|
Space Filler ?
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
I'm quiet enjoying this and having a hard time not shouting out the solution. 
|
|
|
|
|
Some spouses = Sp
with one = ace
So I'm pretty sure it's Space ?????? Litter, Debris ?
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, but you're getting close.
|
|
|
|
|
Space Debris is correct.
Did you make an edit? 'Cause it wasn't there when I read it the first time...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I did but it was a guess- care to explain?
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
You already got space.
end up = ends with and rubbish is synonymous with debris.
|
|
|
|
|
I still don’t get it 👀
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't synonyms usually part of the clues? Perhaps I made a mistake (still new at this).
Care to share how you would've added the clue for debris?
Perhaps I should've made it like this:
Quote: Some spouses, when meeting with The One, end like rubbish (5, 6)
|
|
|
|
|
The some spouses part was in keeping with a cryptic clue definition, as was ace for one, but the end part implies aim or arrive (end) reversed, and no part suggests debris ( as in e.g an anagram of sir bed ) - it was only becaue we were theming that I took a wild guess at it, this is in no way detracting from your efforts
Kind regards
Pete Kane ( pkfox )
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
pkfox wrote: the end part implies aim or arrive (end) reversed
I see... I didn't know end was used for these purposes, it was suppose to be a clue that the following word is the last word of the solution. Anyways thanks for taking the time to explain it!
pkfox wrote: this is in no way detracting from your efforts
No worries  , just a little disappointed for my first puzzle. 
|
|
|
|
|
They are much more difficult to set than solve
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about that (not really) but the Us beat England 2-1 in the FIFA women's world cup. Now waiting top see who they'll beat in the final.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
That's really not necessary: The Welsh, Scottish, and Irish mostly aren't bothered!
In Wales for example we tend to support the Welsh team (and whoever is playing against England). 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So do the Welsh people living in England - Cymru am Byth
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about that. I do realize that the UK consists of more than England and I know the difference between England and Great Britain, but I slipped up. I guess that{s called a brain fart!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Dr.Walt Fair, PE wrote: I do realize that the UK consists of more than England
No problem - the British Broadcasting Corporation hasn't worked that out, most of the time ...
BBC Breakfast News: "Wales won a rugby match against New Zealand last night. And England lost to ... ten minutes later ... let's wish them well. Scotland will play ..."
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quite a few UK folk are not too upset - those in Englandland might be though.
|
|
|
|
|
The US team, the best in the world, were beaten by a team of under 15 boys. That's the level the sport is at, that is why it will never gain popularity, that is why no-one cares.
Especially the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.
|
|
|
|
|
It is gaining popularity - last night's game got 11.7 million viewers in the UK, that's massive.
Why is it gaining popularity? Because people can see it free-to-air. While other sports have sold their souls to Sky, the WC has been going out on the BBC and people are watching it and talking about it.
I watch footy at all levels from non-league to Premier and what makes a game entertaining is often whether the two sides are evenly matched and up for it rather than how many Messi/Ronaldo types are playing. The most memorable game I went to last year was a local Sunday League Cup final.
I enjoyed last night's game, the US were always going to win it but the English girls gave them a good game and can be suitably proud of themselves.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: last night's game got 11.7 million viewers in the UK, that's massive.
Because it was over-represented and people watched it as a novelty. It's not something that's going to stick. Alas the coverage was on while I was at the gym so I was exposed to some of the pre-match hype.
First off football (by "football" I mean men's football) is male-dominated, obviously, that's just how it is, men prefer sport to women. However the in-studio pundits are generally a mix of males and females, and they always try and interview female fans while covering matches. The coverage I saw was 100% female, no men involved. So they go on about diversity and inclusion yet they are *less* diverse and *less* inclusive than a sport that's famously male-dominated. That's going to turn normal people off. Women are only interested in this because they want to push a feminist agenda. That's going to turn normal people off. They were actually saying that the England\US teams are pro gay rights. Seriously? Who cares? Are you saying that male teams are anti gay rights? Maybe it's just that in football people only care about the football and not identity politics so it just isn't something made a song and dance about? Yeah, obviously it's hardly gay-friendly, that's a given, but again no-one cares.
The whole thing is just some woke, identity politics feminist fest and the general public simply don't care about these things, it actually turns them off. They want to see balls kicked into a net, not be lectured on how they are morally inferior or have the "wrong" opinions. The whole thing is doomed to fail.
Unless they make them play in bikinis. Then I'd watch.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that it has anything to do with gender politics, whatsoever.
What you get is actually a different sort of game. I watched the England vs Australia Ladies 50-over match yesterday and it was a scorcher. Cricket without 90 mph bowlers is a very different game to the men's version but it's no less interesting for that.
Similarly, women's footie may be a lot slower than the men's game but again, that makes for a different experience not necessarily an inferior one.
Again, look at tennis. The women's game is often much more entertaining, simply because the game is far better to watch without mega-fast power serves.
And I really don't care whether the horse I back is a boy, a girl or a gelding as long as it makes me money!
Choice of presenters is entirely up to the broadcaster (Dion Dublin was involved last night, by the way) but yes, there does seem to be a lot of gender bias in there. But that is the fault of the broadcasters not a flaw in the game.
I'm not sure how identity politics enters the debate unless it's something that you choose to wallow in. Most "normal people" like good sport regardless of who happens to be playing it.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: I don't think that it has anything to do with gender politics, whatsoever.
That's demonstrably false. When people watch a football match on TV the pre-match amble is all about team members, positions, tactics, recent form etc etc. It's not about people's sexual preferences. The pre-match coverage was loaded with identity politics, I'm sorry but that's a fact. Sure you might say that's a fault of the coverage and not the game, but I'm simply telling you why it won't catch on. It won't catch on because normal people don't care about identity politics so no matter whose "fault" it is, they're going to be turned off from watching.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: It won't catch on because normal people don't care about identity politics
Indeed, but you seem to!
Can't comment on the preamble as I was watching the cricket but yes, nothing to do with the game itself. Bad coverage, can of course turn people off but I suspect I'm far from alone amongst sports fans in only watching the game not the surrounding blurb.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: I suspect I'm far from alone amongst sports fans in only watching the game not the surrounding blurb.
That's proof by example fallacy. Regardless of your habits you are going to be exposed to non-game footage at some point, for most fans that's a part of the whole experience, and when they hear talk about how such-and-such team supports the rights of black trans non-binary wheelchair users they'll just lose interest. Identity politics spreads like a cancer and eventually the whole "scene" will simply be accusations of bigotry, apologies on twitter, demands for managers and players to be sacked because they assumed someones gender and so. It will be a sport version of twitter and it will destroy itself.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
