Found her! needed only one clue.. and the other two images fit in. Will read the rest of the pages later.
You were pulling my leg! You were p-u-l-ling my leg! You are kidding, you must be kidding, oh ye you are definitely kidding! (you have the answer in that 37th fold of your cortex at one remove from campus) waitingsmiley
Also deconvolute on inception (for scattered brains like me) Each clue facilitates/serves as a word in the unnamed title. ("word" shifted to the right) Each clue , i.e extracted word from the title of the movie, describes the unnamed title ("word" shifted to lift) What did I do now , I was only , what why is the gruel so watery ! I was only trying to ...:-(
Is my artwork too "ecce ala mode" to comment? Neurites, I spent 30 min on it this evening after returning from work, not even single stary expression of disgust, intrigue or chuckle? :confused2: (need some evening lessons from Garcia Martinez)
There' something about ... I had a mind to wag my finger at how easy it was to find your lady with the medals, but after your capital performance putting Soka through the wringer, I shudder to think of the convolutions those neurons of yours could concoct. :rotfl
In his defense, he did clarify that, To me it was quite clear that words from the clue movie titles were distinct from the words in the answer movie title. The fact that one of the words in the answer happened to occur in one of the clues doesn't violate the 'rules' that Soka laid out for this puzzle. To borrow from programming lingo, the 'wife' from the clue was encapsulated within that clue, and was a separate variable with a restricted scope, as compared to the 'wife' in the answer. I might be guilty of thinking too sequentially. :hide: