Comments on: Financial Times 13,178 / Phssthpok http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/09/10/financial-times-13178-phssthpok/ Never knowingly undersolved. Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Agentzero http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/09/10/financial-times-13178-phssthpok/#comment-93088 Agentzero Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:16:45 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=10936#comment-93088 Yes, it seemed a stretch. I suppose you could justify it on the basis of “the support for the bill was bipartisan” = “the support for the bill was on both sides [of the aisle]“

]]> By: Gaufrid http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/09/10/financial-times-13178-phssthpok/#comment-93085 Gaufrid Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:46:07 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=10936#comment-93085 Thanks Agentzero. I knew there had to be a simpler explanation for 15d. I had considered partisan, but didn’t see (hear) the buy/bi homophone, but that means the definition must be ‘on both sides’ which is not the meaning of ‘bipartisan’. This was why I was looking for a way of accounting for the ‘on’.

]]> By: Agentzero http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/09/10/financial-times-13178-phssthpok/#comment-93081 Agentzero Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:25:31 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=10936#comment-93081 Gaufrid,

Thanks for the blog. In 15 down, I think “bi” is a homophone of “buy”–if you buy a government official you are corrupting him. “Soldier” is then simply “partisan.”

]]>