- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,787
- Reaction score
- 705
- Country
bloke with a big boat couldn't afford the LED (2, 7)
(noah Cree money)
I'm guessing that's right, but earlier in the thread I did ask (Mottie I think it was) for the exact answer.a bit apathetic.
I think I might have done the same for the Martial/marshal clue as well.Sorry Mottie, I did ask you for the homophone, and the clue definitely referred to weaners, and not wieners.
What are you on about?Wot? Eh? There isn't a clue. I thought Up Lighter was a clue. #226 was just an answer to #224. Did you look at the spoiler....?
Ok a bit clumsy, I'm tired, but try:
Put in JohnD , to conjure the most recent style, (9).
When your answers look exactly like clues and despite your tardy explanation, have no obvious relevance to any previous comments, and you think my answers are clues which you try to answer, your obfuscated riddles are impossible to follow.No need to turn unpleasant when you can't follow, old chap - as elsewhere.
Do you realise how childish that sounds? You know the answer, but you're not telling?Your last couple of clues have been no-brainers, but others might want to take part so without something ready I didn't dive in.
Your 'answer' looked exactly like a clue, and had no reference to the post to which it was supposed to refer, which wasn't a query anyway. It was an observation.In 224 you queried acrimony which I answered in 226 - soppy non-clue with the answer given at the same time - no acrimony.
No, not until now. A spoiler usually suggests the answer, and apart from the Noah reference relating to the big boat, (which would suggest Mt Ararat as an answer but that's still the wrong number of letters, but a 'lighter' is also a boat) the rest still looks like obscure clues.Do you see a Spoiler button? Did you click it, did you read it?
It looked like an answer immediately following your apparent clue. There was no number of letters required for the answer. That tends to be the give-away that it's an answer, and not a clue.Didn't know what 228 was - a clue, I assumed.
A response to a wrong answer, (if the clue wasn't a clue, then any answer would have been wrong) looks like a hint to the correct answer. But there wouldn't have been any correct answer if the clue wasn't a clue.229 was a guess at that.
It doesn't look like you're about to stop with your obfuscation, so in the words of the Dragons, "I'm out", at least as far as trying to make sense of your obscure riddles.Sorry for any part I played in confusion.
Sorry, I can't be bothered anymore trying to work out which of your posts are clues, and which aren't.Yes 231 is the current clue.
I wouldn't call forensically explaining how you've managed to post an answer that looks like a clue, then posting a clue that's supposed to be an answer, as chucking jibes.I haven't bothered to read all that.
It seems you come to this forum so you can chuck jibes at and criticize any time you can find an angle.
If you want to get hung up on your own shortcomings and choose to be precious and annoyed that's your problem.
No need to turn unpleasant when you can't follow, old chap - as elsewhere.
...
Sorry for any part I played in confusion.
...
Anyone can clearly see that you were causing this confusion which in turn makes the discussion acrimonious. You then persisted with the acrimony and apologised for the confusion.....
Look I apologised and said carry on.
....
Why provide a spoiler for an answer? That doesn't make sense. That's irrational and illogical.#226 was just an answer to #224. Did you look at the spoiler....?
Only in your mind.Why provide a spoiler for an answer? That doesn't make sense. That's irrational and illogical.
It's very simple, you admitted you caused the confusion, and yet you blame me for being confused and not understanding, as though it's my fault.Only in your mind.
Not in context.
You didn't understand
You were confused
I apologised.
You want to drag it on
what else do you want?