Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Douglas Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm

Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Douglas Wilson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:04 pm

Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs :ugeek:)

Forum favourite Craig lost narrowly yesterday, clearly showing signs of tiredness after a silently underpar performance on Monday. However we should all be pleased to know that 6 wins and 663 points would have got Craig into all but 2 series (47&57) since the 8 win, 15 round format began. Of the series he would have got in his average seeding would have been 7, although he would have been as high as seed 3 in series 49 8-) . Another interesting omen that in the last 3 series a ginger from the east of the country has made at least the semi finals 8-) .

Chris Smith is currently the Champion will he still be in a few hours time :?: Will the challenger be another forum/aptoite :?: All will be revealed shortly

As I'm sure you'll all want to know Huddersfield Town won 2-1 last night thanks to goals from Lee Novak and Jordon Rhodes leaving them just a point outside the league one playoffs.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:07 pm

Needed a few more emoticons, but a solid 9/10 from me!

User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by James Robinson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:18 pm

Douglas Wilson wrote:Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs :ugeek:)
I do have a job, thank you. Not a good one admittedly, but it's still a job :!:
Douglas Wilson wrote:As I'm sure you'll all want to know Huddersfield Town won 2-1 last night thanks to goals from Lee Novak and Jordon Rhodes leaving them just a point outside the league one playoffs.
And another thing, it's Jordan Rhodes, not Jordon Rhodes.

BRING ON HARTLEPOOL UNITED :!: ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)
WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!!!
UP THE MIGHTY TERRIERS!!! ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Charlie Reams » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:45 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Douglas Wilson wrote:Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs :ugeek:)
I do have a job, thank you. Not a good one admittedly, but it's still a job :!:
What do you do :?:

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Matt Morrison » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:14 pm

Heather today I think. Badcock.

User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by James Robinson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:22 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
James Robinson wrote:
Douglas Wilson wrote:Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs :ugeek:)
I do have a job, thank you. Not a good one admittedly, but it's still a job :!:
What do you do :?:
Administration Assistant at a "well-known building company", the same "well-known building company" that is the current sponsor of the Chelsea Flower Show.

Basically, most of the day I sort out purchase orders, invoices, timesheets, items that the workers need (safety equipment, nuts & bolts, liners, tins, harnesses, etc.), so I'm a sort of storeman as well.

The previous storeman took up voluntary redundancy just before Christmas '08, so I'm sort of the de facto storeman, but I don't classify myself as one, since I got no salary increase and am strictly not qualified, hence I prefer the term "administration assistant".

Most of the time it's just the same old stuff again and again and again and again, but most of the time involves me getting harrangued for being a Huddersfield Town fan, so no different than being on here really.

I'd like to point out that I only got this job, because I decided to drop out of college after 1 year, because I wasn't getting good grades, so my dad, who basically got me this job, asked his friend, who's my boss, to sort me this job, which I've had since Hallowe'en '05, probably most known by us as Day 1 of "Countdown with Des Lynam".

So sorry to have bored you, but you did ask.
WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!!!
UP THE MIGHTY TERRIERS!!! ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:26 pm

How much do you get paid, James?

User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by James Robinson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:31 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:How much do you get paid, James?
It's roughly £10,000 per annum, before tax.
WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!!!
UP THE MIGHTY TERRIERS!!! ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:34 pm

James Robinson wrote: It's roughly £10,000 per annum, before tax.
Cheers. I need a job but not sure I can work for that sort of money.

