[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Brian, you've come up with some good ones. But maybe your "fancy bred" one is a bit too close to the one Jayne quotes in her post #28 above?

Err ... Well, Roger, I have to admit that the first line is identical - but then, it would be, wouldn't it? However, the second line - and the "bred/bread" joke - is completely different, so I don't think anyone will be suing me for plagiarism. Apart from Shakespeare, of course.

[Roger Slater]

Don't both second lines depend on the same "fancy bred"/"fancy bread" pun?

[Jayne Osborn]

Brian,

It's a really great pun but, unless you have yet another pseudonym, and you're R S Macleod, to whom it's attributed in The Oldie of May 2006, yours isn't really 'completely different'.

You're emminently qualified to think up some truly original, amazingly brilliant ones without resorting to this one, I 'fancy'!

Jayne

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Susan d.S.

A couple of unprintables also occurred to me. Roger, there is a part of the WP site where noteworthy off-color entries are printed, right?

Yes, that's right. There's a blog called The Conversational where the editor discusses the results of each contest and often applauds a few "scarlet letter" entries that were deemed too offensive to be included in a newspaper that routinely reports on war, rape, adultery, crime, hypocrisy, famine, scandal, and disease.

[Brian Allgar]

Jayne,

You're right.

In fact, I thought my version up quite independently, due to a hasty misreading of the one you quoted:

'Tell me, where is Fancy bred?'
'Aisle No. 3 on the left,' he said.

Skimming over it with my usual 3-second attention span, I had assumed that it was referring to an aisle in the horse-breeder's stables, and that "Fancy" was a potential Grand National winner. That's why I thought my version was completely different, and believed the "bred/bread" joke to be "a poor, ill-favoured thing, but mine own".

But no harm is done, as I wasn't intending to submit it anyway.

[Roger Slater]

I hope that doesn't mean you weren't planning to submit anything at all to the contest. Your others are worth submitting, and I'm guessing you can rustle up still more good stuff. (Congrats on your New Statesman win).

[Brendan Beary]

Just a quick post with the mundane matters of how best to submit your entries; this is the fine print from the contest announcement.

Email entries to losers@washpost.com or fax to 202-334-4312. Deadline is Monday, May 14; results published June 3 (online June 1). No more than 25 entries per entrant per week. Include "Week 970" in your email subject line or it might be ignored as spam. Include your real name, postal address and phone number with your entry. See contest rules and guidelines at wapo.st/StyleInv.

[Brian Allgar]

Thank you, Roger.

I am indeed intending to submit some entries. However, it isn't a question of rustling up more stuff, but rather of doing some heavy weeding to reduce my entries to a "mere" 25 - as someone else said, it becomes compulsive, and I've now written far more of the damned things than I've actually posted here.

[Roger Slater]

Good for you! I also did some weeding.

Bear in mind that if you have some that are too dirty or tasteless for the paper, but might be suitable to the Conversational blog, they do not count toward your 25. You can submit as many of those as you like, but label them clearly as being intended only for the Conversational.

[Brian Allgar]

That's worth knowing, but, curiously, I seem to have very few in the X-rated category.

Help! Am I losing my dirty mind?