Guardian 26,771 – Rufus

80 comments on “Guardian 26,771 – Rufus”

1. Thanks Rufus and Andrew

   Mostly entertaining. I liked RATCHET (surprised that I don’t remember seeing this before) VANDALISE and CHANDLER in particular.

   I was puzzled by the “games” in TENNIS as I had fallen into the trap of using the “set” in the clue upwards. I couldn’t make sense of SITUATE either.

   The only one I didn’t like was BALLPEN. If the descriptive word is used, it is “ballpoint pen”, but virtually everyone would say “biro” anyway, so although it may be “today’s most popular writer” in fact, it certainly isn’t in speech.

2. Hi

   I will never post here again due to the recent bile on the Philistine thread. I have put a longer post there with my thoughts.

   Even so HNY to all of you even the horrible ones.

   Goodbye
   HH

3. How sad, HH.

4. muffin @1. I think you’re wrong about ballpoint/biro. I’m old enough to remember when Biros were invented (well, nearly) and I never use either word now – nor does anyone else I know. We say pen. Any other type of pen is specified as fountain…, marker… etc

5. cholecyst @4
   Yes. I suppose we would say “pen” to refer to a ballpoint, and add a prefix if another type was meant. However “ballpen” has never been in our vocabulary.

6. The crossword first: not long to delay one, but with some elegances nevertheless. LEHAR, first up and clued the way it is, is Rufus at his best. Only SITUATE held me up, and that not for long – a clever misdirection into the perceived mendacity of estate agents, you just knew it had to be something to do with estate agent-speak (even if, as Andrew points out, somewhat loosely, but then it’s a long time since I bought a house).

   Second, HH. Despite the scorn poured on puzzles that many of us enjoy, his disappearance from the site weakens it, by taking away a world-view that was undoubtedly coherent. I fear, also, that we have weakened HH’s interaction with the world, which is a far greater loss.

7. Dear HH,

   As an occasional corrector (and I will admit teaser) of your posts I will be sorry to see you go.

   Not because I agree with your posts, but because you do add something to the site.

   True you could do with a little internal editing, however I appreciate (as a parent of an Aspergers sufferer) that yours is a very black and white world of rules. Trouble is when you venture into Grauniad-world those rules (of Ximenes) don’t hold sway. You are Alice fallen down the rabbit hole.

   I don’t really think with reflection you will think that some of the criticisms aimed at you constitute bile (or maybe you have lived a very sheltered and reclusive life – which I acknowledge as a genuine possibility), but again I appreciate yours is world of superlatives and extremes (I am the worst person in the world far more often than the average parent, but I accept it because I know that very soon I will be the best).

   If you are going to post here again, and I do hope you will, may I suggest you list your comments and then self edit what you consider to be the top three. Because you often make valid points, they are just hidden in a lot of stuff that winds the non-Ximeans up.

   Lots of love (as always)

   Andy

   P.S. This post is as much for the other posters as it is for you.

8. AndyK @7
   As one who in the past has been accused of being hedgehoggy’s sock puppet, I can assure you that there have been several occasions in the past where regular contributors to this site have positively wished ill will on hh, with no sign of ironic intent. It had become a wearisome habit for some of us to post comments that we found responses to hh’s posts far more offensive than could be justified by what hh had said and the manner in which he said it.

9. Thanks both. I can’t see that “pitch” = “noise”, but otherwise a good Rufus workout.

   As to HH, I hope you read AndyK @7 and all the other comments urging you to return. As far as I am concerned, you will be welcome.

10. Can he please set a puzzle himself?

11. Thank you, Andrew, particularly for the reminder of that terrible F&S pun.

    Such a shame that we seem to be concentrating on the treatment, fair or otherwise, of one contributor rather than the crosswords themselves. If he (or she) had made a small effort to balance his criticisms instead of continuously accusing setters of ‘making mistakes’, his withdrawal from the site would not have become necessary. I’ve only rarely shared HH’s views and never understood why he subjects himself to a form of diversion that so clearly makes him unhappy but, that having been said, I think it’s a shame that any contributor should have reached this pass.

    Hey-ho, back to our venerable Rufus, usual fare in general although I failed to find how ‘pitch’ can be synonymous with ‘noise’. Perhaps there’s a definition I’m unfamiliar with.

    Not wild about BALLPEN – I rather agree with Muffin’s comment @1. Liked COINCIDED & TRENDY.

    Happy New Year all.

12. The usual Rufus mix, and quite enjoyable. I liked VANDALISE, RATCHET, TRIO and EERIE; and thought BALLPEN, EAR and a few others were a bit iffy. Thanks to Rufus and Andrew.