User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by James Robinson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:51 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
James Robinson wrote: It's roughly £10,000 per annum, before tax.
Cheers. I need a job but not sure I can work for that sort of money.
Fair enough, I also spend an hour a day driving to and from work. The queues are well horrendous in West Yorkshire, and Southowram is about as isolated as you can get :!:
WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!!!
UP THE MIGHTY TERRIERS!!! ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:54 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:How much do you get paid, James?
BAD MANNERS :o

Should have been PM IMO

Douglas Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Douglas Wilson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:31 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Heather today I think. Badcock.
Since I also got the spoilers thread in before James, I'd like to complete a double by asking if she's attractive before Kirk :?: :D

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:32 pm

Douglas Wilson wrote: Since I also got the spoilers thread in before James, I'd like to complete a double by asking if she's attractive before Kirk :?: :D
Even if she is attractive, it's apparently really pervy to post on here that they're hot. Ask Liam.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Matt Morrison » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:34 pm

Douglas Wilson wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Heather today I think. Badcock.
Since I also got the spoilers thread in before James, I'd like to complete a double by asking if she's attractive before Kirk :?: :D
I find most people attractive before Kirk.

Douglas Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Douglas Wilson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:38 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Douglas Wilson wrote: Since I also got the spoilers thread in before James, I'd like to complete a double by asking if she's attractive before Kirk :?: :D
Even if she is attractive, it's apparently really pervy to post on here that they're hot. Ask Liam.
Pfft it's because of men like that, that women got the vote.

User avatar
Karen Pearson
Devotee
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:28 am
Location: Bromsgrove

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Karen Pearson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:43 pm

James Robinson wrote: the same "well-known building company" that is the current sponsor of the Chelsea Flower Show.
I thought they'd packed in sponsoring it last year (assuming we're talking about the company whose name begins with M).

User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by James Robinson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:00 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:
James Robinson wrote: the same "well-known building company" that is the current sponsor of the Chelsea Flower Show.
I thought they'd packed in sponsoring it last year (assuming we're talking about the company whose name begins with M).
We are indeed talking about the same company, Karen. Well, they did sponsor it last year, I only know that because our employees unsurprisingly got special rates for the show.

Yes, you are right, we have just packed it in, so it should be former sponsor, rather than current.
WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!!!
UP THE MIGHTY TERRIERS!!! ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)

User avatar
Mark Kudlowski
Enthusiast
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Mark Kudlowski » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:38 pm

1st nos:

((8 x 4) - 1) x (10 + 2)

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Matt Morrison » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:41 pm

"Never get ideas above your station."

Strong words coming from someone who's most famous for appearing on The Bill yet still deems reading from his own memoirs as entertainment enough to fill a whole week of Countdown anecdotes.
And I used to like The Bill, just saying.

Stewart Gordon
Acolyte
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Stewart Gordon » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:44 pm

Mark Kudlowski wrote:1st nos:

((8 x 4) - 1) x (10 + 2)
My way was similar:
(7 × (2 + 1) + 10) × (8 + 4)

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:46 pm

Round 6: CORVEES as a beater.

User avatar
Chris Davies
Series 61 Champion
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Chris Davies » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:47 pm

ROUNDELAY.

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:47 pm

Round 7 - ROUNDELAY for 9 as a beater!

Edit: Damn, Chris beat me by seconds.

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:51 pm

JETBOAT as a beater in round 9.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Matt Morrison » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:06 pm

Awesome Heather. Much pleased.

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:07 pm

Another two answered conundrum....CHOLIAMBS. Yes, it's a plural but hey. Well played, Heather.

User avatar
Richard Priest
Devotee
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Richard Priest » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:26 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:JETBOAT as a beater in round 9.
Was just about to post this myself but was interrupted :evil:

Impressive stuff Heather, thought Chris was going to win a few.Keep it up.

Douglas Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Douglas Wilson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:28 pm

I thought Heather was pretty hot, not quite as hot as the lady from last week or my current favourite this series Jan.

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:36 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Another two answered conundrum....CHOLIAMBS. Yes, it's a plural but hey. Well played, Heather.

..........therefore it's not valid as a conundrum, therefore it's not "another two answered conundrum", therefore you're talking bollocks.

What was the other one BTW?

You do realise i'm doing these deliberately don't you?

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:37 pm

D Eadie wrote:
You do realise i'm doing these deliberately don't you?
Doing what deliberately? If you mean two-answered conundrums then this wasn't a two answered conundrum as it was a plural. :?

