quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
If I were still the Grand Poobah of this game, I'd give 1/2 credit for those who guessed #2

---

That sounds good to me, Grand Poobah. Anybody else want to chime in?

Tinman

quote:

---

Anybody else want to chime in?

---

I agree with the 1/2 credit idea. However, since we are no longer adding up scores between games, but scoring each individually, it is no big deal.

To deal with some of tinman's other points, I don't agree that Rule 7 is wrong. If you go for your own definition, you would otherwise be certain of getting at least one point. If you think you might know the real definition, but are not sure, why on earth submit that as your own daffynition? Make up something totally different, then, when the daffynitions are published, if you see it among the others you will know how to vote.

I too don't see any need for Rule 9, for much the same reasons as tinman. I've posted a poll here, and suggest everyone who enters the game votes, so we can find the majority view.

If, as tinman says, I know every word that ever appeared in any dictionary, I had a memory loss this time. Not only did I not guess the real definition, my daffynition fooled nobody.

If you read the original story by Wood you will see references to Bunyan. I collect Bunyan related material and have one of the original magazines in which Wood's Karkhagne legend was first printed.

At just about any modern day Bunyan gathering (yes, we do get together; especially up here in the wilds of northern Midwest) you will find someone happily telling Karkhagne stories.

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss here. How would I use a dictionary or other reference to refine my daffynition? I've played this game in other venues with other rules for years, and the one constant rule has been that the only person who could use reference materials was/is the person submitting the word for consideration.

And btw, I found in very difficult indeed to construct a daffynition knowing what the true definition was. My daffynition fooled no one; it wasn't very good. But it was my 4th or 5th try, every preceding one having to do with animals in some form.

I agree that those who guessed #2 should be given a point; I do think that the daffynition should have been rejected but that's the choice of the person submitting the word originally.

quote:

---

How would I use a dictionary or other reference to refine my daffynition?

---

Well, in the past I've thought of a word that looks or sounds similar, that is also uncommon, and then given the dictionary definition of that word. Once, when I was late submitting a daffynition, and pushed for time, I went to Worthless Word of the Day and clicked on a few words at random until I saw a definition that looked like it might fit the word.

I used to agree with arnie and Tinman on this. I also used to refine my daffynitions with the use of a dictionary. Then, I began trying to write them out without refining them with a dictionary, and no one chose my daffynitions. I have to say that the dictionary refining did cause more people to select my daffynitions. I think creativity or general knowledge on a subject is probably the best...though I could live with no rule number 9.

Now, I agree that 3 people chose my word this time (I was quite flattered that the jheem, arnie, and Asa chose mine!), but that probably is because I had just read a book about architecture and that description was clear in my mind. I swear, I didn't use a dictionary, though.

Rule number 7, though, I think needs to stay for precisely the reasons that arnie states.

We haven't been doing points anymore, so the point issue is probably moot (arnie, I know, misuse of the word!). However, even though I would have benefitted by the half-point, I would disagree with it. We should only get points if we are to pick the correct answer. That's why I don't like it when someone chooses a close daffynition, unless of course it is all a coincidence (not likely).

Never mind all that -- what's a "section corner" ?

A section corner is a surveying term. (A corner at the extremity of a section boundary.) Looking around for just what it is involves one in terms like aliquot, township, chain, etc. A section is one square mile. There are 36 sections in a township. And a square mile is 640 acres. One chain is 4 rods, or 66 feet. And thus an acre is 160 square rods or 10 square chains. It get more complicated.

Great word, Tinman!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jo:
If you read the original story by Wood you will see references to Bunyan. I collect Bunyan related material and have one of the original magazines in which Wood's Karkhagne legend was first printed..

---

The link I posted was from the Missouri Society of American Foresters (MoSAF). It shows a picture of the Karkhagne and it, in turn, refers you to an article by Ed Wood in a 1964 issue of The Missouri Log. Is that the magazine you are referring to?

quote:

---

At just about any modern day Bunyan gathering (yes, we do get together; especially up here in the wilds of northern Midwest) you will find someone happily telling Karkhagne stories.

---

I've never heard any Karkhagne stories except those in the article. Are these stories made up since that article, or do they stem from farther back? I always thought the legend arose from Ed Woods' imagination, but I've recently read in a 2001 MoSAF newsletter that the Karkhagne was "a mythical beast invented in the bunkhouses of nineteenth century logging camps and pre-dates the Paul Bunyan legends of the Lake States timber harvesting era of the early twentieth century". I don't know if that's true or not, but I would like to know.

Tinman

quote:

---

Originally posted by haberdasher:
-- what's a "section corner" ?

---

The original thirteen colonies and a few later states were were surveyed using the metes and bounds system. Later lands were surveyed using a coordinate method and divided into 640-acre sections, as jheem indicated. These were subdivided into half-sections (320 ac.), quarter sections (160 ac.) and 1/16 (or "1/4-1/4) sections (40 ac.), and smaller units. (Now you know what the phrase "the north 40" means.)

Markers at the 4 corners of the section were called "section corners." Actually, markers at any of the boundary intersections were often called section corners. These markers might be an iron bar driven in the ground, a wooden stake, a large white oak, or the corner of a local farmer's barn. In order to survey a plot of land you had to find a reference point, such as a section corner. Due to the impermanence of some of these markers, they were often hard to impossible to find. And, of course, the Karkhagne ate some. Foresters needing to establish boundary lines for a timber sale spent a lot of time looking for lost section corners.

If you really want to read more, here's a pretty good site. And, if you want more, go to here or here.

Tinman

I honestly don't know. The magazine I have is indeed the 1964 Missouri Log. I've always suspected that it is one of those things which started in modern times and was so well written that the origins got lost as people "bought" the legend and converted it into myth.

My opinion is that Wood wrote the story so well that people believed he was talking about a real legend and treated it accordingly.