Crosswords4 mins ago
Listener 3941: Wanted Dead or Alive
17 Answers
I am just being a bit lazy here; I've spent a while finishing Azed. I had to do that because it's a prize week. I finished Azed two days ago and I've been hard at work on London's LUL for the last two days. All I have so far is Tradescantia, Egyptology & Oculate. You'll know what I mean. I just want a bit of a hurry-up. I should say that I am also in the market for INQUISITOR 32 answers: I gotta fridge full o White Shield and I don't care what happens to it!!
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by offramp_t. 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.
Awakening the Listener debate again offramp_t ? Maybe two similar posts in succession do rank as gross laziness. I can't see why gentle nudges for those really stuck on the Listener should be taboo, but asking for the answer to all bar 3 clues!
I don't think this week's clueing is particularly demanding - I have a full grid quite quickly. The themed links are also fairly gettable. My only problem is the last step to commonality between 8 clues (even think I know which ones and what I need to end up with, but I'd feel more satisfied if I knew for sure how I got there). I'd say a subtle hint on something like that is more in order than a giant leg up, the likes of which we saw last week which caused such high feelings.
I don't think this week's clueing is particularly demanding - I have a full grid quite quickly. The themed links are also fairly gettable. My only problem is the last step to commonality between 8 clues (even think I know which ones and what I need to end up with, but I'd feel more satisfied if I knew for sure how I got there). I'd say a subtle hint on something like that is more in order than a giant leg up, the likes of which we saw last week which caused such high feelings.
"Such high feelings" will always be stirred up when a current Listener is discussed in ANY context. Read last week's 'debate' if you don't know what I'm referring to. No doubt Quizmonster will come on soon with his ill-argued rants, but I can only plead again, on behalf of the Listener team, that this particular puzzle is not discussed here.
Why, QM2, is your opinion apparently just that whilst mine is an "ill-argued rant"? Despite all the times this wretched nonsense about the Listener's sacrosanctity has arisen, you have never once explained any of the points I keep making. Here are the key ones yet again, as best I recall them from years past...
a) If queries about the Azed, Guardian Genius, Mephisto etc are open to being freely answered here, despite the impact that clearly has on genuine competitors' chances of winning, why is the Listener league-table something that must not be similarly affected by 'outsiders?
b) What evidence do you have that a given, supposedly individual, winner actually is an individual? When this arose last week, one of the people on your side came into the thread after 26 responses had already been posted there! Why would such a person, claiming to be still involved in solving the puzzle, expose him/herself to such an obvious "occasion of sin" as the Catholic Church used to have it?
...cont
a) If queries about the Azed, Guardian Genius, Mephisto etc are open to being freely answered here, despite the impact that clearly has on genuine competitors' chances of winning, why is the Listener league-table something that must not be similarly affected by 'outsiders?
b) What evidence do you have that a given, supposedly individual, winner actually is an individual? When this arose last week, one of the people on your side came into the thread after 26 responses had already been posted there! Why would such a person, claiming to be still involved in solving the puzzle, expose him/herself to such an obvious "occasion of sin" as the Catholic Church used to have it?
...cont
cont...
c) Is there a shred of evidence that anyone asking for help with the thing here on AnswerBank has ever won...or even submitted a completed grid? I'd say the former was highly unlikely and - even if one did miraculously win a one-off submission - that would have a statistically negligible, rather than a "totally flawed" (as you claimed earlier) effect on final Listener statistics.
d) If, as you also claimed, a puzzle is annulled by virtue of parts of it being in the public domain, that can only be because setters suspect regular competitors of being likely to take sneaky advantage of the �leaked' information. If some of these competitors are that untrustworthy, why should we believe that they are otherwise winning solely on their own skills and merits?
e) If the organisers of the Listener wanted only a select inner circle to get involved, why didn't they develop a private mailing-list rather than publish it in a mass-circulation newspaper with no injunction whatsoever to entrants to treat any answers they deduce as if they were the contents of the Ark of the Covenant?
