Believe it or don't, but that's an actual, valid spelling for the word murder. It's archaic, and while most would call it obsolete, it is still in all the dictionaries. So, while you may get dinged on your spelling test, you could probably appeal your way around it.
I'm not exactly sure why I chose Sideshow Bob as an example of murder. I mean, it's not like he's very good at it. Terrible, actually. He couldn't kill Bart after several attempts, he couldn't kill Selma. He even failed when he involved other people in his plot to kill Bart.
I think his problem is, all his plots are too complicated. He's like the Rube Goldberg of murderers. And I thin k that's why he fails.
But I'm not here to write about Sideshow Bob. I'm here to tell you a story. A story of murder so foul.
The answer to yesterdays Made Up Monday.
As usual, I am writing this post immediately after writing Mondays, so I don't have the benefit of seeing who got it right or wrong yet. I'm going to continue under the premise that most of you got the answer either right or wrong.
The truth is, it was 100%, entirely........true.
Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, the creators of The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, were big fans of Daredevil. Especially the issues written by Frank Miller. But, since they didn't work for Marvel, they couldn't use the names Matthew Murdock or Daredevil without getting themselves and their publisher, Mirage, sued.
Also, they originally intended TMNT to be o one-shot parody of the super hero genre. Instead, it sold out in days, and was reprinted several times. So they continued on with the comic. And TMNT itself spawned countless copycats. (the best was Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters. Issue #1 is one of the few comics I kept when liquidating my collection years ago. I regret selling all my Groo...)
But, now that the truth has been revealed, it's time to move on to the murder.
It's a murder story you've seen hundreds of time, but never even knew it existed. You looked at it without knowing what you were looking at. There was no rating placed on it, and your parents were most likely the ones to introduce you to it.
I'm talking about the murder of royalty. A king, to be specific. And regicide is nothing to laugh at. (well....I might chuckle if King Friday was offed by Henrietta Pussycat. "Meow meow eat lead motherf***er meow!". That would be funny)
So who is this king whose murder has been thrust upon you for your entire life?
Why, the King of Hearts, of course.
Some poker players call the king of hearts "The Suicide King" because they're stupid and have never looked at their cards.
The king of hearts, if you glance at him, looks like he's thrusting his sword through his head. But that's stupid. Men fell on their swords to pierce the heart, not stab themselves int he head.
Pretty flimsy evidence for murder Otter, right?
Well, wait. Take a close look at the king. A really close look. Look at the kings hand that is not holding a sword. Look at the cuff of his sleeve.
Now look at the hand holding the sword. Notice the sleeve cuff? It's not the same. That means, the king isn't holding the sword. Someone else is.
But who? Who would want to kill the king of hearts?
Let's take a look at the obvious suspects, the Queen of Hearts and the Jack of Hearts. A quick examination show they couldn't be guilty as they don't have sleeves.
No, only one other face card has sleeves. So that would point the finger in that direction, right? Except that cuff doesn't match the one hooding the sword. So, the Queen of Spades is innocent.
So who killed him?
Since there are no sleeves on any of the other cards, we can't be 100% sure. However, if we look closer at the sleeveless Jack of Hearts, we notice the trim on his jacket does match that of the cuff. So, is Jack the killer? Probably. Can we prove it? Nope. Do we care? meh...
So, use this information the next time you play 'Go Fish'. Ask your opponent, "Do you have...a murdering sack of shit?" If they pass you the Jack of Hearts, we have our man.