Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Only you can call me Pastie/Pasty.

Now that is a memory in my "gigglebank".

Nighty night.

tonyw
My (rather pedantic) criticism of the clue is

1) ABBREVIATION is an act of shortening - not SHORT.
2) According to Chambers the acceptable abbreviation of bed & breakfast is B&B not BB
3) RE had already been clued by ABOUT so concern is redundant.

Rosie,
I suppose it's OK to be pedantic, even to the point of utter tedium. But it's not OK to be plain wrong.

"about" tells you that "aviation" is about, i.e. contains "bbre".

If you can't see that then perhaps crosswords are not your thing, and you should stick to being a party pooper, something you are clearly very good at.

I accept that I am not in your league as a
crossworder but you have not attempted to answer my main criticism of your clue.

1) The definition of ABBREVIATION is not SHORT.

2) The abbreviation of bed & breakfast is not BB.

If you could tell me (preferably without abuse) how I am 'plain wrong' I would appreciate it and hopefully advance my crosswording efforts.

Rosie,
I have shown that you were "plain wrong" to say that concern was redundant.

You are also plain wrong to say BB is not an acceptable abbreviation for bed and breakfast. Look up an acronyms website; it is there. Because something is not in Chambers does not mean that it does not exist.

Two of your three gripes are based solely on your own ignorance. I grant you have a point about the third. But a poor one.

If you took the trouble to be sure of what you were talking about all you could have said was: I don't think short really = abbreviation. To which the response would be- a deafening silence.

Finally, I don't think I have abused you. You may find what I have said unpalatable but as far as I am concerned it is simply a statement of fact.

terry

I am suprised you are continuing with the 'you are plain wrong' statement when-
a) you now concede that the main element of the clue, the definition, was incorrect.
b) You acknowledge that the abbreviation you used in the clue is not in Chambers, which, as an experienced solver, you should know is the accepted reference and authority for all serious setters.

You won the competition for the best clue and my original posting noted this. I said that, to me, the clue did not work because of the points above. A view I still hold.

As a regular reader of postings on this site I have observed that, when you do not agree with a poster, you are prone to become abusive and I commented that I hoped you wouldn't be in this instance.

You seem to have accepted that one of your three points was tosh, but decline to admit that. Preferring to just let it slip away.

The Chambers point is also tosh. It may well be an "accepted reference and authority for all serious setters". So what! This isn't a serious crossword is it. In any case, you can't,surely, be saying that because something is not in Chambers it does not exist.

I didn't concede that the definition was incorrect. I said you had a point (albeit a poor one). You are obviously not a fool so your misunderstanding of what I said must be deliberate.

I love your last sentence. Brilliant. A variation on "have you stopped beating your wife". Have I abused you. Do you think I have abused you. Will I abuse you now if I haven't already. Have I already. Confused or what.

I expect your time spent on observation has also shown that I quite enjoy a frank exchange of views. And I don't mind how frank it gets. But there isn't much point in talking to someone who wilfully misinterprets what you say.

I did not accept that my first point was
Tosh & just let it slipaway. I felt that there was no point in continuing to assert that 'concern' added nothing to your clue and was superfluous. I don't have to tell you, an expert, that in a well formed clue every word in the clue should be relevant and, to me., concern added nothing.
AS for describing my point re Chambers as also being tosh, I can only repeat that most serious crosswords do not accept words not in the Chambers dictionary . In fact most serious puzzles make a point of saying that and going further by identifying any clues which may not be in Chambers - the exception to the rule. You're excuse that the Clueless 8 is not serious is accepted and it makes me wonder why you have made so much of my words?
You seem very reluctant to accept that your clue , no matter that it was deemed the best, is flawed and not only is the surface reading ungainly but the individual components are questionable.
If you hadn't taken such umbrage at a gentle criticism there would'nt have been this protracted exchange.

If you could explain your closing remark that 'there is not much point in talking to someone who wilfully misinterprets what you say' How did I do that?

I have been following these exchanges with some interest. I have seen that, although terry is a very modest solver and very seldom ventures into the more advanced crosswords needing more experience, he is a keen, if raw, setter.
He could do no better than to read the most famous book on Crossword Setting by Ximenes, late of the Observer. His rules and conventions are as applicable today as they were all those years ago.
His basic three 'rules' for a clue are relevant to the debate terry is having with Rosie- he wrote.
A good cryptic clue contains three elements-
1) A precise definition.
2) A fair subsidiary indication.
3) Nothing else.

His book 'Ximenes on the Art Of The Crossword' is still the standard (Bible) of setting.

Hello all,

Personally I think this is getting "way too serious".

The weekly Clueless thread is supposed to be fun...a laugh.

It was basically Terry's idea ( I think?)and should be viewed as a bit of light heartedness.

Tony, people will be put off, if it is seen to have to come up to "master mind" standards.

This nit picking is unnecessary...

Please just enjoy


p@