    Don’t go, HH! I also think that some of the comments about your posts were quite cruel. I’ve had a go at rebutting some of your comments in the past, but all in good humour and as I have said before, I think your contributions are all part of the rich tapestry of the site. I send my best wishes for the New Year.

13. Thanks for the link Andrew, cheered me up no end!

14. I share the misgivings about pitch, which is an attribute of a sound/note rather than the sound itself.

15. I hope Hedgehoggy is still around to note the comments urging him to stay. I’ll take the liberty of addressing him directly, though I do agree we should be enjoying our exchange of views on crosswords rather than talking about each other.

    Dear Hedgehoggy/Ian

    I am probably at the opposite end of the ‘spectrum’ to you, but I have friends and relatives at all points along its fascinating line. I think your nickname, Hedgehoggy, suggests you might see yourself as a bit prickly? Or that might be a coincidence. But, in any case, so, it has seemed for some time, are quite a few other people who’ve posted disagreeing with you, and the sometimes rather harsh sounding criticisms you make. Prickly, impatient and sometimes overblown in their challenges to and comments about you.

    But that is not the same as hate. I think you get a lot of pleasure out of crosswords, and analysing the cluing in your own way, and you are sometimes rather rough, even unkind in your language – though probably not by intent. Others seem to get exasperated about that, and are sometimes just as, or even more, rough. But let’s recognise that as sometimes bad tempered, sometimes arrogant, but not hate.

    All of us have vulnerability to being hurt. All of us should do our best to avoid hurting each other. But disagreement and difference are the spice of life, though they can lead to words that can accidentally, or deliberately hurt.

    Being very different from you, I seldom agree with many of your views, but that’s OK with me – this is a grown up place (thanks to many, especially Gaufrid). So please stay, and let’s see whether we can all manage our differences in a friendly and civilised way.

    Very best wishes

    Togo(John)

16. For once this is not about the crossword (but it was a typical Rufus and enjoyable for that).

    I wholeheartedly endorse posts 6, 7 and some others that followed.

    In the very recent past, on these pages, I made conscious efforts to end the evident hostility that too often surfaced in relation to the regular posts of one contributor in particular (hedgehoggy, or ‘HH’) and to restore the focus of these blogs to the crosswords themselves. Some of you are aware of what I said.

    It is therefore a pity, and a tragedy, that HH has reached the point where he has capitulated to the wave of reaction to all the perceived negativity in his posts.

    I was moved by HH’s ‘sign-off’ post on the 1 January blog. I am a parent of a (grown-up) son with Asperger’s and can empathise with that condition as easily as I recognised the symptoms.

    I hope HH reads all the sympathetic and positive remarks on both blogs – today’s and that for 1 January.

    I hope the consequences, unintended by HH, of his frequent, detailed criticisms can be repaired, but above all I would ask the man himself to please think about returning to this site and this community of dedicated solvers and setters. If and when you do (and I will be looking out), make it count: criticise the puzzle, but stick to your top three gripes, as some-one before me has suggested.

    Kindest regards to all.

17. A somewhat frustrating solve – mostly because when Rufus is doing cds you can never be 100% sure that the solution is correct without resorting to Check. Got there in the end – last two were TRIO and SITUATE.

    Thanks to Rufus and Andrew

18. HH,

    I’ve never posted her before but I do hope you read this.

    You are a legend in my crossword-solving circles, and we all enjoy your comments even if we
    don’t agree with some of them.

    It would be a great shame if you no longer felt you could post. I think some of the comments you got on Philistine’s NY thread were over the top and unnecessary.

    All the best.

19. 14d surely jet=black

20. Thanks to Rufus and Andrew. My experience here echoed Beery Hiker@17. I.e., I initially missed the TO for TRIO and had trouble grasping SITUATE. Otherwise, I enjoyed this easy romp after my difficulties with the two prize puzzles.

21. Misdirections are part of the Rufus brand, and this puzzle had a few, which I enjoyed. The puzzle as a whole was rather easy, as expected.

    I didn’t get 25A until I had all the crossers. As well as being an archaic and a legal word, SITUATE is also in the vocabulary of estate agents’ blurb. The surface disguised the meaning well.

22. I am usually a supporter of Rufus but I didn’t think much of this. I couldn’t really see SITUATE but couldn’t see what else it could be and resorted to the check button which I’ve never done when doing a Rufus puzzle. BALLPEN is just poor. I’m not sure about PITCH BLACK either. Does “noise” =”pitch”?
    I didn’t often agree with HH but it’s a shame if someone feels driven off the site!

