Pat wrote:"....at the time of silvercar's post requesting help with this puzzle,
it was not yet available on www - i had to wait.)
- Pat
If silvercar had included the puzzle when submitting his post, which was what I suggested in my initial post, your concern of delayed viewing of the puzzle on the
www. would not arise if it were included with Silvercar's post. Your comment seems to support my original suggestion for puzzle details to be included as part of a post seeking help.
Cec wrote:".. Relieved to know I'm not the only one who needed help.."
I was referring to Pi not silvercar.
I'm not a computer wizard and I tried to explain my problem by (incorrectly) saying "I don't have access to the "Times" forums or its website.." What I meant to say was "I don't know the "Times"
www.linketc. which in hindsight would have been a better explanation of my problem.
That said, I leave it to you people to judge that part of Bigtone's reply to me viz. "Why not? Is it illegal or something?
After noting 'Pi' requested a link (13 Dec), presumably to view this puzzle again having previously sited it in the "Times" more than a day earlier when it was published on 11 Dec., I decided to draw attention to this to highlight that my explanation for not knowing this link was reasonable and hopefully should have been understood considering Pi (a more experienced poster than me) also sought help for a link similar to what I sought. This is again another example of the advantage for puzzles to accompany the initial post.
My failed attempt to combine humour with sarcasm in suggesting puzzles should accompany posts has got me into deep water and I again apologize for that. However I don't retract my initial suggestion and I will continue to read these forums with interest.
Cec
