Spoilers - Wednesday 10th June 2009

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:39 pm

Jackie continues her run against Des E.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:39 pm

R4 - DC beater... that common staple of martial arts and porn films alike, the OPENFIST.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:42 pm

METAZOA in round 2. I can't recall the last time a Countdown contestant wore a hat.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:45 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:METAZOA in round 2. I can't recall the last time a Countdown contestant wore a hat.

Yeah, I started to mention that in the OP, but it was in the ad break and I couldn't remember if it was more of a cap or a beret. So I panicked and said nothing.
So, anyone know - when was the last headwear-wearing contestant on the show?

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:47 pm

Clever faquers

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:48 pm

I made off with this guy's nameplate and will donate it to anyone who can make a good argument that they deserve it.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:50 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I made off with this guy's nameplate and will donate it to anyone who can make a good argument that they deserve it.

I read that as "made out with", which would have been a far more interesting story. Still, good effort. I'd like it but I've done nothing to deserve it.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:53 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I made off with this guy's nameplate and will donate it to anyone who can make a good argument that they deserve it.

I've had my nameplate on my bedroom door for the past 2 and a half years. I'm 44. i'm not sad

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:54 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:I'd like it but I've done nothing to deserve it.

Disagree!

Ray Folwell · Post by **Ray Folwell** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:56 pm

SEEDINGS doesn't seem to be in ?
As in : " The Wimbledon SEEDINGS were announced today"

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:02 pm

Ray Folwell wrote:SEEDINGS doesn't seem to be in ?
As in : " The Wimbledon SEEDINGS were announced today"

I think they're just SEEDS - SEEDING is just the verb process of assigning them.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:14 pm

So pissed off for not risking NUMERABLE

Anyone manage to solve that last numbers game? I got nothing within the time. Was looking for 39x9 which isn't there but afterwards managed 1 away with (75-(1+1)x8-9)x7. There is just one solution to it with 88% difficulty.

Neil Zussman · Post by **Neil Zussman** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:15 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Ray Folwell wrote:SEEDINGS doesn't seem to be in ?
As in : " The Wimbledon SEEDINGS were announced today"
I think they're just SEEDS - SEEDING is just the verb process of assigning them.

Is it actually not in? I assumed they hadn't mentioned it just to save Desi some embarrassment for not sticking the S on the end.

Charlie Reams wrote:I made off with this guy's nameplate and will donate it to anyone who can make a good argument that they deserve it.

I clearly deserve it far less than Matt, but I'll register my interest just in case you decide to hold some kind of secret ballot.

Ray Folwell · Post by **Ray Folwell** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:23 pm

Neil Zussman wrote:
Ray Folwell wrote:SEEDINGS doesn't seem to be in ?
As in : " The Wimbledon SEEDINGS were announced today"
Is it actually not in? I assumed they hadn't mentioned it just to save Desi some embarrassment for not sticking the S on the end.

Lexplorer doesn't have it but it's used here : http://www.lta.org.uk/news/All-news-ite ... announced/

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:28 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I made off with this guy's nameplate and will donate it to anyone who can make a good argument that they deserve it.

If I'd won a few more games one of my conundrums would have been NAMEPLATE. Also Desi Cucaracha or whatever it was would be an awesome alias

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:36 pm

Ray Folwell wrote:Lexplorer doesn't have it but it's used here : http://www.lta.org.uk/news/All-news-ite ... announced/

Now we just have to decide whether Oxford University Press or the Lawn Tennis Association is likely to be a more definitive lexicographical authority.

John Bosley · Post by **John Bosley** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:36 pm

vexated ? No

Chris Davies · Post by **Chris Davies** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:42 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:So pissed off for not risking NUMERABLE Anyone manage to solve that last numbers game? I got nothing within the time. Was looking for 39x9 which isn't there but afterwards managed 1 away with (75-(1+1)x8-9)x7. There is just one solution to it with 88% difficulty.