    Thanks Rufus

23. to William @11

    You write that if HH “had made a small effort to balance his criticisms ………… his withdrawal from the site would not have become necessary”. What exactly would constitute a “small effort” to balance any criticism? And to whom did his withdrawal become a necessity?

    You also write that you have “never understood why he subjects himself to a form of diversion that so clearly makes him unhappy”. On what is this remarkable piece of psychoanalytical presumption based? I think we should be told.

24. Masterson @11 “…to whom did his withdrawal become a necessity?” Only to HH himself, sadly. No one else, to my knowledge, wanted or required him to leave. The’small effort’ could have been as small as recognising that different interpretations are not necessarily ‘mistakes’ on the part of the setter. For me, it was this insistence that bridled with so many contributors. I have no problem with arguing the finer points of this pastime but insisting that a differing point of view is plain ‘wrong’ proved to be quite inflammatory.

    You make a fair point in your 2nd para – I can’t know that it made him unhappy, but his lists of ‘errors’ always gave me that impression. After all, we do this for fun and diversion don’t we? Not to get all het up.

25. Dear Hedgehoggy,

    I’m a very, very occasional contributor to this site, but I often read the blogs. Your revelation of your Asperger’s condition goes a long way to explaining the nature of your posts.
    I would disagree with you, however, when you describe many of the responses as “hatred”. I think it’s a much milder frustration on the part of posters to the seemingly unyielding viewpoints that you express. Many other responses are simply disagreements with your conclusions rather than criticisms of you personally. I myself also disagree with you a lot of the time.
    I can now appreciate how much you enjoy crosswords and would therefore urge you to continue to contribute to the site, if you enjoy doing so. Don’t let a few negative comments upset you too much.

    Happy New Year to you,
    phitonelly

26. Re William vs Masterson, well, there was scant or indeed no mention of hedgehoggy on the Philistine thread, which as he says he hadn’t posted to, until some idiot Guardian compiler with his nose put out of joint came on at #26 to air his views (and pepper them up with a few crass assumptions). What a precious twit. And of course, having received an official commendation from The Guardian’s brave compilers, the other sheeple then waded in. So I think we know precisely whose necessity was met here.

    Well done. I hope you’re happy. Because you really won a battle there, didn’t you.

27. I don’t usually respond to HH’s posts, but I often see some valid points. It is just that it is time-consuming to sort them out….. Now knowing about his physical condition, most here will attempt to place his responses in context.

    So, HH, really, it is up to you to decide whether to stay or leave.

28. I haven’t posted here for a while but feel outraged that HH feels he is no longer able to post here. I can understand why but surely everyone is entitled to their opinion and I found his interesting. His detractors and critics have gone too far this time. No need for such venom here.

29. Dear HH

    I don’t post on this site but I read and enjoy it every day. Whilst I don’t always agree with you I often see validity in comments you make, and the site would undoubtedly be the poorer without your participation. I regret that the tone of some reactions to your ideas has been unnecessarily sharp, even personal at times, and maybe this episode can help to restore civilities. I sincerely hope you will feel able to reconsider your decision and resume using the site.

30. Can we just drop all of this futile mud-slinging and have a civilised conversation for a change?

31. Paul B @26

    The tone of your comment is totally out of order, as are some of the words used in it. That you should refer to another setter (or anyone else for that matter) in that manner is, for me, unacceptable. Would you like to be referred to as “some idiot FT/Indy compiler with his nose put out of joint” or “a precious twit”?

    You accuse Picaroon of making “crass assumptions” but that is precisely what you have done. Having re-read all 701 comments posted by hedgehoggy earlier today, I think it is very unlikely that Picaroon has “his nose put out of joint”, as you put it, because he was one of the setters that hedgehoggy frequently praised. There were others who only received an occasional complaint and one for whom every puzzle was deemed to be perfection, or close to it.

32. Yet again a few of the clues as previously indicated required a little more thought from the setter. (It has been pointed out that Rufus, being so prolific, has little time for this.) No excuse really.

    A crossword in need of an editor!

    Sorry to see HH has decided to leave.

    Thanks to Andrew and Rufus

33. Re 31 a Grauniad compiler fired a salvo at one of his own fans (as you rightly point out), as a direct result of which activity said fan has left the site. I’m not the only poster here to be saddened by this, especially in light of recent revelations, and I still think the compiler should have known better: but then possibly so should I before being so ‘totally out of order’.

