Sister Bunneefied was examining her religious vestments in the orphanage where she worked. The items below were hanging in her closet:
Hanger 3: soiled-beyond-redemption cape
Wall Hook: worn and tattered tunic that was beyond salvation
Doorknob: even the devil wouldn't be caught dead in that frayed and seam-ripped wimple
Hangers 4, 14, 26: veils and scapulars full of holes and tears
She quietly and methodically gathered each of them up and put them in the orphanage donation box for the poor.
What was she doing and ... what's the rebus?
Comments on this teaser
|Posted by eamon||02/10/11|
|Sorry, but your use of the word "Hangar" put me off. I thought it was meant to be part of the word-play. Now I see you just meant hanger - item used to hang up apparel in a closet. Nothing to do with bats in her belfry, airplanes or flying nuns.
Thanks for your efforts.|
|Posted by BadBunnee02||02/11/11|
Thanks for having a good eye and putting it to such good use. I've submitted the correction.
Spelling is my worst weakness in doing rebuses and, on this one, both I and the editors missed it.
And I truly regret that the necessity of your catching the homophonic error might have interferred with your ability to solve the rebus, if such were the case.
Again, thanks for such diligence and I look forward to your first submittal, also.
|Posted by MysteriousLight||03/11/11|
|Great one! Hint helped a lot! I assumed hangar meant hanger :D
Also, this was extremely great (as said before)! Thanks for the great teaser!
|Posted by eighsse||01/26/14|
|First of all, great passive aggressive post BadBunnee :D
And also, how, in the WORLD does this get accepted when all of my rebuses to this day have been rejected? :o :o|
|Posted by BadBunnee02||01/27/14|
|... eighsse ...
thanks for your comment.
And I can assure you I have not a clue as to why the editors would approve a rebus - such as this one - in preference to one you might submit.
My father (the original BadBunnee) and I have had around sixty or so teasers approved (mostly rebuses) but, in so doing, have had almost thrice that number rejected.
And editorial reasoning has been a total mystery to us. Some submittals that we thought to be "perfect" in form and text were rejected with some of the most arcane justifications imaginable.
Others - such as this one - which we considered REALLY, REALLY "iffy" (and far too wordy) just sailed right through the editorial grinder.
Most Popular | Hardest | Easiest
Privacy | Terms
Copyright © 2003