I have neither had cancer, nor lost anybody close to me as a result of it. Were that not the case I might feel differently.

However, as it stands, I think it’s important that crossword setters are allowed to err on the side of insensitivity. We come across AIDs, HIV, CAR-CRASH and so on frequently enough, even LYNCHING and SWASTIKA, if I remember correctly. I can well imagine a number of solvers having unhappy associations with any of these words, yet I don’t know that we should criticise a setter for using them as a result.

Similarly one doesn’t have to look for long, even within the same newspaper, for instances of these words being used flippantly (or at least without the gravitas that some might deem appropriate). I do not think we should censure a crossword-setter for being no less coy than his colleagues in the comment / lifestyle sections with the vocabulary he/she uses (unless of course we are willing to take those colleagues in our sights).

The argument against, as far as I can tell, seems to rest in large part upon the assumption that the crossword is too trivial or frivolous a forum for such words. Although crosswords are at one level mere word-games, I think most of us here would agree that there is also something of the art-form about them, and that words are not necessarily trivialised by their inclusion.

Anyway, I’m blathering on, but I think I’m just going along with my Mill-esque hunch that any claimed right to not be offended establishes dangerous boundaries.

Yours, with respect,

And so regardless of your own acceptance, and regardless of anyone’s acceptance, that ‘mortality affects us all’, which clearly it does, the forum for discussion of same is not, I would argue, a crossword puzzle. In other words, neither you nor anyone else has the right to shove it down people’s throats just because you’re personally okay (or as okay as you can be) with it.

Here we have a compiler and an editor who have decided arbitrarily that both TERMINAL CANCER and CANCER (plus some other tasteless stuff which fortunately I’ve failed to remember) are jolly okay for inclusion. I think those decisions actually take a massive liberty, in assuming that everyone, affected or not, is like you, Derek, and can handle it, or at least doesn’t care about being reminded of it.

Of course, in reality The Grauniad team can’t possibly know that, for which reason the words should have been edited out.

But for the sake of clarity, and as one who is actually qualified to comment, there is no issue here. The clue above is fine because

1. these are just words, look at this way, regardless of what you call my cancer, it will still kill me, so what difference does it make what it is called, an ailment, a condition, a disease, or whatever, the result will be the same whatever words are used, so how are mere words even relevant?

2. I can’t believe there was a deliberate attempt to be hurtful in that clue, just a setter being marginally misleading in his choice of words

And this whole thing is being discussed because people are artificially sensitive about real life in all its warts and all glory. This is not surprising when much of it is hidden from view for the sake of the squeamish. It’s much the same reason as why most meat eaters can’t even contemplate the abattoir, let alone witness it’s workings. People are totally out of touch with the realities of life and (quick, look away now) death, which is a greivous failing of modern society.

And thank you.

BTW all, just because I haven’t been posting every day doesn’t mean I ain’t here. Somedays I have nothing to add, and others I was so defeated that comment would fill War and Peace! However, on other days a good battle does cheer me up. Pity some people take that seriously.

Let me say just once more that there is no suggestion anywhere in my comments on yesterday’s puzzle that we shouldn’t mention cancer. I specifically said that I would have had no objection whatsoever to it being clued as ‘tropical disease’ – in fact, that’s not a bad clue. It was the trivialisation of it that upset me and I would have thought you’d agree on that.

Perhaps it’s our different understanding of the word ‘ailment’ that’s the problem? I’ve never thought of it as a straight synonym for ‘illness’ – it has a whiff of hypochondria for me – and, as I said, Chambers [I know, I know ] bears me out and Collins even more so, giving a *slight* illness as the only definition.

May I add to William’s good wishes to you – and, as he says, keep on commenting!

Comfortable with the diagnosis? Had to laugh mate, that never happens. Thanks for raising a smile though!

William @ 40, well thanks but don’t worry, nobody ever does know what to say, but getting the awkward first words out of the way makes anything that follows easier for people.

Eileen, sorry to hear that obviously, and yes I know it’s not easy being around it, but bottling it all up doesn’t help, it’s easier out than in. I learnt that about ten years ago when I finally started to come to terms with bad things that I went through as a kid. What finally laid the ghosts to rest was talking about it. So, I learnt that lesson. Talk, it’s good, and infinitely preferable to not.

I don’t think there are many of us who have not had fairly close-hand experience of cancer, in one way or another, and I’m sure, Derek, that you are aware that it’s not only those who have the disease who are the ‘sufferers’. I’m not one of those like RCW’s squeamish female relatives who are afraid to say the word. It was an important part of my vocabulary during the two years between my husband’s diagnosis and his death.

A couple of years ago, I promised not to comment on dodgy ‘homophones’ any more and I’ve stuck to that – although other people still mention me in connection with them! I promise now never again to mention why G is my least favourite setter.