Puzzle Description Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

#1: Mark Conger (aruba) on Jul 18, 2005 [SPOILER]

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Nah, too hot out there. Google images, as usual.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

I guess that could be...sorry, I just heard that somewhere & if what I heard was wrong then so be it :)
I've never researched it, well honestly, because it's just was not that important to me :)
but thank you for your research into this topic, I will know next time the subject comes up.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

I just read it...too funny
I guess we women do rate over a dog :)

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Nancy - Yeah we keep our spit in our mouths

LOL Rea

No comment. LOL

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view hints

Another nice B/W puzzle.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Re #29: Martin, a religion that isn't about "God" is not a mystery at all! Religion does not *require* the worship of a higher power.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism (some sects), Scientology, Satanism (not the kind portrayed in the movies, but the established religion). I know there's more, I just can't recall them right now. All of those are religions, are they not? And they are all atheistic. Some are quite explicitly atheist, and with some it's a little more subtle. But they are all atheistic. (That's not my opinion, it's just the way it is) :-)

Then there are religions that may include god or gods, but the god(s) are certainly not the same as the Christian or Judeo-Christian concept of 'God'. Wicca, Hinduism (again), Shamanism, Shinto, and Native American religions come to mind. Again, there are more, I just can't recall them right now.

On another point, I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said "belief systems that aren't technically religions", I wasn't referring to science per se. I was referring to philosophies or ideologies or a set of ethical beliefs that aren't technically religions. (Maybe that does include science??). For example, Atheism, Humanism, Freethought, Gaianism. Perhaps also Astrology and Metaphysical beliefs.

That is why I said I wish Christians were more tolerant, or accepting, of other belief systems, period. Not just tolerance with certain conditions (which isn't really acceptance or tolerance at all).

And I completely agree with you that religion doesn't have to be exclusive of evolution. I think evolution is indeed well proven.

Religion can be a touchy subject with many people. So, thanks for responding to my questions. Hopefully, I've clarified what I meant.

And my apologies to anyone whose personal belief system(s) I may have overlooked. The oversight is not intentional. I was just listing what I could readily recall. But feel free to yell "Hey, doofus, you forgot 'blank' and 'blank'!" :-)

I tend to be leary of statements like "Christians aren't tolerant" because there are zillions of Christians falling all over the spectrum on tolerance. I dare you to go down to a Unitarian Church and say "Christians aren't tolerant."

Trying to avoid a debate here - I'd have to disagree about the "religions" you list as not being god centered, although perhaps using the term "god" may be the issue. More specifically, they acknowledge a higher power, something greater than themselves. Even Satanism has Satan at it's center. May not be oriented to the "greater good" that most "religions" are but at the least has a central higher power.

The other things you list - to me - may have religious like orientations but really are more cultures or ethical principles.

Don't think I misunderstood you. Science, as a culture, sometimes is practiced like a religion with only reasonable scientific theory and proven principles accepted.

As far as Christians not being tolerant, as a Christian I'd have to say that, fundementally (pardon the pun) I agree. Realizing that this is a broad reaching generalization, I find many Christians to be the most judgemental, intolerant people I know. It's part of the reason I stopped going to brick and mortar churches - there's too many "Christians" there. Instead, I use one of the principles Christ taught and take my church with me wherever I go. ("Wherever 2 or more of you are gathered ...")

Personally, the problem I have with "atheists" in general is that so many of them feel it's necessary to challange or denegrate those of us who are so "weak" as to have faith in something that's difficult (if not impossible) to prove. Bill Mahr, who covets every opportunity to make negative comments in those who "believe in myths" is a prime example. I try not to force my beliefs on everyone else. They're deeply personal. I like live and let live. I wish more atheists would as well.

On that note, I'd like to say, "'Nough said."

If we are getting down to discussing personal religious beliefs, I suppose I should link again to my religious essays on faith and God. These are ridiculously long, so the short version is that I believe that (1) faith is not only a valid approach to understanding the world, but a necessary one. Faith is hope. (2) I believe in God, but disallow any statements of the form "God wants this" or "God hates that". To a human to pretend to know the mind or will of God is arrogance. I distrust all prophets. (3) There are, however, valid, meaningful, and important statements that can be constructed with with the word "God" in them. They are all basically variations on "God bless this" or "Thank God for that". Since these statements are nearly impossible to formulate without the word "God", they are the root and pretty much the complete extent of my faith in God.

