c4countdown

A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/

Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1929

Page 1 of 1

Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:33 pm
by Ben Hunter
Janet Street Porter is looking likely to become the first female octochamp for five years, but will Kelsey Grammar stop her?

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:35 pm
by Junaid Mubeen
FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:37 pm
by Howard Somerset
Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:38 pm
by Mark Kudlowski
Numbers 1 (quickest): (100-4)x7

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:38 pm
by Chris Davies
Junaid Mubeen wrote:FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1
Excellent.
MERINO as a beater in Round 2.

ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:40 pm
by Mark Kudlowski
Howard Somerset wrote:Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5
That's when you know your numbers with many prime factors, as well as your dozens tables !

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:40 pm
by Allan Harmer
SOLITUDE is a noun so I guess SOLITUDES is allowed - I would have gone for it in Round 3 but it is probably a mass noun and not allowable

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:43 pm
by Junaid Mubeen
Mark Kudlowski wrote:
Howard Somerset wrote:Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5
That's when you know your numbers with many prime factors, as well as your dozens tables !
Er...actually it's just working down from 700 and realising that the difference is conveniently also a multiple of 7, rather than identifying 672 as a multiple of 7 automatically. However most contestants refuse to add before multiplying, leading to more contrived solutions like we've just seen.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 pm
by Ben Hunter
ARSONIST as beater in that round with INSOFAR.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:48 pm
by Joseph Bolas
Ben Hunter wrote:ARSONIST as beater in that round with INSOFAR.
There was only one 'S' Ben in the selection.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:48 pm
by Ben Hunter
THERAPODS returns.

Edit: therapods isn't a word, what was that word Kate Richardson got? I'm seeing all kinds of shit today.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:54 pm
by Allan Harmer
Ben Hunter wrote:THERAPODS returns.

Edit: therapods isn't a word, what was that word Kate Richardson got? I'm seeing all kinds of shit today.
I think it was THEROPODS Ben

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:55 pm
by Mark Kudlowski
Numbers 2: ((5 x 3) + 4)) x 3 x 4

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:05 pm
by Matt Morrison
3rd numbers alternate

(75+7-2) = 80
80 x 7 = 560, +1 = 561

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:10 pm
by Howard Somerset
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Er...actually it's just working down from 700 and realising that the difference is conveniently also a multiple of 7, rather than identifying 672 as a multiple of 7 automatically. However most contestants refuse to add before multiplying, leading to more contrived solutions like we've just seen.
Agreed. Exactly my approach, Junaid.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:14 pm
by Jojo Apollo
Chris Davies wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1
Excellent.
MERINO as a beater in Round 2.

ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
:lol: Great stuff lads.

I thought I had a 14 max game there :oops:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:49 pm
by Dinos Sfyris
Chris Davies wrote:ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
IAWTP... By which I mean I spotted them too. Not sure how I could disagree. Surprised DC didn't get ERUPTION unless it was edited out.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:38 pm
by Kirk Bevins
Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Chris Davies wrote:ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
IAWTP... By which I mean I spotted them too. Not sure how I could disagree. Surprised DC didn't get ERUPTION unless it was edited out.
I had all that were mentioned and got beaten in round 1 when I had lots of obscure 7s. When Cate said FORMULAS, I repeated "fuck" numerous times out loud as I'd then spotted FUMAROLES (learning FORMULAE = FUMAROLE). So annoying when you learn a word then fail to spot it. I blame tiredness. So I got a 14 max game but actually spotted 15 maxes, albeit getting FUMAROLES too late. Agonisingly close. :twisted:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:50 pm
by Brian Moore
I thought I'd done well with a DC-beating CADENCE in R12, but I see that's been beaten here already. It wasn't a vintage DC day today - surprising, given the intellectual capacity and rigour of Jon Gaunt (as evidenced by his cogently argued homilies).

I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:26 pm
by JimBentley
Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:27 pm
by Dinos Sfyris
JimBentley wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.
Thirded. Even though I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:31 pm
by Junaid Mubeen
Dinos Sfyris wrote:
JimBentley wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.
Thirded. Even though I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.
Erm...fourthed. Will actually be gutted if she loses tomorrow.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:42 pm
by Rosemary Roberts
Dinos Sfyris wrote:I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.
You've done dozens of recaps - you can't still be nervous !?

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:46 pm
by Allan Harmer
Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Erm...fourthed. Will actually be gutted if she loses tomorrow.
fifthed ;) - after her initial nerves she is playing way above the standard of her first few games and is visibly enjoying it now. She is no pushover now that her confidence has considerably increased. Credit where it is due!

