[Dixonary] WEEQUASHING results

[Dave Cunningham]

1. The ornate fretwork around the edges of many 19th century
picture frames. [Crom] NV (Madnick) 1

2. the decree under which prostitutes were permitted to attend
visiting Dutch ships in Nagasaki from 1641; _also transf._ [J. hui
huko wa sin 'let the loose women go'] [Keating] 14 15 (Scott) 1

3. spearing of fish or eels by torchlight from canoes
[Phrontistery] (Scott) (Shefler) (Lodge) (Heimerson) (Abell) D5

4. _Slang_ Pilfering by males of females' intimate garments. [Used
among college students, southeastern U.S.; more commonly called "panty
raids."] [Schultz] 6 10 (Widdis) 1

5. Setting a fast pace. Used esp. in bicycle-racing where the
pacesetter is acting in support of a team leader. [Widdis] 4 7 (Abell)
1

6. seeking and harvesting wild mushrooms. [Stevens] 8 10 (Schultz)
(Carson) (Heimerson) 3

7. Dispersal of a crowd by means of stink bombs. [<Weehawken riot
control grenades, consisting of Butanethiol, eau de skunk;
Putrescine, smelling of rotting meat; and Skatole, odor of feces]
[Hirst] NV (Widdis) 1

8. slogging through mud (Scots) [Scott] 2 *3 (Stevens) 2 + 1 = 3

9. to tack or zig-zag on a sail-board when travelling against both
wind and tide [Barrs] NV (Shefler) 1

10. cleaning the decks of a whaling ship with a combination of ashes
and seawater. [Emery] NV (Stevens) (Schultz) (Savage) 3

11. a small junk-rigged sailing boat of South East China, typically
used as a tender to a larger vessel. [Lodge] *3 12 2 + 0 = 2

12. going down; military retreat. [Madnick] 1 18 (Lodge) 1

13. a type of orbicular granite with a very fine grain, often used
in the manufacture of marbles. [< Weequashing, a small town and quarry
in central Maine] [Shefler] *3 9 (Carson) 2 + 1 = 3

14. Among Native American tribes of Northeast North America, an
intricate form of decoration using beads, dyed porcupine quills, and
other materials to form geometric patterns. [Carson] 6 13 (Savage)
(Keating) 2

15. a raiding party [Iroq.] [Shepherdson] NV (Keating) 1

16. [Algon.] the act of yelping or barking [Heimerson] *3 6 2 + 0
= 2

17. a large member of the sunflower family. [Savage] 10 14 0

18. A salubrious harmony with nature. [Abell] *3 5 (Madnick) 2 + 1
= 3

Making Guerri's 3 points enough to be the next dealer ... I had hopes
for this word until the final votes all came in. Russ is now batting
over .500 on me recently.


Dave
DQ, DF

[Dodi Schultz]

Scott Crom DID vote, Dave. One of his votes was for the real def.

And I THINK there were more than three votes for #10.

[France International]

The timestamp on Scott's vote as 9:24AM. Tim's & Russ's also appeared after
the deadline.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dodi Schultz" <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: [Dixonary] WEEQUASHING results


>
>
> Scott Crom DID vote, Dave. One of his votes was for the real def.
>
> And I THINK there were more than three votes for #10.
>

[Scott Crom]

An Internet glitch of some sort, I suspect. The time stamp on my
copy of my vote (Thunderbird automatically sends me a copy of
my outgoing mail) was Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:31:45

And thanks to Dodi for pointing out that I did indeed vote for 3
and 10, but I won't scream and holler for the points...

Scott (hoping this goes through in timely manner)

[Dodi Schultz]

DS> Scott Crom DID vote, Dave. One of his votes was for the real def. And
I THINK there were more than three votes for #10.

MS> The timestamp on Scott's vote was 9:24AM. Tim's & Russ's also appeared
after the deadline

Something is very much amiss here. My records show Tony's vote, which WAS
counted, as being the last received; it reached my mailbox at 1:10 (EDT)
this morning, and I found it first thing this morning.

The four votes before that, all of which I had read LAST NIGHT: Tim Lodge's
arrived at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, Paul's at 4:20, Scott's at 7:30 last
evening, and Russ's at 11:30.

So ALL of the above were under the wire.

--Dodi

[Dave Cunningham]

I only used the Google listing of votes as of about 8:10 a.m. -- I
guess we can add Scott Crom's vote which was posted according to his
own records before 8:54 when I posted results even though it had not
shown up on Google -- ok, Mike?

Dave

On Aug 8, 1:20*pm, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> DS> *Scott Crom DID vote, Dave. One of his votes was for the real def. And
> I THINK there were more than three votes for #10.
>
> MS> *The timestamp on Scott's vote was 9:24AM. Tim's & Russ's also appeared
> after the deadline
>
> Something is very much amiss here. *My records show Tony's vote, which WAS
> counted, as being the last received; it reached my mailbox at 1:10 (EDT)
> this morning, and I found it first thing this morning.
>
> The four votes before that, all of which I had read LAST NIGHT: Tim Lodge's
> arrived at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, Paul's at 4:20, Scott's at 7:30 last
> evening, and Russ's at 11:30.
>
> So ALL of the above were under the wire.
>
> --Dodi

[France International]

I'll also include Russ's and Tim's votes if that's OK with you.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Cunningham" <cunn5393 (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net>
To: "Dixonary" <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: WEEQUASHING results


