c4countdown

Well done Maggie! A very likeable personality and a strong player, too- one of the best non-Apterites in a while. Look forward to seeing her in the finals! On that note, I think I will start making some stats for the first 3 octochamps so far.....

Is OUTLAIN actually allowed now since the new dictionary update?

Toby McDonald wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:31 pm Is OUTLAIN actually allowed now since the new dictionary update?

The definition Susie implied was there doesn't match the free version (to outdo in lying) so maybe the paying version allows it.

You could do a 38×25-6 method in the third numbers to go with 38×25+6 in the first.

Finally, I like how Rachel needed all three of 25, 10 and 5 to make a 2.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:17 pm

Toby McDonald wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:31 pm Is OUTLAIN actually allowed now since the new dictionary update?

The definition Susie implied was there doesn't match the free version (to outdo in lying) so maybe the paying version allows it.

You could do a 38×25-6 method in the third numbers to go with 38×25+6 in the first.

Finally, I like how Rachel needed all three of 25, 10 and 5 to make a 2.

The entry for OUTLIE is identical in Premium, Susie has just misinterpreted it. Should it be added to apterous?

Ray Wilding wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:37 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:17 pm

Toby McDonald wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:31 pm Is OUTLAIN actually allowed now since the new dictionary update?

The definition Susie implied was there doesn't match the free version (to outdo in lying) so maybe the paying version allows it.

You could do a 38×25-6 method in the third numbers to go with 38×25+6 in the first.

Finally, I like how Rachel needed all three of 25, 10 and 5 to make a 2.

The entry for OUTLIE is identical in Premium, Susie has just misinterpreted it. Should it be added to apterous?

I'm not sure what Apterous policy is - whether it considers rulings on Countdown as binding or not. And even then, for how long? Until someone else offers it and it's rejected? Otherwise are we still stuck with it in 20 years?

Of course, if we're being truly pedantic about it, the dictionary doesn't specify (the free version anyway) what sort of lying it's talking about and there's no example sentences. It seems fairly clear that it would be talking about fibbing, but it might not be!!!

I was surprised to see that Maggie only got 794 points actually. Especially considering Dinos got 918 and I didn't think he was actually that much better. I suppose it was the lack of 9s and also greater inconsistency on the numbers.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:11 am I was surprised to see that Maggie only got 794 points actually. Especially considering Dinos got 918 and I didn't think he was actually that much better. I suppose it was the lack of 9s and also greater inconsistency on the numbers.

I think that the 1st score played a part, though she was up against a better than normal player which does hamper the scoring at times. Maggie's score is quite good considering she had no 9s declared. Agree with the rest- she could be a bit of a dark horse in the finals....

Toby McDonald wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:31 pm Is OUTLAIN actually allowed now since the new dictionary update?

Oh yeah you offered that against Jason right Toby?

Owen Carroll wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:28 pm

Toby McDonald wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:31 pm Is OUTLAIN actually allowed now since the new dictionary update?

Oh yeah you offered that against Jason right Toby?

Yeah, that's right.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:57 pm

Ray Wilding wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:37 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:17 pm

The definition Susie implied was there doesn't match the free version (to outdo in lying) so maybe the paying version allows it.

You could do a 38×25-6 method in the third numbers to go with 38×25+6 in the first.

Finally, I like how Rachel needed all three of 25, 10 and 5 to make a 2.

The entry for OUTLIE is identical in Premium, Susie has just misinterpreted it. Should it be added to apterous?

I'm not sure what Apterous policy is - whether it considers rulings on Countdown as binding or not. And even then, for how long? Until someone else offers it and it's rejected? Otherwise are we still stuck with it in 20 years?

Of course, if we're being truly pedantic about it, the dictionary doesn't specify (the free version anyway) what sort of lying it's talking about and there's no example sentences. It seems fairly clear that it would be talking about fibbing, but it might not be!!!

Was wondering about this today.

Both free and premium give the following source

"Mid 17th century; earliest use found in John Donne (1572–1631), poet and Church of England clergyman. From out- + lie."

googling finds this

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uJj ... ie&f=false

But pedant's motley tongue, soldier's bombast,
Mountebank's drug-tongue, nor the terms of law
Are strong enough preparatives to draw
Me to bear this; yet I must be content
With his tongue. In his tongue, called compliment,
In which he can win windows and pay scores,
Make men speak treason, cozen subtlest whores,
Out-flatter favourites, or outlie either
Jovius or Surius or both together,
He names me, and comes to me; I whisper, God!

Hmm, not sure what he's doing with his tongue

But I think he's talking about telling lies.

IMO outlain is nonsense and has been disallowed more times (lots) than allowed (once).

Suzie's comment at the time:

"Scratching my head over outlain, Maggie, but if something lies beyond or on the outside of something geographically, that is to outlie obviously and the sensible past participle would be outlain."

However, neither version of dictionary gives the lie beyond definition - both say "outdo in lying".