Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Still stumped ozzy, should I take one final look?

Mmm, maybe I've got the wrong quotation. Is it the one that contradicts a historical assertion?

Mullinger, see my post at #73 for hint to quotation. It has two contrasting parts. For the second part, each 2-3 letter set of superfluous letters is a (singular) example of the subject (plural).

Now I'm even more confused Ozzy. If the letters are singular examples of plurals I'm wondering if I've even got the right film. However the characters name pretty much guarantees that. Ill ponder some more. Sometimes its staring you in the face and you just can't see it

Maybe I have too, mullingar. Mine doesn't really divide into two halves. I thought it looked right because it has strong links with the title.

The quote is a response to a comment. It is the only quotation by that character in the ODQ. Its first part justifies the entry method for answers that are too short, its second part does so for answers that are too long. Hope this does the trick.

Oh finally the penny drops. Now I can see they are examples. So just one last thing. 247 how does that parse? I can see the first two letters may refer to a geographical location and the last 3 may refer to time but it seems a little flimsy or is there something else going on?

Got it, thanks! I was trying to find a rationale for single letters....

No mullingar, that's all there is to it, I think.

247 years ago was 1776-ish