NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

[explosivecombat]

[TEXT; LOCKED TO doitrockapella]

The offer for conversation is always open, should you desire to take me up on it; I can't guarantee that I'll respond immediately, nor will it necessarily be the response you want, but I'll always respond in some way.

In the name of enlightened discourse.

Comments

[explosivecombat]

I'd like that; I've needed something to pass the time myself - the Legion of Evil isn't meeting today, it looks like.

[doitrockapella]

Is that what you're calling yourselves now?

[Says the woman who founded the Villain's International League of Evil.]

You didn't ask how I did on the first one. Was that intentional?

[explosivecombat]

Well, someone suggested "Phalanx of Villainy," but I thought that was a little over-the-top.

And it was at the time, but now I'm curious, since you're bringing it up.

[doitrockapella]

So are some of your members.

The omission was glaring; it's the natural thing to ask, when dealing with an exercise that's also supposedly a form of psychological profiling.

[explosivecombat]

True enough, but you've given me more than enough reason to doubt any claims to sociopathy on your part.

[doitrockapella]

That's right. Which means it begs the question of whether or not the riddle really proves what someone is, or if it simply illustrates how creatively one is able to think.

[explosivecombat]

Of course it doesn't prove what someone is - psychological profiling as a whole often proves nothing, just because it doesn't weed out the dangerous; it simply weeds out the stupid.

[doitrockapella]

Not to mention that in this particular instance, I had the benefit of knowing it was a riddle to begin with. I knew from the start I should be looking for unusual solutions, simply by virtue of knowing the system that was presenting me the problem.

[explosivecombat]

Hence it really wasn't necessary for me to ask you anything, regarding how you may have done with regards to that question.

[doitrockapella]

True. But I don't like it when people aren't interested in me.

[explosivecombat]

Do you really think I would still be talking to you if I were disinterested?

[doitrockapella]

Occasionally you fall short of my exacting standards.

[explosivecombat]

You're going to have to be more specific for me.

[doitrockapella]

I'll give you a riddle instead.

A fishing boat pulls a half-drowned man out of the sea. As they're drying him off and bringing him aid on the deck, the bedraggled man grasps the first mate by the lapels and gasps out a question — the first and only time he'd spoken since his rescue: "Is there seaweed in the water?"

When the first mate answers in the negative, the man shoves him away and hurls himself overboard, this time to his own death. Why?

[explosivecombat]

Can I assume I'm allowed to ask you questions of at least the "yes or no" variety if I can't work this out on my own?

[doitrockapella]

You certainly may. This one's more designed for that sort of interrogative method than the other, anyway.

[explosivecombat]

All right, then.

Presumably there was something in the water that would give the rescued man the impression that there should be seaweed present, that much is obvious; he also has some idea of what that something would be, if not seaweed, and the revelation that it was, in fact, that particular something is bad enough for him to kill himself over.

Let's start by verifying whether that "something" he killed himself over is something that wouldn't naturally have been in the water. I'm going to say that its presence in the water is unnatural - basically, we're not looking at the sudden resurfacing of...I don't know, the Kraken or what have you, this is something that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Am I on track so far?

[doitrockapella]

Now I'm going to suggest that you to be more specific. I like to hear your rationale, but I'm only going to answer questions in the affirmative or the negative — and given the multitude of considerations available to "Am I on track with everything I've said so far", all I can give you in response is "Yes and no".

[explosivecombat]

Regarding the unnatural nature of whatever it was in the water, primarily; that would be the main concern right now. If you would like something more specific, I'll suggest that it was something with him when he ended up in the water himself.

[doitrockapella]

Then yes, it was something with him when he ended up in the water.

[explosivecombat]

...you know, you're particularly morbid today, if it's going where I suspect it is.

Was he alone before this incident that left him near-drowned?

[doitrockapella]

Am I?

He was not.

[explosivecombat]

Well, that depends, doesn't it - was the second person alive at the time that the man was recovered?

[doitrockapella]

Yes, they were.

[explosivecombat]

That does change things a bit; I can see why you required a more specific answer earlier, given the ambiguity presented by "killing himself" - assuming, that is, that it wasn't suicide but rather an attempted rescue that wasn't carried through. But that can wait for a moment - I want to verify something about the entire seaweed business first.

The second person - they weren't long-haired, by any chance, were they?