16

Hello once again special team stack exchange and a usage.

I search many hours dictionary for a man goes into woods for hunt dangerous mountain cat or similar enemy despite no protection or prophylactic caution. Maybe he take only small catpalt for kill crow or moose. So when cat comes he catch him with no pants.

Sorry my friends. I need to clear that man think his tool is bigger than reality it is. So the word is not reckless for this man.

Dan Bron
  • 28,335
  • 17
  • 99
  • 138
The Beefer Fan
  • 779
  • 43
    This question also needs to go into the EL&U hall of fame. Please, for the sake of posterity, no one edit it! – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 11:52
  • 3
    Highly relevant here. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 25 '14 at 11:55
  • 3
    Also, are you saying that this rather stupid hunter also went into the woods without wearing trousers?!? What possible language on earth would have a word for this? – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 25 '14 at 11:57
  • 12
    @Janus, the Darwin Award Committee simply calls them laureates. – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 11:59
  • 1
    Funny. But clearly trolling. – Ste Nov 25 '14 at 12:00
  • 1
    Here he is: Bolgaff http://cata-shoot.tauri.hu/?npc=47003 –  Nov 25 '14 at 12:00
  • 5
    @Josh, I count six kinds of pants and zero catpalts in that guy's inventory. No, no reckless hunter he. – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 12:07
  • 5
    There must be a word for this. Whatever you think the size of your tool is, you should not let your decision to bring a prophylactic depend on that. Unless (you think) the size of your tool prohibits the use of a prophylactic. – oerkelens Nov 25 '14 at 12:23
  • 15
    Come on, is no one going to make a joke about "hunting cougars", "using protection", and being caught with your pants down? Really? I have to do everything around here! – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 12:25
  • 3
    @DanBron: well, I have to admit I hadn't even caught on to the cougars yet. Shame on me! – oerkelens Nov 25 '14 at 12:27
  • 1
    Well, cats don't wear pants, so there's that. – SrJoven Nov 25 '14 at 12:51
  • 1
    I can’t quite decide whether this would be banned or applauded in Russia … is it pro-LGBTQ propaganda, or anti-LGBTQ propaganda? So ambiguous. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 25 '14 at 12:52
  • 2
    Don't you need a crowpalt or a moosepalt for killing those? – starsplusplus Nov 25 '14 at 13:36
  • I think if there were special words for such things as you describe the OED would have five volumes instead of one. – rogermue Nov 25 '14 at 13:45
  • Sorry to have removed the original context for many of the above comments capitalising on the (unintended?) innuendo. But I've edited out all the irrelevant references to prophylactics and cocksure tool-wielding. – FumbleFingers Nov 25 '14 at 13:53
  • 4
    @FumbleFingers, I've rolled back your edits, because it also breaks the most-upvoted answer. – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 14:06
  • 9
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is trolling – FumbleFingers Nov 25 '14 at 14:19
  • @DanBron Look at the OPs other questions, well written and clear. This is clearly a joke. – TankorSmash Nov 25 '14 at 19:36
  • 2
    @TankorSmash Yes, I know. As are 90% of the comments and half the answers to it! We all know. That doesn't mean we don't welcome jokes, sometimes. Note that despite the obvious humor, it's managed to net 14 upvotes, 16 stars, and all the answers have positive scores, totalling nearly 50 upvotes all told. Forget about the votes on comments! – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 19:38
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers Maybe it's a bit trolling, but I had a good laugh! It reminds me of how many Germans (like me) speak English in a very stupid way sometimes. For example: "Again what learned" or "overheadnothing". That's English which only Germans can understand. – Christian Hujer Nov 25 '14 at 19:41
  • I just look to SE for a reference to whatever I'm looking for. I don't expect to find a joke in a dictionary, is what I'm getting at. There's other forums for jokes. IE reddit, twitter, ED. Fun is good, but fun is cheap and easy to find. Quality content isn't. I could be in the minority. – TankorSmash Nov 25 '14 at 19:44
  • 1
    @TankorSmash In short, I, personally, do find this to be quality content. It's on-topic satire, and really funny if you're a denizen of EL&U and familiar with its culture and patterns. And Medica's perfectly in-voice and double-entendre-laced response is sublime. In other words, this kind of fun is not easy to find. – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 19:48
  • @DanBron That's a good and fair point, I suppose so long as it's far and few between it's not really a problem. Still though, my vote is definitely in 0 tolerance. – TankorSmash Nov 25 '14 at 19:51
  • @TankorSmash, "So long as it's few and far between" appears to be the official SE policy. No matter now, the question has been closed (and we've already wrung all the humor out of it) anyway. – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 19:53
  • @TankorSmash: Most if not all of the "jocular" definitions have been culled in successive new editions, but I've had Chambers for many decades. The first one I found myself as a teenager was: *éclair - 'a cake long in shape but short in duration'*, but years later I enjoyed being told about *baby-sitter - 'one who mounts guard over a baby to relieve the usual attendant'*. – FumbleFingers Nov 25 '14 at 22:34
  • I was going to suggest "Mountain man". They are usually trappers or they use simple weapons. They might encounter a puma and fight it off. You might see them pantless! (not sure about the last one) – ermanen Nov 26 '14 at 01:21
  • 1
    Just in case others are misled: this is a joke/troll account that asks silly and deliberately disingenuous questions that nonetheless require a bit of lateral thinking to locate the actual jokes. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 03 '15 at 18:06

4 Answers4

30

I might call this man overconfident:

Excessively confident; presumptuous; foolhardy. Also cocky, cocksure, overweening. Also, (informal) too big for one's britches.

cocksure

too certain; overconfident: He was so cocksure he would catch the cougar that he that he didn't even bother to wear pants.

anongoodnurse
  • 55,278
9

I think it could be said that the hunter is hubristic.

If there's a more precise word for this situation in another language it should be incorporated into English forthwith.

Patrick Wood
  • 1,998
9

The word you're looking for is inebriated. While inebriated, a person is often likely to attempt daring and dangerous feats, and to consider it a good idea to make such an attempt without their pants.

talrnu
  • 5,224
3

I would call such man a reckless hunter.

Or, if he thinks that his tool is bigger than it is in reality, an overconfident hunter.

CowperKettle
  • 3,649
  • 7
    But he brought catpalt for kill crow or moose. Surely that's at least partially reckful? – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 11:57
  • 2
    @DanBron: I found no definition for catpalt, hence I cannot reck fully the extent of his reckfulness. – CowperKettle Nov 25 '14 at 12:01
  • 2
    I think the man brought a "CATSPAW" to kill a (small) crow or MOUSE. But in any event, a smaller weapon than sported by most "cats." – Tom Au Nov 25 '14 at 17:07
  • @TomAu, I think the hunter actually brought a slingshot, which the author confused with a catapult, but correcting the words misses the point entirely. – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 18:04
  • @DanBron: (The future King) David killed lions with slingshots. Not to mention Goliath. If the man had brought a slingshot, that would have been "unconventional," but not necessarily foolhardy, depending on his level of skill. – Tom Au Nov 25 '14 at 18:51
  • @Tom, yeah, but those feats were so impressive, and successful despite such long odds, that his fierce reputation was built upon them (partially, at least). – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 19:14