover in the patch so
> withhold the crown for the moment.
>
> >
> > I'd like to point out, before you lay claim to the mantle of
> most
> > minimalist cluemonger, that it took you a very long paragraph to
> explain
> > that your clue was completely without substance.
>
> Yep. I debated quite a while on whether or not to have the
> explanation. Leaving the explanation out would have certainly been
> scantier.
>
> It is possible that someone
> > (or even many) have already beat you to the punch here, and there
> are other
> > boxes out there that achieve perfect cluelessness, because the
> clue
> > writer(s) understood that the mere mention of the existence of the
> non-clue
> > was in fact, a clue itself.
>
> Indeed. I've even found a box without using any clues (they exisited
> but were at the time unpublished). So I've at least accomplished the
> ultimate in the other direction. Although I guess in that I wasn't
> actually looking for that particular box - or any box - and rather a
> hiding spot, it doesn't really count.
>
> My wife smiled when she read this, but whether her red grin is
> significant, I can't say.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>