A pleasing puzzle with a neatly worded preamble. It's always pleasing to learn something along the way, so many thanks to eXternal. But we're still waiting for the first tough challenge of the year.
While I agree with tilbee's point, the problem is that when you do comment on posts giving something away, you draw attention to it. And Cagey, I don't think the reference was to yourself.
Tilbee: I would be interested to know where other help is available. I have completed the grid so I know all the answers but I have no idea what to do now.
Having slept on it the endgame soon revealed itself, hardly a PDM, more of a dull groan. Happily however I had the satisfaction of getting to the finish line before I saw the ‘spoiler’ posted yesterday – I thought these were a no-no on this site? Contendo, if you're still stuck I’d be happy to give you a hint if required - spw6128 is my gmail account (usual format).
I can't off the top of my head think of the ambiguities people are referring to, at least not according to C. I suppose, by a convention typical of the subject, one of the cells could just be left blank and still be "correct", but I doubt that was what was intended!
We do have an unwritten agreement on this thread that any type of detailed discussion or hint spoils the game. If you feel that there has been a spoiler and you hit 'report' at the bottom of the comment, and explain your objection, the comment will disappear in an hour or two. We had a contributor who was crudely aggressive to others on the thread a few years ago and a few of us reacted and his comments disappeared. Eventually he did too, and was banned even when he appeared with a new identity.
I'm earnestly hoping for a PDM of some sort. I have a full grid, the quotation, brief and omissions, and I know the person of the thematic invention (though the invention itself was new to me). But I can't see which entries are examples nor yet what I should do with them.
Yes me too Petefoxes - at least we have a while to consider further. I do agree with Tilbee - and given that the contribution is bereft of wit I am not sure it can be described as harmless or any other kind of fun.
Actually, this week's "spoiler" is less obviously a blatant hint than most. But the contributor - who must know we are referring to him - should really get a grip. It is not big, and it is not funny.
Four in a row completed on Friday evening? Obviously this can't go on. It may well be I have missed subtleties but I had no ambiguities or problems with this.
Having had a chance to discuss them with others I'd say that the ambiguities are what you might call "soft" -- in that plausible alternatives exist, but one choice is clearly superior to the other(s). Nothing like in the Sabre puzzle, where there was a genuine ambiguity that in the end was only resolved by treating all options as equally acceptable.
Contrarian
You may wish to read Petefoxes' post again. The meaning of the somewhat clunking contribution was apparent from the stage we have both reached.
I have to admit that I have occasionally worded my postings so that they would ring a bell with somebody who had completely solved the puzzle. I know I'm not guilty on this occasion, but if I have overstepped the mark in the past please accept my apologies.
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.