So, here is your task: you have to find the logical, yet basic, very basic,
truly basic, rule, so that you and others (if needed) may construct a very
long reply, as long as you can do, which follows the basic rule, this rule
that is maybe not clear to all....
I suspect a very apt rejoinder may need much time, and be hard to very
difficult - so, a hint: use of little words may help!
Good luck!
Tim
> Herein my own puzzle. If my basic rule is enforced, all of the words that
> one may see, or maybe how all the words may fit closely in a sentence,
> follow a rule; a specific but general dictum.
I reckon that I have found a rule which your text follows, and thus
mine too.
Are my words that I put here, as I've thought, as you need so they
follow this rule?
Much too easy. I solved it before I could even blurt "Jack Robinson".
Why not give us a more difficult one, Tim?
Roy
Ah, very good, yes Richard, yes, good sentences, Roy! But very long is
hard, yes?
Tim
I'm lost again. Will this do?
Alas, no, Ed, sorry....
Tim
Bluffingly (?),
James
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> ... [and] so, a hint: use of little words may help!
> ... But very long is hard, yes?
> Tim
Why? counterclaimed J. Dow Allen, words that exceed
your length may nevertheless iambic poetry build:
Crackerjack fistfights,
Bankrolled fistfights,
Execrable jiujitsus
and fistfights,
Coldblooded punishings,
Memorable gunfights,
Dockworker fistfights,
Unpronounceable fistfights
Bamboozled uninspiring
Mollycoddled antiquarians.
(Gobbledygook, I guffaw:
comprehensibility dud, eh?)
Drawback: fulfillment awkward.
Unconvincingly,
James Dow Allen