Where Am I? Quiz 7

[mullardo]

Are you at Kilburn?

[Going Underground]

Are you at Kilburn?

Not at Kilburn (8/20)

[Going Underground]

Are you on the Bakerloo line?

No not on the Bakerloo line (9/20)

[mullardo]

Rules Question:

A rule in a previous thread stated

"You can neither use
a) the same (or logically equivalant) nor
b) the exact opposite (or logically equivalent)
question of a single previous question asked in the same game... "

Now say you are at station A, and i pose the question "Are you not at A?"

You are not not at A. You are infact at A. However we are then not allowed to pose the question "are you at A?".

[Going Underground]

Rules Question:

A rule in a previous thread stated

"You can neither use
a) the same (or logically equivalant) nor
b) the exact opposite (or logically equivalent)
question of a single previous question asked in the same game... "

Now say you are at station A, and i pose the question "Are you not at A?"

You are not not at A. You are infact at A. However we are then not allowed to pose the question "are you at A?".

Sorry not got a clue what you are trying to say here....

[mullardo]

It is not possible (within this rule) to ask "are you at station A?"

[Going Underground]

It is not possible (within this rule) to ask "are you at station A?"

I think is someone asks you if you are at a specific staion then you have to answer that question truthfully......

[Going Underground]

I understand what you are saying, but the point of phrasing such a question like that is...?

To eliminate 1 of 350+ stations? To have a guess in a weird way? It's pointless - you may as well ask "Are you at station A" - the answer given will prove just as much and won;t confuse GU

BTW, are you at Belsize Park?

No Matt (10/20)

[Soup Dragon]

Are you in zone 3-9?

[Going Underground]

Are you in zone 3-9?

Yes soupie (11/20)

[Going Underground]

Isn't SD's last question illegal? (though it does confirm a theory I had )

No idea the rules are more difficult than the actual quizzes themselves

[mullardo]

The last question wasn't illegal. A previous asked question was are you in zone 1,2. This question is Are you in zones 3-9. This question is not the logical oposite as it is only with other questions do we discover that we are in london. This is therefore not against the rules as written.

[Root]

So being in London is not assumed?

[jonny]

Are there any stations that are in both zones 2 and 3? That would prove it not to be the logical opposite.

[Going Underground]

Are you at Burnt Oak?

Not at Burnt Oak (12/20)