wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> what happened >> a man on a train
        
(Message started by: BenVitale on Jun 23^rd, 2009, 3:49pm)

Title: a man on a train
Post by BenVitale on Jun 23^rd, 2009, 3:49pm

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Jun 23^rd, 2009, 6:27pm

Search Function! (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_whathappened;action=display;num=1164760850;start=) >:(

Seriously, though... (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_whathappened;action=display;num=1159752289;start=0#0) ::)

But it's all good. (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_whathappened;action=display;num=1159752289;start=0#0) ;D

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by chronodekar on Jun 25^th, 2009, 5:18am

Forgive my ignorance here, but I don't get it. (after reading all those other posts)

I mean, if he's just coming back from Switzerland, that doesn't have anything to do with eye-surgery now does it? :-/

So far the answer that in the smoking car he would have seen the laser scope/target from the gun and had time to duck for cover seems the best option to me. But I'm not satisfied with that. ???

Help ?

-chronodekar

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by towr on Jun 25^th, 2009, 5:29am

Well there isn't a lot of information in the post to go on. So whatever killed him is something you'll have to make up yourself; there are very few real constraints.

I like the laser-scope answer. And I think it does make more sense here than the eye-surgery solution, because most people wouldn't kill themselves if they lost their sight (again).
It might make some sense to assume that if he killed himself that that was the reason, but it doesn't make sense to say he was somehow saved by seeing glowing cigarettes.

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by wolfiewolfie on Jul 19^th, 2009, 9:34pm

[hide]The way I read this, a "non-smoking car", its like he was on a train but if he had been in a car he would have died.

Maybe the train collided with a car, and the car would have been crumpled with no survivors?

or if "non-smoking car" means a non-smoking section of the train, which is usually towards the front i believe (smokers to the back), if the train had crashed, obviously the people towards the front would have a higher chance of dieing.[/hide]

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by chronodekar on Jul 20^th, 2009, 7:09pm

the reasoning about non-smoking section in the front of the train makes sense. Assuming, that the train collides anywhere to begin with.

I like this answer. If nothing else, it seems more realistic than the assassination we had been discussing earlier. :)

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by Grimbal on Jul 26^th, 2009, 8:16pm

Or Swiss people can get really mad at people who smoke in non-smoking wagons...

Another explanation would be:
"If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died. " doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't die. Maybe he would have died anyway.

And for what it's worth, there are no more smoking wagons in Switzerland.

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by sxiz on Mar 3^rd, 2010, 3:04pm

[hide]He was being chased by an assassin with a respiratory illness, so he ran into a smoking car to suffocate his pursuer.[/hide]

Title: Re: a man on a train
Post by Grimbal on Mar 4^th, 2010, 2:18am

Or a juge dismissed a case of a widow who claims her husband died of cancer in a train because he was sitting in a smoker wagon.

The judge concludes: "If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died (also)."