Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Listener 3952
41 Answers
Having polished off all those anagrams in double-quick time, why not take a look at this week's Listener, Abundance by Seth Mould
C
C
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cruciverbali. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ash, I had the briefest of glances at last week's Listener and got a few of the clues. 8D seems to be Annapolis, which you get by swapping (ie "completing a trade" as the instructions say) the 's' of 'lads' for a 'y', giving 'lady'. 'Anna' is, of course, a woman's name and 'polis' is the Irish and Scottish word for 'police'. Putting the two together gives the name of the American city.
(I couldn't be bothered to find out if the swapped 's' had to correlate to a swapped 'y' elsewhere in the puzzle.)
You'll need to work out why for yourself - I think the system outlined above is the way to go - but I believe 17A is 'paper', 9D is 'doggery', 33A is 'sedated' and so on.
NB I could be utterly wrong in all I've written above, of course, so beware!
(I couldn't be bothered to find out if the swapped 's' had to correlate to a swapped 'y' elsewhere in the puzzle.)
You'll need to work out why for yourself - I think the system outlined above is the way to go - but I believe 17A is 'paper', 9D is 'doggery', 33A is 'sedated' and so on.
NB I could be utterly wrong in all I've written above, of course, so beware!
Ash24: you ask "where does one start?"
Perhaps you are talking specifically about Listener 3951, but I'll choose to interpret your question as requesting general advice for newcomers to "advanced thematic" puzzles like Listener, EV, Inquisitor.
May I suggest:
1) Solving clues is often easier than understanding the preamble! Do read the preamble carefully, but if it is confusing, don't worry - go straight to solving the clues. All may become clearer later on.
2) Even the hardest puzzles have some easier clue types like hidden words and anagrams and these can provide a reasonably straightforward start. However...
3) ...many of the words used are rare, so equip yourself with appropriate solving aids. Chambers dictionary (preferably the CD-ROM) is essential. Bradford's Crossword Dictionary is very useful, as is the computer program TEA, available from http://www.crosswordman.com/
If you'd prefer not to spend money buying the above, the sites at http://www.onelook.com/ and http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/wordg ames/word_wizards/wwizards.py/main
are vastly better than nothing. Beginners should allow themselves free use of such aids. More advanced solvers may take pride in solving puzles without.
4) There are a few types of non-standard clue which regularly appear, such as clues containing extra words, misprints, or where the word-play leads to the answer plus one extra letter (or missing one letter). These can be intimidating at first. You may find it helpful to get hold of the Chambers Crossword Manual by Don Manley, which explains "advanced" and "special" clue types.
continued ...
Perhaps you are talking specifically about Listener 3951, but I'll choose to interpret your question as requesting general advice for newcomers to "advanced thematic" puzzles like Listener, EV, Inquisitor.
May I suggest:
1) Solving clues is often easier than understanding the preamble! Do read the preamble carefully, but if it is confusing, don't worry - go straight to solving the clues. All may become clearer later on.
2) Even the hardest puzzles have some easier clue types like hidden words and anagrams and these can provide a reasonably straightforward start. However...
3) ...many of the words used are rare, so equip yourself with appropriate solving aids. Chambers dictionary (preferably the CD-ROM) is essential. Bradford's Crossword Dictionary is very useful, as is the computer program TEA, available from http://www.crosswordman.com/
If you'd prefer not to spend money buying the above, the sites at http://www.onelook.com/ and http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/wordg ames/word_wizards/wwizards.py/main
are vastly better than nothing. Beginners should allow themselves free use of such aids. More advanced solvers may take pride in solving puzles without.
4) There are a few types of non-standard clue which regularly appear, such as clues containing extra words, misprints, or where the word-play leads to the answer plus one extra letter (or missing one letter). These can be intimidating at first. You may find it helpful to get hold of the Chambers Crossword Manual by Don Manley, which explains "advanced" and "special" clue types.
continued ...