    Please accept my apologies for the wording of the post, which unfortunately I am unable to edit.

34. HH. Come back.

35. Highlight of the day is the hh post.

    To find that he has effectively been kicked off by a compiler is a shock though. The landslide THAT post started was really horrible. I guess Picaroon couldn’t have foreseen it.

    Jenny M (Guardian fan).

36. @PaulB. Many people have disagreed with HH for months, so why single out my one comment? No one before you did. You make accusations which the moderator has stepped in to call “unacceptable” here.

    What actually happened here? I posted to say 2 things:
    1. I thought HH was right in some ways but not in others because his analyses were very dogmatic. I explained why and said nothing offensive about him, nor did I “fire a salvo”. The post was described at the time as “clear”, “sane”, “lucid” and the thread was described as “civilised and polite” by people on it. It’s only today that people have started talking about “hate” and “bile”. Some threads featuring HH were full of personalised criticism, from and to him, but not this one.
    2. Several people had talked about themselves or setters leaving the site because of HH and were talking about whether he should continue to post. I pointed out that this was unlikely to be a problem, which argues in favour of him continuing to comment. Whilst disagreeing with his analyses, I defended his right to comment and suggested people shouldn’t worry about the detrimental effect his remarks could have.

    Gaufrid has rightly pointed out that I had far more praise than criticism from HH, and there is no reason to think I had an agenda against him. I tried to explain my viewpoint and defend his or anyone else’s right to speak their mind. Your attempt to convince people that I was out to drive away someone who had mostly been very complimentary about me has been called “unacceptable” by Gaufrid, and it could even seem very hard to understand.

    (I did say, in passing, that I personally wondered about whether HH was telling us the full story about who he was and other commenters also expressed some doubts. Someone even said that they thought hedgehoggy was you. However, at that moment, hedgehoggy finally told us who he is. If he hadn’t, perhaps more people might have started to think you were hedgehoggy.)

    Surely everyone can agree and get back to discussing crosswords: if hedgehoggy is who he now says, it’s very unfortunate but understandable that he’s ruffled some feathers. People have disagreed with him and he’s disagreed with others, but personalised accusations about people forcing him off the site, rather than simply pointing out that they disagreed with his rather trenchant comments, are in Gaufrid’s words “unacceptable”.

37. Oh dear – light the blue touch-paper and stand back………………

    Can we not just move on, and hope that HH does read the support he has had here, and decides to continue to contribute his interesting and provocative comments?

38. Absolutely, muffin (your question @37). Well said.

39. So, James B/ Picaroon, you do seem to be hanging rather off Gaufrid’s coat-tails, while of course I have responded to his remarks that were critical of my strategies. That’s fine, I don’t blame you for siding with the righteous, but why, in the middle of a thread already 25 posts old, and which had made no mention of hedgehoggy, did you decide to pipe up? Pretty much your whole post was about this one animal, and it seemed to come completely out of the blue. If I recall correctly the most recent hedgehoggy critique of your work had not been particularly complimentary, but even so! Especially as he is, in general, a fan of your neat style.

    I accept that you could not possibly have known what would then transpire, but really, I found your interventions quite unprofessional. For example, I saw the remarks you mention concerning identity, but chose not to comment.

40. @ Hedgehoggy

    I’m not a regular contributor here but I do read the posts sometimes. I stopped reading yours ages ago after you made a blatant error in describing something as a definition by example when it wasn’t. Paul B defended you, which I found even no remarkable. Given that Paul b has a history of sock puppetry, I did momentarily wonder whether Paul b was you but discarded the idea because you are never personal in your attacks on setters, whereas as Paul b is sometimes extremely nasty.

    I would like to know whether you acknowledge the is some justification is the reason some posters find your posts annoying – that you are criticising the Guardian for being non-Zimenean when it is not its intention to be Zimenean?
    I wound why you continue to do the G when so many of its setters are not to your taste. Wouldn’t you be happier at Times for the Times?

41. Here we go. Again. For goodness’ sakes.

    When will people learn how to spell ‘Ximenean’?

42. As a newcomer to the site (since 29 Dec to be precise) I wondered what it was about Rufus that caused so many references to him in blogs on other setters so I looked back at the last half dozen and I think I understand. It’s not, as I first thought,just because they are too easy. The main reason seems to be his use of cryptic clues that are barely such. Today’s NADIR and DRUM and to a lesser extent WORST, RISER, and SIESTA,are examples. On the other hand his puzzles seem to me to have a higher proportion of clever and tricky clues than the other compilers. There is a lightness of touch in LEHAR and RATCHET that others rarely equal. Contrast with KIRKCUDBRIGHT in the latest Enigmatist which was easy for me as it is the only 15 letter place in Scotland that I and I suspect many others have heard of (Auchtermuchty only has 13) and confirming it with INBREAKS wasn’t hard either given the lack of other obvious anagrams of bearskin. Parsing was a chore.

