Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Moderator: James Robinson
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm
Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs )
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 . Another interesting omen that in the last 3 series a ginger from the east of the country has made at least the semi finals .
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.
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 . Another interesting omen that in the last 3 series a ginger from the east of the country has made at least the semi finals .
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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Needed a few more emoticons, but a solid 9/10 from me!
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
I do have a job, thank you. Not a good one admittedly, but it's still a jobDouglas Wilson wrote:Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs )
And another thing, it's Jordan Rhodes, not Jordon Rhodes.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.
BRING ON HARTLEPOOL UNITED
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
What do you doJames Robinson wrote:I do have a job, thank you. Not a good one admittedly, but it's still a jobDouglas Wilson wrote:Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs )
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Heather today I think. Badcock.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Administration Assistant at a "well-known building company", the same "well-known building company" that is the current sponsor of the Chelsea Flower Show.Charlie Reams wrote:What do you doJames Robinson wrote:I do have a job, thank you. Not a good one admittedly, but it's still a jobDouglas Wilson wrote:Today is Wednesday which is the middle of the working week (for those of you who have jobs )
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.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
How much do you get paid, James?
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
It's roughly £10,000 per annum, before tax.Kirk Bevins wrote:How much do you get paid, James?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Cheers. I need a job but not sure I can work for that sort of money.James Robinson wrote: It's roughly £10,000 per annum, before tax.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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 getKirk Bevins wrote:Cheers. I need a job but not sure I can work for that sort of money.James Robinson wrote: It's roughly £10,000 per annum, before tax.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
BAD MANNERSKirk Bevins wrote:How much do you get paid, James?
Should have been PM IMO
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Since I also got the spoilers thread in before James, I'd like to complete a double by asking if she's attractive before KirkMatt Morrison wrote:Heather today I think. Badcock.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Even if she is attractive, it's apparently really pervy to post on here that they're hot. Ask Liam.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
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
I find most people attractive before Kirk.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 KirkMatt Morrison wrote:Heather today I think. Badcock.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Pfft it's because of men like that, that women got the vote.Kirk Bevins wrote:Even if she is attractive, it's apparently really pervy to post on here that they're hot. Ask Liam.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
- Karen Pearson
- Devotee
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:28 am
- Location: Bromsgrove
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
I thought they'd packed in sponsoring it last year (assuming we're talking about the company whose name begins with M).James Robinson wrote: the same "well-known building company" that is the current sponsor of the Chelsea Flower Show.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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.Karen Pearson wrote:I thought they'd packed in sponsoring it last year (assuming we're talking about the company whose name begins with M).James Robinson wrote: the same "well-known building company" that is the current sponsor of the Chelsea Flower Show.
Yes, you are right, we have just packed it in, so it should be former sponsor, rather than current.
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
1st nos:
((8 x 4) - 1) x (10 + 2)
((8 x 4) - 1) x (10 + 2)
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
"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.
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.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
My way was similar:Mark Kudlowski wrote:1st nos:
((8 x 4) - 1) x (10 + 2)
(7 × (2 + 1) + 10) × (8 + 4)
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Round 6: CORVEES as a beater.
- Chris Davies
- Series 61 Champion
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:50 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
ROUNDELAY.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Round 7 - ROUNDELAY for 9 as a beater!
Edit: Damn, Chris beat me by seconds.
Edit: Damn, Chris beat me by seconds.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
JETBOAT as a beater in round 9.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Awesome Heather. Much pleased.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Another two answered conundrum....CHOLIAMBS. Yes, it's a plural but hey. Well played, Heather.
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Was just about to post this myself but was interruptedKirk Bevins wrote:JETBOAT as a beater in round 9.
Impressive stuff Heather, thought Chris was going to win a few.Keep it up.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:54 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
I thought Heather was pretty hot, not quite as hot as the lady from last week or my current favourite this series Jan.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Doing what deliberately? If you mean two-answered conundrums then this wasn't a two answered conundrum as it was a plural.D Eadie wrote:
You do realise i'm doing these deliberately don't you?
- 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
Kirk Bevins wrote:Another two answered conundrum ...
WTF?Kirk Bevins wrote:... this wasn't a two answered conundrum ...
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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?
Are you sure you want higher than £10,000 a year?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
I know. I'm retracting my sentiment from the previous post -- maybe it's some sort of forum palinode.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
D Eadie wrote: Are you sure you want higher than £10,000 a year?
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Kirk Bevins wrote:D Eadie wrote: Are you sure you want higher than £10,000 a year?
Only kidding. I retract all my sentiments ever.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Just watching now, skipped past the spoiler posts. Someone probably spotted ROUNDELAY already?
Edit: Bloody Davies!
Edit: Bloody Davies!
Last edited by Ryan Taylor on Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:05 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 Wednesday 17th Feb
Including this one? Oh.D Eadie wrote: Only kidding. I retract all my sentiments ever.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
No that one was a lie anyway.Kirk Bevins wrote:Including this one? Oh.D Eadie wrote: Only kidding. I retract all my sentiments ever.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Yey! Go Heather, nicely played!
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13336
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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?
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
It used to be an unwritten rule, but it's now in the contestant guidelines.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?
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:25 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
James, your job sounds so fascinating I'm surprised you can think of anything else.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Believe me, Joyce, the emphasis is in the word "sounds".Joyce Phillips wrote:James, your job sounds so fascinating I'm surprised you can think of anything else.
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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
It was never an unwritten rule because we never set conundrums that could be plurals, so it didn't matter.Charlie Reams wrote:It used to be an unwritten rule, but it's now in the contestant guidelines.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?
Now sometimes we do, just to piss off certain people who dislike it. That's showbiz.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:59 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Well, at least there are plenty of giant pricks here with whom he can feel at home.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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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 ) 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?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13336
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
It was just a question - you read way too much into my posts and always have done.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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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.Gavin Chipper wrote:It was just a question - you read way too much into my posts and always have done.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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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.
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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Gavin Chipper wrote:It was just a question - you read way too much into my posts and always have done.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.
Yes, my bad, i wasn't in the greatest of moods yesterday evening. I take it all back.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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:"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.
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:"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."
Of course not, these would never be valid in the game.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?
Last edited by Jon Corby on Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6365
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
A simple solution would be to omit words containing an S from conundrums.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.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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.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.
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
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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?
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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:Not sure what you mean about the rule for the setter and not the solver.
Does it? I just mean that they're available for use, and have been used.D Eadie wrote:Re MONEYBAGS, your "we also have the introduction of" makes it sound as though this is a regular occurence
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: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.
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".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
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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.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
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
Yawn. There's pedantry and there's pedantry. This takes the biscuit on every level. Do me a favour.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".
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
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.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6365
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb
Minus all the ones that Apterous has used.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.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT