No votes yet — be the first!Score: 0
❤️ 0
👍 0
🔧 0
👎 0
💀 0
Vote totals refresh periodically.
Comments (7)
Absentee
13 December 2007
does some former incidence has to the anything with it?
were they three frineds or in any other relation?
zee076
8 June 2008
Considering the facts provided it seems that Man B was hired by Man C to assasinate/murder Man A. Does that seem right ?
Shadow Hunter
4 September 2008
Man B was hired to kill man A. Man A had a tatoo on his arm, so his severed arm would be proof to man C that man A is dead
mallk10
14 August 2009
Man A. B and C were all deserted on a desert island together. They made an agreement that they would all cut off their arms to eat. Man B and C did it but they were rescued before Man A could. He promised them that he would cut off his arm when he got back home. Man B sees Man A with both of his arms. He calls man C to discuss this and they decide to kill Man A. Man B follows Man A and cuts off his arm and sends it to man C to let him know the job is done.
Mr JG Reeder
21 August 2010
There are quite a few variations on this scenario - I particularly like the one with the neatly severed arm delivered in a parcel - however, it doesn't involve murder, but accepting the consequences of an agreement. Perhaps a little more gentlemanly I think, however, it may depend on the audience...
cat
4 July 2011
Man C is the man from the south in the Roald Dahl story. Man B has lost a bet to him and run away without paying. The bet was for Man B's left arm (against a Cadillac). He knows that Man C is persistent and will track him down. Man A, on the other hand (!), just happens to be a perfect stranger who has the same size, build, and skin tone as Man B. So....
agarhi
11 July 2014
Man A said he was the best 'Lateral Thinking - Fanciful' problem solver and agreed if he can't solve one he be punished in whatever way B and C want. He couldn't solve the "The cut off arm" problem.
Comments (7)
does some former incidence has to the anything with it?
were they three frineds or in any other relation?
Considering the facts provided it seems that Man B was hired by Man C to assasinate/murder Man A. Does that seem right ?
Man B was hired to kill man A. Man A had a tatoo on his arm, so his severed arm would be proof to man C that man A is dead
Man A. B and C were all deserted on a desert island together. They made an agreement that they would all cut off their arms to eat. Man B and C did it but they were rescued before Man A could. He promised them that he would cut off his arm when he got back home. Man B sees Man A with both of his arms. He calls man C to discuss this and they decide to kill Man A. Man B follows Man A and cuts off his arm and sends it to man C to let him know the job is done.
There are quite a few variations on this scenario - I particularly like the one with the neatly severed arm delivered in a parcel - however, it doesn't involve murder, but accepting the consequences of an agreement. Perhaps a little more gentlemanly I think, however, it may depend on the audience...
Man C is the man from the south in the Roald Dahl story. Man B has lost a bet to him and run away without paying. The bet was for Man B's left arm (against a Cadillac). He knows that Man C is persistent and will track him down. Man A, on the other hand (!), just happens to be a perfect stranger who has the same size, build, and skin tone as Man B. So....
Man A said he was the best 'Lateral Thinking - Fanciful' problem solver and agreed if he can't solve one he be punished in whatever way B and C want. He couldn't solve the "The cut off arm" problem.
Add a Comment or Suggest an Answer