43. @PaulB
    I commented because the two previous days’ threads seemed to have been full of HH-based arguments: will people leave? Will setters leave? Should he be moderated?

    I wanted to express the idea that setters won’t be put off even if someone wants to use language like “poor”, “ungrammatical”, “badly written”. We might want to disagree and clearly state why – isn’t that what forums are for? But sanely, and in a polite and civilised manner, as people said at the time. Not with insults (like “twit” or “idiot”, perhaps, do they help? And why have you chosen to single me out among all the many disagreements? Was that fair? My post was really about differing viewpoints on crosswords and the pointlessness of different sides repeating the same criticisms to each other and where this ends up.)

    As Gaufrid said, I’m about the last person who would have a reason to see the back of HH. Even in the post you mention where he was critical, he said I was “one of the Guardian’s stars” and he was very positive about my puzzles overall. Why would I want him to go? If I disagreed with him, isn’t it just because I disagree with him and I wanted to explain why?

44. James

    It was your post that precipitated the whole shebang as you must by now realise, albeit by accident. And it was unprofessional in any case – that was my primary reason for taking you to task. I think it also completely fair to ask why you popped up, in the middle of a discussion already well under way, with a completely new angle. It hijacked the thread, and seemed very odd. That’s what trolls try to do. And bad things resulted: 15/2 lost a poster whom people actually quite like. I’m sure your comments at #26 passim are quite profound otherwise, but … whatever. I sense a distinct circular motion with this argument, which means it’s not really an argument, so cheers until the next time.

45. Over the last few weeks the attacks on HH have become increasingly unpleasant and personal, such as calling him a troll.

    I am only surprised that he did not leave earlier.

    I hope you are all proud of yourselves.

46. Agreed. That the whole thing came to a head is very regrettable, I do wish it could have been avoided.

    I don’t mean to be TOO rude, but hh’s posts were often more entertaining than the puzzles!

47. @Paul B

    Actually, I believe you were told that your ad hominem accusations were “unacceptable”.

    Also, several people have asked HH to come back, so how do you know he won’t? I’ve said clearly I fully defend his right to comment, as do many people.

    I agree, though, that this discussion isn’t going anywhere. For the sanity of everyone, let’s just agree that HH has been warmly invited back and leave it there. I certainly won’t say any more on this issue.

    (Thanks for the advice on trolling though.)

48. Re: Picaroon’s post on the other thread, I also saw it as being more defending hh than attacking him, as he was countering previous claims (including on the blog of Picaroon’s latest puzzle) that hh had driven many setters from this site.

    I certainly don’t think we should blame one post (or poster) for this. There have been some more than usually aggressive reactions to hh’s post for several days, including one on the Enigmatist blog which led to hh calling for “a telling-off”. Others agreed that the comment in question had gone too far, and the writer did later apologise. Overall, there have been quite a lot of recent posts suggesting that hh should not be allowed on the site, that it would be better for him to leave or that his posts were damaging the site. If Picaroon’s post is the reason he has said he is going, I think it is because it is the last straw, perhaps precisely because it comes from one of the few Guardian setters he seems to respect, not because it was particularly harsh in itself.

49. Well, goodnight then.

50. … to James, I mean.

51. One last point before I drop the subject of hh, I hope that someone with access to his email address has contacted him to let him know that there have been so many supportive comments, in case he is no longer reading this site, or at least not the Guardian part.

52. My Goodness Me.

    Hedgehoggy on the way to become a martyr. Or a hero? Take your pick.
    Actually, I did not find Picaroon’s offensive in any way.
    Qaos, supporting Puck, in the past and baerchen/Knut recently were more outspoken.

    Hedgehoggy has a rigid view on crosswords and seems to stick to pure Ximenean rules.
    For example, he is against any form of nounal anagram indicators (and, mind you, he’s not the only one) and against so-called Guardianisms.
    I really do see what he means but I often do not agree.
    Sometimes I find his objections very odd. For example, in Picaroon’s puzzle he was puzzled by ED = ‘edited’, which is definition #1 in Chambers. Or questioning M for ‘money’ which is common fare in Crosswordland.

