January 2017

Eli's Cartoon Caption Contest No. 113


Contest No. 113 starts right now.

Briefly, here are the details: I'll supply a drawing of one of my old cartoons that has never been published, leaving off my caption. You are invited to supply your funniest captions. Simply (1) click on "Add New Comment". Then (2) scroll down past any other submitted captions and type in your name and your caption in the spaces provided. Then (3) click "Save".

Your caption (or captions) will be posted after I review your submission.

There is no limit on the number of captions you can enter for each drawing. Entries will be accepted and posted for one week, after which a winner will be announced and the winning caption will be printed. Below that I will also print my original caption.

The cut-off time and date for you to send in your captions is midnight Tuesday, February 7, 2017.

I will be the sole judge. The winning caption will be the one I judge to be the funniest one submitted (not necessarily the one that matches or comes closest to my original caption). Additional rules and regulations, for those of you who need such things, can be found here.

Below is the drawing that needs your funny captions.






The National Law Journal, April 18, 1994


Explanation: This cartoon appeared in The National Law Journal. The gag was slanted toward the legal profession and would not have been appropriate or funny had it been printed in any "general purpose" publication, like Better Homes and Gardens. Lawyers are very concerned with the "billable hours" that they can charge to a client. Very simply put, the more billable hours, the higher the income.






Winner of Eli's Cartoon Caption Contest No. 112


                       "That sounds more like a threat than an opinion!"

                                                 (by Tim Collins)

 

My original caption: "Just out of curiosity, sir -- is there any substantial difference between your 'Hell, no' and your 'No way, Jose'?"

 

A first-time victory for Tim Collins! Congratulations, Tim -- you are now in that very exclusive club, with all the bragging rights that go with membership: you're officially "one of the funniest people around'.

Here are the other captions that I was seriously considering for top honors:

"Do you prefer to get your fake news in print, online or on television?" (by John Platt)

"This is not about our marriage!" (by Andrew Bramley)

"Actually, it is my business." (by Cary Antebi)

"Do I look fat in this dress?" (also by Cary Antebi)

"OK, now you hold the clipboard and I'll tell you what I think about you!" (also by Cary Antebi)

Thanks for participating, captioneers! The next contest will start in about a fortnight, so be on the lookout for it.






Eli's Cartoon Caption Contest No. 112


Contest No. 112 starts right now.

Briefly, here are the details: I'll supply a drawing of one of my old cartoons that has never been published, leaving off my caption. You are invited to supply your funniest captions. Simply (1) click on "Add New Comment". Then (2) scroll down past any other submitted captions and type in your name and your caption in the spaces provided. Then (3) click "Save".

Your caption (or captions) will be posted after I review your submission.

There is no limit on the number of captions you can enter for each drawing. Entries will be accepted and posted for one week, after which a winner will be announced and the winning caption will be printed. Below that I will also print my original caption.

The cut-off time and date for you to send in your captions is midnight Tuesday, January 17, 2017.

I will be the sole judge. The winning caption will be the one I judge to be the funniest one submitted (not necessarily the one that matches or comes closest to my original caption). Additional rules and regulations, for those of you who need such things, can be found here.

Below is the drawing that needs your funny captions.






Bought and Paid For, But Never Published. The Wall Street Journal, 1994


Yet another cartoon that was bought and paid for, but, as far as I know, was never published (by The Wall Street Journal, in 1994). I don't know the reason why it was skipped over, and I guess I never will.