Cryptic Clues

[Justin Passing]

bloke with a big boat couldn't afford the LED (2, 7)

Spoiler

(noah Cree money)

 

[AngleEyes]

a bit apathetic.

I'm guessing that's right, but earlier in the thread I did ask (Mottie I think it was) for the exact answer.
So in all fairness, I ought to ask you for the exact answer, even though I know you've got it.

Sorry Mottie, I did ask you for the homophone, and the clue definitely referred to weaners, and not wieners.

I think I might have done the same for the Martial/marshal clue as well.

 

[AngleEyes]

Up Lighter?

 

[Justin Passing]

Loftier?

 

[AngleEyes]

In Heaven is only (2,6)

Up Higher is only (2,6)

 

[Justin Passing]

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).

 

[AngleEyes]

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).

What are you on about?

#226 wasn't a clue, it was an answer to #224? But it looked like a clue.
You thought an answer to #226, i.e. #228 was a clue? How can that be? It looked nothing like a clue.

Now #231? Is that a clue?

HTF are we expected to know which of your posts are clues and which aren't, if they all look like clues?

Let's backtrack:
#223 was the last obvious, and without doubt, the last clue.
No-one had got it after a couple of days or so, so I added a bit of help with #224.
I thought you'd got the answer in #225, (indeed, you said you'd got it) but you were being obscure with the answer. And you'd assumed you had got it when you posted #226, which looked like a new clue.
In 227, I reminded you that the specific answer was required to clue #223, not just an obscure reference to it.
#228 I had a go at answering your clue in #226 .
#229 you posted an additional pointer to clue set in #226.
#230 I tried again, but obviously the number of letters didn't match for your clue as set in #226.
Now in #231 you're suggesting that #226 wasn't a clue at all, and you appear to set another clue in #231.

Are you taking the pizz? Or just talking in obscure riddles?

 

[Justin Passing]

No need to turn unpleasant when you can't follow, old chap - as elsewhere.

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. In 224 you queried acrimony which I answered in 226 - soppy non-clue with the answer given at the same time - no acrimony. Do you see a Spoiler button? Did you click it, did you read it?
Didn't know what 228 was - a clue, I assumed. 229 was a guess at that.
Sorry for any part I played in confusion.

Yes 231 is the current clue.

 

[AngleEyes]

No need to turn unpleasant when you can't follow, old chap - as elsewhere.

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.

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.

Do you realise how childish that sounds? You know the answer, but you're not telling?
The clues were not designed to be difficult. Quickfire, easy clues that encourages participation is far better than obscure difficult clues that discourages participation. As I've said, it's meant to be fun, not a competition as to who can set the most difficult and obscure clues.

In 224 you queried acrimony which I answered in 226 - soppy non-clue with the answer given at the same time - no acrimony.

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.

Do you see a Spoiler button? Did you click it, did you read it?

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.
But if the clue wasn't a clue, why the spoiler as a hint to the answer, if there was no (supposedly) answer!
You're going round in rather obscure circles.

Didn't know what 228 was - a clue, I assumed.

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.

229 was a guess at that.

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.

Sorry for any part I played in confusion.

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.

Yes 231 is the current clue.

Sorry, I can't be bothered anymore trying to work out which of your posts are clues, and which aren't.
It was bad enough when Captain whatshisname gave the wrong number of letters for the answer, but making supposedly relevant topical comments that look like clues, then four days later claiming it wasn't a clue, is just taking the proverbial.

If anyone else wants to participate, I'm happy to continue.

 

[Justin Passing]

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.

 

[AngleEyes]

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.

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.
It looks like you've set out to intentionally spoil the thread. If it wasn't intentional, then you've accidentally succeeded with your obscure riddles.
Well done.

 

[Justin Passing]

Forensic?!
Look I apologised and said carry on.
You spat your dummy out, which perhaps isn't surprising for someone
in a crossword game who can't work out an abbreviated form of Knight when it's Sir.

 

[AngleEyes]

No need to turn unpleasant when you can't follow, old chap - as elsewhere.
...
Sorry for any part I played in confusion.
...

....
Look I apologised and said carry on.
....

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.
Usually if someone causes confusion which results in acrimony, they apologise for the confusion, and the ensuing acrimony.

It was either you causing confusion, and I was failing to follow your obscure riddles? A bit like trying to follow a drunkard's rambling and incoherent conversation when you're perfectly sober.

Or you were being perfectly clear and I was causing the confusion and the ensuing acrimony?

It looks to me as though you were being obscure for some unfathomable reason, posting irrelevant comments that look like clues.
Then later claiming they weren't clues but answers.

#226 was just an answer to #224. Did you look at the spoiler....?

Why provide a spoiler for an answer? That doesn't make sense. That's irrational and illogical.

 

[Justin Passing]

Why provide a spoiler for an answer? That doesn't make sense. That's irrational and illogical.

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?

 

[AngleEyes]

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?

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.
You've been making unwarranted insults in the process. That just adds to the acrimony.