On 2024-03-06 21:13, Madhu wrote:
> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire Particles
>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid thinking about
>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH, PATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>> ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>> Yes. Better example.
>
> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.

Well I don't use any external data, be it dictionaries or software,to
help solve Wordle, as I, like you, would consider it cheating.

But that strategy works well without resorting to cheating. By the time
I have for letters green, I only need to find one of the remaining
letters. Those letters plus the letters guesses but not in the solution,
normally whittled down the choices enough to let your brain do the rest.

I had an interesting one today. I had it down to 4 letters green, and
was struggling with the answer. My problem was that I had one letter
green that was the answer. So in the strategy above, one should also
consider that one of the green letters will complete it.

--
This message was brought to you by the numbers 0 and 1.

lar3ryca blurted out:
> On 2024-03-06 21:13, Madhu wrote:
>> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
>> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire Particles
>>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid thinking about
>>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH, PATCH,
>>>>>>>>> WATCH
>>>>>>>>> ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>>> Yes. Better example.
>>
>> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
>> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.
>
> Well I don't use any external data, be it dictionaries or software,to help
> solve Wordle, as I, like you, would consider it cheating.
>
> But that strategy works well without resorting to cheating. By the time I
> have for letters green, I only need to find one of the remaining letters.
> Those letters plus the letters guesses but not in the solution, normally
> whittled down the choices enough to let your brain do the rest.
>
> I had an interesting one today. I had it down to 4 letters green, and was
> struggling with the answer. My problem was that I had one letter green that
> was the answer. So in the strategy above, one should also consider that one
> of the green letters will complete it.

I've been there; I think it was my most recent slide.

-d

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

On 07/03/2024 04:13, Madhu wrote:
> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire Particles
>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid thinking about
>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH, PATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>> ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>> Yes. Better example.

>
> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.
>

In the words of Conan Doyle:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."

What a cheat, that Conan Doyle!

> On 07/03/2024 04:13, Madhu wrote:
>> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
>> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire Particles
>>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid thinking about
>>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH, PATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>> ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>>> Yes. Better example.
>
>
>>
>> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
>> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.

Excuse me, are you really unable to check these possibilities in your
head? (* means here "not possible")
aatch*
batch
catch
datch* (not sure, I won't check)
eatch*
fatch*
gatch*
hatch
iatch*
jatch*
katch*
latch
match
natch*
oatch*
patch
qatch*
ratch* (not sure, I won't check)
satch*
tatch*
uatch*
vatch*
watch
xatch*
yatch*
zatch*

This method fails only if you don't know a possible word and therefore
ignore it or don't use it in a try, like I didn't know that cowps is valid.

On 2024-03-07 09:35:29 +0000, Silvano said:

>>
>> On 07/03/2024 04:13, Madhu wrote:
>>> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
>>> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>>>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>>>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire Particles
>>>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid thinking about
>>>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH, PATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>>> ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>>>> Yes. Better example.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
>>> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.
>
> Excuse me, are you really unable to check these possibilities in your
> head? (* means here "not possible")
> aatch*
> batch
> catch
> datch* (not sure, I won't check)
> eatch*
> fatch*
> gatch*
> hatch
> iatch*
> jatch*
> katch*
> latch
> match
> natch*

works as colloquialism for naturally

> oatch*
> patch
> qatch*
> ratch* (not sure, I won't check)
> satch*
> tatch*
> uatch*
> vatch*
> watch
> xatch*
> yatch*
> zatch*
>
> This method fails only if you don't know a possible word and therefore
> ignore it or don't use it in a try, like I didn't know that cowps is valid.

--
Athel cb

Silvano pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>> On 07/03/2024 04:13, Madhu wrote:
>>> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
>>> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>>>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>>>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire Particles
>>>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid thinking about
>>>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH, PATCH,
>>>>>>>>>> WATCH ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>>>> Yes. Better example.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
>>> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.
>
> Excuse me, are you really unable to check these possibilities in your
> head? (* means here "not possible")
> aatch*
> batch
> catch
> datch* (not sure, I won't check)
> eatch*
> fatch*
> gatch*
> hatch
> iatch*
> jatch*
> katch*
> latch
> match
> natch*
> oatch*
> patch
> qatch*
> ratch* (not sure, I won't check)
> satch*
> tatch*
> uatch*
> vatch*
> watch
> xatch*
> yatch*
> zatch*
>
> This method fails only if you don't know a possible word and therefore
> ignore it or don't use it in a try, like I didn't know that cowps is valid.

