Discussion » How Much Wood Would A Woodchuck Chuck If A Woodchuck Could Chuck Wood?

This is a read-only copy. The forum ran on iamcal.com from 2000 until its database was lost in 2016, and this topic was rebuilt from copies saved by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. Some replies may be missing.
Posted by Incandescent, 17:11, 14th April 2004:
 
Well??? this has been bugging me for a week!
Posted by Grim..., 17:28, 14th April 2004:
 
None.
Posted by Incandescent, 17:30, 14th April 2004:
 
well i can see you thought that through. thankyou
Posted by Parakeet, 20:02, 14th April 2004:
 
one piece. probably.
Posted by jeffld, 20:26, 14th April 2004:
 
I dunno, but it makes for a cool tagline.
Posted by Incandescent, 20:31, 14th April 2004:
 
i'm amazed anyone actually replied to this... but your answers are none the less disappointing to say the least
Posted by Alfie, 21:02, 14th April 2004:
 
i thought that the actual phrase was "How Much Wood COULD A Woodchuck Chuck If A Woodchuck Could Chuck Wood?"

In which case it doesn't matter how much he would chuck, only how much he could chuck.
Posted by Alfie, 21:04, 14th April 2004:
 
apparently both are acceptable
Posted by Sul, 21:05, 14th April 2004:
 
twice as much as half he did
Posted by Alfie, 21:05, 14th April 2004:
 
even if a woodchuck could chuck wood, and even if a woodchuck would chuck wood, should a woodchuck chuck wood?
Posted by Sul, 21:08, 14th April 2004:
 
a woodchuck should chuck wood because who would chuck wood if the woodchuck wouldnt chuck wood?
Posted by Sul, 21:11, 14th April 2004:
 
Or, indeed, if the woodchuck couldnt chuck wood.
Posted by Sul, 21:18, 14th April 2004:
 
But I think the real question is how long would a woodchuck chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood considering the woodchucks uneasy union at the moment?
Posted by Incandescent, 21:40, 14th April 2004:
 
Well.. that has got to be the funniest thing i've read all day! Très bon!!!
Posted by cal, 22:31, 14th April 2004:
 
it's not even the funniest thing i've read on this page :/
Posted by Incandescent, 23:09, 14th April 2004:
 
my apologies if i am slightly more simple minded than you cal, it probably wasn't even funny... i don't have a clue anymore, i've been awake for 39 hours straight and have been speaking and translating french.... my head hurts... :)
Posted by Sul, 07:13, 15th April 2004:
 
"it's not even the funniest thing i've read on this page :/"

Geez Cal! Way to put a fella down! :'(
Posted by su, 11:53, 18th April 2004:
 
ahh the putdown, a sure sign of desperation when you can't even think of a decnt bit of scarcasism. you are slipping call, all that maple syrup has gone to your head
Posted by Perclissigi, 13:38, 18th April 2004:
 
And everyone knows the answer is "A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
Or 2764 tonnes.
Posted by Brock, 16:09, 18th April 2004:
 
Assuming the woodchuck population has upgraded to the modern metric system.

I'll have to check on that. Notorious for their indifference to change, the woodchuckians. I thought they still measured in Sheckels and Flaggons, but maybe Perci converted for ease of explanation.
Posted by carbonite, 15:20, 19th April 2004:
 
As a sidenote, how long is a piece of string?
Posted by Doctor Lucid, 17:36, 19th April 2004:
 
How much time does said WC have?

And of course, this is always a theory question.

Am ignoring sidenote.
Posted by Doctor Lucid, 17:40, 19th April 2004:
 
In fact, it's not just a theory question, it's a counterfactual.


Reasoning, Knowledge, and Causation:
Counterfactuals in Philosophical Theorizing
Posted by woodchuck, 00:34, 7th May 2004:
 
we, yes, i am ALSO a skitz, would like to know, no, need to know. it's a matter of life and no life, how many woodchucks, are there in world right now?
Posted by woodchuck, 00:35, 7th May 2004:
 
email me at sexual_harassment_panda_love@hotmail.com
Posted by Salman Rushdie, 00:37, 7th May 2004:
 
You skitz!
Posted by Salman Rushdie, 00:38, 7th May 2004:
 
You're worse than Scott off Neighbours!
Posted by arsepuppy, 11:08, 7th May 2004:
 
"email me at sexual_harassment_panda_love@hotmail.com"

You're not the 'Sexual Harassment Panda' off PopJustice, are you?
Posted by modeath, 20:35, 15th September 2004:
 
The answer that i have come up with is this:
A woodchuck would chuck all the wood that a woodchuck could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Posted by Alfie, 22:13, 15th September 2004:
 
wow! only took you from May to September to come up with that answer
and it's shit
Posted by Doctor Lucid, 00:42, 16th September 2004:
 
Counter bloody Factuals!
Posted by tantonso, 21:01, 22nd September 2004:
 
hi how r u today im doin good but you can suck my dick all you want to ok
Posted by Brock, 21:05, 22nd September 2004:
 
Ooooh! Hello! How are you? As long as you are 'good', I'm happy!!!!

Oh.

Wait.

That was a typo. I meant to say "Fuck off you fetid retard, and go back to picking dried shit off your flannelette underpants like the sub-human little puss-wart you are".

Sorry about the confusion. No, not you, tantonso. I meant the real people.
Posted by Foppy, 06:58, 25th September 2004:
 
Initially I posted something about the potential dangers of blindly chucking wood here, but instead I edited it to include a message stating what the previous message was, without actually having it in here.
Posted by Saltation, 22:43, 26th September 2004:
 
brill move, fop-meisteroony. now you'll leave us on meta-tenta-hooks for millenia and a day. "what, indeed, did lord foppeye state in his original previous message, that rendered him unwilling to actually have it in here but willing only to merely and only and eenly state what it was?" will be the question on everyone's lips
Posted by Saltation, 22:50, 26th September 2004:
 
(everyone's lips obviously being quite large, and thusly commodious to the needs of lengthy and oft-repeated burning issues of the day)