Comments on: Guardian 24,617 / Araucaria

By: Tom Hutton

Tom Hutton — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:22:46 +0000

I agree with those bemoaning the recent clutter on this site. I thought it was wonderful when I first found it but slightly less so now. It is rare to find a site free from juvenile sarcasm and with such a good focus on an interesting subject. Don’t lose it.

By: Eileen

Eileen — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:01:42 +0000

Hi again, Smutchin

I’ve only just got round to following up the link you supplied in comment 20. Excellent! – it should be required reading!

By: Derek Lazenby

Derek Lazenby — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:37:04 +0000

Muck, Post 22. The number of posts is not the problem, it is the small number of people. More people for the same number of posts might give a wider cross section of the solving community.

Eileen, glad I’m not the only one with reservations about Chambers, I was begining to feel lonely!

And just to keep to the thread topic, I looked at the puzzle and went straight to a different puzzle because there was obviously no point in me trying it. Remember though, a few days different and I finished my first Araucaria non-prize xword.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:51:17 +0000

It *appears* friendly, or at least benign, which is why it’s such clever trolling. And seven IDs deployed, so far.

What a shame it would be for these threads to be ruined by it.

By: don

don — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:32:30 +0000

>> ‘No side’ is the end of a rugby match: painfully topical!

Au contraire – wonderfully topical!

By: muck

muck — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:21:33 +0000

Risking adding more chit-chat, which I have derided, I do think that 15sqd is wonderful.
And the chit-chat here is at least friendly, unlike on the talk.guardian.co.uk crossword threads.

By: mhl

mhl — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:33:49 +0000

Eileen: I think the annotated solutions have been available for prize and genius crosswords since about October 2008 – Hugh Stephenson mentioned them in his newsletter from December 3rd 2008. It’s still very worthwhile having a post here, of course, not only because we can all comment, but also because the explanations on fifteensquared tend to be rather less terse

By: Eileen

Eileen — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:30:39 +0000

Smutchin: I’ve been out all day, hence the tardy response.

I totally agree with you about PROSER. I had to look it up in my primary reference[SOED] which gives ‘one who talks or writes in a prosy, dull or tiresome way 1769′ but that means that it would actually be allowed on Countdown, which I did once admit to watching, I know, but no longer. [A remark you made last week led me to believe that you share my reservations about Chambers being the 'bible'. I bought one after 'joining' this site because it seemed to be the 'sine qua non' but I have been disappointed in it on a number of counts.]

I hope you’ve now resolveed the last two Paul solutions [20ac was the killer for me - but brilliant!]in one of the best puzzles [i.e. I found the hardest but was 'clever' enough to finish] for ages – and that’s saying something.

I’m looking forward to more of your excellent puzzles, especially the one featuring ‘netiqette’.

Muck: thank you for the nice comment: I have tried to limit mine [more or less ]to this puzzle but I put my hands up to ‘transgressions’ in the past.

By: muck

muck — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:18:54 +0000

Eileen #17. I did look at the Guardian annotated solution, when no blog appeared. But your contribution was much better.
Re- ‘extraneous chit-chat’. I don’t mind really, but some puzzles are getting 60-80 comments!

By: Tilsit

Tilsit — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:43:45 +0000

I did wonder about this puzzle, it was more suited to one of those in his Chambers books of crosswords where there are jigsaws with aphorisms and quotes like this one that are not attributable.

When I got a couple of the words I went off and checked Ogden Nash and suchlike without success.

Certainly not an easy solve, but no less rewarding when finished. The CANAILLE clue held me up longer than the rest of the puzzle.