... continued from above
5) Don't expect to finish the first Listener crossword you try. Count your attempt as a success if you manage to solve one or two clues. But do look at the published solutions, and see how the clues and "theme" worked. There is a full analysis of each Listener at http://www.crossword.org.uk/gregson.htm
6) If at all possible, solve with other people in a collaborative process - co-solving with an experienced solver was what got me started, and is an excellent way to learn as well as great fun in itself. (Some EV threads have recently illustrated the collaborative approach - whilst applauding the process, I really don't think public web pages are the best medium!) Collaborative solvers should be aware that the Listener marker/statistician has expectations that "teams" declare themselves as such and submit only one entry.
7) Be aware that puzzles vary widely in difficulty. If you get nowhere one week, don't let that put you off trying the next.
The Listener habit is a taste well worth acquiring. Good luck!
5) Don't expect to finish the first Listener crossword you try. Count your attempt as a success if you manage to solve one or two clues. But do look at the published solutions, and see how the clues and "theme" worked. There is a full analysis of each Listener at http://www.crossword.org.uk/gregson.htm
6) If at all possible, solve with other people in a collaborative process - co-solving with an experienced solver was what got me started, and is an excellent way to learn as well as great fun in itself. (Some EV threads have recently illustrated the collaborative approach - whilst applauding the process, I really don't think public web pages are the best medium!) Collaborative solvers should be aware that the Listener marker/statistician has expectations that "teams" declare themselves as such and submit only one entry.
7) Be aware that puzzles vary widely in difficulty. If you get nowhere one week, don't let that put you off trying the next.
The Listener habit is a taste well worth acquiring. Good luck!
C. Have also polished off the anagrams, but now fitting them into grid. Wonderful variety of anagram indicators. Thanks for Listener link.
Bunstance: What a useful/helpful analysis. May I copy it into word to pass on to others? I do agree about the collaborative approach. I tried EV randomly on several occasions but it was only when I started working on it with a more experienced solver that I made real headway. Now I finish them on my own at least some of the time.
Bunstance: What a useful/helpful analysis. May I copy it into word to pass on to others? I do agree about the collaborative approach. I tried EV randomly on several occasions but it was only when I started working on it with a more experienced solver that I made real headway. Now I finish them on my own at least some of the time.
Bunstance, you wrote, "If at all possible, solve with other people in a collaborative process - co-solving with an experienced solver was what got me started...Whilst applauding the process, I really don't think public web pages are the best medium!"
I totally agree with your opening sentence above, but what does someone do who wants to get involved but knows no one who is "an experienced solver"? In such a case, I can see no objection whatsoever to placing a question here on AnswerBank.
As I have pointed out here on this "public web page" before, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and an equally reasonable thing to respond to. Experienced Listener solvers who wish to preserve their 'virginity' simply have to avoid clicking into a thread with an abundantly clear title that includes the word 'Listener'.
(I'd be interested to know whether you ever came up with any of the answers to the puzzles the two of you collaborated on. If so, did your mentor then refuse to send in that week's completed grid or did he/she enter both of you as a team?)
I totally agree with your opening sentence above, but what does someone do who wants to get involved but knows no one who is "an experienced solver"? In such a case, I can see no objection whatsoever to placing a question here on AnswerBank.
As I have pointed out here on this "public web page" before, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and an equally reasonable thing to respond to. Experienced Listener solvers who wish to preserve their 'virginity' simply have to avoid clicking into a thread with an abundantly clear title that includes the word 'Listener'.
(I'd be interested to know whether you ever came up with any of the answers to the puzzles the two of you collaborated on. If so, did your mentor then refuse to send in that week's completed grid or did he/she enter both of you as a team?)
Christiana: please feel free to distribute what I wrote however you like. I�m flattered that you think it�s worth it!
Quizmonster: You raise a number of points:
You often stress the idea that it is easy enough for solvers to avoid seeing spoilers on this site. This is true, but it is far from the whole story. To a participant in a competition (and these, including EV, Inquisitor etc., are all competition puzzles), it makes a big difference if the answer has been published, even if one does not look at it oneself.
