Thanks for agreeing it’s not a good clue – that assists my blood pressure.

The point I was trying to make – quite calmly now – is this. I love the sublime stuff and the irreverent, jokey, punning whatever. I love that some of Paul’s and other setters come up with great and difficult wordplay. I accept as well that most of the time I’m nowhere near well read/educated enough to ‘get’ half the clues/answers. But what I can’t excuse is when such a setter is then lazy/loose in one definition – it’s not “somewhat tenuous ” as Paul (the other one) says – it’s just a poor clue and there would have been many wittier/more elegant wordplays that a man of Paul’s talents could surely have employed.

When you’re struggling to do these things there’s nothing worse than thinking of an answer and then thinking ‘no that can’t be right – it doesn’t really work’ and then finding it was ‘right’.
I think a great crossword (whether I can do it or not) is when you have a lightbulb moment when you finally see or are given the answer.

I’m sure you Paul devotees will say that he’s just a flawed genius. Let’s agree to disagree.

Of course, when John (who was Paul) set alongside Paul (who was John) on a now apparently defunct website, it was as clear as Mudd: around that time, the fact that a lot of Bull (Vatican theme) under the name John Paul failed to reveal is a minor miracle.

As there are plenty of Johns already on the Guardian panel, I guess they don’t want any more no matter what’s on offer, and this helps to avoid confusion … even while Biggles is four Johns (only one among whom is Paul) all setting together.

Oh, in case it isn’t clear, I’m not *that* Paul. Paul is just my name. Perhaps I should post here under the name ‘John’…

I agree with yet another Paul – B – that Paul’s Guardian crosswords are always a treat. Along with Brendan, Brummie and sometimes (is that sacrilege?) Araucaria, the sight of ‘set by Paul’ under the grid is the cue for me skipping straight to that page and reading the paper later!

Yes, yes there are one or two grammaticals, but so many gems too. Like F/ ALL: quite outstanding.

I don’t think it was a very good clue either, as it happens.

Of course meat ‘is’ dead but that doesn’t mean that dead ‘means’ meat or visa versa! (ripe)Bananas are all yellow but it doesn’t make banana and yellow interchangeable.

I give up. And why would you have the expression/word dead meat if they already meant the same thing.

Arghhhh. I don’t understand how anyone who sets crosswords and therefore (let’s be honest) has to have a slightly pedantic mind, or precise if you prefer, can then be happy with such (seems to me but I’m happy to be corrected if someone has a better explanation than Jetdoc)loose definitions.

Rant over.

With Paul, one should not expect fastidiousness over meaning.