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Alec Rivers » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Another two answered conundrum ...
Kirk Bevins wrote:... this wasn't a two answered conundrum ...
WTF?

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:41 pm

Right, so when you said "another two answered conundrum" (which in itself is nonsense English, even with the missing hyphen), you actually meant that is wasn't a 'two answered conundrum' at all.

Are you sure you want higher than £10,000 a year? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:42 pm

I know. I'm retracting my sentiment from the previous post -- maybe it's some sort of forum palinode.

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:43 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:I know. I'm retracting my sentiment from the previous post -- maybe it's some sort of forum palinode.

'Retracting your sentiment from a post'. Isn't that the pain you get after you've been sat on the fence too long?

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:44 pm

D Eadie wrote: Are you sure you want higher than £10,000 a year? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
:( :( :(

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:47 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
D Eadie wrote: Are you sure you want higher than £10,000 a year? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
:( :( :(

Only kidding. I retract all my sentiments ever.

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Ryan Taylor » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:56 pm

Just watching now, skipped past the spoiler posts. Someone probably spotted ROUNDELAY already?

Edit: Bloody Davies!
Last edited by Ryan Taylor on Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:57 pm

D Eadie wrote: Only kidding. I retract all my sentiments ever.
Including this one? Oh. :(

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:02 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
D Eadie wrote: Only kidding. I retract all my sentiments ever.
Including this one? Oh. :(
No that one was a lie anyway.

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Ryan Taylor » Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:06 pm

Yey! Go Heather, nicely played!

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8396
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:16 pm

This has probably been asked before, but are contestants actually told the conundrum answer won't be a plural or is it just an unwritten rule for the setter? And if a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS what would happen?

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Charlie Reams » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:22 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:This has probably been asked before, but are contestants actually told the conundrum answer won't be a plural or is it just an unwritten rule for the setter?
It used to be an unwritten rule, but it's now in the contestant guidelines.

Joyce Phillips
Acolyte
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:25 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Joyce Phillips » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:00 pm

James, your job sounds so fascinating I'm surprised you can think of anything else.

User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by James Robinson » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:59 pm

Joyce Phillips wrote:James, your job sounds so fascinating I'm surprised you can think of anything else.
Believe me, Joyce, the emphasis is in the word "sounds".

Alternative to 1st Numbers:

(((7 x 4) + 8 + 1) x 10) + 2 = 372

KENDOIST in round 2, COERCES in round 6 and POLENTA in round 13.
WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!!!
UP THE MIGHTY TERRIERS!!! ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:32 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:This has probably been asked before, but are contestants actually told the conundrum answer won't be a plural or is it just an unwritten rule for the setter? And if a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS what would happen?

If a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS they'd be wrong, unless of course they happened to be playing you, in which case they'd be awarded double points, or however many it took to make sure your preposterously quibbly personality never appeared on our screens again. Nothing personal of course, but you really are a giant tit.

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:36 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:This has probably been asked before, but are contestants actually told the conundrum answer won't be a plural or is it just an unwritten rule for the setter?
It used to be an unwritten rule, but it's now in the contestant guidelines.
It was never an unwritten rule because we never set conundrums that could be plurals, so it didn't matter.
Now sometimes we do, just to piss off certain people who dislike it. That's showbiz.

Malcolm James
Acolyte
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Malcolm James » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:56 pm

D Eadie wrote:If a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS they'd be wrong, unless of course they happened to be playing you, in which case they'd be awarded double points, or however many it took to make sure your preposterously quibbly personality never appeared on our screens again. Nothing personal of course, but you really are a giant tit.
Well, at least there are plenty of giant pricks here with whom he can feel at home. :D

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:23 pm

Almost an irrelevance because nobody (except Kirk) has heard of CHOLIAMBS or whatever, but surely you can't say that if somebody offered it, you'd mark it as wrong? The GERANIUMS one was a different kettle of fish because it was spelt out (but I still wasn't happy :D ) but are you seriously saying that if the scramble was ANUSGRIME and someone buzzed in with GERANIUMS you'd tell them "no"? It may be in the contestant guidelines that you don't set plural conundrums, but that's your rule to follow when setting them, not the contestants' problem. Bit of a shit too for people watching at home who don't have the guidelines, isn't it, as it's never mentioned on the show?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8396
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:25 pm

D Eadie wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:This has probably been asked before, but are contestants actually told the conundrum answer won't be a plural or is it just an unwritten rule for the setter? And if a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS what would happen?