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:23 pm
by Richard Priest
Ben Hunter wrote:Janet Street Porter is looking likely to become the first female octochamp for five years, but will Kelsey Grammar stop her?
It would be 2 years actually - Jean Webby in series 56.

Cate's play has improved tremendously since her first couple of games, I thought she was brilliant today. Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her ;)

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:00 pm
by Dinos Sfyris
Rich Priest wrote:Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her ;)
You heard it here first. Cate was touched by a priest.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:10 pm
by Phil Reynolds
Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Rich Priest wrote:Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her ;)
You heard it here first. Cate was touched by a priest.
I presume this is unusual only insofar™ as she is (a) female (b) aged over 15.

As others have said, I've warmed to Cate with each successive game. It's noticeable that she only wears her stern, unsmiling face when she's actually concentrating on the game; as soon as Jeff asks her to talk about her life and interests, she relaxes and smiles.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:19 pm
by Brian Moore
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:27 pm
by Phil Reynolds
Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)
I sometimes wonder the same thing about the expression "...and the rest is history". You hardly ever hear anyone say it in that form now; almost invariably, it's "...and the rest, as they say, is history". It's as if the words "as they say" have become part of the expression; so really we should now be saying "...and the rest, as they say, as they say, is history."

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:43 pm
by Kirk Bevins
Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)
This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:53 pm
by Charlie Reams
Kirk Bevins wrote: This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
SUICIDE is a verb in the ODE, as you probably know. Although I've never heard it used that way personally.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:03 pm
by Phil Reynolds
Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:34 pm
by Ben Hunter
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:36 pm
by Ian Fitzpatrick
Ben Hunter wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
There are lyrics???

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:36 pm
by Kirk Bevins
Ben Hunter wrote:
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
Haha, you listen to modern hip-hop pop songs!

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:36 pm
by Matt Morrison
Ben Hunter wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
and from Borat.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:58 pm
by Rosemary Roberts
Ben Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
I've sexed guineapigs before now ...

... but no animals were harmed in the course of this activity.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:11 pm
by Phil Reynolds
Rosemary Roberts wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
I've sexed guineapigs before now
Indeed. So when a hip-hop "artist" proclaims "I wanna sex you", he is in effect saying, "I wish to determine your gender on the basis of empirical observation. Kindly show me your genitals." Nothing wrong with that.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:56 pm
by JimBentley
Ah, but what if - like rubbish proto-boyband Color Me Badd sang on their early-90s no. 1 - they want to "sex you up?"

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:59 pm
by Ben Hunter
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
Haha, you listen to modern hip-hop pop songs!
Just the rubbish ones.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:10 pm
by Phil Reynolds
JimBentley wrote:Ah, but what if - like rubbish proto-boyband Color Me Badd sang on their early-90s no. 1 - they want to "sex you up?"
I presume this is akin to announcing their intention to "wake you up", but with an additional surprise element.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:06 am
by Dinos Sfyris
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Rosemary Roberts wrote:I've sexed guineapigs before now
Indeed. So when a hip-hop "artist" proclaims "I wanna sex you", he is in effect saying, "I wish to determine your gender on the basis of empirical observation. Kindly show me your genitals." Nothing wrong with that.
:lol:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:41 am
by Derek Hazell
Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)
Well before your nice little 9 becomes valid, we can apparently also have "inasmuch" for 8 (pending the right letters obviously).

I saw it in this week's Radio Times, and checking a dictionary it seems to be legitimate, although I don't have the Countdown dictionary to hand.

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:45 am
by Jon Corby
Derek Hazell wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)
Well before your nice little 9 becomes valid, we can apparently also have "inasmuch" for 8 (pending the right letters obviously).

I saw it in this week's Radio Times, and checking a dictionary it seems to be legitimate, although I don't have the Countdown dictionary to hand.
It's been a Tea Time Teaser before :)

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:03 am
by Derek Hazell
Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before :)
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something :P

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:10 am
by Jon Corby
Derek Hazell wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before :)
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something :P
:( I wasn't being a wiseguy, I was confirming it was valid.

I'm so misunderstood :(

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:16 am
by Phil Reynolds
Derek Hazell wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before :)
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something :P
"Inasmuch" is perfectly valid. Which is more than can be said for "wiseguy".

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:40 am
by Charlie Reams
Jon Corby wrote: It's been a Tea Time Teaser before :)
So has SEAHORSE...

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:42 am
by Derek Hazell
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before :)
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something :P
"Inasmuch" is perfectly valid. Which is more than can be said for "wiseguy".
Indeed, but if you continue with such posts I am sure they will add it just for you ;)
All times are UTC
Page 1 of 1

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited