Comments on: Guardian Prize No 25,730 by Picaroon

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:54:19 +0000

To mnsindy (38)

Thanks for explaining &lit. I am most grateful

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:23:31 +0000

Sorry. In my comment (37) I should have put……the only thing I could NOT see the reason for………

By: stiofain

stiofain — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:41:11 +0000

someone with posting permission should jump in with a basic blog of todays Rufus to ensure 15sqed 100 % record of daily Guardian xword blogs posted on the day

By: rhotician

rhotician — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:47:27 +0000

I will, if you will.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:51:00 +0000

Hint: stop digging.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:15:51 +0000

“I found among the true &lits…”

Among – of the number of, amid. Chambers.

My statement is therefore ambiguous. In one case it is illogical, in the sense that it does not make sense. In the other case my statement makes sense, though that does not necessarily make it logical.

Therefore, I should have “amid”, so as not to distract from the truth of my meaning.

Language, Truth and Logic. Deep waters. But I haven’t done the Rufus yet.

By: rowland

rowland — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:40:43 +0000

Yes, that one was illogical, Rhotician, and fell straight into someone’s lap. But I really hope we can discuss &lits properly at some point, maybe not on a fast-moving thread where the puzzle is ‘live’, perhaps in ‘general discussion’, and without a slanging match, which I don’t like, because these clever clues are really fascinating. I liked the examples in Picaroon’s puzzle the other week too, but after having explored the given link, see the additional points made. It’s fertile ground, as I hope you all agtee.

Thanks all, thanks Paul B for the link.

Cheers
Rowly.

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:21:14 +0000

Picaroon
Don’t spend a moment thinking about these utter irrelevancies regarding &lits.
Just continue to concentrate on what you do best: set further challenging puzzles.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:03:35 +0000

“I found among the true &lits several semis and quite a few that could really only be said to be &litish”.

Strange kind of logic you deploy, ‘optician’. I like it!

By: Picaroon

Picaroon — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:18:18 +0000

Greetings all,

Thanks, Bridgesong, for the really thorough blog, and to everyone dropping in to comment (particularly DuncT – we need some new blood here!)

I can’t see any meaningful “debate” whatsoever here about & lits. They are what they are. Paul B has one opinion, everyone else who has posted so far has another. I think that all the relevant points have already been made and clearly explained and it would be fruitless to reiterate them.