Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Moderator: James Robinson
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I think it's time to move away from that potential banana skin of a dress and carry on hoping for good things from our Apteforumite Craig Chittenden, who if he wins today's game will not only be halfway to achieveing octochamp status, but will also overtake or possibly outsteer Jay on the leaderboard.
Although in fairness, Jay has been the only one of Craig's 3 opponents so far to give him a reasonable go at the champion's crown, but hopefully a contender will emerge to give Craig a run for his money today.
See you for the recap later, the first person to see it, wins a free banana split.
Although in fairness, Jay has been the only one of Craig's 3 opponents so far to give him a reasonable go at the champion's crown, but hopefully a contender will emerge to give Craig a run for his money today.
See you for the recap later, the first person to see it, wins a free banana split.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Sorry Craig, not rooting for you today.
- Steve Durney
- Acolyte
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:53 pm
- Location: Swindon
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Ditto!Matt Morrison wrote:Sorry Craig, not rooting for you today.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Fucking awesome 1st numbers Craig, I only got 802. Brilliant.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Likewise. Didn't think 803 was doable with those numbers. Very well done.Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking awesome 1st numbers Craig, I only got 802. Brilliant.
- Steve Durney
- Acolyte
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:53 pm
- Location: Swindon
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Ditto again!Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking awesome 1st numbers Craig, I only got 802. Brilliant.
Edit: Except that I only got 801!
Last edited by Steve Durney on Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Is Craig series winner material?
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
SPOOLED and PEDALOS for nicer alternatives.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Go Craig.
Last edited by Ryan Taylor on Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I think he only started playng on Apterous after recording this. If that's true, ,and given his steady improvement since joining, he should be pretty formidable by the time the series finals come around. (assuming he qualifies, of course).Ian Dent wrote:Is Craig series winner material?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:19 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
DOUBLET for another 7 in Round 5
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I've been away for ages, but wow yes. The best I've ever seen on the numbers. Has he actually dropped any points on the numbers yet? I can't think of any. I remember Mike Pullin from Series 47 being unbelievable on the numbers, this guy is better.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
VAPOURY is good for 7
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
He missed a (relatively) easy numbers game with 6 small in yesterday's show, apart from that I can't remember any other time, his numbers is brilliant. He was sat next to me in my audition for when I got on the show and I remember him just saying that "I like numbers" and I think his Gran used to set him really long sums to do when he was small so this could be why he is class at his artihmetic. Also I do believe he is capable of winning a series, given that he has a lengthy period of time on Apterous before the finals record (also assuming he is in the finals) and is very eager to learn and practise.Martin Gardner wrote:I've been away for ages, but wow yes. The best I've ever seen on the numbers. Has he actually dropped any points on the numbers yet? I can't think of any. I remember Mike Pullin from Series 47 being unbelievable on the numbers, this guy is better.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Argh crucial. I hope SINUSES isnt costly
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Great contest and well played Craig, unlucky Catherine
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:59 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
R14
(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962
(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Awesome game...well played Craig and awesome first numbers, I had 802 like a lot of folk.
The contestant today was so hot, but I missed the intro. Was she married? How old was she? Not that I'm stalking or anything but what a shame to see another hottie lose.
Back to business: DC beaters in round 8 with COITION and round 11 with VAPOURY. Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.
The contestant today was so hot, but I missed the intro. Was she married? How old was she? Not that I'm stalking or anything but what a shame to see another hottie lose.
Back to business: DC beaters in round 8 with COITION and round 11 with VAPOURY. Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Again, I'll assume this was out of time?Malcolm James wrote:R14
(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1Kirk Bevins wrote: The contestant today was so hot, but I missed the intro. Was she married? How old was she? Not that I'm stalking or anything but what a shame to see another hottie lose.
Last edited by Ryan Taylor on Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Just to add to Craig, MOTLIER is fine, but not MOTTLIER. Odd that Susie didn't clear that up.
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Craig is better than Rex: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=187464
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word. VAPOUR isn't the sort of word you'd readily stick -Y onto with complete confidence of it being allowed, is it, Kirky ?Kirk Bevins wrote:Vapoury - Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Looking at that, she'd have been at Leeds Uni at the same time as me, the first time I was there, I mean.Ryan Taylor wrote:Not that I'm stalking or anything either* but I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1Kirk Bevins wrote: The contestant today was so hot, but I missed the intro. Was she married? How old was she? Not that I'm stalking or anything but what a shame to see another hottie lose.
*OK so I am a pervert
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
An excellent point. Thought you may have come across it on apterous or something.D Eadie wrote:
DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word.
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I don't play on apterous anymore.Kirk Bevins wrote:An excellent point. Thought you may have come across it on apterous or something.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
That's dedication Ryan. How many of the 861 Catherine Jacksons did you have to go through?Ryan Taylor wrote:Not that I'm stalking or anything either but I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Haha - OK, when you used to play it then.D Eadie wrote: I don't play on apterous anymore.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Just did a Julie T and watched this on catch up.