I for one will go on answering Listener clues here on AnswerBank if by chance I already know them or if I can work them out there and then. An' de'il tak' �e hin'most!
c) Is there a shred of evidence that anyone asking for help with the thing here on AnswerBank has ever won...or even submitted a completed grid? I'd say the former was highly unlikely and - even if one did miraculously win a one-off submission - that would have a statistically negligible, rather than a "totally flawed" (as you claimed earlier) effect on final Listener statistics.
d) If, as you also claimed, a puzzle is annulled by virtue of parts of it being in the public domain, that can only be because setters suspect regular competitors of being likely to take sneaky advantage of the �leaked' information. If some of these competitors are that untrustworthy, why should we believe that they are otherwise winning solely on their own skills and merits?
e) If the organisers of the Listener wanted only a select inner circle to get involved, why didn't they develop a private mailing-list rather than publish it in a mass-circulation newspaper with no injunction whatsoever to entrants to treat any answers they deduce as if they were the contents of the Ark of the Covenant?
I for one will go on answering Listener clues here on AnswerBank if by chance I already know them or if I can work them out there and then. An' de'il tak' �e hin'most!
The Listener Team, AIUI, consists of the vetters (John Grimshaw and Derek Arthur), plus the marker/statistician (John Green).
Some of the "serious" Listener solving community frequent the message board at Derek Harrison's crossword centre. In fact, this very site has come under discussion: See the thread on Cheating at
http://b2.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user =dharrison&page=8
I don't think the condemnation is quite so general as one might suppose from Quizmonkey's contributions here.
OTOH it is certain that many people take the Listener stats very seriously indeed and that there is the potential to hurt quite a few people quite badly if the puzzle is seriously compromised on the net (and there lies the difference, if any, with Azed and the rest).
If Quizmonster genuinely doesn't care about hurting others, then there is not much more to be said. I prefer to believe that he thinks, instead, that occasional requests for the odd answer do not compromise the puzzle enough to really hurt anyone. I'd be tempted to agree, but there is the "slippery slope" argument, and I do think Offramp's question is inappropriate. That said, it is encouraging that no-one has answered it. Indeed, there don't seem to be many complete solutions to puzzles posted here; perhaps the values of AB-ers and hardcore Listenerers are not so divergent after all.
Some of the "serious" Listener solving community frequent the message board at Derek Harrison's crossword centre. In fact, this very site has come under discussion: See the thread on Cheating at
http://b2.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user =dharrison&page=8
I don't think the condemnation is quite so general as one might suppose from Quizmonkey's contributions here.
OTOH it is certain that many people take the Listener stats very seriously indeed and that there is the potential to hurt quite a few people quite badly if the puzzle is seriously compromised on the net (and there lies the difference, if any, with Azed and the rest).
If Quizmonster genuinely doesn't care about hurting others, then there is not much more to be said. I prefer to believe that he thinks, instead, that occasional requests for the odd answer do not compromise the puzzle enough to really hurt anyone. I'd be tempted to agree, but there is the "slippery slope" argument, and I do think Offramp's question is inappropriate. That said, it is encouraging that no-one has answered it. Indeed, there don't seem to be many complete solutions to puzzles posted here; perhaps the values of AB-ers and hardcore Listenerers are not so divergent after all.
Thank you, bunstance, for your considered response to my post. I understand and sympathise with your feelings.Like many, perhaps most, of us who like to help on AB, I do get fed up when I feel that the questioner has not made a reasonable effort to solve the clues. And I, too, was pleased to see that the post which you quote had been ignored.
Thanks for those two posts, Bunstance and Aquagility: nicely put and sensibly reasoned.
However, a propos 'ill-argued' , take another look at, for example, QM's first point (a): he tries to compare the Listener with three other puzzles which are irrelevant to the argument he himself is trying to make (irrelevant as none of them operates a league-table system with annual results and stats etc), making his very own point senseless and impossible to answer. I would describe that as ill-argued, wouldn't you?
