Category Archives: DA Debate

There were a few clues that I and others considered questionable and worthy of debate. They are:

24 across: Bush strife giving voice to sport hero of Australian cricket (4, 3)
Here, it’s the supposed homophone at giving voice to sport = giving voice golf = gulf. Maybe it’s because I’m not a South Australian, but I reckon that’s crap.

Giving voice … hero of Australian cricket = giving voice Waugh = war is alright in my book, though.

1 across: Hearing test results in retriever, perhaps, biting one sheep (9)
Here, it’s retriever perhaps = golden = au that’s dodgy I think on two counts: 1. au is an abbreviation for gold, not golden; 2. the double step, from adjectival possibility to abbreviation, seems one step too many.

6 down: Fuel affair — breach admitted by extreme politician (8)
It’s the extreme politician = pn. A big black mark, no?

There’s a lot to talk about this week. Here are the bones of contention:

1. Ian reports what might make 11 across more sensible: a spear carrier is a film extra.
2. Aren’t pagans the opposite of atheists?
3. Am I right in think CAST SUP is a little tenuous for a wrap party? And isn’t throw forward not quite in the same direction as casts up?
4. Surely RED HAND = queen of hearts is a bit much Oopsies — that should be RED CARD, which makes more sense.
5. I’m OK with cosmopolitan = COCKTAIL even though it goes from particular to general, much like I would be OK if it was dog = PET — although something like dog = ANIMAL would be abominable.
6. Can anyone save promising = PALMIER?

Agree? Disagree? Did I forget something?

Let me start with my bugbear: ellipses.

In DA’s book, Puzzled, he mentioned that comfort with ellipses was a sign of cryptic mastery. I’m more than willing to concede that I am no cryptic master, but I think the inconsistent way ellipses are used is simply unfair.

This week, it was 7 and 8 across that were connected by ellipses, which ordinarily has no effect on how one interprets the clue, but on this occasion 8 across required the last word of 7 across, brothers, to make sense.

If such a reading were standard or if it was marked, I’d have no problem with it, but it’s the inconsistency — mostly you don’t need to worry about ellipses, sometimes you do — that annoys me.

Am I the only one howling at the moon?

Other controversial points:

1. I wouldn’t like pink = red or orange = yellow, and I reckon brown = maroon is just as weak;
2. I’m OK with rose referring to the wine — is the general consensus that that was crossing the line, though?
3. blind as an anagram indicator — can anyone justify that?
4. service as an anagram indicator: jnrj didn’t like it, but I find it acceptable.

So, your thoughts?

A new category for a very common phenomenon: debates on whether something or other was appropriate.

Here’s what I thought was up for debate:

• stab = speculate on in 12 across. As far as I’m aware, for stab to take on that meaning, it’s take a stab or have a stab, never stab alone, and using the meaning of a phrase’s operative word in a definition seems a step too far.
• lobbing = arrival in 24 across. I assumed from the word lobby that lobbing had something to do with an arrival. Then I looked in the dictionary and didn’t find anything to support what I supposed. Can this be defended?
• get at = contact in 6 across. How does that work?