Who would bother posting in entries to the EV, Listener etc. if the solutions were published elsewhere in that edition of the newspaper? Very nearly as bad would be for someone to publish the full solutions on the web. This site comes nowhere near that, but even so, some of the EV threads have dissected the puzzles to a very great extent. None of the collaborators seem in the least dishonourable (some have explicitly said they don�t send in puzzles they have been helped with), but an unintentional by-product of their activity is to place enough information in the public domain to compromise the competition (in the eyes of some, at least).
continued below ...
Quizmonster: You raise a number of points:
You often stress the idea that it is easy enough for solvers to avoid seeing spoilers on this site. This is true, but it is far from the whole story. To a participant in a competition (and these, including EV, Inquisitor etc., are all competition puzzles), it makes a big difference if the answer has been published, even if one does not look at it oneself.
Who would bother posting in entries to the EV, Listener etc. if the solutions were published elsewhere in that edition of the newspaper? Very nearly as bad would be for someone to publish the full solutions on the web. This site comes nowhere near that, but even so, some of the EV threads have dissected the puzzles to a very great extent. None of the collaborators seem in the least dishonourable (some have explicitly said they don�t send in puzzles they have been helped with), but an unintentional by-product of their activity is to place enough information in the public domain to compromise the competition (in the eyes of some, at least).
continued below ...
continued from above
In principle, the argument is the same for the Listener as for the other puzzles. However, because the Listener competition is taken more seriously by its competitors, any damage done will cause more distress in this case. (It is nice to win the weekly EV or Listener prize, but it�s not that much of a big deal; winning the Silver Salver in the annual Listener competition truly is, for those who go in for it.)
Of course, you may think it�s ridiculous to take any of these competitions seriously. That is an entirely reasonable view. However, it is one thing to be an atheist, and quite another to throw bricks at church windows. Despite the reservations I�ve expressed, I think most people here show a degree of restraint; it is fairly rare to see spoilers posted simply to annoy the competition buffs.
You will notice that my concerns relate to putting solutions in the public domain, not to collaboration per se. I as said above, I think collaboration is great. On the other hand, it�s not unknown for suspected Listener collaborators to get letters of warning from John Green, and suffer hurt feelings as a consequence. Given that I was advocating collaboration as a way of learning, I thought it only fair to mention JG�s attitude. In answer to your direct question, I have never submitted entries for the puzzles I have collaborated on. I have no idea whether my friends did or not; I am content to let them make their own ethical judgments.
Finally, you ask how people are to find mentors and/or collaboration partners. Simple: let them find them here. Once contact has been made, however, why not continue the process by email or other non-public means?
I still truly do not see why any competition is tainted if the participants are honourable and refuse to look at clearly labelled but potentially compromising threads on sites such as AnswerBank.
I also believe it to be patently absurd to imagine that anyone who asks for help here is at all likely to affect the Silver Salver statistics in any meaningful way.
Are you yourself offering to train anyone - eg Ash24 - who seriously wants collaboration in learning how to tackle the Listener, when you say "Let them find them here"? If not, then who will? Not I, assuredly, but I will certainly go one offering tiny snippets of assistance as and when they are asked for, if I am in a position to do so.
As I have often said before, there is absolutely nothing in my view which makes the Listener competition any more 'sacred' than the Azed, Mephisto, Genius or whatever other competition puzzle exists...and their 'secrets' are distributed here willy-nilly weekly.
We shall just have to agree to differ, I'm afraid.
I also believe it to be patently absurd to imagine that anyone who asks for help here is at all likely to affect the Silver Salver statistics in any meaningful way.
Are you yourself offering to train anyone - eg Ash24 - who seriously wants collaboration in learning how to tackle the Listener, when you say "Let them find them here"? If not, then who will? Not I, assuredly, but I will certainly go one offering tiny snippets of assistance as and when they are asked for, if I am in a position to do so.
As I have often said before, there is absolutely nothing in my view which makes the Listener competition any more 'sacred' than the Azed, Mephisto, Genius or whatever other competition puzzle exists...and their 'secrets' are distributed here willy-nilly weekly.
We shall just have to agree to differ, I'm afraid.
