hogwash® #34 (retro) - 01/10/03 01:44 AM
motching is the word.
PM your definitions to me, postmarked no later than 00:01 CST on Jan. 16, 2003
PM your definitions to me, postmarked no later than 00:01 CST on Jan. 16, 2003
Post deleted by Wordwind - 01/10/03 07:41 AM
Re: hogwash® #34 (retro) - 01/10/03 11:29 AM
I must admit "motching" sounds challenging. But before I take time off from work and neglect my duties as a volunteer caretaker for homeless stray cats and dogs, I would like to know what Hogwash [R] #34 (retro) means?
Re: hogwash® #34 (retro) - 01/10/03 11:36 AM
I would like to know...
Kids these days want *everthang!
Kids these days want *everthang!
Re: hogwash® #34 (retro) - 01/10/03 01:27 PM
tsuwm, I never got around to it, but: I would like to say now that, despite so many ornery opinions, I thought your handling of the previous Hogwash® was stellar. You exemplified Hemingway's description of a hero: grace under pressure.
Now I shall go forth to consider a definition.
Now I shall go forth to consider a definition.
Re: hogwash® #34 (retro) - 01/10/03 01:54 PM
volunteer caretaker for homeless stray cats and dogs
Is there any money in it?
Is there any money in it?
Re: hogwash® #34 (retro) - 01/10/03 01:58 PM
>the previous Hogwash®<
I presume you refer to the lazily appellated hogwash #37 (est.)?!
(this actually wasn't posted for you, ASp..)
I presume you refer to the lazily appellated hogwash #37 (est.)?!
(this actually wasn't posted for you, ASp..)
Post deleted by Wordwind - 01/10/03 03:08 PM
Re: hogwash® #34 Animal $$ - 01/10/03 04:01 PM
Stray cats and dogs of the non-homeless variety can be a big money-maker in the form of ransom payments, however.
Re: hogwash® #34 Animal $$ - 01/10/03 05:48 PM
Don't look now, Dub-Dub, but I think you've been listing lately! 
just don't take us down with ship
just don't take us down with ship
Re: hogwash® #34 Animal $$ - 01/10/03 07:15 PM
LISTS (retro)
(1) Dub-Dub, I think you've been listing lately!
Whitman, you've misspelled "lisp"
(2) A truly loving caretaker can end up shelling out lots of bucks in the name of animal love!
Not me Wordwind, I just move 'em off the interstate onto the median. Did you know you lisped "collar" twice?
(3) I thought your handling of the previous Hogwash® was stellar. You exemplified Hemingway's description of a hero: grace under pressure.
Cheez Wiz AnnaStrophic, talk about buttering up the judge. That kind of talk would have made you Miss Runner-Up in the Miss America Pageant back when Bert Parks was still drinking and still singing "There she goes".
(4) Now this is what I call real ole timey Hogwash. Down and dirty. Out of the box with everyone mad and fighting.
Yeah...._______________________________
(1) Dub-Dub, I think you've been listing lately!
Whitman, you've misspelled "lisp"
(2) A truly loving caretaker can end up shelling out lots of bucks in the name of animal love!
Not me Wordwind, I just move 'em off the interstate onto the median. Did you know you lisped "collar" twice?
(3) I thought your handling of the previous Hogwash® was stellar. You exemplified Hemingway's description of a hero: grace under pressure.
Cheez Wiz AnnaStrophic, talk about buttering up the judge. That kind of talk would have made you Miss Runner-Up in the Miss America Pageant back when Bert Parks was still drinking and still singing "There she goes".
(4) Now this is what I call real ole timey Hogwash. Down and dirty. Out of the box with everyone mad and fighting.
Yeah...._______________________________
Re: hogwash® #34 Animal $$ - 01/10/03 07:29 PM
>talk about buttering up the judge...
but did you happen to notice how the judge let it all roll off the hogsback just as though it were a hogshead of armadillos?
-joe orthography
but did you happen to notice how the judge let it all roll off the hogsback just as though it were a hogshead of armadillos?
-joe orthography
Re: hogwash® #34 Animal $$ - 01/10/03 09:43 PM
Oh, no! Don't go armadillistic on us again, tsuwm! 
Post deleted by Wordwind - 01/10/03 10:25 PM
Re: hoglisp® #34 Animal $$ - 01/12/03 04:12 PM
It's no good, Dub-dub: now milum's got hold of the idea, you'll find you've permanently got lisp sticked on your collars!
Re: hoglisp® #34 Animal $$ - 01/12/03 11:47 PM
...got lisp sticked on your collars! ~ Rhuby
OK, Whitman, Wordwind, AnnaStrophic, altogether now,
one, two, three...NOW!
OK, Whitman, Wordwind, AnnaStrophic, altogether now,
one, two, three...NOW!