So I'm not an atheist. But I'm not much of anything else either.

I enjoyed this philosophical/religious/scientific debate. I won't enter into it, but it's been an interesting read. I'm so glad it was a debate and not a bashing of others views. Refreshing!

Re#32: Yep, I overlooked the Unitarians; an interesting church. But they don't exactly represent the norm or majority in the spectrum of Christian churches. I don't believe I said *all* Christians are intolerant. I said that I wish Christians were more tolerant of other belief systems. Perhaps I should have said, I wish more Christians were more tolerant (though that sounds clumsy to me). If Unitarians have already reached that point, bravo for them! History has proven the intolerance of the Christian religion, and it's still evident today. :-( Yes, a generalization; yes, there are exceptions. In regards to your dare, I cannot accept it because I'm an evil, god-hating Atheist, remember? <insert ominous music> I would melt or turn into a pile of salt or something if I stepped foot in a church. ;-P


Re#33: Whoa, Martin, you can't just drop some mistaken notions and then walk away! Get back here! ;-)

I'm not really trying to debate either. I'm trying to inform. Please understand, I am not attacking you or anyone. I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone either. Have I ever said "Your Christianity is wrong, my beliefs are right!" ??. I just saw some common misconceptions or misunderstandings. Note that I have spent over 30 years of my life researching, exploring, and experiencing various religions. Countless hours reading literature from reliable experts, communicating with teachers and followers of various beliefs, and firsthand experience with a fairly wide range of religions. It's a subject I find fascinating; gobbling up information whenever I can. I don't consider myself an expert, but I'm not uninformed either. It really depends on the religion (there are far too many for me to deeply explore them all) but I'm willing to bet I've spent more time contemplating various beliefs than a LOT of people.

That being so, I fully expected some misconceptions to bubble up. So, it's important to clear up some terminology. Religion does not *require* the worship of a higher power; it often *does* include a belief in a supreme being but it doesn't *have to* to in order to be a religion. This is widely accepted amongst theologians and religious experts. And I don't use the atheistic label in a negative or degrading fashion. To say a religion is atheistic doesn't mean it is false or lesser or any other negative term, it merely means that the religion (or belief system or moral code or what have you) does not include a belief in a supreme being or is not centralized around such a belief.

I'll just expand on a few (yeah, I'm sure you all are REAL excited about that LOL), but maybe (hopefully) you or somebody else reading this finds it interesting.

1. Buddhism. A complex religion/philosophy that many people, primarily Westerners, have misconceptions about. There are many schools (it's more than just the Dalai Lama), but in general they share the same basic philosophy and the same central teachings (i.e. Dharma). In Buddhism, Buddha is NOT a god. Siddhartha Gautama was just a regular human being (and no, he wasn't a bald fat guy, that's another common mistake). He attained enlightenment and thus became known as Buddha (which is a title, not a name; just as Christ is a title, not a name). He then went on to teach others for many years and then he died at the age of 80. Buddhists do not worship Buddha as a god or anything similar. Yes, they pay reverence and respect to him, and view him as a great teacher and as an ideal of wisdom and compassion (amongst other qualities), but this is not worship or prayer. Buddha is not considered a higher power or a supreme being. He specifically advised, in fact, that in order to gain insight and understanding of the 'truth', his students/monks must do it themselves; there is no saviour or god to pray to who will do it for them. (If you disagree, you'll have to take it up with Buddha; they are his teachings). Anyway, this sure seems atheistic; remember, I'm not implying atheistic = bad! One notable exception is Pure Land Buddhism , which does have devotional aspects to it and is more 'faith' based. But even then, the 'faith' or 'prayer' is directed at Amitabha Buddha, not Buddha (Gautama/Shakyamuni).