Quizmonster: I am content to differ, but I don�t think you have addressed many of the points I raised. One last try:
1) I am not concerned about corrupting current, �honourable� competitors. We both agree that they can avoid the spoilers. Rather, I am concerned that too many public answers could create a risk of new, �dishonourable� competitors.
2) I haven�t claimed that this site has yet ruined the competitions. This is because of the restraint shown by most people here. If people here were to post full solutions, the competitions would die.
To put these two points in perspective, try the effect of amending your first paragraph thus:
�I still truly do not see why any competition is tainted if the participants are honourable and refuse to turn to the next page of the newspaper to look at the solution before sending in their entries.�
Surely you can see that a sufficiently full public solution does compromise any idea of a competition? Luckily we do not have full public solutions because members here show restraint.
3) I dare say you are right that those posing questions here are unlikely to be mayor players in the Listener competition. But the help they receive is viewable by all, and could make a significant difference if serious competitors were tempted to look at it. For example, plenty of strong solvers failed on #3942 because they were not expecting the quotation to be in Latin � a fact that was revealed here. Similarly, the hardest part of #3940 (the detail of the NW corner of the grid) was analysed here in depth. It is only because such indiscretions are the exception rather than the rule that there is not currently a credible risk of the successful-solvers� list being infiltrated by the unscrupulous.
Continued below...
1) I am not concerned about corrupting current, �honourable� competitors. We both agree that they can avoid the spoilers. Rather, I am concerned that too many public answers could create a risk of new, �dishonourable� competitors.
2) I haven�t claimed that this site has yet ruined the competitions. This is because of the restraint shown by most people here. If people here were to post full solutions, the competitions would die.
To put these two points in perspective, try the effect of amending your first paragraph thus:
�I still truly do not see why any competition is tainted if the participants are honourable and refuse to turn to the next page of the newspaper to look at the solution before sending in their entries.�
Surely you can see that a sufficiently full public solution does compromise any idea of a competition? Luckily we do not have full public solutions because members here show restraint.
3) I dare say you are right that those posing questions here are unlikely to be mayor players in the Listener competition. But the help they receive is viewable by all, and could make a significant difference if serious competitors were tempted to look at it. For example, plenty of strong solvers failed on #3942 because they were not expecting the quotation to be in Latin � a fact that was revealed here. Similarly, the hardest part of #3940 (the detail of the NW corner of the grid) was analysed here in depth. It is only because such indiscretions are the exception rather than the rule that there is not currently a credible risk of the successful-solvers� list being infiltrated by the unscrupulous.
Continued below...
Continued from above ...
4) In arguing against the Listener having a fundamentally different status, you are beating at an open door as far as I�m concerned (see my comments above). I would be dead against posting full solutions of any of the Mephisto, Genius, Azed etc. competitions either. Thankfully, despite what you assert, the �secrets� of these are not, by and large, thrown open: once again, most people here show a degree of restraint. Long may this continue!
5) Yes, I�d be perfectly happy to give Listener hints, via email, to non-submitting beginners. But is anyone interested?
4) In arguing against the Listener having a fundamentally different status, you are beating at an open door as far as I�m concerned (see my comments above). I would be dead against posting full solutions of any of the Mephisto, Genius, Azed etc. competitions either. Thankfully, despite what you assert, the �secrets� of these are not, by and large, thrown open: once again, most people here show a degree of restraint. Long may this continue!
5) Yes, I�d be perfectly happy to give Listener hints, via email, to non-submitting beginners. But is anyone interested?
Fair enough, Bunstance...'one last try' from me, too.
1. How many are �too many' in terms of answers? My response to that is as valid as yours.
2. Manifestly, publishing �full solutions' would kill the Listener, as it would the other competition crosswords I've mentioned. I would not condone any such thing. (Mind you, I have been sorely tempted when provoked by more rabid Listener-solvers than yourself! However, I showed admirable restraint, I thought.) *Providing an answer or two or giving a little advice on preamble instructions are the only approaches I have ever felt were acceptable. Accordingly, I do not understand your �turn to the next page for the answers' point, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with my case as asterisked above.
