Farkling/farggling

[Laurence Horn]

At 8:25 AM -0700 7/9/03, Peter A. McGraw wrote:
>Since, to my puzzlement, no one else has spoken up, I guess I'll have to be
>the one to offer still another variant.  I remember playing the game as a
>kid in So. California, and the order was definitely "rocks, scissors and
>paper."  The logical pecking order, so to speak.  (No farkling, sorry.  No
>matches, either.)
>
>Peter Mc.

I guess I don't understand; if there's a pecking order like the one
above rather than a cyclic one, wouldn't everyone choose rock?  Or
are you saying that paper DOES cover (defeat) rock, but as I
mentioned below it doesn't really feel that bad to be covered,
compared to being smushed?  This gets into game theory, of course--if
you KNEW that your opponent was going to choose rock, you would
always choose paper to cover, but otherwise rock is safer.

>--On Wednesday, July 9, 2003 12:28 AM -0400 Laurence Horn
><laurence.horn at YALE.EDU> wrote:
>
>>At 9:23 PM -0700 7/8/03, Kim & Rima McKinzey wrote:
>>>>Yes, but under the name (and rules) of rock-paper-scissors-match.  We
>>>>New Yorkers were real sophisticated, after all.  (We could also argue
>>>>about why e.g. match really does burn rock, etc.)
>>>
>>>Also from NY, but only as rock-paper-scissors.  Match?
>>>
>>Yes.  Match really does get crushed by rock, and cut by scissors,
>>while of course burning paper.  Still, "rock" was the most fun,
>>because you could smush those flimsy matches and scissors, and it
>>wasn't too awful to get covered by paper.
>>
>>Larry
>
>
>
>*****************************************************************
>Peter A. McGraw       Linfield College        McMinnville, Oregon
>******************* pmcgraw at linfield.edu ************************