In the hierarchy of scissors, paper, and rock, by all rights the paper should have been able to cover over the scissors, thereby making them less visible, and consequently, less powerful.

But scissors cut paper. That's the rules. It's the rock that smashes the scissors. But what good are they then? Sure, nobody is likely to use broken shears, but is prevention, in this case, worse than the ill?

And that brings up another obvious flaw in the scissors, paper, rock hierarchy. If paper covers rock...

...what do you use to keep the paper from blowing away?

Wouldn't the three of them (scissors, paper, and rock) be much happier if they worked together for their mutual benefit, rather than covering, cutting, and smashing?

And then, see, the whole thing of just three (scissors, paper, rock) is so exclusive. Why not not crayon or pen? Why not stick?

You know, if scissors, paper, and rock continue to be so exclusive, so segregationist in their world view, it's bound to come back to haunt them. I mean, if they'd just include some other objects (like sticks) then the whole world might look more favorable on the threesome.

If they don't, at some point somebody's going to take real offense and take matters in their own hands. For instance, who do you think wins in a game of "scissors, paper, rock, dynamite"?

And what's with "a" scissors?

It's like that old question... Why are "panties" always plural, but "bra" is singular?