Here’s Anax on the previously debated topic.

“Setters and editors are split over what is and is not acceptable when it comes to a slightly different procedure – the subtraction anagram. This involves a word or phrase in the clue from which a number of letters must be removed before the anagram is formed. Take the following example:

Soiled underpants nuns refused to take off (6)

The answer is DEPART (to take off), which is arrived at by rearranging the letters of UNDERPANTS (the anagram indicator here is “soiled”) but without the letters of NUNS – “refused” is offered as the subtraction indicator. In some publications this clue would be accepted as fair. In others, the editor may point out that the letters of NUNS have themselves been rearranged within the letters of UNDERPANTS, and that the setter should indicate this:

Soiled underpants nuns stubbornly refused to take off (6)

Here, “stubbornly” is used as the anagram indicator. Whether solving or writing clues, it is worth looking out for editorial preferences such as this. In turn, these preferences should be consistent within your chosen publication – if they are not, you have every right to complain!”

from: http://www.ukpuzzle.com/crypticxwordguide.htm

Please take your arguments to him.

I share the same view as that expressed by Boatman here:

http://www.boatmancryptics.co.uk/index_files/WhatToExpect.html

Others (including yourself I think) take a position somewhere between the two.

My original comment was merely to welcome the appearance of an example of the above in a daily puzzle since it is well known that the various crossword editors have views, not necessarily based on correctness, of the extent to which such clues should appear.

Before the troll started attacking me and later appearing with his “lance” (per-lease) it seemed a fairly innocuous thing to say.

The way you talk about “grammar” makes it sound as though you’ve fallen hook line and sinker for the troll’s propaganda (which is shared by others), which is of course designed to promote the idea that there is only one valid “cryptic grammar” (their own of course) thus enabling them to make ex cathedra pronouncements on the work of their colleagues – which can sometimes amount to a thinly disguised case of workplace bullying.

BTW I don’t agree with this at all:

“In turn, these preferences should be consistent within your chosen publication – if they are not, you have every right to complain!”

Exactly why? The G and now also the Telegraph Toughie series are renowned for their variety and long may they continue to be – after all Araucaria and Pasquale both appear in the G. In fact if Boatman wanted to put a secondary jumblicator in that would be OK by me, provided of course that the letters weren’t already in the necessary order. Redundancy is OK – superfluity is not.

Sorry – I dunno how to do those coloured smileys.

Oh – I just saw the preview – it turns out that I do.

It doesn’t work with curly brackets. :-{

While “the troll” can be offensive to other posters (like when denying the existence of One (capital O, in his interpretation possibly capital Nothing) called RC Whiting), he does actually say sensible things on what is (in my opinion) essential to crosswords.

In the meantime, my smileys are just there to ease down what’s going on at this place. Take things with a smile. I do.

I am – just like you – very interested in learning more and more about what is going on in Crosswordland, but I will never write a book about that (as I am not Mr Know-it-all). Your ‘problem’ is perhaps that you are too sure about your statements being correct – at least in your posts.

Perhaps, you should do a thing like I do on a regular basis.
Put a to your post – (oops, one too many?)

The varying views of setters, solvers and crossword editors on subtraction anagrams are perfectly easy to track down, define and understand. Even the people the troll has referred to in the past as “pond life” should be able to understand.