Comments on: Independent 6285 / Monk What you see might not be what you get! http://www.fifteensquared.net/2006/12/07/independent-6285-monk-what-you-see-might-not-be-what-you-get/ Never knowingly undersolved. Mon, 20 May 2013 04:54:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: <![CDATA[Dennis MacKinnon]]> http://www.fifteensquared.net/2006/12/07/independent-6285-monk-what-you-see-might-not-be-what-you-get/#comment-295 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:34:05 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=107#comment-295 I forgot to say also that this usage might go towards an elucidation as to why the ‘fellow’ should be ‘single or divorced’.

]]> By: <![CDATA[Dennis MacKinnon]]> http://www.fifteensquared.net/2006/12/07/independent-6285-monk-what-you-see-might-not-be-what-you-get/#comment-294 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:24:33 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=107#comment-294 W does not equal ‘woman’.

However The Times editor, in his most recent list of accepted abbreviations, cites ‘women’s’ and also the likely culprit: W = wife.

]]> By: <![CDATA[nmsindy]]> http://www.fifteensquared.net/2006/12/07/independent-6285-monk-what-you-see-might-not-be-what-you-get/#comment-293 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:21:01 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=107#comment-293 Solved this in 36 mins. Distinctively Monk-ish to me. Like Tilsit, I found it a little easier than some of Monk’s. Not much else to say, because I think he’s explained everything so fully. While sure of the answer FELL TO could not quite see how it worked (precisely why the W went) – what he says sounds exactly it. Saw the bottom row early on, but with Monk you look for these things, don’t you?

]]>