Anything goes, but keep it seemly...

Passing through Delhi recently, I picked up a copy of the Hindustan Times, which of course has a daily Sudoku. The usual statement of the rules is included, but with an additional one

. 'You can't change the digits already provided in the grid. You have to work around them'

There must be some truly devious people about!
Bigtone53

Posts: 413
Joined: 19 September 2005

Hehe!

That reminds me of a Sudoku variant I heard about somewhere; "Exactly one of the givens is wrong. Figure out which." Now, there's a challenge.
vidarino

Posts: 295
Joined: 02 January 2006

At least, they could solve all Sudokus they come across

MCC
MCC

Posts: 1275
Joined: 08 June 2005

Bigtone53:
'You can't change the digits already provided in the grid. You have to work around them'

I'm not sure how the 'digits already provided' are different from the starting clues/starting grid/initial layout of any puzzle. And one doesn't really 'work around them', one uses them to finish the work.

Tracy
TKiel

Posts: 209
Joined: 05 January 2006

Tracy,

You can't change the Indian Subcontinent. You have to work around it!

em
emm

Posts: 987
Joined: 02 July 2005

em,

This must be a UK reference that I don't get.

Tracy
TKiel

Posts: 209
Joined: 05 January 2006

TKiel wrote:...I'm not sure how the 'digits already provided' are different from the starting clues/starting grid/initial layout of any puzzle.

The're not, it a different way of saying the same thing.

TKiel wrote:And one doesn't really 'work around them', one uses them to finish the work.

Tracy

The're just reiterating the first sentence. That you have to work with what is given, you can't move things (clues) to make things easier.

MCC
MCC

Posts: 1275
Joined: 08 June 2005

Thanks MCC. I guess I never thought about the possibility of moving the givens around. I may try that the next time I get a puzzle I can't solve.

Tracy
TKiel

Posts: 209
Joined: 05 January 2006

Sorry, Tracy, it was a bit cryptic - ‘Only in India’ is a favourite saying of mine but you weren’t to know that. Every country has its mysteries - perhaps you can explain why Americans assume everyone else is from the UK?
emm

Posts: 987
Joined: 02 July 2005

I thought Americans assumed that everyone lives in America. Certainly that seems true of those I see online (strange how people persist in using American or European date format, despite the fact that both are potentially ambiguous and besides, International format is the only one which makes sense to use online.)
robert@fm

Posts: 28
Joined: 20 February 2006

em,

My assumption was that someone who referred to the Indian Subcontinent as a place to work around must have some connection with the Uk or perhaps with former parts of the UK. If that was an incorrect assumption, then I made an error. If that offended, it was not my intent and I apologize.

Your question, on the other hand, seems to be one of a baiting nature.

Tracy
TKiel

Posts: 209
Joined: 05 January 2006

TKiel wrote:em,
Your question, on the other hand, seems to be one of a baiting nature.
Tracy

If i recall correctly from another post, em is from down under. So she was probably offended that you tought she was a 'pom'. I think making an assumption about all americans was her way of getting back at you
ab

Posts: 451
Joined: 06 September 2005

No, ab – Tracy & I have not come to grief on the fraught field of a postcolonial identity crisis but rather in the choppy waters where literalism meets irony. It’s the age old problem of trying to convey subtle meaning via the written word eg when I say ‘you have to work around it’, I don’t actually mean ‘ seek positions of employment all over India’. My problem is that I forget that people might take it that way.

I know this has caused trouble in the past and I used to parenthesise comments such as (big cheesy grin) or (thinking aimlessly) or (wicked snicker) – no I never did actually use that one, though I wanted to - to spell out my meaning, but I got lazy and ended up just using the little yellow smiley face to cover everything – maybe I’ll revert.

Tracy, no harm was intended and no offence taken. A lot of what I write is tongue-in-cheek (t-i-c). I don’t know why I think that way, it makes my face look funny (feeble joke), it’s just the way my brain is wired. My approach - and this may be the result of coming from a small nuclear-free country - is to assume goodwill unless proven otherwise. Of course I may be baiting you as well, but not maliciously! (knowing wink)
emm

Posts: 987
Joined: 02 July 2005

em,

I think I took your statement too figuratively, as the only way it made sense to me was to be taken as a statement that India doesn't do what outside influences want, that it won't change, it does it's own thing, etc..., so one has to work around that. And that I related to the country's eventual independence from the UK. Then, I related that to the fact that anybody who referred to that, must have a UK connection. And in making that assumption I showed my own ignorance in that the only way someone would refer to India was as a former colonial state of the UK, when they could have done it for a myriad of other reasons (chagrined look on face).

Having read many of your other posts (I seem to vaguely recall one similar to that to which ab referred) I'm glad we have not "come to grief on the fraught field of a post colonial identity crisis" (over here we call that having a beef) as I feel myself to be entirely out-gunned if it came to a battle of the spoken word. In fact, it was the impression left on me by your previous posts that someone as erudite, witty, worldly and sophisicated as yourself (feeble attempt at sucking up) could only have come from a small, non-nuclear country, with a world view that precludes making assumptions about others. So, when I saw your statement I was a little shocked at what appeared to be an opening salvo.

So will somebody please explain what 'pom' means?

Tracy
TKiel

Posts: 209
Joined: 05 January 2006

Good, Tracy I'm glad we've cleared that up.

"Pom' is a term colonials used to describe the English. If you're interested in it's derivation, click pomegranate.

I believe that once 'Pom' was considered derogatory but it is now definitely a term of endearment, unless prefixed by 'whinging' or'moaning' which generally refers to Poms who don't know a good thing when they see one and are still pining for Mother England or suffixed as in 'Pommie b*st*rd' though strangely that is not necessarily offensive and can even be considered affectionate in some circumstances. Hope that's what you wanted to know! (big cheesy grin)
emm

Posts: 987
Joined: 02 July 2005

Next