>
>
> I only used the Google listing of votes as of about 8:10 a.m. -- I
> guess we can add Scott Crom's vote which was posted according to his
> own records before 8:54 when I posted results even though it had not
> shown up on Google -- ok, Mike?
>
> Dave
>
> On Aug 8, 1:20 pm, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> > DS> Scott Crom DID vote, Dave. One of his votes was for the real def.
And
> > I THINK there were more than three votes for #10.
> >
> > MS> The timestamp on Scott's vote was 9:24AM. Tim's & Russ's also
appeared
> > after the deadline
> >
> > Something is very much amiss here. My records show Tony's vote, which
WAS
> > counted, as being the last received; it reached my mailbox at 1:10 (EDT)
> > this morning, and I found it first thing this morning.
> >
> > The four votes before that, all of which I had read LAST NIGHT: Tim
Lodge's
> > arrived at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, Paul's at 4:20, Scott's at 7:30
last
> > evening, and Russ's at 11:30.
> >
> > So ALL of the above were under the wire.
> >
> > --Dodi
>

[Dave Cunningham]

Ym -- Russ already counted <g>.


Dave


On Aug 8, 3:38*pm, "France International" <sta... (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com>
wrote:
> I'll also include Russ's and Tim's votes if that's OK with you.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Cunningham" <cunn5... (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net>
> To: "Dixonary" <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:18 PM
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: WEEQUASHING results
>
> > I only used the Google listing of votes as of about 8:10 a.m. -- I
> > guess we can add Scott Crom's vote which was *posted *according to his
> > own records before 8:54 when I posted results even though it had not
> > shown up on Google *-- ok, Mike?
>
> > Dave
>
> > On Aug 8, 1:20 pm, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> > > DS> Scott Crom DID vote, Dave. One of his votes was for the real def.
> And
> > > I THINK there were more than three votes for #10.
>
> > > MS> The timestamp on Scott's vote was 9:24AM. Tim's & Russ's also
> appeared
> > > after the deadline
>
> > > Something is very much amiss here. My records show Tony's vote, which
> WAS
> > > counted, as being the last received; it reached my mailbox at 1:10 (EDT)
> > > this morning, and I found it first thing this morning.
>
> > > The four votes before that, all of which I had read LAST NIGHT: Tim
> Lodge's
> > > arrived at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, Paul's at 4:20, Scott's at 7:30
> last
> > > evening, and Russ's at 11:30.
>
> > > So ALL of the above were under the wire.
>
> > > --Dodi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Guerri Stevens]

I am on the road and will not get home until sometime Sunday
afternoon. My quick count of the votes says that Chuck (definition 10)
really has 4 votes. So I am going to assume that he will deal.

-- Guerri

[Chuck]

Guerri -

I have just now been apprised of my honour. Sadly, my internet CSLAM,
which I'd been complaining about for 2 months, packed up for 48 hours or
more Friday afternoon and I've been off line or attending only to the
most urgent business using my neighbor's WiFi, from which I get very
poor reception. In the last two months I've probably put in 6 or 8
hours talking to script idiots in India about the filters on my phones.
On top of that I got a technician for 3 hours one afternoon who put in a
DSL splitter to replace the filters. After that I couldn't talk to the
Indian office at all because "oh but you MUST have filters on all your
phones", was all they'd say to me. The CSLAM is the computer which
takes the digital signals off your phone wire and routes them onto the
internet. The one I connect to had a memory or other resource leak and
would run for 4 or 5 days fairly decently and then start degrading.
After a couple of days of degrading I could get dns resolution and site
connection, but the throughput was too slow to ever load a page. After
6 or 8 hours of essentially no service, the thing would reboot and start
the cycle again. All of this started after I got a postcard from them
announcing the arrival of fibre in my neighborhood and promising
exceptional service. I would call tech support and talk about filters,
operating systems (I'm running 6 different ones, including OS X 10.4)
and all the other things having nothing to do with the problem. Finally
Friday I called Billing and she put me through to Level 4 (Canadian, and
possibly qualified) tech support, where the phone rang for 3 hours
before she promised to call me back - and never did. So after 9 happy
years with this connection I will be bidding ADSL service adieu and
switching to Cable. When I checked with all my neighbors to see how
their ADSL was doing, as they'd be using the same CSLAM, I found that
not a single one wasn't using Cable instead because of poor service from
the phone company. Oh well . . . the IT professional is the last to
know . . .

Now for the bad news, I'm leaving town early Wednesday morning, less
than 72 hours away, and I'm going to Fogo Island off Newfoundland, where
there is no broadband on the island at all. (I'd already checked) So I
must sadly decline the deal for the second time in the past few months.
If someone can think of a way I can pick up someone else's declined deal
in the future to make up for this, I would be glad to do so. Or I could
owe Guerri one for the next time?

Yours in apology,

Chuck





Guerri Stevens wrote:
> I am on the road and will not get home until sometime Sunday
> afternoon. My quick count of the votes says that Chuck (definition 10)
> really has 4 votes. So I am going to assume that he will deal.
>
> -- Guerri
>
>
>

[Guerri Stevens]

Chuck, I will go ahead and deal, and you can owe me one but with the
long times elapsing between my own deals, I am likely to forget by the
next time!

Everyone, I am home now, unpacked, have checked the garden, and am into
my first load of laundry. If no one minds, I will relax a bit, have
dinner, and pick a word later this evening. If anyone *does* mind a few
hours further delay, feel free to deal (hahahaha) and Chuck can owe you
a deal instead. Otherwise, we'll just consider it a Dixonary vacation.

Guerri

Chuck wrote:
>
> Guerri -
>
> I have just now been apprised of my honour. Sadly, my internet CSLAM,
> which I'd been complaining about for 2 months...