Spoilers for Wednesday 29th April

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:30 pm

HAMISH

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:47 pm

Fuck yeah, Hamish.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:07 pm

'Highest ever debut score' record is no longer controversial.

Edit: It is.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:08 pm

Just realised, if he hadn't messed up 'escapes' and managed to get ATTAIN in the round where he declared four, he would have also had joint highest score ever.

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:10 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:'Highest ever debut score' record is no longer controversial.

I wouldn't be so sure...I think Hamish has been on before. Obviously a fantastic performance, but Kirk's 127 debut was way more impressive.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:10 pm

DRINK! FECK! ARSE! GIRLS!

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:12 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:'Highest ever debut score' record is no longer controversial.
I wouldn't be so sure...I think Hamish has been on before. Obviously a fantastic performance, but Kirk's 127 debut was way more impressive.

Well I'll be. Damn these controversy attracting comeback kids.

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:14 pm

I met Hamish at our audition in Edinburgh & also walking up to the studios in Leeds.
He got a couple of 9's in the audition amd a few numbers.
I stayed on after my game to watch him & Julie's match - I am glad I did. He looks & acts like Doc Emmet Brown from "Back to the future". Appearances can be deceptive.
Although even I got the numbers and 2 nines, his score was exceptional.
I would not be surprised if he becomes an octochamp (That's not a spoiler as I had left for the pub by the time he playrd his next game)

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:15 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:'Highest ever debut score' record is no longer controversial.

Edit: It is.

Hamish was on in 1999

Eoin Monaghan · Post by **Eoin Monaghan** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:11 pm

Hamish is now my 2nd favourite ever contestant. (Nobody will ever top Northern Irish man David O'D)

How the hell does he do that birthday thingy?

Kieran Child · Post by **Kieran Child** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:18 pm

I can do the birthday thing. It's the first stage of a much more impressive little feat that is taught in full here:
http://mentalgym.freehostia.com/calendar.html
It is impressive though, and within a couple of days you'll be able to impress others with it

Also check out the knights tour method, starting and ending on any square. It's good fun.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:06 pm

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Hamish is now my 2nd favourite ever contestant. (Nobody will ever top Northern Irish man David O'D)

How the hell does he do that birthday thingy?

By spending 20 minutes on it and then they edit the gap out so it appears that he took 1 second

Anyway it was a good game today and I broke the 146 barrier against Julie, scoring 150. I only managed 143 against Hamish as he beat me with the excellent DEMURELY.

NITRATED was a beater in round 1 and SPECIATE for a beater in round 2. TETANISE/ANISETTE were nice equallers in round 7.

I also thought that the highest debut score record could finally be properly attached until I realised he'd appeared before.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:53 pm

The moment i saw him sitting in that chair askew as he was, he had immediately become one of my favourite contestants of all time. The fact that he got such a brilliant score just furthers this admiration. Hamish >> Dundas. And you all know how much I love dundas ( you dont actually know).

Could this be the first series where there are 2 contestants with scores of over 900?

Is it just me or are they putting all the scottish people on in one big chunk?

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:59 pm

Dunno, but he seemed to have a seemingly uncanny likeness to Hansford, with the twitching and the date thing.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:10 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:Dunno, but he seemed to have a seemingly uncanny likeness to Hansford, with the twitching and the date thing.

Thats what i pondered when I noticed the incredible angle at which he was at rest in his chair when he first came on camera. His behaviour was much better then Jeffrey's. Im thinking he could be an autistic savant, although this is a very blunt stab in the dark, because Svants display brilliance in one field whilst struggling socially. I dont think i've seen enough of him to judge properly, but form what i've seen, i'd say he is quite there socially, and might just be quite good at countdown which would support the argument that he is not an autistic savant.

My prose makes no sense and is jumbled like a game of boggle, i apologize.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:58 pm

JackHurst wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:Dunno, but he seemed to have a seemingly uncanny likeness to Hansford, with the twitching and the date thing.
Thats what i pondered when I noticed the incredible angle at which he was at rest in his chair when he first came on camera.

That's because he's a cool motherfucker.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:11 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:
JackHurst wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:Dunno, but he seemed to have a seemingly uncanny likeness to Hansford, with the twitching and the date thing.
Thats what i pondered when I noticed the incredible angle at which he was at rest in his chair when he first came on camera.
That's because he's a cool motherfucker.

This ^

He was great today and deservedly got a very high score (Julie's losing 84 wasn't too bad either!) but there were plenty more points available (see the Kirkulator's post above, for instance) and I'd be surprised if he gets over 100 tomorrow. He's still a cool motherfucker though.

Chris Davies · Post by **Chris Davies** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:25 pm

I equalled or beat Hamish in every round, including the word DEMURELY. Now I'm really keen to see what I would have scored. I'll watch it on 4OD and figure it out.

