This was the picture on which the competion was set.
The rules were straightforward:
Identify the owners of each of the sets of legs, in the right to left sequence, and add a witty or erudite comment to each of the identifications. The administrator´s decisions on entries and interpretations of the rules to be unchallengeable.
The prize. a free APAPS breakfast.
This was the top half of the picture.
It all seemed simple enough. There were five entries; all five entrants identified seven of the eight owners of the legs; but none got the eighth. The crucial wording in the small print was not “pairs of legs”, which would have ruled out non-bi-peds, but the less-to-be-expected wording of “sets of legs”. The eighth owner is Java, to be seen behind Ingrid. 5 bonus points were there on offer for anyone who identified Java as an owner, but they went begging.
One competitor listed the names left to right instead of right to left, thereby winning only 1 plus point for correct identifiction of Ingrid in the middle, but being crippled with 6 minus points for the wrong out-of-order identifications. The erudition shown in his comments was remarkable – particularly apt pictorially was his reference to a great Latin American footballer of yesteryear – but even so that was not enough to get him out of negative territory. Never mind, Alan Davies, the undoubted star of the quiz show QI, almost invariably comes last with scores well into the minuses.
I had to disqualify one lady competitor on the grounds that I couldn´t possibly award her the prize. She holds firm to the principle of “what is hers is hers and what is mine is hers” and so she gets a free breakfast every week come what may. And another lady entrant fell out of contention because her comment, brilliantly witty though it was, was just that single comment and she didn´t accumulate enough points.
This reduced the field to Janet and Yves, with everything hanging on the scores for comment. Janet´s comments were pithy rather than witty; one that particularly caught the eye for sheer chutzpah was her comment on herself “perfect in every way.” But then, I thought, she doesn´t like the fry- ups we have for breakfast any way and so she would probably have had to nominate me to eat it on her behalf which would rather have negated the whole purpose of the quiz.
But Yves´comments avoided the didactic, contained sufficient Gallic (not Belgique) esprit to provoke the occasional smile, and provided enough esoteric matériel ( “Daisy Duke hot-pants” ) to cause one to scratch one´s head and wonder “where does he get that from?”. And so Yves pips Janet by a short beard. (He had teetered on the edge of nominating a dog as one of the owners but failed to bite the bullet. If he had done so correctly, he would have won at a canter.)
I am sure that he will chew on the award philosophically.
The APAPS 2017 8 Chorus Line
3 comments:
Sneaky bastard! San Fairy Ann. Mea Culpa. Diu lei lo mo!
Why not publish the so called 'Winning Entry'
Je deteste le Grand Guignol - poof!
I appeal against the result as the definition of right to left is not specified in the rules of the competition. I gave the order of participants from my valid interpretation of right to left, ie from the person standing on the right extremity if the group (Hazel) to the left winger, (Maria) from the group's point of view.
There is precedent for this interpretation in the APAPS 9 Blog where it states that Confuschiam has her left foot pointing to the right, ( or rent to light). If this is correct then she is to left of centre of that group. Quod erat demonstrandum.
And don't try and retreat behind the 'Judges decision is final Blah'. The viewpoint for the determination of left to right was omitted therefore I am entitled to my interpretation. Mutatis mutandis.
Sneaky? Moi?
Quelle injustice!
Post a Comment