    Problem 1 with Hedgehoggy is that he keeps on complaining about that.
    He is not willing to accept that there are other ways to look at crosswords.
    I (I talk about me now) have become more and more un-Libertarian but I accept, enjoy and admire the wonders of someone like Philistine.
    Unfortunately, for Hedgehoggy there seems to be no way to dilute the wine.

    Problem 2 with Hedgehoggy is that he calls what he does not like ‘errors’ or ‘mistakes’.
    These are strong words.
    Too strong, in my opinion.
    If Don Manley says ‘it’s a mistake’ I believe him, in the case of Hedgehoggy I often think ‘please, use the right words’.
    Picaroon’s post (in the blog of his own puzzle) made very clear that changing one’s opinion into a matter of ‘right and wrong’ is debatable.
    Well that’s how I read it

    Problem 3 with Hedgehoggy is that the overall tone of his posts focuses on the negative things.
    Three ‘bad’ clues can lead to a verdict like ‘a very poor effort’.

    Sometimes Hedgehoggy’s points are absolutely valid but as he’s seen as prickly in the negative sense of the word no-one listens to him anymore.
    Which, in a way, is a shame.
    That said, there were occasions on which I tried to both support and counter his arguments which did not lead to any follow-up.
    I am the first person to discuss (and enjoy discussing) what some call ‘technical issues’ (sorry, Jolly Swagman) but if there’s no response, then I cannot be bothered either.

    Is this about the Rufus puzzle?
    Don’t think so but one cannot blame me for that.
    We (yes, after four weeks it is ‘we’ again) could not find SITUATE.
    Even after reading the comments I think it’s not a very good clue.
    And in 17ac, WORST = ‘not the best’? Not for me. There’s a lot in between.
    Another one of these Rufuses that beat us, just because we couldn’t get one solution.

    Many thanks Andrew.

53. Hmmm, interesting.

    6:41 pm Philistine thread; a cryptic suggestion that HH is actually Paul B.

    Within days HH tenders his resignation and Paul B goes right over the top…

    Just a coincidence I’m sure…

54. What surprised me most was that someone who defends all his criticism (and sometimes lengthy personal attacks on setter’s abilities) with “I’m just expressing my opinion” – should be so intolerant of others “just expressing” theirs.

55. That doesn’t make any sense. hh is (or was) intolerant of bad clues rather than the people that create them. Isn’t he?

56. Ah, well, y’see, this is no ordinary post. It’s actually a rather fine example of the old one-two, accusatory class 36b made by one of those clever people who tend to isolate out at Guardian.com. They come in occasionally, bored with their banter, with a bon mot for us.

    I wouldn’t worry about it old chum.

57. morphiamonet, your post @ 54 is nonsense.
    Read post #69 at the Philistine blog.

    damaris @56:
    hh is (or was) intolerant of clues he thinks are bad clues rather than the people that create them.
    But why not say something about really good clues?
    That’s what’s often missing.
    And that’s what annoys people.

    Ah well, I said what I wanted to say @53.
    If HH doesn’t want to come back here, it’s his choice.
    Personally I think, it would be more helpful if he did not just list his complaints but would also follow these up by starting a discussion.
    That is what hardly ever happens, you know.
    I, for one, would be quite happy with that.
    As that is the way to learn more about crosswords.
    Well, for me it was.

58. Sorry, this may be the wrong place to report a broken link but there is one.
    Hitting the top “LINKS” button on horizonal row of buttons then choosing “Guardian Crossowrds” from the”LINKS” “Papers” submenu#1 does not hit the right place any more after their crossword restructure.

59. Hi Alan @ 58
    Thanks for the feedback. Link now corrected.

60. *ENOUGH* – hedgehoggy and Rowland, who both have the same IP address, have gone down the same path. Start off with reasonable comments then progressively get more contentious to gain attention. When this attention wanes, and people start to ignore the comments, both have changed their approach to try and gain some support and sympathy.

    The latter, who before departing said he was going to India to meditate, chose to feign an illness that caused him to make many typos (and become incoherent at times). The former has come out and said that he is an unemployed engineer living in Kent who suffers from Aspergers. I find it odd therefore that the ISP assigned to his comments is the London Borough of Lewisham.

    Clearly both are/were sock puppets trying to disrupt the smooth running of this site and to divert discusion away from the puzzle in question in order to get more personal attention. I nearly posted the following earlier but then decided that it might inflame the situation. In view of more recent comments I will now do so. Please read this as an addition to my comment #31.