EDIT: 149 points against either contestant.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:29 pm

Todays game was very generous in terms of easy points, but it seems to me as if Hamish does have the capability to get a century. I would expect him to perform at about the same level as Cate Henderson and Shane Roberts (If he becomes an octo champ), and I think its fair to say that if those contestant had around a 50% century ratio, Hamish could match this provided that none of his opponents are fiendishly good, or fiendish numbers pickers.

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:19 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Eoin Monaghan wrote:Hamish is now my 2nd favourite ever contestant. (Nobody will ever top Northern Irish man David O'D)

How the hell does he do that birthday thingy?
By spending 20 minutes on it and then they edit the gap out so it appears that he took 1 second

I was there and he took just what it showed today

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:22 pm

JackHurst wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:Dunno, but he seemed to have a seemingly uncanny likeness to Hansford, with the twitching and the date thing.
I dont think i've seen enough of him to judge properly, but form what i've seen, i'd say he is quite there socially,

When he strolled into the studio he turned round and chatted away to the audience like a pro - or is it a typical politician

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:40 pm

Davy Affleck wrote:
JackHurst wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:Dunno, but he seemed to have a seemingly uncanny likeness to Hansford, with the twitching and the date thing.
I dont think i've seen enough of him to judge properly, but form what i've seen, i'd say he is quite there socially,
When he strolled into the studio he turned round and chatted away to the audience like a pro - or is it a typical politician

I think they're talking about Hamish rather than Brandreth. Unless you really meant to describe Hamish as a "typical politician" - if only!

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:53 pm

Charlie Reams wrote: I think they're talking about Hamish rather than Brandreth. Unless you really meant to describe Hamish as a "typical politician" - if only!

I was talking about Hamish - he was the only Tory councillor in the west of Scotland at one time!

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:56 pm

JackHurst wrote: Is it just me or are they putting all the scottish people on in one big chunk?

It meant they only had to open the gate once to let us out

Dominic Colley · Post by **Dominic Colley** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:35 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:
That's because he's a cool motherfucker.

Agree.

I am proud to have met him, but glad I didn't play him. I liked his chair style more than anything.

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:48 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:HAMISH

HAMISH = A Scottish word for nearly hame

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:55 am

Also an English name for "Like Ham".

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:22 am

Is he definitely the same Hamish who was on in series 40? Hamish is, after all, quite a common Scots name. Normally it's only under 16s who get back after losing in their first game, and I hardly think Hamish was under 16 in 1999. If it is the same guy, was there something amiss about his earlier appearance?

Regarding the bunching of Scots in the last few days, something similar happened earlier in the series when we had a lot from Cornwall within just a few days.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:32 am

Hamish was quite lucky to have three quite obvious 9's and three very easy number rounds - in the hands of one of Apterous's finests, that would have no doubt been a record score.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:16 am

Howard Somerset wrote: Regarding the bunching of Scots in the last few days, something similar happened earlier in the series when we had a lot from Cornwall within just a few days.

It's because they don't have a large contestant pool anymore (and I don't mean the swimming variety). When they do have auditions (in Scotland for instance) then if people pass the audition, then they will appear on screen around the same time as they can't separate everyone out due to the low numbers of applicants.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:37 am

JackHurst wrote:Also an English name for "Like Ham".

No. That would be "hammish".

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:48 am

Howard Somerset wrote:Is he definitely the same Hamish who was on in series 40?

I've added lots of 2s together to make some kind of multiple of 2, and therefore state:

a) Hamish, on this form, is very likely to make the series finals
b) Junaid was at the series finals
c) Junaid would therefore know such a thing about a finalist
d) Junaid wouldn't make such an accusation without being sure of his facts

zomg spoiler etc

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:51 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Howard Somerset wrote:Is he definitely the same Hamish who was on in series 40?
I've added lots of 2s together to make some kind of multiple of 2, and therefore state:

a) Hamish, on this form, is very likely to make the series finals
b) Junaid was at the series finals
c) Junaid would therefore know such a thing about a finalist
d) Junaid wouldn't make such an accusation without being sure of his facts

zomg spoiler etc

e) Junaid probably used thecountdownpage for reference.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:51 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Howard Somerset wrote:Is he definitely the same Hamish who was on in series 40?
I've added lots of 2s together to make some kind of multiple of 2, and therefore state:

a) Hamish, on this form, is very likely to make the series finals
b) Junaid was at the series finals
c) Junaid would therefore know such a thing about a finalist
d) Junaid wouldn't make such an accusation without being sure of his facts

zomg spoiler etc

Where does the "therefore" in (c) come from?

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:54 am

Howard Somerset wrote:Is he definitely the same Hamish who was on in series 40? Hamish is, after all, quite a common Scots name. Normally it's only under 16s who get back after losing in their first game, and I hardly think Hamish was under 16 in 1999. If it is the same guy, was there something amiss about his earlier appearance?

.

When we were chatting in the green room Hamish said he appeared in 1999. I don't know what series or how he got on.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:56 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Howard Somerset wrote:Is he definitely the same Hamish who was on in series 40?
I've added lots of 2s together to make some kind of multiple of 2, and therefore state:

a) Hamish, on this form, is very likely to make the series finals
b) Junaid was at the series finals
c) Junaid would therefore know such a thing about a finalist
d) Junaid wouldn't make such an accusation without being sure of his facts

zomg spoiler etc
Where does the "therefore" in (c) come from?

The same place as the "would" before it and the "know" after it

I mean to say that it's a conclusion I arrived at from points a) and b). Are you picking it up because it's not grammatically correct or something?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:57 am

Jon Corby wrote:
I mean to say that it's a conclusion I arrived at from points a) and b). Are you picking it up because it's not grammatically correct or something?

I think he's picking it up because lots of people are at finals yet don't know every detail of every contestant whether in the finals or not.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:06 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think he's picking it up because lots of people are at finals yet don't know every detail of every contestant whether in the finals or not.

Most people at finals wouldn't have lengthy conversations with one or more of the finalists though. I think it would come up in conversation.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:09 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:Where does the "therefore" in (c) come from?
it's a conclusion I arrived at from points a) and b).

This is what I don't get. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Hamish will make the series finals. ("Mebbe he weel - and mebbe he won't.") I was at the series finals. How does it follow from those two statements that I would know whether Hamish had been on the show before?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:10 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:I think he's picking it up because lots of people are at finals yet don't know every detail of every contestant whether in the finals or not.
Most people at finals wouldn't have lengthy conversations with one or more of the finalists though.

Ah - so are you saying that there was a point missing from your argument to the effect that Junaid is the kind of person likely to have engaged Hamish in conversation?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am

(I realise this is all pointless as Davy's settled the original question. I'm now just trying to understand your deductive reasoning.)

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:14 am

It's a bit critical to compare this contestant to what an apterist would have done. He is relying on natural ability, probably, and his performance is more impressive as a result.

"The nines were easy" ... ahem ... so easy that I missed carousels (I had lacrosse) but then I have a habit of missing nines.

Perhaps we need a refresher on the etiquette of commenting on contestants' performances: unless you are an octo-champ with 900+ total you really shouldn't criticise a guy who can knock out a 134 on his first game. Further if you haven't been on the show; haven't experienced what nerves can do then you aren't really in the best position to judge. This really makes the whole "I was at home and got x" fairly redundant.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:16 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:Where does the "therefore" in (c) come from?
it's a conclusion I arrived at from points a) and b).
This is what I don't get. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Hamish will make the series finals. ("Mebbe he weel - and mebbe he won't.") I was at the series finals. How does it follow from those two statements that I would know whether Hamish had been on the show before?

Because people from this forum would chat to each other at the finals. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that Junaid would engage in direct conversation with Hamish, but other finalists on this board (Kirk for example) would chat, perhaps mention it to Charlie, who would mention it to the rest of the group.

I really needed to spell that out? Not fucking rocket science is it?

Fuck me you're starting to get really annoying.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:18 am

David O'Donnell wrote:It's a bit critical to compare this contestant to what an apterist would have done. He is relying on natural ability, probably, and his performance is more impressive as a result.

"The nines were easy" ... ahem ... so easy that I missed carousels (I had lacrosse) but then I have a habit of missing nines.

Perhaps we need a refresher on the etiquette of commenting on contestants' performances: unless you are an octo-champ with 900+ total you really shouldn't criticise a guy who can knock out a 134 on his first game. Further if you haven't been on the show; haven't experienced what nerves can do then you aren't really in the best position to judge. This really makes the whole "I was at home and got x" fairly redundant.

Agreed on all points. Except I got CAROUSELS. But I didn't get any of the numbers.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:26 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:Ah - so are you saying that there was a point missing from your argument to the effect that Junaid is the kind of person likely to have engaged Hamish in conversation?

No. He needn't necessarily engage him in conversation. Junaid is more of an enthusiast than the majority of the audience, and will have more of an interest in who the contestants are, what they've done, etc than other people who are just there from a care home. There are several ways that he could receive the information (production staff, chatting to other forum members there as detailed above, etc). But he's likely to have attained it, if it was there for attainment.

Fuck off.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:42 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Howard Somerset wrote:Is he definitely the same Hamish who was on in series 40?
I've added lots of 2s together to make some kind of multiple of 2, and therefore state:

a) Hamish, on this form, is very likely to make the series finals
b) Junaid was at the series finals
c) Junaid would therefore know such a thing about a finalist
d) Junaid wouldn't make such an accusation without being sure of his facts

zomg spoiler etc

I take your point, Jon. Although Junaid did only say "I think", I'm sure that your work with all those 2s is correct.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:29 am

David O'Donnell wrote:It's a bit critical to compare this contestant to what an apterist would have done. He is relying on natural ability, probably, and his performance is more impressive as a result.

"The nines were easy" ... ahem ... so easy that I missed carousels

More to the point, if the nines were that easy, how come Julie - who was on a roll with three games under her belt and showing no signs of nerves, besides being an Apteroid - only got one out of the three? I'm not knocking Julie, but on the day Hamish was better and that deserves some appreciation.