I think my main problem here is getting confused and frustrated by my lack of perfect recall, and then I point the blame at anything except bme and start ch*rping about it. I've done it a few times. It's not good behaviour. I apologise.
There are a lot of good examples of us working together on things. @ggh
just gave a rather nice sampling. I only seem to notice things that feed into my confirmation bias
SBN wrote:I don't know how ggh solved taixzo's script. Might not have been in a shareable way. I've definitely had puzzles where I went from "I don't even know what the question is" to "Oh, that's the answer" with no discernible middle steps.[…]
Yep. That fits all the evidence quite well (most importantly, @ggh
said as much in post OTT:2476:22
, "somewhere between the time of [OTT:2465:21] and the time I edited it"
which limits it to 5 1/2 nopix or less.).
I think the thing that bothered me was the 12 1/2 dips or so between then and the second @ggh-RELATED
AotC chapter, which is a time period during which I thought maybe we could have been given some parts to help validate or refute.
Thank you so much for all the explanations, @ggh
. You actually did a pretty good job of recounting the chronology of the Taixz decryption, starting here
, then again some time later (I forget when), and most recently just now.
I don't think it was ch*rpish to post the hints to @taixzo
(The first was at OTT:2465:26
saying "ᒽ c̄ˀ၊ ౹cᘇ ౹౹
", → /ai nou ɪts iu/
→ "I know it's you"
; and the second was at OTT:2466:23
with an image that says "taixzo, should I out you?"
). It's just that the pretense of taixzo
wanting to be unknown doesn't make sense. The possibility that the mystery author wanted to remain secret was deprecated at OTT:2455:4
when you wrote "I could be wrong, but I think we have to reveal the mystery author(s). Xey/They already provided the and we just need to figure out how to read that."
and totally debunked by the self-evident obviousness of the encryption system. In other words, Taixz was clearly meant to be easy to decrypt, so there's no pretending that taixzo
could have had any reasonable expectaction of prolonged secrecy.
My latest theory is consistent with the statements that ggh
didn't tell @ucim
anything that ggh
was discovering: indeed ucim
figured out the alphabet (or parts of it) on xes own, and then ucim
. But ucim
to get the credit because ucim
believed/knew that ggh
had invested more effort into it. Thus was conceived the idea of letting ggh
bask in the glory by way of the rather molpish AotC
. Meanwhile, asking @taixzo
in code whether xe is okay with being revealed provided a convenient explanation for why ggh
didn't reveal the decryption right away, giving @ucim
time to write the AotC
chapters. Perhaps also, ggh
was being overly modest and didn't want it to look like boasting.
, thank you again for explaining the BSTA
events. I did really get confused by that, but mostly just because I was in school and couldn't spend a lot of Tim doing OTT detective work.
I don't think anyone messed anything up. I sort of thought that @ucim
were each doing it alone (or maybe collaborating in secret) because that's the culture we've cultivated here, over the years. The crosswords promote that type of "do it alone" attitude, because crosswords can usually be solved by oneself. On the other end of the scale are the @AluisioASG
crypto puzzles, some of which may well have been impossible even for the everyone who was active at the time.
It is easy to share answers without spoiling anyone who didn't want to be spoiled, just use a spoiler tag, isn't that what they're for? Anyway, that's how @BlitzGirl
gave the crossword answers. I think @yappobiscuits
gave a crossword answer that way too.
P.S. I thought I saw a hidden message in that last redundakitty, but it's just a watermark "alamy stock photo".