Did you hope it would somehow reimburse someone who paid for their ticket(s)?
Nope.
Were you looking for an excuse to not spend money? example: “I would love to go but I just bought these tickets and don’t have any cash”.
Well, (a) no, I wasn’t looking for an excuse; but (b) even if I had wanted to say that I’d spent the money, wouldn’t I have spent it on a ticket or two and gotten a ticket or two? Or — if I didn’t want any tickets — wouldn’t I have spent the money on stuff I’d wanted to spend the money on?
Did you want to see the play with your significant other, but when circumstances prevented that, you still wanted your significant other to at least go and enjoy the show themself?
I’m not 100% sure I understand what you’re asking; I’ve said there was “nothing tangible gained, for the money handed over” — sure as I answered Sigene’s question about whether I or anyone else got something of value — precisely because handing over the money didn’t make any difference when it came to my significant other seeing the play or not seeing the play.
I think you said the ticket was for Guys and Dolls. Was it important that the show be Guys and Dolls, as opposed to another production? Did it just have to be the school’s current production?
Was it important you paid in cash?
Was the money yours?
It just happened to be the university’s current production. I think the cash is at least important to the extent that I didn’t think they could run a card transaction for a showing that was already sold out, but that I could physically hand cash to them.
Was the money mine? I’m guessing that it’s just money I’d lawfully acquired while earning a paycheck, but maybe I’m missing something; what are you getting at, here?
Lateral thinking, just mused that maybe the money you were giving the theater wasn’t your own money, and you were bound in some way to hand it over. Which brings us to my answer, you WERE bound (in a way) to give them the money. I’m boldly and foolishly declaring that I’ve figured it out.
You gave the theater money because you owed the theater money. At some time in the past you watched a show without paying and this was your chance to go pay it back. You didn’t need a ticket because you were paying for something you already got. You didn’t want to buy a future ticket because you might deny the theater future revenue for a sold out show.
That’s exactly right!
Dirtball almost got it with the first real guess, but put in the extra work of specifically asking if I’d previously had a ticket that I used — but the whole point is that, no, I never had a ticket; they refused to sell me any tickets, stating that they were sold out, and I went in and watched the play anyway: from one of a number of seats that remained empty throughout the performance.
And then I went back to the box office the next day, and explained myself while handing them the cash.
that was a good one. A good puzzle with a great solution
Thanks!
And I almost forgot: when I mention this, and go light on the details, folks are free to infer — heck, I’m free to imply — that, upon getting a ‘no’ from the ticket seller, (a) my response was to see if I could get past the ticket taker, and that (b) I was the kind of guy who’d come up with some stratagem on the fly that’d be clever enough to work. So, in that version, it maybe sounds like my go-to response is, uh, unscrupulous but resourceful?
But the truth is: I’d asked a girl I was dating if she’d like to go to that play — and when we arrived, and they of course refused to let me buy any tickets to the sold-out showing, she promptly decided to see if she could get us past the ticket taker, and she promptly succeeded. So, in that version, I guess my go-to response can only be summed up as “go along with what my significant other has in mind.”
And I’ve never quite been able to figure out which makes me look worse.
Time for a new one?
X is a popular item that is enjoyed by people all over the world. If you asked any adult or school-aged child to describe an X, they would have no trouble doing so, and they would probably mention a particular attribute, Y, that Xes are especially known for. Some time ago, I noticed that a lot of the Xes I came across these days seemed to be lacking in Y. I found that disappointing, since I quite like the Y of an X (as do most people) but I didn’t really think much about it until I went on vacation in a country that exports a lot of Xes and had the opportunity to tour a facility where they were produced. One of the people who worked there explained the surprising, but logical, reason for the proliferation of Y-less Xes.
What was the reason?
Is x a food or drink?
If not would you generally find it
in the living room?
The kitchen?
the bathroom?
Somewhere else indoors?
Outdoors?
Not usually, although nothing bad would happen to you if you ate one.
Living room, kitchen: yes. Bathroom: not usually. Somewhere else indoors: yes. Outdoors: yes.
Is X made of plastic, metal, paper, rubber, paint, some non metal mineral (like graphite) or multiple components of these? Is it made with things other than what I just listed as well?
Is Y made up of only one material component, or is it also made of several materials?
Is this something that is particularly associated with school-aged children? and adults are more likely to ‘reminisce’ about X rather than be the primary enjoyer of it?
Is X a toy?
Did it used to be the case that they all had Y?
Is the Y now omitted because it’s cheaper to omit it?
Could one tell at a glance whether any particular X had Y?
Could a typical person tell, from a detailed but superficial examination, whether any particular X had Y?
Do the company or companies that make X make a point of Y in their advertising?
Did they ever make a point of Y in their advertising?
It is not made of any of the listed items, although there are some non-metal minerals involved in the process.
That is a hard question to answer. After Googling, I think there are several chemicals involved in the production of Y, although not really “materials” in the classic sense.
It is not particularly associated with children. (I only mentioned school-aged children because, for example, a three-year-old might not have the language skills to describe an X.)
No.
Yes, I believe so.
Not in any direct way.
A typical person could tell from a superficial examination, but not from a glance alone.
Not usually, but it’s certainly possible that one of them does / did so at some point.
Is X a real physical thing rather than some digital, electronic, software thing. Please confirm that X and Y are real physical things and that they are/were normally manufactured by companies and purchased by the users.
X is a real physical thing. Y is a real physical attribute of that thing.
No, this statement is not accurate.