Comments on: Financial Times 14,055 by Redshank

By: Jeffery@Brother Sewing Machines

Jeffery@Brother Sewing Machines — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 03:02:14 +0000

Excellent and wonderful post!Cool puzzle!

Know The Best Sewing Available on http://www.ebrothersewingmachine.com/best-sewing-machine-available/ .

By: Keeper

Keeper — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:38:03 +0000

Pedant alert: I have a nit with 23d. Tundra and taiga are two distinct biomes. In fact, tundra is characterized by a lack of tree growth. So “woods in the tundra” doesn’t make sense (and certainly doesn’t equate to taiga). But as the taiga and tundra are adjacent, this could have been fixed with “next to the tundra” or “below (south of) the tundra”.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:59:15 +0000

Let us wait by the painted porch …

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:48:16 +0000

Furthermore to subtraction anagrams: JS, what do you think of 29ac in last Monday’s FT Prize Crossword by Dante?
As it’s a prize puzzle, you’re not allowed to say anything about it now and here, but perhaps we can give our discussion a follow-up in my blog of that puzzle next Thursday?
So, stay in tune!

By: JollySwagman

JollySwagman — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:12:14 +0000

Nice idea ferret – toys in my pram all present and correct – only problem is I don’t have any puppets.

I was advised not to get any cos it makes folks think you’re an obsessive weirdo.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:46:39 +0000

An excellent sentiment!

By: Ferret

Ferret — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:37:39 +0000

If only I was clever enough to devise a subtraction anagram clue that involved throwing TOYS out of A PRAM……….

By: JollySwagman

JollySwagman — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:07:23 +0000

The trick with a good puppet show is to not let the audience see the strings.

By: star-system

star-system — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:34:59 +0000

An interesting debate!

Some fellow I met many years ago had cause to set me straight on something or other with the following, wine-assisted analogy. ‘In the jungle pathways of Crossword Island are set many traps, frequently sprung, and much to the delight of the tribal elders’.

What’s Ximenean and what’s not is a can of worms someone very foolishly has opened, and there is no going back. I tend to exercise restraint wherever possible, unless I’m right on the money.

By: JollySwagman

JollySwagman — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:07:30 +0000

Wow – what a nasty man. It’s great sometimes to give people the opportunity to show their true colours. Enough rope and all that. Seems that he was chewing at the bit to have a crack at me.

It seemed such an innocuous thing to say. A bit like driving quietly along a country lane when some road-rager comes roaring up behind – lights flashing, fist shaking.

Another Indy setter once wrote (not that long ago) in a competition setting:

“The Independent (and, I suspect, The Times) doesn’t allow subtraction anagrams at all if the subtracted fodder doesn’t appear as an unbroken string.”

Actually I could have disagreed with that at the time (re the Indy) as there was a counter-example of that on the Indy not much earlier but as I (think I) recall it only ran to two letters – so the general point that at that time the Indy seemed in general to discourage subtraction anagrams would match my casual observation – The Times even more so although there my visits are even less frequent.

So in a nutshell I was welcoming that apparent liberalisation.

As far as whether jumbling of the subtraction fodder is needed – for me never – but I have definitely come across folk saying always – now two people say sometimes – depends on the order of presentation, and even that you can fudge the order of evaluation with words like “first”. I’m really not interested in how the numbers divide on that. Never is good enough for me – and if one’s thrown in to help the surface – no harm done.

Unless my comment at #5 should have more precisely read “Xim-pedants claim …” as “Some Xim-pedants claim …” I cannot fault it and the former is a perfectly commonplace usage when the latter is intended.

So the simple message was:

1: there seems to be evidence in that puzzle that the Indy is liberalising it’s attitude to subtraction anagrams.

2: I welcome that.