2. Taoism. Not all forms are atheistic, but in general the concept of Tao (or "the Way") is not at all concerned with a supreme being or a creator or anything like that. Taoism is more concerned with the natural order of things. But I willingly admit that I don't yet know very much about Taoism, much to the chagrin of my Tai Chi Chuan instructors, so I could be wrong. They agree with me however.

3. Hinduism. Hinduism is hard to nail down. The term covers a very wide array of philosophies. All I was saying is that there are some sects, such as Mimansa, that renounce the existence of a supreme godlike creator. By definition, that means those sects are atheistic.

4. Scientology. Complex and often secretive. Not outwardly atheistic, but has atheistic elements. You can be an atheist and still be a Scientologist. This "religion" (quotes intended) can also belong to other categories: theistic, pantheistic, or even polytheistic. In their own words: "Scientology is concerned with the full rehabilitation of man’s innate spiritual self — his capabilities, his awareness and his certainty of his own immortality — and his relationship to the divine." Ok. Yet, it is very unclear what they even mean by 'God' or 'Creator', and Hubbard himself did not promote worship of 'God'. I have other reasons for labeling it as atheistic, but I'll not say any more, since there may be 'auditors' around. :-O

5. Satanism. Ah yes, the dreaded term. But again, a religion that many people have HUGE misconceptions about, and it merits further explanation. Note that I specifically referred to the established religion of Satanism, not the kind portrayed in movies and other media that is often termed 'devil worship'. They are *not* equivalent. The two are commonly referred to as Satanism (big 'S'; established religion) and satanism (little 's'; usually theistic; often a group of angry teens dabbling in black magic; often just an outright fabrication e.g. the SRA issue of the 80's and 90's). The religion that I was referring to is The Church of Satan kind, founded by Anton LaVey in the 60's; they are Satanists (big 'S'). There are other, very similar offshoots of this religion, but LaVey's is the primary and most stable one. A central concept to Satanism *is* atheism; Satanists do not believe in ANY god or deity, and they definitely do not engage in 'devil worship'. They believe that gods are created by man, and not the other way around, and as such, they consider it foolish and irrational to worship any deity. In Satanism, the term 'Satan' is used metaphorically; it is not the devil or the biblical Satan; it's used to represent an energy, a force of nature (an ancient concept that predates Christianity) and also represents the ideal self and individualism.

Well, there you have it. As I said, I'm just trying to provide information and clear up some misconceptions.

As an aside, you said, "The other things you list ... are more cultures or ethical principles.". I'm curious, to which 'things' are you referring? The ones that I called "belief systems that aren't technically religious" or a different list? I'm just not clear about which list you mean. And thank you, Martin, for stating your views on Christian tolerance; IMO, it takes courage to admit that. :-)

Also, thanks to anyone who made it through yet another of my long posts/novels. :-) I *tried* to be brief (oops), but I also wanted to try to be clear. ... Jan is going to have to start charging me publication fees.

Your mistaken notions are not necessarily my mistaken notions. If you'll go back and reread my post, you'll see that I never said Budaha was either god, higher power of central figure. I'm starting to guess it'll surprise you that I already knew the difference, especially since you took so much time and effort to "educate" me. Might also surprise you that I'm familiar with the works of Anton LeVey.

I really didn't want to type this. I'm done. Please respect that.

There goes the debate ....

"so much time and effort" LOL. Please. It took hardly any effort or time at all. After 30+ years of studying the subject, it just rolls right off the fingertips. Really, it was my pleasure. And the post wasn't just for you.

"Please respect that." No, I won't respect that. If you address me, and you continue to spread false and misleading information, I have a right to respond, as does anyone else who wishes to do so. If you accuse me of having mistaken notions, yet provide no specifics or evidence to back up that claim, then I have a right to respond.

But thank you, Martin, for exactly the knee jerk response I expected. I've proven and explained my points, but you remain in the dark, where it's nice and safe. Why are you so afraid to examine your misconceptions about this subject? Never mind, I already know the answer.

You did indeed imply that Buddha was a god, or higher power, or whatever term you want to use. It's right there in #33. Can't you see it? But instead of admitting you were mistaken (oh the horror that would be), you now try to say you know the difference. What?! Any Buddhist teacher or anyone who has studied Buddhism would never have made the outright false and unfounded statements you made in #33.

