Wrongly Accused of Pez Thievery
Apr. 2nd, 2009 04:29 pm[Error: unknown template qotd]
I would like Sherlock Holmes to help me, good sir. If you know me my answer is predictable, and if you do NOT know me my answer is predictable because he is one of the best-known fictional detectives of all time. He is also one of my favorite characters of any profession of all time, twice the superlatives for twice the fun!
The way I see it, I would likely be wrongly accused of Pez thievery or some such, breaking into a Pez factory and stealing countless sugar bricks. But Holmes would say "Curious, Watson. Why would one with such a surfeit of Pez in her possession risk censure of the law by stealing more?"
And after investigating the factory the clues start PILING UP: the suspect left a scrap of boot leather at the scene, and yet our client's boots were in mint condition when she was arrested! Who else wears such boots? TO THE LOCAL GOTH CLUB, UNDERCOVER. And what sort of drink do they serve at this club? HOMEMADE PEZ MOONSHINE. Look there! The club owner has a tear in his boots! He walks with a limp! If our client were indeed the culprit, why would she go to the trouble of picking the lock when she could have entered the factory via the open window on the landing? AND YET ONE WHO LIMPS SO COULD NOT REACH THE LANDING AND WOULD BE FORCED TO PICK THE LOCK AND
so on and so on with the damning evidence until the real culprit confesses in tears and I am set free!
And then Holmes closes the scene with something humorous or pithy.
The end.
Fact: sometimes I ponder how one would go about explaining things like the internet to Sherlock Holmes. Usually when I'm driving.
I would like Sherlock Holmes to help me, good sir. If you know me my answer is predictable, and if you do NOT know me my answer is predictable because he is one of the best-known fictional detectives of all time. He is also one of my favorite characters of any profession of all time, twice the superlatives for twice the fun!
The way I see it, I would likely be wrongly accused of Pez thievery or some such, breaking into a Pez factory and stealing countless sugar bricks. But Holmes would say "Curious, Watson. Why would one with such a surfeit of Pez in her possession risk censure of the law by stealing more?"
And after investigating the factory the clues start PILING UP: the suspect left a scrap of boot leather at the scene, and yet our client's boots were in mint condition when she was arrested! Who else wears such boots? TO THE LOCAL GOTH CLUB, UNDERCOVER. And what sort of drink do they serve at this club? HOMEMADE PEZ MOONSHINE. Look there! The club owner has a tear in his boots! He walks with a limp! If our client were indeed the culprit, why would she go to the trouble of picking the lock when she could have entered the factory via the open window on the landing? AND YET ONE WHO LIMPS SO COULD NOT REACH THE LANDING AND WOULD BE FORCED TO PICK THE LOCK AND
so on and so on with the damning evidence until the real culprit confesses in tears and I am set free!
And then Holmes closes the scene with something humorous or pithy.
The end.
Fact: sometimes I ponder how one would go about explaining things like the internet to Sherlock Holmes. Usually when I'm driving.