6 of those are easily accessible in my head, the others seem arcane or
rare to the point I don't recall ever seeing them. But when I see
_ATCH on the screen, I think I know the answer so I don't think I have
to make an exploratory word. Hubris on a tiny scale.

/dps

--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

Thus spake Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2024-03-07 09:35:29 +0000, Silvano said:
>
>>>
>>> On 07/03/2024 04:13, Madhu wrote:
>>>> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
>>>> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>>>>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>>>>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>>>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire
>>>>>>>>>>>> Particles
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH, PATCH,
>>>>>>>>>>> WATCH
>>>>>>>>>>> ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>>>>> Yes. Better example.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
>>>> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.
>>
>> Excuse me, are you really unable to check these possibilities in your
>> head? (* means here "not possible")
>> aatch*
>> batch
>> catch
>> datch* (not sure, I won't check)
>> eatch*
>> fatch*
>> gatch*
>> hatch
>> iatch*
>> jatch*
>> katch*
>> latch
>> match
>> natch*
>
> works as colloquialism for naturally

oh, sure, catch the one I slipped over. Thanks.

>
>> oatch*
>> patch
>> qatch*
>> ratch* (not sure, I won't check)
>> satch*
>> tatch*
>> uatch*
>> vatch*
>> watch
>> xatch*
>> yatch*
>> zatch*
>>
>> This method fails only if you don't know a possible word and therefore
>> ignore it or don't use it in a try, like I didn't know that cowps is valid.

-d

--
As a colleague once told me about an incoming manager,
"He does very well in a suck-up, kick-down culture."
Bill in Vancouver

On 2024-03-07 03:56, Snidely wrote:
> Silvano pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>> On 07/03/2024 04:13, Madhu wrote:
>>>> * Snidely <mn.34507e83aa82cd71.127094@snitoo> :
>>>> Wrote on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:24:52 -0800:
>>>>> Sam Plusnet is guilty of <1M3GN.105682$t3Rc.11818@fx06.ams1> as of
>>>>> 3/6/2024 11:48:12 AM
>>>>>> On 06-Mar-24 10:57, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>> Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>>>>>>> occam? scribbled something on Tuesday the 3/5/2024:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2024 06:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thus spake lar3ryca:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would never have tried cowps because Copper Oxide Wire
>>>>>>>>>>>> Particles
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't come up often in my conversations, and I avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking about
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
>>>>>>>>>>>> /dps "I don't practice Scottish slang everyday, either"
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's only one way to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>>>>> -ATCH possible words: BATCH, CATCH, HATCH, LATCH, MATCH,
>>>>>>>>>>> PATCH, WATCH ? Try CLAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for CATCH, LATCH, MATCH, and PATCH
>>>>>>>>>>> Leaves BATCH, HATCH, WATCH
>>>>>>>>>>> ? Try SWABS
>>>>>>>>>>> ?? solves for,? BATCH and WATCH
>>>>>>>>>>> ?? or HATCH, being all that's left.
>>>>>>>>> Yes. Better example.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This strategy really only works when you have grep assist to get an
>>>> exhaustive list against a dictionary, which could be deemed cheating.
>>
>> Excuse me, are you really unable to check these possibilities in your
>> head? (* means here "not possible")
>> aatch*
>> batch
>> catch
>> datch* (not sure, I won't check)
>> eatch*
>> fatch*
>> gatch*
>> hatch
>> iatch*
>> jatch*
>> katch*
>> latch
>> match
>> natch*
>> oatch*
>> patch
>> qatch*
>> ratch* (not sure, I won't check)
>> satch*
>> tatch*
>> uatch*
>> vatch*
>> watch
>> xatch*
>> yatch*
>> zatch*
>>
>> This method fails only if you don't know a possible word and therefore
>> ignore it or don't use it in a try, like I didn't know that cowps is
>> valid.
>
> 6 of those are easily accessible in my head, the others seem arcane or
> rare to the point I don't recall ever seeing them.  But when I see _ATCH
> on the screen, I think I know the answer so I don't think I have to make
> an exploratory word.  Hubris on a tiny scale.

Only 6? The 7 listed without an asterisk are very common words.

--
veni, vidi, velcro.