If a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS they'd be wrong, unless of course they happened to be playing you, in which case they'd be awarded double points, or however many it took to make sure your preposterously quibbly personality never appeared on our screens again. Nothing personal of course, but you really are a giant tit.
It was just a question - you read way too much into my posts and always have done.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
D Eadie wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:This has probably been asked before, but are contestants actually told the conundrum answer won't be a plural or is it just an unwritten rule for the setter? And if a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS what would happen?

If a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS they'd be wrong, unless of course they happened to be playing you, in which case they'd be awarded double points, or however many it took to make sure your preposterously quibbly personality never appeared on our screens again. Nothing personal of course, but you really are a giant tit.
It was just a question - you read way too much into my posts and always have done.
A perfectly reasonable one too! Didn't Damian appeal to us all to be nicer to each other around the time Rob Thomas inexplicably flounced off? It's all very confusing.

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:21 am

I'm just glad we all get along so well ;)

If somebody buzzed and said CHOLIAMBS, which is possible but very unlikely, then it wouldn't be the answer, so it would have to be wrong.

The contestants get this.........

"The conundrum will never end in ‘S’ to make a plural of a singular word, so words like BUNGALOWS etc will not be used. Some CAN end in ‘S’, but they will not be plurals, ie DIAGNOSIS, HEARTLESS etc.

Whatever comes out in the mixed-up version will never be the answer (so if the conundrum spells out a word when it is first revealed, this won’t be the actual answer – ie – If the conundrum is revealed as GERANIUMS, then the answer will not be GERANIUMS. In this case, it would be MEASURING."

It can't possibly be any clearer, so when you say it's 'not the contestants problem', then i'm afraid you're wrong. It is indeed. If people don't want to read the rules then that is their problem.
Sure, people at home don't get our guidelines, but i doubt there were many folk screaming 'CHOLIAMBS' at the screen yesterday, if any at all.

In the past we've used scrambles like TOMCRUISE and PETERHEAD, so do we add to the guidelines that the conundrum cannot be a real persons name or the name of a place? We've not mentioned this on the show before. I think it's pretty silly that i even bothered to add the bit to the guidelines about the conundrum answer never being the same as the mix-up, ie geraniums, as this is obvious, but i took too much notice of what some were saying on here, and now i realise i shouldn't have. If GERANIUMS is revealed and you buzz in and answer GERANIUMS, then i'd imagine 99.9% of viewers would titter uncomfortably and think you an idiot. Let's keep it real.

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:26 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
D Eadie wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:This has probably been asked before, but are contestants actually told the conundrum answer won't be a plural or is it just an unwritten rule for the setter? And if a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS what would happen?

If a contestant offered CHOLIAMBS they'd be wrong, unless of course they happened to be playing you, in which case they'd be awarded double points, or however many it took to make sure your preposterously quibbly personality never appeared on our screens again. Nothing personal of course, but you really are a giant tit.
It was just a question - you read way too much into my posts and always have done.

Yes, my bad, i wasn't in the greatest of moods yesterday evening. I take it all back.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:49 am

D Eadie wrote:"The conundrum will never end in ‘S’ to make a plural of a singular word, so words like BUNGALOWS etc will not be used. Some CAN end in ‘S’, but they will not be plurals, ie DIAGNOSIS, HEARTLESS etc."
...
It can't possibly be any clearer, so when you say it's 'not the contestants problem', then i'm afraid you're wrong. It is indeed. If people don't want to read the rules then that is their problem.
I still disagree. The first sentence sounds like a rule for the setter, not the solver. "words like .... will not be used" suggests that, well, they won't be used. But... they are 'used'...? So you need to specify that they ARE used, but they're not the answer, so look for something else. And then it's starting to get silly isn't it? So why bother causing the hassle when it's so easily avoided? We also have the introduction of words that are kinda plurals in the form you describe, but the singular version is not valid - eg MONEYBAGS. I pity the poor contestant who spots this and is supposed to know that MONEYBAG isn't valid in order to give their answer. It's confusion utterly of your own making and I find it bizarre.
D Eadie wrote:"Whatever comes out in the mixed-up version will never be the answer (so if the conundrum spells out a word when it is first revealed, this won’t be the actual answer – ie – If the conundrum is revealed as GERANIUMS, then the answer will not be GERANIUMS. In this case, it would be MEASURING."
Yup, okay, that's pretty clear. Don't recall seeing that in my guidelines so it must be a new addition. ETA though that by your reckoning that is a shit example because you believe you've already precluded the use of GERANIUMS as an answer anyway.... ;)
D Eadie wrote:In the past we've used scrambles like TOMCRUISE and PETERHEAD, so do we add to the guidelines that the conundrum cannot be a real persons name or the name of a place?
Of course not, these would never be valid in the game.
Last edited by Jon Corby on Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:52 am

D Eadie wrote:I'm just glad we all get along so well ;)

If somebody buzzed and said CHOLIAMBS, which is possible but very unlikely, then it wouldn't be the answer, so it would have to be wrong.

The contestants get this.........

"The conundrum will never end in ‘S’ to make a plural of a singular word, so words like BUNGALOWS etc will not be used. Some CAN end in ‘S’, but they will not be plurals, ie DIAGNOSIS, HEARTLESS etc.

Whatever comes out in the mixed-up version will never be the answer (so if the conundrum spells out a word when it is first revealed, this won’t be the actual answer – ie – If the conundrum is revealed as GERANIUMS, then the answer will not be GERANIUMS. In this case, it would be MEASURING."

It can't possibly be any clearer, so when you say it's 'not the contestants problem', then i'm afraid you're wrong. It is indeed. If people don't want to read the rules then that is their problem.
Sure, people at home don't get our guidelines, but i doubt there were many folk screaming 'CHOLIAMBS' at the screen yesterday, if any at all.

In the past we've used scrambles like TOMCRUISE and PETERHEAD, so do we add to the guidelines that the conundrum cannot be a real persons name or the name of a place? We've not mentioned this on the show before. I think it's pretty silly that i even bothered to add the bit to the guidelines about the conundrum answer never being the same as the mix-up, ie geraniums, as this is obvious, but i took too much notice of what some were saying on here, and now i realise i shouldn't have. If GERANIUMS is revealed and you buzz in and answer GERANIUMS, then i'd imagine 99.9% of viewers would titter uncomfortably and think you an idiot. Let's keep it real.
A simple solution would be to omit words containing an S from conundrums.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:30 am

Jon Corby wrote: I still disagree. The first sentence sounds like a rule for the setter, not the solver. "words like .... will not be used" suggests that, well, they won't be used. But... they are 'used'...? So you need to specify that they ARE used, but they're not the answer, so look for something else. And then it's starting to get silly isn't it? So why bother causing the hassle when it's so easily avoided? We also have the introduction of words that are kinda plurals in the form you describe, but the singular version is not valid - eg MONEYBAGS. I pity the poor contestant who spots this and is supposed to know that MONEYBAG isn't valid in order to give their answer. It's confusion utterly of your own making and I find it bizarre.
Not sure what you mean about the rule for the setter and not the solver. It's the solver who's getting these rules on a sheet of paper, sent from us, to them, so you've lost me. And they are not used. Choliambs is the only example i know of, and it's possibly the rarest word on the planet. OUP gives it as "another term for SCAZON, SCAZON being defined as a modification of the iambic trimeter, in which a spondee or trochee takes places of the final iambus". Hardly likely to trip anybody up i suspect.

Re MONEYBAGS, your "we also have the introduction of" makes it sound as though this is a regular occurence, which is news to me. You pity the 'poor contestant' who spots an invalid word on a conundrum we'll never be using again, because it's likely to confuse them. Really. The conundrum is a 9-letter word, shuffled up, and there is an answer to it. 'Shuffled up' removes any doubt about geraniums, which realistically, is a cretinous notion in itself and seems to have been brought up purely for the sake of argumentativity rather than for any credible cause. The 'answer to it' bit, in accordance with our guidelines, removes any doubt about choliambs, an isolated incident in any case. You're looking for problems that simply don't exist, which i actually find completely bizarre, but alas not uncommon. When you say it's confusion of my own making, confusion for who exactly, as i've not heard anything at this end......... ;)

LOL - re geraniums being a shit example because it's a plural anyway. Indeed, i can see where this might lead to confusion :shock:

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:39 am

Marc Meakin wrote:A simple solution would be to omit words containing an S from conundrums.

......which would leave us with virtually no leeway for creativity or variety. The simple solution is.....what's the question?

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:44 am

D Eadie wrote:Not sure what you mean about the rule for the setter and not the solver.
What I mean is that if you state that certain words are not used, it's up to the setter to ensure they're not used. It's down to the definition of 'use' I guess. I would say you're 'using' such a word if you present a conundrum which contains it. Your definition would be that you're only 'using' them if they're specifically the answer you want to hear. That could cause confusion.
D Eadie wrote:Re MONEYBAGS, your "we also have the introduction of" makes it sound as though this is a regular occurence
Does it? I just mean that they're available for use, and have been used.
D Eadie wrote:You pity the 'poor contestant' who spots an invalid word on a conundrum we'll never be using again, because it's likely to confuse them.
Yes, for the reason I clearly described. They've been used before. I didn't know they wouldn't be used again.
D Eadie wrote:LOL - re geraniums being a shit example because it's a plural anyway. Indeed, i can see where this might lead to confusion :shock:
Clearly you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have LOLed at it, you'd have said "oh yeah, that is a bad example, I should change it".

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:17 am

Jon Corby wrote:What I mean is that if you state that certain words are not used, it's up to the setter to ensure they're not used. It's down to the definition of 'use' I guess. I would say you're 'using' such a word if you present a conundrum which contains it. Your definition would be that you're only 'using' them if they're specifically the answer you want to hear. That could cause confusion
Which takes us back to your one example of choliambs, which is still the rarest word on the planet, still unknown to possibly 99% of the population, yet it's still confusing? Sure it is.

D Eadie wrote:LOL - re geraniums being a shit example because it's a plural anyway. Indeed, i can see where this might lead to confusion :shock:
Jon Corby wrote:Clearly you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have LOLed at it, you'd have said "oh yeah, that is a bad example, I should change it".
Yawn. There's pedantry and there's pedantry. This takes the biscuit on every level. Do me a favour.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Charlie Reams » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:19 am

The contestant would also have to know that CHOLIAMB is a noun and not a verb, because the third-person singular inflections of verbs (eg RESTRAINS) are allowed under the contestant guidelines. In this case controversy was avoided because CHOLIAMBS is so obscure, but personally I don't see the need to even introduce this kind of problem. Eliminating all the duplicate conundrums still leaves you with 17,000 to choose from.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:21 am

Charlie Reams wrote:The contestant would also have to know that CHOLIAMB is a noun and not a verb, because the third-person singular inflections of verbs (eg RESTRAINS) are allowed under the contestant guidelines. In this case controversy was avoided because CHOLIAMBS is so obscure, but personally I don't see the need to even introduce this kind of problem. Eliminating all the duplicate conundrums still leaves you with 17,000 to choose from.
Minus all the ones that Apterous has used. :)
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests