c4countdown

Can't believe no thread yet. Everyone's either got a Cate-over, or they're outside enjoying the sun.

It's Sandy vs Joe The Piranha.

Unless I'm missing something, Sandy could have solved the second numbers by doing what she did and adding on (7-6) afterwards?

Easier way for 651: (25+6)x7x3

R10 (2nd numbers), Sandy's method was: (9x3)-1 = 26, 26x25 = 650
When Rachel was asked to solve it, all she needed to do was add (7-6) = 1 to get 651.

Surprised she didn't notice that, guess she was concentrating on remembering her own method.

MOISTURE

As I'd started a redundant thread for today, I'll mention here too that I didn't need Rachel's method , as 651 = (25+6)x3x7

Got the third numbers same was as Rachel, and noticed it's a similar way to get the target when I do 'swapsies' when I took the third set of numbers - 2.2.4.7.8.25 to get the second target - 651: (4x25)-7 x (8-(1/1))

I guess it's because both targets are seven times tables, but I notice quite often that the random numbers have a theme. i.e. sometimes one target is 784 and another is 816 so you can reach 800 and either minus or add 16. Just thought I'd share as I like it...

OUTLIERS
VENULES

Whats the record for the lowest score by current champion? It might be under threat in tomorrows episode if the challenger is any good.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:I notice quite often that the random numbers have a theme

Uh, really?

Good to see a psychiatric nurse win, although how anyone can say they enjoy housework is beyond me....

Rich Priest wrote:Good to see a psychiatric nurse win, although how anyone can say they enjoy housework is beyond me....

I think this poll is relevant.

I noticed that Jerry got introduced first today, with an extra big build-up, instead of standing in line behind Rachel and the candidates as usual. Did he (or his agent) take umbrage at his lowlier ranking on the Wednesday show?

Rosemary Roberts wrote:I noticed that Jerry got introduced first today, with an extra big build-up, instead of standing in line behind Rachel and the candidates as usual. Did he (or his agent) take umbrage at his lowlier ranking on the Wednesday show?

I doubt it. Jeff does vary the order of the introductions from time to time.

I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem) and the way he plays down his own intelligence. It occurs to me that he must surely be the only DC guest who has not only appeared on the West End stage but has also been portrayed on the West End stage.

Phil Reynolds wrote:I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem)

I was only paying semi-attention at the time, but it sounded to me like he repeated 'anti-Semitic' when he needed to say 'anti-emitics' ?

Jerry's been excellent, I'm definitely tuning in again today. And yes Rachel was wearing New York taxi yellow, still had anyone noticed that she disappeared almost entirely into the set on Monday and Tuesday by wearing bright blue against a bright blue backdrop. I'll probably get bollocked for posting this (again).

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem)

I was only paying semi-attention at the time, but it sounded to me like he repeated 'anti-Semitic' when he needed to say 'anti-emitics' ?

No. Susie pointed out that "Semitic" wasn't allowed as it's capitalised. Jerry then commented, "Isn't not permitting Semitic being anti-Semitic?"

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:I'm enjoying Jerry's appearances on the show, especially his dry wit (the "anti-Semitic" line was a gem)

I was only paying semi-attention at the time, but it sounded to me like he repeated 'anti-Semitic' when he needed to say 'anti-emitics' ?

No. Susie pointed out that "Semitic" wasn't allowed as it's capitalised. Jerry then commented, "Isn't not permitting Semitic being anti-Semitic?"

Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my version

Matt Morrison wrote: Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my version

I think you mean "emetics"; the connection to emitting is something of a faux-ami.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote: Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my version

I think you mean "emetics"; the connection to emitting is something of a faux-ami.

Yeah, apologies. Clearly not in a mood conducive to good spelling. Relevance stands though, 'anti-emetic' would have worked.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote: Ok, gotcha. I thought he was saying "that makes you anti-emitics" when Susie said that emitics weren't very nice because they induced vomiting. Think I prefer my version

I think you mean "emetics"; the connection to emitting is something of a faux-ami.

In my previous post I toyed with the idea of quoting Matt's "anti-emitics" and putting "sic" in brackets afterwards, but it wasn't all that funny so I didn't bother.

Phil Reynolds wrote:In my previous post I toyed with the idea of quoting Matt's "anti-emitics" and putting "sic" in brackets afterwards, but it wasn't all that funny so I didn't bother.

I'm glad you got that out of your system. (I toyed with the idea of putting that as a reply, but decided that that wasn't all that funny either.)

I saw INCEST.

Not a spoiler, just a fritzly-ditzly fact.