While playing paper scissors rock best two out of three to see who changed the diaper, I first used paper garnering the victory. I decided to go for the subtle use of Paper for a second time in a row, knowing my wife would never suspect.
Arrrgh! Scissors!
“How did you know?” I asked, surprised she could see through my Machiavellian subterfuge.
“You always do the same thing twice. You think you’re sneaky.”
ONE TWO THREE. I threw Rock.
“Bam!,” my wife says, slapping my hand. “Dynamite blows up everything.”
We had a big argument, but I ended up changing the poopy diaper.
To me, dynamite has upset the delicate balance of Paper, Scissors, Rock. After all, you don’t see dynamite as a listing in the name, do you? As a purist, and a traditional conservative, I find its use offensive.
Mrs. Scylla maintains that dynamite fulfills a role similar to that of The Joker in a deck of cards. It is seldom used, but when it is it is always crucial. She claims an acceptable use traditionally occurs in a best two out of three when a tie is present. Both parties then have a clear right of usage, and woe be to the pitiful fool (me) who forgets this subtlety. Dynamite she says, is like a Mulligan in golf. You can use it once in a while, but like a Mulligan if you use it too often, nobody wants to play with you. It is for extreme circumstances only, like a tie on a dirty diaper. She said she has never used it before, and hence her usage here is considered appropriate.
I still maintained that dynamite dissolves the ritualistic purity of the contest with it’s well-defined parameters.
Mrs Scylla replied that dynamite was responsible for a renaissance in the outmoded and decayed sport of Paper Scissors Rock.
At this point I pretty much lost the ability to debate further, as it seemed clear that the Mrs. had outmanuevered.
I still think I was right though.
So, the debate is this:
Dynamite, legal or not?