c4countdown

Since none of you lazy bastards seem to have bothered yet. [Sorry, Kai].

Congrats, Mike and hard luck, Dave. I thought you both conducted the game in a really sporting manner and liked Dave's comment at the end: "How wrong they were."

If the post seems a little low-key for a reflection on a final well then it's because I was watching it set against the backdrop of a massive spoiler.

Edit: I did think Des's "Goodness, gracious me" comment was about a million miles off - makes me kinda glad he's off.

OK, I'll bite.

Who are Mike and Dave?

You're going to have to enlighten me. I think I was watching a different final yesterday...

Phil Reynolds wrote: Who are Mike and Dave?

You can have one guess. The context should make it quite easy.

My brain just isn't cryptic enough for even simple puzzles such as this...

Finally got round to watching it. All I have to say is that the better man (in every sense) won. Well done Mike!! Maybe Dave should consider geting some sort of coach in for the CoC...

Should I now be fucked off (sorry Kai) that a post advertising the CoC result appeared in the main forum before it should have done?

John Evans wrote:Finally got round to watching it. All I have to say is that the better man (in every sense) won. Well done Mike!! Maybe Dave should consider geting some sort of coach in for the CoC...

Mind you, this post suggests otherwise.

Ian Volante wrote:Should I now be fucked off (sorry Kai) that a post advertising the CoC result appeared in the main forum before it should have done?

Where? Read into what I said however you like. It doesn't give away anything. Really.

I think Mike deserves extra credit as by far the most improved player of the series; if you compare his letters games, in particular, to the early stages of his heats, the change is remarkable; both his word knowledge, spotting ability and consistency improved enormously. As for the other two disciplines, well, there wasn't much room for improvement, which leaves a fairly formidable all-rounder and a worthy champion of Carol's final series.

PS I haven't seen the final yet, but did they leave in the bit where Carol said that Mike is the greatest arithmetician in the history of the show? He pleaded otherwise but to be honest I think he'd have a pretty good claim to it.

Charlie Reams wrote: PS I haven't seen the final yet, but did they leave in the bit where Carol said that Mike is the greatest arithmetician in the history of the show? He pleaded otherwise but to be honest I think he'd have a pretty good claim to it.

No, but they added in a bit about you being the worst arithmetician in the history of the show. Which I thought was a bit harsh.

David O'Donnell wrote:I did think Des's "Goodness, gracious me" comment was about a million miles off - makes me kinda glad he's off.

Surely the blame for that one lies with Damian Eadie, or as I shall name him for the purposes of this thread, Pip.

I've no idea what's going on any more.

John Evans wrote:No, but they added in a bit about you being the worst arithmetician in the history of the show. Which I thought was a bit harsh.

Probably a bit generous considering the quarter final...

Charlie Reams wrote:I think Mike deserves extra credit as by far the most improved player of the series; if you compare his letters games, in particular, to the early stages of his heats, the change is remarkable; both his word knowledge, spotting ability and consistency improved enormously. As for the other two disciplines, well, there wasn't much room for improvement, which leaves a fairly formidable all-rounder and a worthy champion of Carol's final series.

I think this is Dave's very polite way of saying I was a bit crap during the heats compared to later on. Absolutely fair. I put in a huge amount of time after the heats and especially once I knew the likes of Charlie had entered the series. Glad some of the obscure words I learnt came up in the later games. I must say that apterous was a big part of the training, so a cheeky thanks to Charlie for that. I think it's gonna improve the standard tenfold in future series.

Charlie Reams wrote:PS I haven't seen the final yet, but did they leave in the bit where Carol said that Mike is the greatest arithmetician in the history of the show? He pleaded otherwise but to be honest I think he'd have a pretty good claim to it.

I wouldn't have minded the accolade if Jono wasn't in the crowd, as for me he remains the Numbers King. James Martin and Chris Cummins spring to mind too and I'm sure there are others who I've forgotten. I think the emotion of the moment clouded her judgement!

Ah, this implies nicknames of which I was not aware. I feel less puzzled now.

John Evans wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote: Who are Mike and Dave?

You can have one guess. The context should make it quite easy.

It appears to be some sort of in-joke. Upon which I am not in. (Reworded that to avoid ending with a preposition, and still failed.)

I probably got up later this morning than I have done in my living memory. (This is what happens when my wife goes away for a week )

The first thing I looked at was this thread, and I felt like I'd woken up in a different world; I'd died in the night, and was now in heaven. I now think, but can be by no means certain, that the penny has finally dropped. Like Ian, for a few moments I thought I'd stumbled upon a thread which should be in the private COC13 section, and we were seeing a massive spoiler, but then gradually I realised there's no Mike competing, and that Doddy himself is the only Dave. Maybe I should go back to bed, and when I get up next time, this thread will simply be a dream.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

John Evans wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote: Who are Mike and Dave?

You can have one guess. The context should make it quite easy.

It appears to be some sort of in-joke, of which I'm not a part.

Fixed.

David O'Donnell wrote:Edit: I did think Des's "Goodness, gracious me" comment was about a million miles off - makes me kinda glad he's off.

Not a Peter Sellers fan? Or just not a fan of fake foreign accents?

Ben Hunter wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:It appears to be some sort of in-joke, of which I'm not a part.

Fixed.

Hmm. Thanks for trying Ben, but that doesn't really do it for me, as my intention was for the second clause to refer back to the 'in' of 'in-joke', which your fixed version no longer does. Arguably better would have been: "It appears to be some sort of in-joke, in on which I am not" but that makes me sound distressingly like Bruce Forsyth.

So anyway: why Mike and Dave?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:It appears to be some sort of in-joke, of which I'm not a part.

Fixed.

Hmm. Thanks for trying Ben, but that doesn't really do it for me, as my intention was for the second clause to refer back to the 'in' of 'in-joke', which your fixed version no longer does. Arguably better would have been: "It appears to be some sort of in-joke, in on which I am not" but that makes me sound distressingly like Bruce Forsyth.

So anyway: why Mike and Dave?

Nothing wrong with ending sentences with prepositions anyway. It's just one of those things that people have a strange aversion to like splitting infinitives. As for the names, I just assumed they were arbitrary "code names" with no particular meaning but I might be wrong.

David Roe wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:Edit: I did think Des's "Goodness, gracious me" comment was about a million miles off - makes me kinda glad he's off.

Not a Peter Sellers fan? Or just not a fan of fake foreign accents?

Not a fan of Peter Sellers when he is being a racist cunt. Sorry Kai.

Wow. That's a pretty strong reaction for 3 words. I take it you'll not be watching Andrew Sachs' episodes, then? (He's not really from Barcelona, you know!)

David Roe wrote:Wow. That's a pretty strong reaction for 3 words. I take it you'll not be watching Andrew Sachs' episodes, then? (He's not really from Barcelona, you know!)

Yes, but they are three words that perpetuate a stereotype about Indian people. Hence the Indian/English comedy show of the same name as an antidote to lamebrain, cultural stereotypes which are passed off as just a bit of fun.

As for Andrew Sachs' portrayal of Manuel, I think we must agree that it reads as fairly crass by today's view on multicultural politics. However, a stereotype of a Spanish man in UK society isn't as racially destructive as Sellers' portrayal (and Milligan's even worse portrayal) because Sellers' portrayal was done against the backdrop of widespread discrimination against Indian people (and other groups) in the UK. Set in this context I fail to find him his saying "Goodness, gracious me" amusing: given that Des was making these comments in 2008, I find it almost surreal that he thought these comments were ok.

And another thing ... why is being politically correct so vilified these days? Its underlying motivation is that each person is treated with a certain minimum amount of respect and sensitivity. Perhaps if these people [who are against political correctness] found themselves excluded from certain government posts or denied a full voting right [because of their sex; the colour of their skin; or their religion etc] they would be a little more appreciative of political correctness - which is really about being fair to each other.

David O'Donnell wrote: And another thing ... why is being politically correct so vilified these days? Its underlying motivation is that each person is treated with a certain minimum amount of respect and sensitivity. Perhaps if these people [who are against political correctness] found themselves excluded from certain government posts or denied a full voting right [because of their sex; the colour of their skin; or their religion etc] they would be a little more appreciative of political correctness - which is really about being fair to each other.

Good argument, for a mick.

Srslytho, the reason that political correctness is so vilified is that the Daily Mail et al realised long ago that, if it were presented at face value like you did above, then no sensible person could possibly reject it. Then we'd have to treat all these funny-smelling foreign types with respect instead of mockery, which of course goes against everything it means to be British. So they established an elaborate strawman argument, which has been entirely successful in convincing most people that political correctness is responsible for everything wrong with modern Britain. Well, that and Polish people, of course.

I think you're a bit hard on old Sellers and Milligan though. I agree with you that such material doesn't seem so funny now, but it was made at a time when mocking Johnny Foreigner was seen as an entirely acceptable thing to do.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote: And another thing ... why is being politically correct so vilified these days? Its underlying motivation is that each person is treated with a certain minimum amount of respect and sensitivity. Perhaps if these people [who are against political correctness] found themselves excluded from certain government posts or denied a full voting right [because of their sex; the colour of their skin; or their religion etc] they would be a little more appreciative of political correctness - which is really about being fair to each other.

Good argument, for a mick.

Srslytho, the reason that political correctness is so vilified is that the Daily Mail et al realised long ago that, if it were presented at face value like you did above, then no sensible person could possibly reject it. Then we'd have to treat all these funny-smelling foreign types with respect instead of mockery, which of course goes against everything it means to be British. So they established an elaborate strawman argument, which has been entirely successful in convincing most people that political correctness is responsible for everything wrong with modern Britain. Well, that and Polish people, of course.

I think you're a bit hard on old Sellers and Milligan though. I agree with you that such material doesn't seem so funny now, but it was made at a time when mocking Johnny Foreigner was seen as an entirely acceptable thing to do.

1. The question was rhetorical: I am familiar with the strategy behind vilifying political correctness;

2. Maybe I was too hard on Sellers but Milligan's portrayal alonside the Alf Garnett character was fairly disgraceful;

3. Srslytho !!! Do you know how long it takes oldies, like me, to work out what textspeak means?

David O'Donnell wrote:1. The question was rhetorical: I am familiar with the strategy behind vilifying political correctness;

Well, you're a professional clever person. Maybe I was saying something that was new to some people. Or maybe not, I don't know.

David O'Donnell wrote:3. Srslytho !!! Do you know how long it takes oldies, like me, to work out what textspeak means?

Sorry gramps.