The same goes for your supposed knowledge of LaVey and his ideology. Anybody with knowledge of LaVey, and the religion he founded, would have never made the erroneous and misguided claims you made in #33. But again, how scary it would be to simply admit you were mistaken. Knowledge, oh no, run run!

It's just misconception after misconception.

Oh that's right, it's me with the mistaken notions, right? Yet you provide no examples, no proof, nothing to back up that claim. Interesting.

By the way, it is Buddha not "Budaha", and it is LaVey not "LeVey". But, hey, you are SO familiar with the subjects, one would think you would know such a simple thing as that. Oh, let me guess, it was just a typo, right? Uh huh. Typo or intentional, it still belittles the religions those names are connected to.

Your posts clearly show your lack of understanding; it's unfortunate you can't see that. But instead of just admitting it, you get defensive or evasive.

Some people just aren't interested in facts and truths, I guess.

You may respond as you wish. My request was that you respect my desire to no longer participate in this discussion, especially since I specifically stated that I do not want to debate either.

I find no reference to Budha, no specific statement that he is the central figure in Budhism, in fact I do not find the words Budha or Budhism anywhere in #33. Aparantly, as with mistaken notions, my implications also are not your implications. Ditto on LaVey. I did say that for those who practice Satanism, Satan is their central figure. Be that "TV Satanism" as you call it or that of teenagers, it is still "Satanism." As with many religions, there are different flavors.

I am not afraid to examine anything, but I am also not prone to letting someone I don't know more about than that their adgenda is different than mine educate me. Pay attention because you may also learn something. I have the dignity to stick my convictions and my intentions. My sole intention in participating in this discussion (not debate) was to say that as a Christian I do not find evolution and Christianity mutually exclusive. Beyond that I have no other intent.

I hope, for your sake, that you don't fall into the unfortunate "scary" position at a critical time to admit that you were mistaken about Christanity as you accuse me doing in the face of knowledge.

So, to be clear, I'm not running. I joined this discussion for my one stated purpose. I've completed that. I was respectful of your intrest in my opions with my answers. I have no intention of continuing with that respect with I am in turn treated with such disrespect. You may now continue to flame away.

“Flame away”? Because I engaged in critical analysis that means it was a flame? I was neither angry, nor was I intending to provoke anger. If you choose to interpret it as a flame, so be it. As I said in #38, if you address me etc. This is a public forum; thus comments are open to discussion. To state a disagreement to something I wrote, and then remain unwilling to “debate” those points or provide the reasons, seems like bad form to me. Why even bother posting if all you want to say is “I disagree with you, but I won’t explain why, I won’t enter into a debate, I won’t discuss it”??

Regarding disrespect, why do you continue to misspell Buddha & Buddhism? To me, that seems disrespectful to the nearly 500 million Buddhists on this planet. As I said, typo or intentional slight, it still belittles the religion those terms are associated with. Note that your typing accuracy for the term “Christianity” is extremely high. Fascinating. I wonder what would happen if I started typing “Jesas Crust”? Do you see my point?

You say you find no reference to Buddha or Buddhism in #33. Ok, let’s have a look. Come along, General Reader, this will be an interesting journey. Let's begin, shall we, with a statement from #37 we will call Statement A: "I never said Budaha (sic) was either god, higher power of (sic) central figure." Is that so? Let us take a look at post #33. Here we find a statement we will call Statement B: "I'd have to disagree about the "religions" you list as not being god centered, … they acknowledge a higher power, something greater than themselves." Note, there is no specific reference to Buddhism because the author has referred to a list. So, to know which religions are on the list mentioned, we take a quick hop to post # 31 and find out they are: Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism (some sects), Scientology, Satanism (the established religion). Well, isn't that interesting. Did you spot it, General Reader? Let's restate B to include the first item on the list. It then becomes: "I'd have to disagree about [Buddhism] as not being god centered…. [Buddhism] acknowledge[s] a higher power...". Is that not a valid and deductive interpretation of Statement B?! So, we clearly see the author believes that the religions on the list, which includes Buddhism, are "god centered" or "acknowledge a higher power". Ergo, Statement A is false!

BTW, Buddha IS the central figure in Buddhism; he was the founder, and the religion is based on his teachings. But, as I fully explained, Buddha is not a god or supreme being. I understand this can seem confusing. But, just because someone may not personally believe in Buddhism doesn’t change those facts. It is a common misconception, by many people, that Buddha is some sort of supreme being and that he is ‘worshipped’ by Buddhists.

Regarding Satanism. You continue to misunderstand what I was saying. My point on Satanism was simply that it is atheistic. I clearly stated that I was referring to Satanism as being the religion of The Church of Satan. The distinction between “Satanists” (capitalized) and “satanists” (not capitalized) is not something that little old me made up! It is a common distinction, well known in religious studies. Let me repeat, the two are NOT the same; they are not “different flavors”; they are completely different. The fact that you want to combine them and say “it is still Satanism” only shows that you do not have an understanding of the subject matter and you continue to fall victim to misconceptions. But you are definitely not alone; it is a very common misconception.

“I am also not prone to letting someone I don't know more about than that their adgenda is different than mine educate me.” Fine, you don’t have to believe me. You can do your own research. Or you can doggedly stick to your mistaken notions. As I’ve said before, my posts were not for you and you alone. There may be someone else who finds the information interesting. And yes, I have an agenda – to bring to light and hopefully clear up common misconceptions. Problems start because of the prolific spreading of false and erroneous information. My entire purpose in this discussion was to provide information and clear up some common misconceptions. Seriously, what is wrong with that?

“I have the dignity to stick my convictions and my intentions.” Hmmm, “stick my convictions”, oh that just begs for a joke, but I shall resist. ;-) Seriously, is the strength of your convictions so strong that you are unwilling to genuinely consider other arguments, that you are so rigid that you won’t admit if and when you are mistaken? You aren’t really that stubborn and hard-headed are you? :-O I guess the strength of my convictions is low then, since I am certainly willing to change my views. If, in your mind, that means I have no dignity, then so be it.

“I hope, for your sake, that you don't fall into the unfortunate "scary" position at a critical time to admit that you were mistaken about Christanity as you accuse me doing in the face of knowledge.”
Where was I mistaken about Christianity? My only point on Christianity in this discussion was in regards to intolerance. A viewpoint that you agreed with, I might add. “For your sake”? “Critical time”? What are you referring to? Please explain.

Hmmmmm.....

Sorry. This is just an accidental post.

Cro I think that when you wrote #27 something had happened to you that I don't understand ... You changed your tone regarding Martin's comment on #26. Why, may I ask?
I also think that after that the level of the discussion started to deteriorate.
Agree anyone?

I was with Telly on the "glad it was a debate"... So much for refreshing.

Re#43: Jota, of course you can ask. But I'm thick with a nasty head cold so I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I'll try to answer, and if it's not what you were asking about just give me a swat upside the head and ask again. :-)

When I first posted, it was because I solved the puzzle, then saw the description and thought, "That's not right". I felt Jan, or anybody really, should be aware of what the Darwin fish means, what it was created to mean, what message it stands for. Since I was quite sure Jan wasn't an atheist, I thought maybe he wouldn't want to be driving around with an atheist symbol on his car. So, I tried to explain this, to clear up the misconception. (To no effect, it turned out, which is part of what eventually led to the forum topic.) In #27, I was worried that Jan was thinking I was attacking Darwin or his theories or something like that. Not at all. I was just trying to explain the meaning of a specific symbol.

When I addressed questions to Martin in #27, it was because it looked like yet more misconceptions were poking their head up. Either that, or a very limited concept of acceptance. (As it turned out, it was both.) Limiting the term religion to only include those that are a "path to God" is not what the term religion really means. And limiting acceptance to only religions also leaves out many belief systems or moral codes or whatever that aren't technically religions. I was wondering if Martin was aware of this, or if he truly meant that his acceptance only extended to "religions as a path to God". So, I asked some questions.

