Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Moderator: James Robinson
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Can't believe no thread yet. Everyone's either got a Cate-over, or they're outside enjoying the sun.
It's Sandy vs Joe The Piranha.
It's Sandy vs Joe The Piranha.
- Chris Davies
- Series 61 Champion
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:50 pm
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Unless I'm missing something, Sandy could have solved the second numbers by doing what she did and adding on (7-6) afterwards?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Spoilers for Thursday April 2nd
Easier way for 651: (25+6)x7x3
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
R10 (2nd numbers), Sandy's method was: (9x3)-1 = 26, 26x25 = 650
When Rachel was asked to solve it, all she needed to do was add (7-6) = 1 to get 651.
Surprised she didn't notice that, guess she was concentrating on remembering her own method.
When Rachel was asked to solve it, all she needed to do was add (7-6) = 1 to get 651.
Surprised she didn't notice that, guess she was concentrating on remembering her own method.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
MOISTURE
As I'd started a redundant thread for today, I'll mention here too that I didn't need Rachel's method , as 651 = (25+6)x3x7
As I'd started a redundant thread for today, I'll mention here too that I didn't need Rachel's method , as 651 = (25+6)x3x7
Last edited by Peter Mabey on Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Lesley Jeavons
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:05 pm
- Location: Brighton, UK
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Got the third numbers same was as Rachel, and noticed it's a similar way to get the target when I do 'swapsies' when I took the third set of numbers - 2.2.4.7.8.25 to get the second target - 651: (4x25)-7 x (8-(1/1))
I guess it's because both targets are seven times tables, but I notice quite often that the random numbers have a theme. i.e. sometimes one target is 784 and another is 816 so you can reach 800 and either minus or add 16. Just thought I'd share as I like it...
I guess it's because both targets are seven times tables, but I notice quite often that the random numbers have a theme. i.e. sometimes one target is 784 and another is 816 so you can reach 800 and either minus or add 16. Just thought I'd share as I like it...
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
OUTLIERS
VENULES
Whats the record for the lowest score by current champion? It might be under threat in tomorrows episode if the challenger is any good.
VENULES
Whats the record for the lowest score by current champion? It might be under threat in tomorrows episode if the challenger is any good.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Uh, really?Lesley Jeavons wrote:I notice quite often that the random numbers have a theme
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Good to see a psychiatric nurse win, although how anyone can say they enjoy housework is beyond me....
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
I think this poll is relevant.Rich Priest wrote:Good to see a psychiatric nurse win, although how anyone can say they enjoy housework is beyond me....
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
I noticed that Jerry got introduced first today, with an extra big build-up, instead of standing in line behind Rachel and the candidates as usual. Did he (or his agent) take umbrage at his lowlier ranking on the Wednesday show?
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
I doubt it. Jeff does vary the order of the introductions from time to time.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I noticed that Jerry got introduced first today, with an extra big build-up, instead of standing in line behind Rachel and the candidates as usual. Did he (or his agent) take umbrage at his lowlier ranking on the Wednesday show?
I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem) and the way he plays down his own intelligence. It occurs to me that he must surely be the only DC guest who has not only appeared on the West End stage but has also been portrayed on the West End stage.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
I was only paying semi-attention at the time, but it sounded to me like he repeated 'anti-Semitic' when he needed to say 'anti-emitics' ?Phil Reynolds wrote:I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem)
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Jerry's been excellent, I'm definitely tuning in again today. And yes Rachel was wearing New York taxi yellow, still had anyone noticed that she disappeared almost entirely into the set on Monday and Tuesday by wearing bright blue against a bright blue backdrop. I'll probably get bollocked for posting this (again).
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
No. Susie pointed out that "Semitic" wasn't allowed as it's capitalised. Jerry then commented, "Isn't not permitting Semitic being anti-Semitic?"Matt Morrison wrote:I was only paying semi-attention at the time, but it sounded to me like he repeated 'anti-Semitic' when he needed to say 'anti-emitics' ?Phil Reynolds wrote:I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem)
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my versionPhil Reynolds wrote:No. Susie pointed out that "Semitic" wasn't allowed as it's capitalised. Jerry then commented, "Isn't not permitting Semitic being anti-Semitic?"Matt Morrison wrote:I was only paying semi-attention at the time, but it sounded to me like he repeated 'anti-Semitic' when he needed to say 'anti-emitics' ?Phil Reynolds wrote:I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem)
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
I think you mean "emetics"; the connection to emitting is something of a faux-ami.Matt Morrison wrote: Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my version
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
Yeah, apologies. Clearly not in a mood conducive to good spelling. Relevance stands though, 'anti-emetic' would have worked.Charlie Reams wrote:I think you mean "emetics"; the connection to emitting is something of a faux-ami.Matt Morrison wrote: Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my version
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
In my previous post I toyed with the idea of quoting Matt's "anti-emitics" and putting "sic" in brackets afterwards, but it wasn't all that funny so I didn't bother.Charlie Reams wrote:I think you mean "emetics"; the connection to emitting is something of a faux-ami.Matt Morrison wrote: Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my version
- Brian Moore
- Devotee
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
- Location: Exeter
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
I'm glad you got that out of your system. (I toyed with the idea of putting that as a reply, but decided that that wasn't all that funny either.)Phil Reynolds wrote:In my previous post I toyed with the idea of quoting Matt's "anti-emitics" and putting "sic" in brackets afterwards, but it wasn't all that funny so I didn't bother.
- Matthew Green
- Devotee
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Spoilers, Thursday 02/04/09
I saw INCEST.
Not a spoiler, just a fritzly-ditzly fact.
Not a spoiler, just a fritzly-ditzly fact.
If I suddenly have a squirming baby on my lap it probably means that I should start paying it some attention and stop wasting my time messing around on a Countdown forum