�Sufficiently full'...again, how many are too many? On AnswerBank, a single Listener query appears once every three weeks or so, as far as I am aware. That's roughly one clue in every 150 set...an infinitesimal revelation, surely, if answered.
3. �Infiltrated by the unscrupulous'...I've asked this before and never had an answer, but how does anyone know that the Listener has not been thus infiltrated already? So, John Smith, say, goes down as the winner of Puzzle 3945...or even the Salver! What evidence do you or the organisers have to guarantee that �John Smith' is not a commonroomful of Oxbridge dons? None at all, I'd suggest.
...(cont)
1. How many are �too many' in terms of answers? My response to that is as valid as yours.
2. Manifestly, publishing �full solutions' would kill the Listener, as it would the other competition crosswords I've mentioned. I would not condone any such thing. (Mind you, I have been sorely tempted when provoked by more rabid Listener-solvers than yourself! However, I showed admirable restraint, I thought.) *Providing an answer or two or giving a little advice on preamble instructions are the only approaches I have ever felt were acceptable. Accordingly, I do not understand your �turn to the next page for the answers' point, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with my case as asterisked above.
�Sufficiently full'...again, how many are too many? On AnswerBank, a single Listener query appears once every three weeks or so, as far as I am aware. That's roughly one clue in every 150 set...an infinitesimal revelation, surely, if answered.
3. �Infiltrated by the unscrupulous'...I've asked this before and never had an answer, but how does anyone know that the Listener has not been thus infiltrated already? So, John Smith, say, goes down as the winner of Puzzle 3945...or even the Salver! What evidence do you or the organisers have to guarantee that �John Smith' is not a commonroomful of Oxbridge dons? None at all, I'd suggest.
...(cont)
(Cont...)
4. When I said the secrets of Azed etc were �thrown open', I simply meant that people here are perfectly happy to reveal answers, code-phrases or whatever to anyone who cares to ask for them...or even gratuitously whilst responding to something else. (No names, no pack-drill.)
5. �Listener hints'...Since Listener queries do regularly though infrequently appear, it seems clear that there are people who might well be open to such mentoring as you yourself received. However, the chances that anyone else will have seen your offer, buried away in the depths of this thread, are remote. Accordingly, it might be a good idea for you to post a separate entry in order to see whether anyone might wish to avail him/herself of your e-mail assistance. That, I would suggest, is the only way for you to get the answer to your question, �Is anyone interested?' I shall look out for it.
And there I think I'll just leave it. You, of course are perfectly free to go on in your own way, but let us not forget that I am just as free to go on in mine and AnswerBank's. Its home page states,
"Ask questions, get answers. No matter how outrageous..."
Some believe Listener queries and answers are outrageous...I don't.
4. When I said the secrets of Azed etc were �thrown open', I simply meant that people here are perfectly happy to reveal answers, code-phrases or whatever to anyone who cares to ask for them...or even gratuitously whilst responding to something else. (No names, no pack-drill.)
5. �Listener hints'...Since Listener queries do regularly though infrequently appear, it seems clear that there are people who might well be open to such mentoring as you yourself received. However, the chances that anyone else will have seen your offer, buried away in the depths of this thread, are remote. Accordingly, it might be a good idea for you to post a separate entry in order to see whether anyone might wish to avail him/herself of your e-mail assistance. That, I would suggest, is the only way for you to get the answer to your question, �Is anyone interested?' I shall look out for it.
And there I think I'll just leave it. You, of course are perfectly free to go on in your own way, but let us not forget that I am just as free to go on in mine and AnswerBank's. Its home page states,
"Ask questions, get answers. No matter how outrageous..."
Some believe Listener queries and answers are outrageous...I don't.
So the old debate continues ...
Just a couple of observations - firstly, 3952 is a very neat puzzle with a couple of nice twists. Much enjoyed. There is little to compare with the satisfaction of navigating a challenging Listener single handed - having achieved that, I'll submit my solution.
A handful of solutions have evaded me so far this year - I managed to complete a couple of those with help, but did not submit them. If I did I'd be cheating myself and those others who hold the Listener in such esteem.