He then spends some 42 further lines, reiterating old gripes, using emotive phrasing for effect, finishing with his "I'll go on answering - so there!" pout, but without, it would seem, reading (or understanding?) any of the bare facts about the Listener that have been explained on this site, politely and reasonably, in the past. And that practice I would describe as ranting.
Odd really as he does give good answers elsewhere on this site - he just seems to have a blind spot, and some curious obsession, with the Listener.
However, a propos 'ill-argued' , take another look at, for example, QM's first point (a): he tries to compare the Listener with three other puzzles which are irrelevant to the argument he himself is trying to make (irrelevant as none of them operates a league-table system with annual results and stats etc), making his very own point senseless and impossible to answer. I would describe that as ill-argued, wouldn't you?
He then spends some 42 further lines, reiterating old gripes, using emotive phrasing for effect, finishing with his "I'll go on answering - so there!" pout, but without, it would seem, reading (or understanding?) any of the bare facts about the Listener that have been explained on this site, politely and reasonably, in the past. And that practice I would describe as ranting.
Odd really as he does give good answers elsewhere on this site - he just seems to have a blind spot, and some curious obsession, with the Listener.
cross words indeed... this isn't the sort of debate I know much about, but it seems to me on the basis of this thread that Quizmonster is precisely the one who is not obsessed with the Listener and wishes to treat it as any other quiz, with or without prizes and hurt feelings, while everyone else believes it to be unique. Knowing nothing of it, I couldn't say whether it is so or not.
The opening entry on the 'Cheating' part of the site linked-to by Bunstance is, of course, an earlier response of my very own! I suggest you read it, QM2. I only reiterate old gripes because no-one answered them when they were young or even middle-aged!
And here's a sensible response from further down the list of replies..."If there are people out there treating the Listener entirely as a fun puzzle, collaborating on solutions and winning the occasional bottle of champagne, I personally wish them good luck: if we can't tolerate people in this category, how can we expect to sustain the Listener, EV, IQ etc at all? For those to whom the statistics matter a lot: is there a problem unless the collaborators start breaking through into the successful solvers list? And is there any suspicion that they do? If so, why not ask people to register if they intend to compete seriously in the statistics, and make sure that those who do are fully aware of the rules.
(My underlining...and it contains some of the very points I myself have made...eg the query as to whether any collaborator has ever won and the idea of registering competitors.) I also quite approve of the person who wrote, "It's rather futile to obsess about other people's collaboration, so don't bother." Good advice for you, QM2!...cont
And here's a sensible response from further down the list of replies..."If there are people out there treating the Listener entirely as a fun puzzle, collaborating on solutions and winning the occasional bottle of champagne, I personally wish them good luck: if we can't tolerate people in this category, how can we expect to sustain the Listener, EV, IQ etc at all? For those to whom the statistics matter a lot: is there a problem unless the collaborators start breaking through into the successful solvers list? And is there any suspicion that they do? If so, why not ask people to register if they intend to compete seriously in the statistics, and make sure that those who do are fully aware of the rules.
(My underlining...and it contains some of the very points I myself have made...eg the query as to whether any collaborator has ever won and the idea of registering competitors.) I also quite approve of the person who wrote, "It's rather futile to obsess about other people's collaboration, so don't bother." Good advice for you, QM2!...cont
cont...
The second sentence of your final paragraph, Bunstance, sums up my views pretty well...I do not, indeed, believe a bit of help here and there hurts anyone.
And, on that basis, Offramp_t, I did find a few minutes yesterday evening - between cleaning the cat's litter-tray and going out for a few beers (the important things!) - to have a first glance at the Listener from last Saturday. Here's a bit of a nudge, but just one for each corner, mind. 15A furlong...16A expo...20D tribunal and 34A iceberg. I do not know what listenerly shenanigans you may have to go through with these, but I believe they do answer the clues.
Thanks for your opening comment, Aqua, and for your comment about obsession, J.
