Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Moderator: James Robinson
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
In response to widespread complaints about yesterday's spoliers, I'll be brief.
Today's match is No.2 Seed vs. No.7 Seed, Chris Davies vs. Steve Wood.
Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade, but hopefully not the last time ever.
Enjoy the show.
Today's match is No.2 Seed vs. No.7 Seed, Chris Davies vs. Steve Wood.
Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade, but hopefully not the last time ever.
Enjoy the show.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I don't think it was widespread but you certainly pissed off Damo.James Robinson wrote:In response to widespread complaints about yesterday's spoliers, I'll be brief.
Today's match is No.2 Seed vs. No.7 Seed, Chris Davies vs. Steve Wood.
Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade, but hopefully not the last time ever.
Enjoy the show.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Marc Meakin wrote:I don't think it was widespread but you certainly pissed off Damo.James Robinson wrote:In response to widespread complaints about yesterday's spoliers, I'll be brief.
Today's match is No.2 Seed vs. No.7 Seed, Chris Davies vs. Steve Wood.
Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade, but hopefully not the last time ever.
Enjoy the show.
It's the critical references to how other people have done that i didn't like, especially when in comparison to James himself, they've outperformed him by a country mile. Sorry, make that a country.
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I applaud the use of the word "spoliers".
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
UNCLAMP also a contestant beater.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Kirk does it again.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Was that Kirk?
He's a changed man.
He's a changed man.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:29 am
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Well played Chris, that's two of the big guns through so far. Hopefully Innis will make it the hattrick on Monday.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Why? Or do you mean I've changed my shirt?Ian Dent wrote:Was that Kirk?
He's a changed man.
Edit: You'll see Hulme casually chewing away on his gum behind me ...what a lovely mouth he has.
- Alec Rivers
- Devotee
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
- Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I don't know about your shirt, but you changed seats to give the answer.Kirk Bevins wrote:Why? Or do you mean I've changed my shirt?Ian Dent wrote:Was that Kirk?
He's a changed man.
Edit: You'll see Hulme casually chewing away on his gum behind me ...what a lovely mouth he has.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Alternative To 3rd Numbers:
75 + 6 + 6 = 87, 10 - 8 = 2, 87 x 2 = 174
I had an OK alternative to yesterday's last numbers, but it's a bit late now, so I won't bother.
75 + 6 + 6 = 87, 10 - 8 = 2, 87 x 2 = 174
I had an OK alternative to yesterday's last numbers, but it's a bit late now, so I won't bother.
- Alec Rivers
- Devotee
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
- Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Kirk Bevins wrote:You'll see Hulme casually chewing away on his gum behind me ...what a lovely mouth he has.
- Alec Rivers
- Devotee
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
- Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
And while I'm looking at the audience...
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I think Innis is asleep!
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:13 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
[quote="James Robinson"] Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade/quote]
Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.
Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.
- Alec Rivers
- Devotee
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
- Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Unfortunately, we were encouraged to celebrate the new millennium a year early, so we're all stuck with it now.Andy Thomson wrote:Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.James Robinson wrote:Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Explain how 2010 is in the 2000sAndy Thomson wrote:Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.James Robinson wrote:Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Don't think you phrased that right James. You've basically just asked someone to explain how 1910 could possibly be in the 1900s.James Robinson wrote:Explain how 2010 is in the 2000sAndy Thomson wrote:Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.James Robinson wrote:Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade
Anyway, the answer is because we went from 1 BC to 1 AD, there was no Year Zero.
So decades and millennia and suchlike ought officially to start on xxx1 years, not on the xxx0 years when we celebrate them.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:01 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Another alternative to 3rd nmbers:
The target divides by 6 to give 29, so
5 + 6 + 8 + 10 = 29, x 6 = 174.
Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?
In an admittedly hypocritical attempt to try to forestall picky replies, I do appreciate you probably didn't interview them and ask; but you get my idea, I hope
The target divides by 6 to give 29, so
5 + 6 + 8 + 10 = 29, x 6 = 174.
Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?
In an admittedly hypocritical attempt to try to forestall picky replies, I do appreciate you probably didn't interview them and ask; but you get my idea, I hope
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:13 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Thanks Matt for saving me the bother.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 9:20 am
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Tbf for the evening recordings the audiences to the best of my knowledge are always older, the audience for my morning recording on Monday was made up of a lot of students as there were a few uni groups in plus a lot of Ryan and Andrew's mates. This thought struck me when I spotted a number of hotties in the audience well under the usual 60+ average.Richard Adams wrote: Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Chris' girlfriend, Innis' sister, that guy who hangs around with Mike Brown...Richard Adams wrote:Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Decades can begin whenever you want them to. If you want to talk about the "swinging 197th decade", then obviously you mean the years 1961 to 1970; but if you want to talk about the "swinging sixties", then the years beginning nineteen sixty-something are correct.Matt Morrison wrote:So decades and millennia and suchlike ought officially to start on xxx1 years, not on the xxx0 years when we celebrate them.
