<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Enigmatic Variations No.972 &#8211; Extraction by Oxymoron</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fifteensquared.net/2011/07/02/enigmatic-variations-no-972-extraction-by-oxymoron/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2011/07/02/enigmatic-variations-no-972-extraction-by-oxymoron/</link>
	<description>Never knowingly undersolved.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 09:40:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: nmsindy</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2011/07/02/enigmatic-variations-no-972-extraction-by-oxymoron/#comment-163257</link>
		<dc:creator>nmsindy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fifteensquared.net/?p=30999#comment-163257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting points.   I think the main thing is that, while obviously seeking above all to provide entertainment, a puzzle should be fair, with everything justifiable in its reference source (Chambers for these puzzles).    I agree puzzles should not be made artificially difficult or use obscure references just for the sake of it, but I think people who tackle these puzzles expect them to be more difficult than the standard fare so that it would take them a little while more to solve them with their journey on the way to solving hopefully being enjoyable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting points.   I think the main thing is that, while obviously seeking above all to provide entertainment, a puzzle should be fair, with everything justifiable in its reference source (Chambers for these puzzles).    I agree puzzles should not be made artificially difficult or use obscure references just for the sake of it, but I think people who tackle these puzzles expect them to be more difficult than the standard fare so that it would take them a little while more to solve them with their journey on the way to solving hopefully being enjoyable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Sting</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2011/07/02/enigmatic-variations-no-972-extraction-by-oxymoron/#comment-163223</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Sting</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fifteensquared.net/?p=30999#comment-163223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This idea of the &#039;acceptability&#039; of clues is curious, and not one that easily lends itself to an answer.

One could demand only &#039;general use&#039; words, but I don&#039;t think that many would be so demanding. Certainly, every EV I&#039;m aware of would fail such a stringent test. 

Alternatively, one might want a limit on the use of obscurities. It sometimes seems to me unfair when a setter has needlessly used Words Only Found In Chamber&#039;s to clue a word that is, itself, utterly obscure.

What is noteworthy, but not indefensible, is the palpable dislike of some solvers of slang such as &#039;def&#039;. I&#039;ll admit that I find it odd to object to a word that is widely used in a limited area of parlance while not objecting to an archaic, Sperserian, or even traditional dialect word. As I say, I accept that there is a difference between these sets of words, although, to me, it does not seem a significant one. Personally, I find the use of &#039;Scottish&#039; words that no Scot knows, let alone uses, more bothersome, although I can see their value to setters.

The debate echoes in some ways the elitist/populist arguments that reign over the acceptability of Livy and/or Lady GaGa as thematic material.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This idea of the &#8216;acceptability&#8217; of clues is curious, and not one that easily lends itself to an answer.</p>
<p>One could demand only &#8216;general use&#8217; words, but I don&#8217;t think that many would be so demanding. Certainly, every EV I&#8217;m aware of would fail such a stringent test. </p>
<p>Alternatively, one might want a limit on the use of obscurities. It sometimes seems to me unfair when a setter has needlessly used Words Only Found In Chamber&#8217;s to clue a word that is, itself, utterly obscure.</p>
<p>What is noteworthy, but not indefensible, is the palpable dislike of some solvers of slang such as &#8216;def&#8217;. I&#8217;ll admit that I find it odd to object to a word that is widely used in a limited area of parlance while not objecting to an archaic, Sperserian, or even traditional dialect word. As I say, I accept that there is a difference between these sets of words, although, to me, it does not seem a significant one. Personally, I find the use of &#8216;Scottish&#8217; words that no Scot knows, let alone uses, more bothersome, although I can see their value to setters.</p>
<p>The debate echoes in some ways the elitist/populist arguments that reign over the acceptability of Livy and/or Lady GaGa as thematic material.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nmsindy</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2011/07/02/enigmatic-variations-no-972-extraction-by-oxymoron/#comment-163152</link>
		<dc:creator>nmsindy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:46:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fifteensquared.net/?p=30999#comment-163152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the reference dict for puzzles such as this is Chambers, as is signalled in preambles, so def = brilliant which is in Chambers is quite OK, I&#039;d say.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the reference dict for puzzles such as this is Chambers, as is signalled in preambles, so def = brilliant which is in Chambers is quite OK, I&#8217;d say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2011/07/02/enigmatic-variations-no-972-extraction-by-oxymoron/#comment-163145</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fifteensquared.net/?p=30999#comment-163145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you, Mr Sting

I got nowhere with this - far too many obscure words. And sorry to sound grumpy but when I see that I was supposed to know that &quot;def&quot; means brilliant (something I would never have got in a million years) I begrudge the time I wasted on it. What a shame, as it was a lovely idea for a puzzle.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Mr Sting</p>
<p>I got nowhere with this &#8211; far too many obscure words. And sorry to sound grumpy but when I see that I was supposed to know that &#8220;def&#8221; means brilliant (something I would never have got in a million years) I begrudge the time I wasted on it. What a shame, as it was a lovely idea for a puzzle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