Finally, QM2, I do pout awfully prettily!
The second sentence of your final paragraph, Bunstance, sums up my views pretty well...I do not, indeed, believe a bit of help here and there hurts anyone.
And, on that basis, Offramp_t, I did find a few minutes yesterday evening - between cleaning the cat's litter-tray and going out for a few beers (the important things!) - to have a first glance at the Listener from last Saturday. Here's a bit of a nudge, but just one for each corner, mind. 15A furlong...16A expo...20D tribunal and 34A iceberg. I do not know what listenerly shenanigans you may have to go through with these, but I believe they do answer the clues.
Thanks for your opening comment, Aqua, and for your comment about obsession, J.
Finally, QM2, I do pout awfully prettily!
Maybe I can contribute to this debate from both sides of the fence. As a hardened Listener solver for a number of years, I can see the merits of 'statistical' competition for solo-pursuitists that the Listener offers. I've been aware of these discussion threads for a few weeks, but endeavour to solve as much as possible without looking here (perhaps give it a week or so...)
As far as cheating is concerned, yes arguably it is, but there are many solvers on the other forum that would consider the use of reference books (prior to a serious attempt at the puzzle) a form of cheating, so where is the line drawn?
As far as influencing the sacred annual statistics, I sent away for the stats last year and there are about 4 or 5 entrants with all 52 correct in the year - a couple have not had a single clue wrong in three or four years. With respect to all postees here - and to my own intellect! - I think we'd find it hard to compete with that even if we were completely ruthless in our sharing of answers!
At the end of the day, The Listener is a serious challenge to the intellect, but if someone comes to this forum to regularly seek most of the answers after very little effort, then why do they bother in the first place?
I'd like to think that the vast majority of discussions that crop up on here occur after serious attempts have been made and by those just looking for perhaps one answer to give them a nudge in the right direction. If it means the entrant wins the champagne, hey it's only a bottle of plonk, and I for one don't think I'll get anywhere near the silver salver no matter how many times I frequent this board!
For sure, I take The Listener seriously, but I have no problem with this discussion since I don't see it as a genuine threat to anyone or anything. Furthermore, if I check for an answer (which I had to do with Kea's toughie last week), I'm only kidding myself.
As far as cheating is concerned, yes arguably it is, but there are many solvers on the other forum that would consider the use of reference books (prior to a serious attempt at the puzzle) a form of cheating, so where is the line drawn?
As far as influencing the sacred annual statistics, I sent away for the stats last year and there are about 4 or 5 entrants with all 52 correct in the year - a couple have not had a single clue wrong in three or four years. With respect to all postees here - and to my own intellect! - I think we'd find it hard to compete with that even if we were completely ruthless in our sharing of answers!
At the end of the day, The Listener is a serious challenge to the intellect, but if someone comes to this forum to regularly seek most of the answers after very little effort, then why do they bother in the first place?
I'd like to think that the vast majority of discussions that crop up on here occur after serious attempts have been made and by those just looking for perhaps one answer to give them a nudge in the right direction. If it means the entrant wins the champagne, hey it's only a bottle of plonk, and I for one don't think I'll get anywhere near the silver salver no matter how many times I frequent this board!
For sure, I take The Listener seriously, but I have no problem with this discussion since I don't see it as a genuine threat to anyone or anything. Furthermore, if I check for an answer (which I had to do with Kea's toughie last week), I'm only kidding myself.
Quizmonster's rant spectacularly misses the point made by cluelessJoe - namely, and this applies to any puzzle, not just the Listener - that it's a bit of a half-arsed lazy attitude that asks all and sundry for the answers to all bar 3 clues in a puzzle.
Asking a mate for inspiration is one thing, but we all know that theanswerbank is a shortcut for cheats and the mentally lazy.
Asking a mate for inspiration is one thing, but we all know that theanswerbank is a shortcut for cheats and the mentally lazy.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Body & Soul10 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
ChatterBank32 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.