I'd just say - if you seek out and use extra-ordinary help to complete your puzzle, fine - but please do not submit it as if it's your own work . At the end of the day, the only person you are cheating is yourself.
If you genuinely seek help from this board as a coaching opportunity, then treat it as such. Yes, look for coaching and encouragement - the odd subtle hint or tip is fine but please don't look for give-away answers ... that's going to put peoples' backs up for sure. You can get detailed explanations of all Listener clues on-line after publication of the solution ... if you need to know how to crack a Listener, that's a good start point - do you really need that kind of help before close date?
If you are an experienced solver, again do give subtle hints to those who genuinely seem to be looking for coaching ... but is it really necessary to wade in like the second response on this thread and start unloading full clue answers willy-nilly? Coaching requires some kind of input from player and coach - don't spoon-feed, it helps nobody but clearly angers many!
Just a couple of observations - firstly, 3952 is a very neat puzzle with a couple of nice twists. Much enjoyed. There is little to compare with the satisfaction of navigating a challenging Listener single handed - having achieved that, I'll submit my solution.
A handful of solutions have evaded me so far this year - I managed to complete a couple of those with help, but did not submit them. If I did I'd be cheating myself and those others who hold the Listener in such esteem.
I'd just say - if you seek out and use extra-ordinary help to complete your puzzle, fine - but please do not submit it as if it's your own work . At the end of the day, the only person you are cheating is yourself.
If you genuinely seek help from this board as a coaching opportunity, then treat it as such. Yes, look for coaching and encouragement - the odd subtle hint or tip is fine but please don't look for give-away answers ... that's going to put peoples' backs up for sure. You can get detailed explanations of all Listener clues on-line after publication of the solution ... if you need to know how to crack a Listener, that's a good start point - do you really need that kind of help before close date?
If you are an experienced solver, again do give subtle hints to those who genuinely seem to be looking for coaching ... but is it really necessary to wade in like the second response on this thread and start unloading full clue answers willy-nilly? Coaching requires some kind of input from player and coach - don't spoon-feed, it helps nobody but clearly angers many!
How can you possibly say that offering actual answers (quote) "helps nobody"? Clearly, it helps the actual person who asked the question! And that's what AnswerBank is for.
It's true that doing so might anger some, but that's their problem. I can think of no reason why certain people should be allowed to force additional 'rules' - which are clearly not authorised by AnswerBank - onto Answerbank members. The site's view is quoted in the second-last paragraph in my most recent answer above...
"Ask questions, get answers. However outrageous..."
Now, if everyone like you, CluelessJoe, and the other Listener worshippers were to start a vociferous campaign here to try to stop people from asking and answering clues for all prize crosswords prior to their closing dates, I would wholeheartedly join you and never say a word about the Listener again. Until you do, I shall go on in my own sweet way, whether it angers anyone or not, because in my view the Listener is just a crossword, too. It deserves no more respect than the Azed, say, just because it's a bit more difficult.
Oh, and please don't mention the 'sacred' statistics or the Salver unless you have any shred of evidence that someone who had to ask for help here on AnswerBank ever went on to win a Listener prize. It's absurd to imagine that such a thing ever occurred and, even if it did, so what? The prize is only a bottle of cheap champagne. No-one's high placement on the statistics list is meaningfully threatened thereby.
And - re winners and statistics - still no answer to the question in Paragraph 3 of my answer above! Come on! This is AnswerBank!
It's true that doing so might anger some, but that's their problem. I can think of no reason why certain people should be allowed to force additional 'rules' - which are clearly not authorised by AnswerBank - onto Answerbank members. The site's view is quoted in the second-last paragraph in my most recent answer above...
"Ask questions, get answers. However outrageous..."
Now, if everyone like you, CluelessJoe, and the other Listener worshippers were to start a vociferous campaign here to try to stop people from asking and answering clues for all prize crosswords prior to their closing dates, I would wholeheartedly join you and never say a word about the Listener again. Until you do, I shall go on in my own sweet way, whether it angers anyone or not, because in my view the Listener is just a crossword, too. It deserves no more respect than the Azed, say, just because it's a bit more difficult.