    “I have also re-read all the comments on the Philistine post and, in my opinion, none of them can be considered as inferring ‘hate’ so I can only conclude that hedgehoggy’s outpouring earlier today was simply attention seeking. This is reflected in the change to his style of commenting during the last 12 months (I read all 701 of them earlier today) as more and more people started to ignore him.

    Anyway, whether he returns or continues his self-imposed exile is immaterial. Let’s just get back to discussing and debating the merits, or otherwise, of particular puzzles/clues in a civilised, but robust if necessary, manner.

    I have noticed that during the past couple of weeks there has been increase in the number of aggressive comments directed at setters or other participants and I have put this down to the stresses associated with the festive season and the amount of precipitation we’ve had recently. This needs to stop as I really don’t want the hassle of placing people under moderation, plus the fact that comments delayed due to moderation tend to disrupt the flow of a discussion.”

    I will leave you to decide on the validity, or otherwise, of hedgehoggy’s persona and whether he is a sock puppet/troll or a real person. Just bear in mind, why would someone select a pseudonym that is defined in Merriam-Webster as “tending to arouse aversion”?

61. If he has gone, we will miss our fix! Don’t leave!

62. I would be very pleased to see a return of HH to these pages.

63. Gaufrid @60 – thanks for that clarification – let’s hope we can let the whole thing go and enjoy a more civilized new year.

64. Gaufrid @60
    Your new information casts an interesting light on the recent happenings. Thank you for posting it.

65. Gaufrid

    I welcomed your intervention @60, which is indeed well-timed. I’m also pleased that, for the good (robust, even) health of this site your interventions are few and they count.

    If I’ve been fooled, as may have been the case, I don’t give a monkeys. I feel nothing on that account, as an act of deception reflects only on the one who did it.

    It is quite possible, by the way, that two contributors who are pals share an IP address (but I don’t of course have any more information than you gave). Also, Lewisham is practically Kent. These observations struck me straight away. However, I fully support the firm message you have given us all.

    I would welcome HH back and am one of the many who have said so already.

    Thanks to all those who have contributed positively (robustly, even) to this ‘debate’, and also to those who have exercised restraint when they would have wished to put their oar in (or put it in yet again!) but kept their counsel.

66. Oh dear, its a little bit like regressing to childhood

67. This is a postscript and correction to my recent post @65, where I said

    “I would welcome HH back and am one of the many who have said so already.”

    I shouldn’t presume that the ‘many who have said so already’ would still say so now, with particular reference to the facts Gaufrid revealed @60 and the conclusions he came to. I don’t speak for anyone else and didn’t mean to imply that I do.

    I happen to believe HH’s late post on 1 January (his ‘resignation letter’, if you will) is genuine, and consistent with the tenor of all or most of his frequent posts.

68. Once again I have to apologise for being late to the party – blame it on the silly season.

    AndyK @7 has made some very insightful comments that I would like to support. We all have a right to post here, subject to a few rules like not slandering/insulting each other.

    As the uncle of an Aspergers sufferer ( and sometimes I wonder if I am an undiagnosed sufferer) I support HH in his attempt to be part of a community rather than retreating into his shell.

    Lets all try to be nice to each other.

69. PS I have never commented on a HH post before

70. goodness, and I thought crosswords were meant to be fun.
    Don

71. don morris @70
    Crosswords are fun. Blog comments, unfortunately, tend to be a lot more complicated than the most cryptic of clues.

72. Thanks to Gaufrid @ 60.

    Looks like we’ve been had – twice.

    (I use the word ‘we’ loosely, of course. Others were much more confident than me that hedgehoggy was a troll. I could never quite make up my mind.)

    Is it any clearer who the troll creator is?

73. nms @72
    I think it may misleading to use the term ““troll”, which is usually used for posters intentionally creating anger and trying to set other posters against each other. I’ll take Gaufrid’s word for it that reviewing hh’s previous posts indicates that he appears to have changed his posting style when he got fewer responses, but there are other possible motivations for that than just trolling.

    I’ve said before that if he was a troll, he was a very patient and persistent one. Why would a troll go to the trouble of his painstaking analyses of the clues, and go on posting day after day for such a long period, all with so little effect? From my experience of trolls, they usually seem to want much more reaction than he ever got here and from much less effort on their parts.

    I still think it is possible that hh really does have Asperger’s and just finds it very difficult to communicate appropriately for a site like this. I think Rowland left before I started visiting this site, but I’d be interested to know whether he and hh overlapped. I can see that someone who felt he had to leave the site (for whatever reason) might have come back with a new pseudonym hoping for a clean start. That wouldn’t make him a troll. It would, though, leave the issue of why under his original name he had chosen to “feign an illness that caused him to make many typos (and become incoherent at times)”, if that is what he did. Obviously, as I wasn’t here at that time, I didn’t see any of that myself. Perhaps the illness was real but as hh he made a bigger effort to correct his posts so as not to be recognised as Rowland?

74. We recall Rowland, who was about when we first began lurking around the site to cheat on all the answers we couldn’t work out. It was sure cheaper than phoning Guardian clue lines. I wouldn’t categorise his sort of thing as trolling, nor hedgehoggy’s. Trolling is usually VERY destructive and short term. But the link is intriguing. Two chums in the same office? Well possibly. I’m thinking what if it’s all been for another purpose? An exercise in… what? Whichever way it goes, agree with your gentle analysis jennyk.

75. Probably a bit late but I thought I might as well add my twopennorth to the HH debate.

    I’m a lurker on this site for the purpose of understanding parsings. For which thank you to the bloggers/responders. (However I still don’t understand the mediations/meditations answer.) By the time I visit the site everything is clear or will remain unresolved so my input is not required.

    I first discovered this site a year or so ago. I’m not a purist and am happy with allusion (and so admire the much-missed Araucaria) but understand that others have different perspectives. The technical discussions are interesting but the negativity and absolutism of HH was immediately apparent. I soon stopped reading his posts. However I have to say that when challenged HH was never less than courteous.

    Either HH is a genuine poster with spectrum issues or he is a sock puppet (which I now understand courtesy of Wikipedia) but one expending a lot of energy.

    If he is genuine then he should continue to contribute and others may respond if they so wish. If he is a sock puppet so what? What exactly is he disrupting? We’re talking about crosswords.

76. And for a supposed troll, hedgehoggy had a consistent viewpoint that many of us found highly valid – that crosswords would be “better” if creativity were fairly balanced with precision in the cluing. Should the Guardian crossword be in a “language” that is relatively approachable or should it be in dialects that only the initiated understand? How cryptic should the crossword be? A wide range of views is possible, with hedgehoggy’s plea for a consistent basic grammar being at one end of the range but still legitimate.
    So what if his style is clipped and prickly? Or even that he might have created a character through which to express this view?

77. I certainly would welcome HH back.

    I would always read his comments if I have a chance. I find his insight interesting and he makes me think about the clues. Often he suggests minor tweaks that might help the clue, and at times I find it hard to disagree. I do think he sometimes dilutes his lists with marginal issues, which is a pity because everyone else then focuses on the least important. I’m not defending his style or choice of language, though he does manage to say a lot with relatively few words, and I’m wondering when compileritis will make it into Chambers.

    I see nothing wrong with a Ximenean highlighting liberties taken in a Guardian crossword blog. Actually I see that as a useful reminder; it has never detracted from my appreciation of the puzzle.

    Come back HH

78. So anyway…,

    Typical Rufus.

    Lovable and a infuriating in one!

    Amazing that I can complete after too much wine and ‘steak frites’! – but still as frustrating and satisfying as a Pot Noodle (a guilty pleasure?)

    This site should be about the puzzles.

    Tot zeins! Or whatever.

79. Only occasionally read and even more occasionally contribute, so am somewhat bemused by the hedgehoggy controversy. We’ve generally appreciated his comments, been somewhat amused by the grouchiness of some of them, and quite entertained by some contributers’ reactions to them. The philistine blog passed us by – we don’t often visit the site, so we write with some considerable degree of ignorance, but we are sad it has come this! Can only suggest he comes back under a different name and/or become a compiler himself – he might be brilliant!

80. Thanks Rufus and Andrew

    Wow … came here when I finally got to some of the Christmas-New Year puzzles that I didn’t have access to during that period to comment on a very middle-of-the-road Monday puzzle and find this !

    Firstly, the puzzle – was finished in average time for a Rufus and the typical niggles -probably PITCH for ‘noise’ was the most grating.

    Finished in the NE corner with EVIDENCE (a vague cryptic definition), VANDALISE and SIESTA (a quite good cryptic definition) as the last few in.

    As for hh – it’s a shame in some respects that someone can be ‘driven away’ from a place like this. I am sure that it was nobody’s intention to do so – and as the one who mooted about setters not seemingly contributing or not, may have to take a share of ownership perhaps. Still question who adds more value to the discussion – a prickly negativist or the folk who actually present the puzzles that we mostly take enjoyment from! The fact that there is evidence of some sort of duplicity around his identity doesn’t help the cause.

Comments are closed.