<?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: Guardian Quiptic N° 681 by Nutmeg</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/</link>
	<description>Never knowingly undersolved.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 05:54:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek Lazenby</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/#comment-216666</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek Lazenby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fifteensquared.net/?p=52076#comment-216666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, I guess I&#039;m not a beginner, afterall I&#039;ve finished many by Araucaria, even the occasional Saturday one of his. I couldn&#039;t finish this one though. Add to that our dear blogger couldn&#039;t parse one of the clues. This may well have been a good crossword, but a Quiptic? Do I need to spell it out?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, I guess I&#8217;m not a beginner, afterall I&#8217;ve finished many by Araucaria, even the occasional Saturday one of his. I couldn&#8217;t finish this one though. Add to that our dear blogger couldn&#8217;t parse one of the clues. This may well have been a good crossword, but a Quiptic? Do I need to spell it out?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PeterO</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/#comment-216650</link>
		<dc:creator>PeterO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fifteensquared.net/?p=52076#comment-216650</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you, Nutmeg for clearing up 5D. I had had the horrible suspicion that the intention might have been &#039;departed&#039; -&gt; split -&gt; cleft, a device I would not like to come upon unawares in any crossword, yet alone a Quiptic.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Nutmeg for clearing up 5D. I had had the horrible suspicion that the intention might have been &#8216;departed&#8217; -&gt; split -&gt; cleft, a device I would not like to come upon unawares in any crossword, yet alone a Quiptic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stella</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/#comment-216639</link>
		<dc:creator>Stella</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fifteensquared.net/?p=52076#comment-216639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At least we all agree that to make 200% bigger is to treble, not to double as I so often hear expressed even by journalists, :-O]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least we all agree that to make 200% bigger is to treble, not to double as I so often hear expressed even by journalists, :-O</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nutmeg</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/#comment-216634</link>
		<dc:creator>Nutmeg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:15:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fifteensquared.net/?p=52076#comment-216634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for comments, and I&#039;m sorry about 5d. My original clue had &#039;...parting shortly&#039;, (parting=cleft), and I didn&#039;t spot that the editing change invalidated the clue. And yes, of course it should have been (6,4)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for comments, and I&#8217;m sorry about 5d. My original clue had &#8216;&#8230;parting shortly&#8217;, (parting=cleft), and I didn&#8217;t spot that the editing change invalidated the clue. And yes, of course it should have been (6,4)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robi</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/#comment-216617</link>
		<dc:creator>Robi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fifteensquared.net/?p=52076#comment-216617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Enjoyable crossword, but I think definitly more difficult than an average Quiptic. I had to resort to word searches to get some of the final answers. As Andrew said, EMPLOYEE was particularly tricky.

Thanks PeterO; I agree with K&#039;s dad about the parsing of TREBLE CLEF, which I think should be two words, at least as seen in most dictionaries. I liked COMATOSE, SANDAL and the great anagram for SILHOUETTE.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enjoyable crossword, but I think definitly more difficult than an average Quiptic. I had to resort to word searches to get some of the final answers. As Andrew said, EMPLOYEE was particularly tricky.</p>
<p>Thanks PeterO; I agree with K&#8217;s dad about the parsing of TREBLE CLEF, which I think should be two words, at least as seen in most dictionaries. I liked COMATOSE, SANDAL and the great anagram for SILHOUETTE.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/#comment-216581</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fifteensquared.net/?p=52076#comment-216581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks PeterO. I agree this was slightly above the usual Quiptic level, especially the rather involved 4d.

I don&#039;t know if I&#039;m a better musician that Kathryn&#039;s Dad, but I&#039;ve never seen TREBLE CLEF written as a single word.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks PeterO. I agree this was slightly above the usual Quiptic level, especially the rather involved 4d.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;m a better musician that Kathryn&#8217;s Dad, but I&#8217;ve never seen TREBLE CLEF written as a single word.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathryn's Dad</title>
		<link>http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/12/03/guardian-quiptic-n-681-by-nutmeg/#comment-216580</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathryn's Dad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:19:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fifteensquared.net/?p=52076#comment-216580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks, Peter.

Well done to Nutmeg for slipping a theme into a Quiptic.  I don&#039;t think it got in the way of a &#039;beginner&#039;s&#039; puzzle, but as you say, some beginners might tell us otherwise.  I thought COMATOSE was a lovely clue - nice surface, but eminently gettable.

I fancy you&#039;re right with your first interpretation of TREBLECLEF - TREBLE plus C plus LEF[T].  My quibble would be that I would always write this as two words - TREBLE CLEF.  Dictionaries and musicians better than me might disagree.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Peter.</p>
<p>Well done to Nutmeg for slipping a theme into a Quiptic.  I don&#8217;t think it got in the way of a &#8216;beginner&#8217;s&#8217; puzzle, but as you say, some beginners might tell us otherwise.  I thought COMATOSE was a lovely clue &#8211; nice surface, but eminently gettable.</p>
<p>I fancy you&#8217;re right with your first interpretation of TREBLECLEF &#8211; TREBLE plus C plus LEF[T].  My quibble would be that I would always write this as two words &#8211; TREBLE CLEF.  Dictionaries and musicians better than me might disagree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