Great game, the challenger is easily the second fittest contestant of the series so far and I think will hold that title for a long time to come. Really starting to like Craig, liked his 'that's not fair' comment when he realised sinuses was valid!
Great game, the challenger is easily the second fittest contestant of the series so far and I think will hold that title for a long time to come. Really starting to like Craig, liked his 'that's not fair' comment when he realised sinuses was valid!
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Ha! I refined the search with the location 'New Zealand' which cut it down to 3 people.Matt Morrison wrote:That's dedication Ryan. How many of the 861 Catherine Jacksons did you have to go through?Ryan Taylor wrote:Not that I'm stalking or anything either but I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13331
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
DC can check their words in the dictionary so what's confidence got to do with it? I considered VAPOURY but when no-one mentioned it I assumed it wasn't there.D Eadie wrote:DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word. VAPOUR isn't the sort of word you'd readily stick -Y onto with complete confidence of it being allowed, is it, Kirky ?Kirk Bevins wrote:Vapoury - Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13331
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I got it in the time but a different way. (50+4)*3*(7-1)-10. I also got the first one the same way as Craig (except I did the multiplication in a different order) to complete my world domination.Kirk Bevins wrote:Again, I'll assume this was out of time?Malcolm James wrote:R14
(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:59 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
How dare you insult me like that! It was within the time.Gavin Chipper wrote:Kirk Bevins wrote:
Malcolm James wrote:
R14
(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962
Again, I'll assume this was out of time?
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Blumming heck, Craig! That was a game and a half! The longer that conundrum went on, the more I thought that you weren't going to get it
Fantastic performance again, brill 1st numbers, like many on here, I only got 802, but I have a nice 2nd numbers alternative:
(7 x 4 x 10) + (5 - (75 / 25)) = 282
It almost looked like you had a lot of nerves today, I hope it's not another sign of Rawsonitis, the crucial 4th show, followed by a defeat in the 5th....
Good luck tomorrow.
Also BOULTED in round 6, but I found it odd that TRIONIC wasn't allowed in round 8
Fantastic performance again, brill 1st numbers, like many on here, I only got 802, but I have a nice 2nd numbers alternative:
(7 x 4 x 10) + (5 - (75 / 25)) = 282
It almost looked like you had a lot of nerves today, I hope it's not another sign of Rawsonitis, the crucial 4th show, followed by a defeat in the 5th....
Good luck tomorrow.
Also BOULTED in round 6, but I found it odd that TRIONIC wasn't allowed in round 8
Last edited by James Robinson on Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
n/tJames Robinson wrote:The longer that conundrum went on, the more I though that you weren't going to get it
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Me & Jon Coles declared MOTLIER and MOTTLIER respectively in one round.Kirk Bevins wrote:Just to add to Craig, MOTLIER is fine, but not MOTTLIER. Odd that Susie didn't clear that up.
Awesome show today. Gorgeous challenger, all the presenters were on great form, and a cracking game too. Loved it.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:58 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I was in the audience for that one. Catherine was indeed an excellent contestant, good humoured, lovely personality, she was great. Shame she was up against Craig, I'm sure she would have beaten a slightly weaker contestant in No 1 chair. Agreed, Jon, a cracking game.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Sorry Malcolm. The only reason why I assumed it wasn't was because it involved doing 13x74 which, for a 1 large game, was a most bizarre way of attempting it. Anyway if you did, fair play, a superb solution.Malcolm James wrote: How dare you insult me like that! It was within the time.
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Delighted you considered vapoury, maybe one day you'll consider disappeary, hari-kari, or get-a-lifey.Gavin Chipper wrote:DC can check their words in the dictionary so what's confidence got to do with it? I considered VAPOURY but when no-one mentioned it I assumed it wasn't there.D Eadie wrote:DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word. VAPOUR isn't the sort of word you'd readily stick -Y onto with complete confidence of it being allowed, is it, Kirky ?Kirk Bevins wrote:Vapoury - Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I assume you mean "for a 1 large game without the 75 (or 25)?"Kirk Bevins wrote:Sorry Malcolm. The only reason why I assumed it wasn't was because it involved doing 13x74 which, for a 1 large game, was a most bizarre way of attempting it. Anyway if you did, fair play, a superb solution.Malcolm James wrote: How dare you insult me like that! It was within the time.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
I meant for *that* 1 large game not any 1 large game. That one large game involved a 50 and so a 13 or 74 factorisation is very strange.Jon Corby wrote: I assume you mean "for a 1 large game without the 75 (or 25)?"
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
Yeah, same point really.Kirk Bevins wrote:I meant for *that* 1 large game not any 1 large game. That one large game involved a 50 and so a 13 or 74 factorisation is very strange.Jon Corby wrote: I assume you mean "for a 1 large game without the 75 (or 25)?"
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13331
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Thursday February 11th 2010
You get that sometimes. When someone offered DIABLO instead of DIABOLO, Susie seemed to assume he'd misspelt the game, rather than thought the Spanish word for devil had made our dictionary.Kirk Bevins wrote:Just to add to Craig, MOTLIER is fine, but not MOTTLIER. Odd that Susie didn't clear that up.