I got bored of my other entries and I like this old one.



Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. If Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers, then how many pickled peppers did Peter piper pick?

How do we answer this question?

First we must understand what a 'peck' auctually is. Is a 'peck' a unit of measure for a certian amount of pickled peppers? If so, how many? Or possibly, a 'peck' here is referring to a morsel, or a snack, so naturally it would be a smaller amount than a meal for an average human.

Then, we must consider if Peter piper is a human at all, though we usually believe that he is, in fact, a human due to the fact that he is supposedly a piper, and he is picking and/or harvesting pickled peppers. (Though, note, there is a species of sea bird called a piper.)

Then, considering that Peter piper is human, is he a piper at all? It is possible, that Peter's last name is Piper. But, if he WERE a piper, then, why would a piper be picking pickled peppers?

Then, we must consider, that Mr. Piper/Peter piper cannot pick pickled peppers at all, as pickled peppers have already been picked/harvested from the vine, and jarred/bottled to be pickled. So, possibly, he is 'picking' or, choosing pickled peppers from a shelf from a market/supermarket/mini-mart/and/or convienience store that just so happens to have pickled peppers. Then, perhaps, if this is true, he is, in fact, human, as an animal or non-human would have no reason (or, in most cases, the sensibility/intelligence of the non-human/animal) to pick pickled peppers from a store shelf.

So, the question REALLY is: If Peter piper/Mr. Piper picked/chose a peck/unit of measure and/or snack/morsel of pickled peppers, then how many pickled peppers did Mr. Piper/Peter piper pick/choose?


Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he?

First, the absolutely prominient question is: If Fuzzy Wuzzy WAS a bear... then what is he now? He can be something entirely different, as the sentence does not state what Fuzzy Wuzzy is in present. Though, also considering that it states that Fuzzy Wuzzy HAD no hair, so he may at present. Also, we might consider that Fuzzy Wuzzy is dead, thus regarding him in past-tense.

Now, regarding the second sentence; Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair, but be might still be fuzzy, as he may have fur or wool, as most animals do rather than hair. Though, there is controversy as to whether hair, wool and fur are, in fact, the same thing (note, if he had fur, it might be considered, 'furry' rather than 'fuzzy'; and 'wooly' for wool). Also considering, that Fuzzy Wuzzy may be wearing an article of clothing that is 'fuzzy' as we have already stated that Fuzzy Wuzzy may no longer be a bear, but possibly something that has the ability to wear clothing.

We MUST also consider that Fuzzy Wuzzy contains the word 'fuzzy' in his name. If Wuzzy is his surname, then his first name is Fuzzy, thus, answering the question as 'Yes' as he is Fuzzy.

So the rhyme REALLY should be: Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear, but may no longer be, and it is unsure as to what he is in his present state. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair, but might at his present state. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy/had no fuzzy articles of clothing, was he?


How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

First, we need to understand the definition of 'chucking'. Three prominient terms for it are:

-to chop into tiny pieces
-to throw, perferably violently, a short distance
-(and from a slang term) to regurgitate

Having read these definitions, we shall continue.

If the woodchuck had the ability to chop wood into tiny pieces, as in the case with physical strength and physical characteristics, it should also need the mental ability to execute such a task. So, asssuming the woodchuck had the physical abilities/characteristics and mental ability, the question seems to ask how much wood could it 'chuck' to exhaustion. This is unknown, as a woodchuck would have different characteristics than our natural woodchucks have, and we are unable to run tests on how much an imaginary animal is capable of executing tasks, namely 'chucking' wood.

We should also consider this previous argument if 'chucking' is referring to throwing. But, the woodchuck does have the ability to throw wood even in its present state, (disregarding its mental limitations) though it would surely be very little, or rather, small pieces (already provided, not made/downsized by the woodchuck itself) thrown in great amounts until the woodchuck had reached it's physical endurance and abilities to give up 'chucking' wood.

If 'chucking' were to mean regurgitating, we would have to know how much wood the woodchuck has consumed, more importantly, when it has consumed as much wood as it possibly can hold within its body(disregarding any known knowledge of woodchucks inability to consume/digest wood.). If these conditions are met, then the answer to the question would simply be: It may chuck as much wood as the woodchuck has consumed and not already digested and passed through its body in the 'natural' way.

Also we must consider the location of the woodchuck, and the amount of wood avaliable to it, though, one should assume it has an infinite supply at its disposal.

So the question REALLY is: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck (chop/throw/regurgitate) if a woodchuck was adapted and/or conditions forced/met to chuck (chop/throw/regurgitate) wood?