WhitmanO'Neill "RIMSHOT"
AnnaStrophic "RIMSHOT"
Milum "RIMSHOT"
Wordwind "WHIMSHOT"
Re: hoglisp® #34 Animal $$ - 01/13/03 12:01 AM
To Dead Meat milum:
You miththpelled "Whimshot."
It'th "Rimthot."
*To Rhuby:
You miththpelled "Whimshot."
It'th "Rimthot."
*To Rhuby:
Re: hogwash® #34 (retro) - 01/13/03 08:04 PM
only a couple more days (est.) until the deadline. (ten (10) entries and counting..)
Re: hoglisp® #34 Animal $$ - 01/14/03 07:16 PM
Well, for Rhuby it would have to be:
"RIM-ABSQUATULATING-SHOT"
"RIM-ABSQUATULATING-SHOT"
Re: hoglisp® #34 Animal $$ - 01/14/03 11:23 PM
tsuwm is snobbish and busy. So please allow me to explain the rules of Hogwash to you new people. It is as easy as one, two, three.
First: Anybody can submit a guess as to which is the real definition of the Hogwash word " motching ". However, you will only receive points that are registered if you submit your own definition of "motching ".
Second: The correct guesser of the so-called correct definition will receive two points per correct guess.
Third: If you fool others into choosing your blowgo definition you will receive one vote per, already described, every blowgo guesser.
Forth: Hogmaster tsuwm can declare all rules invalid at his slightest perverted whim.
Now go ahead new Hogwashers! Have fun.
First: Anybody can submit a guess as to which is the real definition of the Hogwash word " motching ". However, you will only receive points that are registered if you submit your own definition of "motching ".
Second: The correct guesser of the so-called correct definition will receive two points per correct guess.
Third: If you fool others into choosing your blowgo definition you will receive one vote per, already described, every blowgo guesser.
Forth: Hogmaster tsuwm can declare all rules invalid at his slightest perverted whim.
Now go ahead new Hogwashers! Have fun.
Post deleted by Wordwind - 01/15/03 07:14 AM
and now for something completely sane.. - 01/15/03 03:26 PM
here, for the 17th time, are the official hogwash ruelz®..
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=wordplay&Number=29261
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=wordplay&Number=29261
Re: and now for something completely sane.. - 01/15/03 03:32 PM
But since there t'ain't no runnin' tab no more, you're "only as good as you're last game", as the saying goes. Everyone starts each new round with a clean slate...even sjm! count your blessings
points schmoints!
points schmoints!
Re: and now for something completely sane.. - 01/15/03 07:01 PM
>even sjm!
Well, sjm's running tally couldn't be as bad as MaxQ's, anyhow.
Well, sjm's running tally couldn't be as bad as MaxQ's, anyhow.
Re: and now for something completely sane.. - 01/15/03 07:26 PM
>running tally
no, there was a serious upgrade in HQ* there.
*hogwash quotient®
no, there was a serious upgrade in HQ* there.
*hogwash quotient®
Wish I'd thought of that! - 01/15/03 07:59 PM
4. Three points are awarded to any player who submits a definition which is similar or very close to the correct meaning.
(Can't think of a time when that might have applied, anyway!) (looking-innocently-off-in-the-distance-e)
Actually I prefer the "We Don't Need No Steenkin' Rules" rule, myself...
(Can't think of a time when that might have applied, anyway!) (looking-innocently-off-in-the-distance-e)
Actually I prefer the "We Don't Need No Steenkin' Rules" rule, myself...
Post deleted by Wordwind - 01/15/03 09:44 PM
Re: Wish I'd thought of that! - 01/16/03 12:46 PM
I got xray vision. I see through him.
But, Dub-dub, if you do that, make no bones about it, you'll miss the meat of his arguments and ignore his corpus of works. An organic development of his analysiswill become impossible.
But, Dub-dub, if you do that, make no bones about it, you'll miss the meat of his arguments and ignore his corpus of works. An organic development of his analysiswill become impossible.
Re: A Q&A Hogwash®? - 01/16/03 02:06 PM
Hey, tsuwm, O revered Hogmaster and HogSanta....are you hereby imposing a decree against the usual Hogwash® humor and frivolity by posting the definitions on Q&A!? 
If, so, milum will find a way...I just know he will...
If, so, milum will find a way...I just know he will...
Re: A Q&A Hogwash®? - 01/16/03 02:36 PM
>Hey!! tsuwm's got Hogwash on Q&A!
there's no accounting for hubris, and hogwash will never be the same.
-ron obvious
edit: for anyone who hasn't received enlightenment, motching is inexplicably defined (read that as you will) over on Q&A.
there's no accounting for hubris, and hogwash will never be the same.
-ron obvious
edit: for anyone who hasn't received enlightenment, motching is inexplicably defined (read that as you will) over on Q&A.