Puzzle solved.
About time too, but I agree, just snatching a stray thought or a notion off the breeze and ‘thinking’ it through, out loud, and sketching it ‘free- hand’ is a strange experience. When you think about it, not too much of the ‘stuff’ we do can be done ‘free-hand’. I wondered why that first pint vanished so quickly last evening; you never mentioned why and it ain’t my way to ask. Crafty old sod.......
.
Ayup, for my sins ‘tis so, M'lud. Board 1 is the headache: I could run it as a simple sweepstake but that’s not much fun. Setting the odds is tough, but fascinating. There are some fairly canny punters watching this saga and the matter of the release date for the second attempt at reporting the Norfolk debacle has become a hot topic. It’s the ‘timing’ of the release which generates the interest; to get the date right there are several factors which must be considered, each dependent on something else happening or, not happening; as preferred. There are a couple of dates firming into favourites, the logic sound, result not guaranteed. It’s a tougher call than you may think - to actually nut out the puzzle.
Board 2: bit harder to get better than an even money bet on this race. Many favour the totally predictable; the tight, narrow, carefully worded terms of reference more or less frame the response.
Some brave souls are tipping a ‘white-hat’ breakout. It’s an interesting concept, the good guys having more than enough of beyond all reason actually draft a factual, professional assessment of just where the investigation got screwed, who skewed it, why and what the real report should have read. I’ll give better then evens on that.
The ‘purist’ entry has some merit, just the facts and nothing but the facts; a report which falls back into the protection of no blame, no foul, not our business. This construct also finds favour and is nudging it’s way to just a little less than ‘even money’.
The reckless entry is at long odds; good bloodlines but no track record. First race ever, in a very tough field. The construct goes that the Senators have demanded a warts and all report, although the mandarins are earnestly set against it and may yet prevail through shameless use the DPM’s left ear. Name, blame and shame those who were involved, hock deep in the mud, blood and shit of the Pel-Air debacle.
There are a couple, or three additional entrants; I will, in due course set the field and rattle the numbers for the final odds. Remember, you pays your money and takes your chances.
![[Image: Tote.jpg]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Tote.jpg)
Toot toot...
Quote:P7 – “Just realised; this is my first and probably last Sunday ramble. Strange thing to do, once you get rolling, it’s hard to put the brakes on”. Etc.
About time too, but I agree, just snatching a stray thought or a notion off the breeze and ‘thinking’ it through, out loud, and sketching it ‘free- hand’ is a strange experience. When you think about it, not too much of the ‘stuff’ we do can be done ‘free-hand’. I wondered why that first pint vanished so quickly last evening; you never mentioned why and it ain’t my way to ask. Crafty old sod.......
. Quote:P7 - “K” is running two tote boards on this event and a competition. Board 1 is for the date of the report’s release; board two requires you to pick the official response and the competition is for the closest IOS version of that report to one which may, sometime in the future be published.
Ayup, for my sins ‘tis so, M'lud. Board 1 is the headache: I could run it as a simple sweepstake but that’s not much fun. Setting the odds is tough, but fascinating. There are some fairly canny punters watching this saga and the matter of the release date for the second attempt at reporting the Norfolk debacle has become a hot topic. It’s the ‘timing’ of the release which generates the interest; to get the date right there are several factors which must be considered, each dependent on something else happening or, not happening; as preferred. There are a couple of dates firming into favourites, the logic sound, result not guaranteed. It’s a tougher call than you may think - to actually nut out the puzzle.
Board 2: bit harder to get better than an even money bet on this race. Many favour the totally predictable; the tight, narrow, carefully worded terms of reference more or less frame the response.
Some brave souls are tipping a ‘white-hat’ breakout. It’s an interesting concept, the good guys having more than enough of beyond all reason actually draft a factual, professional assessment of just where the investigation got screwed, who skewed it, why and what the real report should have read. I’ll give better then evens on that.
The ‘purist’ entry has some merit, just the facts and nothing but the facts; a report which falls back into the protection of no blame, no foul, not our business. This construct also finds favour and is nudging it’s way to just a little less than ‘even money’.
The reckless entry is at long odds; good bloodlines but no track record. First race ever, in a very tough field. The construct goes that the Senators have demanded a warts and all report, although the mandarins are earnestly set against it and may yet prevail through shameless use the DPM’s left ear. Name, blame and shame those who were involved, hock deep in the mud, blood and shit of the Pel-Air debacle.
There are a couple, or three additional entrants; I will, in due course set the field and rattle the numbers for the final odds. Remember, you pays your money and takes your chances.
Toot toot...