I've always wondered the same but maybe if you coat the person in shaving foam and then top off with silly string... I think that would work really well!
I've always taken the view that to properly count as wam or sploshing, the activity or substance has to leave the person it's applied to wet, and not just covered in something they can brush or shake off. So pour a litre bottle of ink over a willing person's jeans and that's definitely wam, but scribbling on their jeans with pens probably isn't as it won't leave the jeans wet. Silly string mostly just brushes off. Having said that, no objection at all to not-really-wam but still interesting stuff being posted, so bring on the silly string posts, be interesting to see what the reaction is.
Mr Fred, for me coverage is not enough. You can cover someone in a duvet, doesn't make it WAM. It's got to cover and stick......... and be wet. If you want all 3 marks on the exam you'll be expected to include all three in your definition!
Ultimately, "WAM" is personal. If you get turned on by watching someone be covered in silly string, then it's "WAM" for you. Personally, I never liked silly string because of the smell, and never thought that it was particularly messy.
Maybe as a flourish - the cherry on top of a big old mess. An insult to injury.
Like sprinkles. Throw them on top, but on their own it's not enough.
e.g. On Noel's Saturday Roadshow - the 'greed factor' button gave the winner an opportunity to gamble in the gunge tank. If they won, they got metallic confetti and the prizes (Not a forfeit, not messy - brushed off), if they lost, they were showered in coloured nastrosol - AND often the glittery confetti as well! A different matter.
roxema said: Yeah, I know the drill: if you have to ask, it probably isn't...
...but if Ariel, to pick a random model, released a video covering herself in Silly String, would get a big from the panel?
Let the discussion begin!
I was going to say no but that photo is very intriguing. I haven't used it since I was a kid and now you have given me the urge to go find some
I'm kind of the same way. Basically I don't think it's WAM. But it's a little gooey & sticky, and Kari in that picture is certainly covered in it, with it sticking to her face, hair, and chest. So it sort of fills the exact same role of why we wam someone. The mess, the humiliation of being covered with it, the stickiness, etc.
So, like you, Leila, I'd love to see someone covered in it, even if it isn't technically wam. Actually, to rephrase that, I'd love to see someone like you, Leila, covered in it!
Just for the sake of an extra perspective, if you pour a sack of flour over a beautiful woman's head, that definitely counts as WAM in my book even though it doesn't make her wet.
By itself maybe not, but in conjunction with other things it sure can. It was the "icing on the mess" at my clown pie fight. So I can only add to the ambiguities lol
If not covered in frosting, are you really living?
mhalver said: I tend to take a more lenient view than a lot of people around here - if you have to clean up (especially by taking a shower) afterwards, it is WAM.
To me, this is a pretty good measure for whether something is WAM or not. Not 100% failsafe, but I can't remember having a WAM session where I didn't need to take a shower afterwards, so I think if you can realistically clean up just by brushing off then it's not WAM.
(Maybe it should have been called MTW "Messy then Wet", as invariably doing the messy bit forces you to do the wet bit!)
Love you, too
from the panel? 
VIP Coupons