Friday, March 20, 2009

Contest Results

Last week in the office at school I sponsored a caption contest. Here are some of the hilarious results (click on pics to see full sized).



The contest announcement was posted on the wall last Tuesday.


First Place: Joe P.—no, that's too obvious: J. Plicka.


Second Place: Holly


Honorable Mention: My Liege


Honorable Mention: Joey


Honorable Mention: Zach


I posted the winners on the backs of old flyers I stole from the bulletin board in the hall. Is that wrong? Since I posted, there's been a lot of backlash in the office including accusations of "Mormon nepotism" and self-declarations of winningness.

Zach says he's going to sponsor a reverse-caption contest when we get back from Spring Break.

10 comments:

Jennifer said...

How does the reverse work? You provide a picture for the caption?

Very funny, all in all. I would have said, "It's all a frame-up! That crazy clown is dumping the burgers on my platter!"

Drew said...

Is that first prize caption referring to Whorfianism? And, speaking of language, doesn't "Mormon nepotism" break a few rules? I think "nepotism" originally meant nephew-ism. Maybe you should just say "Mormonism", but I guess that would be even more ambiguous.

Bart said...

You should explain that first one to those who may not understand it (i.e. me).

Sarah said...

I'm with Bart.
And don't even get me started on Drew's comment.

Mary Arlene said...

Np kidding! Drew's comment made me feel like a dummy, I didn't understand a lick of it. I also didn't understand the winner. This whole blog with attached comments went right over my head.

David Grover said...

Hey, I don't know what either mean! I looked up Wharfianism but didn't understand a word of the definition. Drew, shut up!

..freakin' college degree...mumbo..friggin..#$*&!.

Drew said...

So how did the judge (Dave) select the first place winner on the grounds that it was "intelligent" if neither he nor we have any idea what it means? I move we question the author of the caption about his motivation!

I second the motion!

etc...

Drew said...

By the way, Benjamin Whorf was a linguist (not a Klingon) famous for his theory that the structure of language affects thought. His theory has been notoriously stretched and misinterpreted to mean that the structure of language limits and restricts thought as though it were a "prison".

Joe said...

Mormons got to watch each other's backs, you know? I mean, who's reading this blog, anyway. Mormons!

If you're looking for an explanation of that first one by the guy who wrote it, I guess you're out of luck. But I do know this: as long as both the Hamburgler and Ronald agree, then "Walrus!" can mean "Hey, come back with my hamburgers!" just as accurately as it means, "A big, flabby sea mammal with enormous fangs!" to us. Just like "Pistachio!" can mean "Not on your life, Clown!" just as well as it means "A delicious and heart-healthy nut that is sometimes hard to crack open!" Words are arbitrary signs with no intrinsic relation to their accepted meanings. And anyhow, for us, in the prison of our own American English dialect, we may never grasp the true, full meaning of these words as spoken by carnivorous cartoon characters. Because meaning is almost entirely derived from cultural context, and a carnivorous cartoon character I am most certainly not.

When do I get my Big Mac?

Dave said...

Why have we forgotten poor Sapir?

Joe, Happy 4th Walrus to Ruby!