Steve:
She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
(t)WITCH; def = she spells
or, in a brilliant twist:
She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)
TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells
On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 1:21:39 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
Steve:
She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
(t)WITCH; def = she spells
or, in a brilliant twist:
She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)As far as I can see, the way the clue is worded, it can only be parsed as an anagram of 'twitch; *and then* a 't' removed. Your brilliant twist requires "She spells twitch without one of the 't's, incorrectly", doesn't it?
TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells
On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 20:03:03 UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 1:21:39 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
Steve:
She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
(t)WITCH; def = she spells
or, in a brilliant twist:
Not sure that *and then* is applicable, here.She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)As far as I can see, the way the clue is worded, it can only be parsed as an anagram of 'twitch; *and then* a 't' removed. Your brilliant twist requires "She spells twitch without one of the 't's, incorrectly", doesn't it?
TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells
'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's
in my mind can equate to:
'make an anagram of TWITCH, without one of the Ts'
which equates to: 'make an anagram of TWICH'
On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 7:09:49 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 20:03:03 UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 1:21:39 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
Steve:
She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
(t)WITCH; def = she spells
or, in a brilliant twist:
Not sure that *and then* is applicable, here.She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)As far as I can see, the way the clue is worded, it can only be parsed as an anagram of 'twitch; *and then* a 't' removed. Your brilliant twist requires "She spells twitch without one of the 't's, incorrectly", doesn't it?
TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells
'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's
in my mind can equate to:
'make an anagram of TWITCH, without one of the Ts'
which equates to: 'make an anagram of TWICH'On further reflection, I agree—but getting there was a joint effort, thanks.
Steve = : ^ )
Steve:
She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
(t)WITCH; def = she spells
-- Pretty good (the ‘spelling’ business is clever), though perhaps a bit too obvious with ‘twitch’ staring us in the face.
Steve:
She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)Maybe how about...
(t)WITCH; def = she spells
-- Pretty good (the ‘spelling’ business is clever), though perhaps a bit too obvious with ‘twitch’ staring us in the face.
She spells 'swap' without the 's' (5)
Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, andthere were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn,mathematical loons and the like.
All that said: any opinions, ideas?
Maybe how about...
She spells 'swap' without the 's' (5)
I think somewhere that indirect anagrams were welcome—I can't think where that is for the moment—it would be good.
Maybe how about...
She spells 'swap' without the 's' (5)
I think somewhere that indirect anagrams were welcome—I can't think where that is for the moment—it would be good.But it's just a deletion not an anagram.
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 8:24:32 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:there were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, and
mathematical loons and the like.I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn,
All that said: any opinions, ideas?I first posted here in April 2004 and remember the glory days. I struggle a bit to find the time—even to enter, let alone moderate—these days, but I expect that to change eventually. I would miss it if it died.
I'm philosophical about it: nothing stays the same for ever; everything evolves. These might be r.p.c.'s death throes, or it might just be a near-death experience from which the forum recovers with a new lease on life.
There's only one way to find out.
Steve = : ^ )
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:46:52 PM UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:there were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 8:24:32 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, and
mathematical loons and the like.I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn,
computer, but recently I found it in a random backup folder. I think it's okay to put it on the cloud now so it's never lost again, so here it isAll that said: any opinions, ideas?I first posted here in April 2004 and remember the glory days. I struggle a bit to find the time—even to enter, let alone moderate—these days, but I expect that to change eventually. I would miss it if it died.
I'm philosophical about it: nothing stays the same for ever; everything evolves. These might be r.p.c.'s death throes, or it might just be a near-death experience from which the forum recovers with a new lease on life.
There's only one way to find out.
Steve = : ^ )I got here just before that in late 2002. Soon after I arrived, Theresa Gies, a Canadian woman who was leaving the group, shared with me her list of indicators. It was pretty nice, but I thought I had lost her file many years ago in moving to a new
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BIAvE056LhmfxlCJyzpZLgAmlxl5SlrmhFJvkDl4mQQ
Make good use of it!
Anyway, it has been a good run here, but I don't have much hope of a revival.
Cheers!
Mark
Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, andthere were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn,mathematical loons and the like.
All that said: any opinions, ideas?
Thanks,
Luciano
By the way, many thanks to Teresa Gies and Mark Iredell for the spreadsheet of indicators!!
On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 17:07:22 UTC-6, Duke wrote:
By the way, many thanks to Teresa Gies and Mark Iredell for the spreadsheet of indicators!!Agreed.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 335 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 147:12:05 |
Calls: | 7,411 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,670 |
Messages: | 5,612,993 |