Oh, and please don't mention the 'sacred' statistics or the Salver unless you have any shred of evidence that someone who had to ask for help here on AnswerBank ever went on to win a Listener prize. It's absurd to imagine that such a thing ever occurred and, even if it did, so what? The prize is only a bottle of cheap champagne. No-one's high placement on the statistics list is meaningfully threatened thereby.
And - re winners and statistics - still no answer to the question in Paragraph 3 of my answer above! Come on! This is AnswerBank!
Sorry I rattled your bars so hard Quizmonster - but if you are going to (quote) me, do so within context - when I said that dishing out actual answers helps nobody, that was clearly within context of my comments on coaching ... in which case I endorsed giving of subtle hints and suggested that that would be much more beneficial and instructive. You might just care to re-read that last paragraph.
My dear fellow, what is clear is that you clearly didn't read my last paragraph, so I'm still waiting for an answer! I did read yours and what I said in response to it was perfectly fair...the questioner is helped when given an answer.
(You refer to the prize this past week or two, but it has usually been a bottle of champagne recently.)
It's not a matter of bar-rattling...I'm simply tired of sanctimonious Listenerites trying to lay down the law as regards that particular competition's sanctity when it is manifest that they don't give a good goldarn about any other such competition! Would you dash onto the track and help to his feet an athlete who has stumbled and still expect him to get the prize if he managed to come in first?
Nor will they ever explain why a) an answer or two offered here can conceivably have any effect on the sacred statistics or b) how they are so easily convinced that every win/entry is a one-man effort.
It's simply tiresome!
(You refer to the prize this past week or two, but it has usually been a bottle of champagne recently.)
It's not a matter of bar-rattling...I'm simply tired of sanctimonious Listenerites trying to lay down the law as regards that particular competition's sanctity when it is manifest that they don't give a good goldarn about any other such competition! Would you dash onto the track and help to his feet an athlete who has stumbled and still expect him to get the prize if he managed to come in first?
Nor will they ever explain why a) an answer or two offered here can conceivably have any effect on the sacred statistics or b) how they are so easily convinced that every win/entry is a one-man effort.
It's simply tiresome!
Oh come on Quizmonster - cool it! Your comments in this (and other threads) are quite aggressive and out of line. For example, here you describe Joe as one of yor "sanctimonious Listenerites trying to lay down the law as regards that particular competition's sanctity when it is manifest that they don't give a good goldarn about any other such competition! "
I see no sign of that - Joe seems to be just advocating a degree of moderation in 'coaching' - he/she does not condemn offering help. His view is just that help might be limited to guidance rather than wholesale publication of answers.
Looking back, you did post answers to a handful of clues without specifically being asked for any of those!
I admire the approach adopted by Bunstance here - if people genuinely wish to learn, they will better do so through his/her coaching methods than by being told that this particular answer should be entered in those spaces in the grid.
Please, please try to see the views of those people you have crossed in the past - I don't particularly care about the Listener stats, they do not have a significant bearing on my life. However, they clearly do matter to some people and you have no need to denigrate their view - unless that is if you derive some kind of satisfaction from that, in which case maybe I should not criticise!
I see no sign of that - Joe seems to be just advocating a degree of moderation in 'coaching' - he/she does not condemn offering help. His view is just that help might be limited to guidance rather than wholesale publication of answers.
Looking back, you did post answers to a handful of clues without specifically being asked for any of those!
I admire the approach adopted by Bunstance here - if people genuinely wish to learn, they will better do so through his/her coaching methods than by being told that this particular answer should be entered in those spaces in the grid.
Please, please try to see the views of those people you have crossed in the past - I don't particularly care about the Listener stats, they do not have a significant bearing on my life. However, they clearly do matter to some people and you have no need to denigrate their view - unless that is if you derive some kind of satisfaction from that, in which case maybe I should not criticise!
Latest Posts
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Your Vote Is Not Confidential.
News23 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.