Trials in Tact

Radio Record, Volume III, Issue 39, 11 April 1930, Page 33

Trials in Tact

(Conducted by

Savoir-Faire

Problem No. 10 (Last of Series) Ist Series, Mrs. A, is on the same telephone party-line as Mrs. B. and has always been on good terms with her. One day Mrs. C. rings up Mrs. A. and makes a certain serious allegation against Mrs. B. Mrs. A. refuses to be drawn into a discussion of the matter, but immediately Mrs. C. rings off, Mrs, B., who has evidently been "listening-in," rings and asks Mrs, A. for verification of the last speaker’s name. Mrs, A. realises that the matter is serious and does not wish to be involved. What should she say or do? Suggested by "Sue." (Answers must be post-marked not later than April 10, 1930.) A nom-de-plume may be used, but names and addresses must be sent. The same nom-de-plume must be retained throughout the series. All replies must bear a postmark dated not later than the Thursday after the date of the journal in which the problem appears, and should be addressed to "Savoir-Faire," "Radio Record and Electric Home Journal," P.O. Box 1032, Wellington. Savoir-Faire’s decision must in every case be accepted as final. Notes JYRECKLES: Your solution of Problem No. 8 arrived after the last issue had gone to press, but the postmark was quite in order, and you have therefore been credited with 3 marks. Fiat Pax: No, Fiat Pax, regarding Problem No. 7, so far from sug--gesting that Mrs. B. should approach Miss C., you say "the proper course to take in the first place is to warn the erring husband. . . . Miss C. can be ignored as she has already compromised her friendship and her conduct is sufficient to indicate that she will not brook any interference." Solution of Problem No. 9. (SCOMPETITORS seem to have found the ambiguity of the description of ©. as "an official onlooker" something of a stumbling block, but I think were he either definitely superior or inferior to A. and. B., we should be so informed. As I read the problem, he is not actually concerned with either, but in a position to know the facts. I agree with Mrs. Mason and all those other competitors who state that it would probably be worse than useless for C. to tackle A. So far from mending matters, it would bé more likely to make things worse for B. On the other hand, C. should not stand by and see rank injustice done to B., especially as the work of the department must also suffer. Senga’s answer is short and to the point. She says: "CO. should advise B. to make a complaint to their superiors to the effect that he was not getting a fair deal from A., and at the same time offer to support B.’s evidence, seeing that he is in sympathy with him." I would, however, amend it so far as to say that C. should inform B. that if he feels inclined to lodge a complaint or ask for an inquiry, he ean count on his (C.’s) support, and leave it to B. to act or not, as he thinks best. Marks have been awarded as follow:-A Trier, 5; Anon, 3; Apple Pie Mary, 0; Bonza, 5; Clara, 0; Duplex, 8; Deerfoot, 5; Equity, 4; Fiat Pax, 5; Frances, 5; Freckles, 0; Grace, 0; Haven, 0; Irene, 4; Jean, Te Puke, 0; Jonquil, 3; Kummel, 4; Lucid, 5; Mrs. Mason, 4; Myra, 5; Mayflower, 4; Natural, 3; Nomen, 4; Olivia, 5; Priscilla, 3; Pumpkin, 5; Query, 4; Radex, 0; Radio, 3; Rosa, 0; Senga, 5; Seylla, 33 Summit, 2; Thames, 0; Tuner, 5; Topaz, 4; Undine, 3; Viola, 3; Verity, 5; Wynward, 0; Weaver, 3; Xylonite, 0; Xerxes, 5; Yum-yum, 4; Zenobia, 4.