And, no, I was not attacking Christians. Despite some generalizations made in this discussion about Atheists, I don't have a hate on for Christians. The statement could have been "being Hindu/Jewish/Muslim/etc doesn't mean you can't be accepting of ..." and I would have posed the same questions.

Re#44: Um, is that directed at me? It might be the cold medicine, but I'm not really understanding this comment. Could you explain?

Cro: Ok! I've now made my way down to #40 and that's where I think you left the intellectual path and turned on a personal note against Martin. Am I mistaken?
I believe that there's a huge problem with absolutes and generalizations. Who has the truth? Who has no misconceptions?
A few days ago I came across this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHpd2T7mi5c
What do you think?

I laughed at the video; thanks for sharing, Jota. Might I ask how on earth you "came across" this video???

A friend send it to me when discussing "logic"!

re#47: Thanks for reading through all of it, Jota; you are probably one of only a few who did.

As far as #40 goes, well, M had addressed me, so I addressed him. I would like to ask, do you think #39 was personal?

Yes, by #40 I was beginning to feel like I was beating my head against a wall. It seemed like no matter how I tried to explain things, some people just stuck their fingers in their ears and chanted "la-la-la, I can't hear you, la-la-la".

At the very least, I was hoping M would have the decency and decorum to correct his disrespectful use of 'typos' (uh huh) like "Budha" and "Budaha". It is not blasphemy or sacrilege in the Christian sense but it is very very close, and it is rude and demeaning to people of one of the world's largest religions. Rather revealing that M has yet to do so; very 'tolerant' and 'accepting'. Buddhists aren't worthy of respect, I guess. But who cares? Apparently only I do. :-/

I have never attacked someone's personal religious views in this discussion, yet I get painted as the bad guy. All I tried to do was provide information. I would be very curious to know how different this whole discussion would have been had I not said I was an Atheist. Food for thought.

Regarding absolutes and generalizations: Yes, not everything is black and white, but not everything is a shade of grey either. Some things just are what they are.

As far as the video goes, I personally did not find it funny at all. Rather, I found it sad. It is a fine example of strength of conviction and where it all too often leads. I also think that videos like that perpetuate and encourage a negative stereotype of Muslims. JMO.

Cro: I do think #39 was personal and a cry to not discuss the subject. I respect people not wanting to talk about religion, it's such a subjective subject, in my opinion. I personally agree with what you've said, not that I share your views, but I understand them. At the end is all about semantics and not about absolutes.
The video of course was not funny, but it shows someone believing they have the truth. Actually no one does, I think. You are brave to define yourself as an atheist, Martin has define his own religion and in a way so has Jan. I don't discuss religion because having been born and raised catholic i parted with the church a long time ago, have married a jewish man and have huge issues with a God that allows terrible crimes against human beings in the name of religion and masked as freedom of choice. As far as I'm concerned this continues to be a forum of "unknown" people and so the value of our opinions is "questionable.

I understand. :-)

I laughed because the video was absurd; his mindset and rationalization. But to each his own.

I could not read the words until I solved it and read the first statement. Otherwise it is really neat.

Fun puzzle - needed a bit of EL on the top to really get me going. I started reading the comments before realizing what a time commitment it would require! Anyway, I still love coming across the occasional Jan puzzle I haven't solved yet. I sure hope there are more. (I'd rather come by them "naturally" than go searching for them.)

It is good to reread some of this conversation. I appreciate how hard this community of puzzle solvers has worked to build respect, appreciation and understanding through the years.

As a Christian pastor, I always appreciate differentiating between faith and belief. Faith means trust, and trust is something we learn from experience. Belief is the way we talk about that trust.

And puzzles are a way we let one kind of communication inform another. I am grateful for all of you, past and present

I just found this puzzle for the first time. It's a great solve, but the dialogue that follows is amazing!

Is this a record for number of comments?

It's also a terrific illustration of the collective wisdom of this awesome community!

unfortunately, the record for comments is another atheism/religion discussion that did not go as smoothly

Bill, you can search puzzles by number of comments. The top three are:
#3408 (163 comments)
#11168 (113 comments)
#2953 (107 comments)

Show: Hints | Spoilers | Both

Goto next topic

You must register and log in to be able to participate in this discussion.