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
AMATORY in round 12
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Not to mention all the (possibly Jeff's aforementioned 'hotties') Media Studies students from Staffordshire uni who came to witness a TV recording in action.Richard Adams wrote:Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?
Lowering the averages since 2009
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that one of those decades would have 9 years? That's just as odd as calling Thursday - Wednesday a week (which is exactly what we do here in Cambridge...)David Roe wrote:Decades can begin whenever you want them to. If you want to talk about the "swinging 197th decade", then obviously you mean the years 1961 to 1970; but if you want to talk about the "swinging sixties", then the years beginning nineteen sixty-something are correct.Matt Morrison wrote:So decades and millennia and suchlike ought officially to start on xxx1 years, not on the xxx0 years when we celebrate them.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Very slightly, but I can live with it - far more easily than I can live with putting 1970 in the sixties. I can see no reason to be constrained 2000 years on by the fact that no year was designated as 0.Charlie Reams wrote:Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that one of those decades would have 9 years?
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:58 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
What's the problem with us oldies and Countdown? The prog is broadcast in the afternoon when people of working age aren't around, and in my experience aren't interested in it anyway. So it's students and oldies - let's be thankful for this cross generation link - we enjoy at much as you, you know. If it wasn't for us Countdown would have died years ago.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Nothing at all wrong with it, but a recent poll on here showed that most of us are ordinary working people, not students or oldies.Jim Treloar wrote:What's the problem with us oldies and Countdown? The prog is broadcast in the afternoon when people of working age aren't around, and in my experience aren't interested in it anyway. So it's students and oldies - let's be thankful for this cross generation link - we enjoy at much as you, you know. If it wasn't for us Countdown would have died years ago.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1270
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
If you follow the same logic, presumably you have to seek out the Babylonian (or whoever) who decided on a seven day week, and go back to wherever he back-dated his novelty. All weeks, for all time, must start on that day. Otherwise there will have been a week sometime that did not have seven days. Heaven forfend.Charlie Reams wrote:Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that one of those decades would have 9 years? That's just as odd as calling Thursday - Wednesday a week (which is exactly what we do here in Cambridge...)
- Mike Brown
- Legend
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: King's Lynn
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I may have missed something obvious, but what was Chris's comment "it's a real one this time" after declaring his nine all about in Round 8? It made Jeff laugh - was it related to something we didn't see on the recorded version?
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I was in the audience for this game and I also didn't fully understand why he said it, but I think it was possibly because he declared OUTSOAR^ earlier, perhaps? I didn't notice anything when in the audience although that is not to say that something wasn't cut because I'm not the most attentive person.
- Mike Brown
- Legend
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: King's Lynn
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Ah, that makes perfect sense, as OUTSOAR^ was in the previous round. Thanks Ryan.Ryan Taylor wrote:I was in the audience for this game and I also didn't fully understand why he said it, but I think it was possibly because he declared OUTSOAR^ earlier, perhaps? I didn't notice anything when in the audience although that is not to say that something wasn't cut because I'm not the most attentive person.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I also got confused by this at the time as he said "9 and it's real this time" implying he had had an invalid 9 previously, which he hadn't. I'd twigged he was talking about OUTSOAR^ but it was quite ambiguous I thought.
- Chris Davies
- Series 61 Champion
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:50 pm
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I was referring to OUTSOAR
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 9:20 am
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
I can confirm it was these students who constituted my aforementioned 'hotties'.Lesley Hines wrote:Not to mention all the (possibly Jeff's aforementioned 'hotties') Media Studies students from Staffordshire uni who came to witness a TV recording in action.
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
Damn, I thought you meant me.Jeffrey Burgin wrote: I can confirm it was these students who constituted my aforementioned 'hotties'.
- Mike Brown
- Legend
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: King's Lynn
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
That's what threw me, I think - I was wondering what wasn't real about RANDOMISE! And thanks for confirming my suspicions, Chris - I can rest easy nowKirk Bevins wrote:I also got confused by this at the time as he said "9 and it's real this time" implying he had had an invalid 9 previously, which he hadn't. I'd twigged he was talking about OUTSOAR^ but it was quite ambiguous I thought.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:45 am
Re: Spoilers For Friday December 11th 2009
secondedJeffrey Burgin wrote:I can confirm it was these students who constituted my aforementioned 'hotties'.Lesley Hines wrote:Not to mention all the (possibly Jeff's aforementioned 'hotties') Media Studies students from Staffordshire uni who came to witness a TV recording in action.