I got 350 in this way within the time. Nowhere near getting it exactly though.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:48 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Anyone manage to solve that last numbers game? I got nothing within the time.

I got 343 by doing (75 + 9) x 8 / (1 + 1) + 7.

EDIT: Got it! (9 x (7 - 1) - 1) x 8 -75

Ray Folwell · Post by **Ray Folwell** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:52 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ray Folwell wrote:Lexplorer doesn't have it but it's used here : http://www.lta.org.uk/news/All-news-ite ... announced/
Now we just have to decide whether Oxford University Press or the Lawn Tennis Association is likely to be a more definitive lexicographical authority.

For deciding what is valid in Countdown, we have to go by the OUP, but a dictionary has to reflect the current usage of the language (as I'm sure Susie would agree) and it does seem to be a fairly common usage and I was quite surprised it wasn't there.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:59 pm

DC beater with MADRONOS in round 7.

Was good to be name-checked by Susie today and I'm looking forward to tomorrow - I wonder what happens?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:01 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Was good to be name-checked by Susie today

Totally missed that. Quote me?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:17 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:Was good to be name-checked by Susie today
Totally missed that. Quote me?

Jeff: John, we'll see you tomorrow - you too Susie. Do you get a bid edgy when the quarter finals come round? 'Cos you're put to the test as well, aren't you?

Susie: Yeah I do - well, especially with Kirk coming back I have to say. High adrenalin tomorrow!

Keith Bevins · Post by **Keith Bevins** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:02 pm

Damn I missed the Kirk plug too.

Just one spoiler
Equaller in R3 COLITIS

Neil Zussman · Post by **Neil Zussman** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:48 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:Was good to be name-checked by Susie today
Totally missed that. Quote me?
Jeff: John, we'll see you tomorrow - you too Susie. Do you get a bid edgy when the quarter finals come round? 'Cos you're put to the test as well, aren't you?

Susie: Yeah I do - well, especially with Kirk coming back I have to say. High adrenalin tomorrow!

Pfft, clearly the 4th quarter final is the one everyone's really looking forward to.

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ray Folwell wrote:Lexplorer doesn't have it but it's used here : http://www.lta.org.uk/news/All-news-ite ... announced/
Now we just have to decide whether Oxford University Press or the Lawn Tennis Association is likely to be a more definitive lexicographical authority.

Anyone who doesn't trust the Tennis Association is clearly talking a load of balls.

I'm sure there's a good joke in there somewhere, but I didn't find it...

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:21 pm

I'M SO LOOKING FORWARD TOMORROW! WOO!!!11!

Steve Durney · Post by **Steve Durney** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:03 am

Ray Folwell wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Ray Folwell wrote:Lexplorer doesn't have it but it's used here : http://www.lta.org.uk/news/All-news-ite ... announced/
Now we just have to decide whether Oxford University Press or the Lawn Tennis Association is likely to be a more definitive lexicographical authority.
For deciding what is valid in Countdown, we have to go by the OUP, but a dictionary has to reflect the current usage of the language (as I'm sure Susie would agree) and it does seem to be a fairly common usage and I was quite surprised it wasn't there.

I thought i'd got an 8 with SEEDINGS as well. Google comes up with just the 21,400 results!

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:24 am

Charlie Reams wrote:I made off with this guy's nameplate and will donate it to anyone who can make a good argument that they deserve it.

It's my Name . . . well, my sister calls me Desi, because I use the name Dez on the Internet.

Sue Sanders wrote:I've had my nameplate on my bedroom door for the past 2 and a half years. I'm 44. i'm not sad

All depends if one of your kids made it for you or not . . .

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:12 am

Charlie Reams wrote:I made off with this guy's nameplate and will donate it to anyone who can make a good argument that they deserve it.

It's an anagram of RIDES RACCOON if that helps.

Philip Jarvis · Post by **Philip Jarvis** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:44 am

Jimmy Gough wrote:I'M SO LOOKING FORWARD TOMORROW! WOO!!!11!

In what order are the quarters being played? Who's on Thur, Fri, Mon & Tue?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:52 am

Philip Jarvis wrote:
Jimmy Gough wrote:I'M SO LOOKING FORWARD TOMORROW! WOO!!!11!
In what order are the quarters being played? Who's on Thur, Fri, Mon & Tue?

This must by now qualify as a Frequently Questioned Answer, or something.

Philip Jarvis · Post by **Philip Jarvis** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:04 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Philip Jarvis wrote:
Jimmy Gough wrote:I'M SO LOOKING FORWARD TOMORROW! WOO!!!11!
In what order are the quarters being played? Who's on Thur, Fri, Mon & Tue?
This must by now qualify as a Frequently Questioned Answer, or something.

Phil - I'd already checked Coundownwiki and that's what I couldn't understand. It has the following order:
Kirk v Julie
Shane v Neil
Jimmy v James
Cate v Hamish

It then states with QF1 winner will play QF4 winner and QF2 winner will play QF3.

We were both at the semis and we know it didn't work out that way. I was struck by Jimmy's comment above and wondered if he and James were on today? If so, what is the order for the others?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:41 am

Philip Jarvis wrote:I'd already checked Coundownwiki and that's what I couldn't understand. It has the following order:
Kirk v Julie
Shane v Neil
Jimmy v James
Cate v Hamish

No, you're looking at the QF pairings (in the order QF1, QF4, QF2, QF3) and not the match order. Scroll down to the end of the list of episode dates to see the order of play.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:58 am

Ever since I can remember, whenever there have been eight players in the finals it's always been:

QFs 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 in that order.

SFs 1/8 v 4/5, 2/7 v 3/6 in that order.

And that (I hope) is what I've put in the bottom of the episode table in the wiki.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:07 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:No, you're looking at the QF pairings (in the order QF1, QF4, QF2, QF3) and not the match order. Scroll down to the end of the list of episode dates to see the order of play.

I can see how this is confusing. I'm not sure why it goes QF1, QF4, QF2, QF3 and not the order of play? I know why you've done it - so that the top box on the right will contain number 1/8 seed and number 4/5 seed but it's very confusing.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:20 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:No, you're looking at the QF pairings (in the order QF1, QF4, QF2, QF3) and not the match order. Scroll down to the end of the list of episode dates to see the order of play.
I can see how this is confusing. I'm not sure why it goes QF1, QF4, QF2, QF3 and not the order of play? I know why you've done it - so that the top box on the right will contain number 1/8 seed and number 4/5 seed but it's very confusing.

It was done that way for series 59 finals, and I simply copied that same example for COC13 and Series 60. Nobody remarked that it was confusing before. The table is not intended to show order of play.

Indeed, exactly the same style of table appears in many of the newspapers for the Wimbledon tennis tournaments. It's simply a quick illustration of who plays whom as the tournament progresses.

edit:
I've now added a footnote to the progress table, saying that the table does not indicate order of play for QFs.

Maybe we should remove the letters QF1, etc. I'll try it.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:21 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm not sure why it goes QF1, QF4, QF2, QF3 and not the order of play? I know why you've done it

lol.

Paul Erdunast · Post by **Paul Erdunast** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:14 pm

Interestingly, SEEDINGS is in the full oed

Under: seeding, vbl. n.

5. Sport, esp. Lawn Tennis. The placing of competitors in a list of seeds (SEED n. 3); (also pl.) the order or ranking so produced.

So really the LTA is right to use it (as are the others on this page!)

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:08 pm

Paul Erdunast wrote:Interestingly, SEEDINGS is in the full oed

Under: seeding, vbl. n.

5. Sport, esp. Lawn Tennis. The placing of competitors in a list of seeds (SEED n. 3); (also pl.) the order or ranking so produced.

So really the LTA is right to use it (as are the others on this page!)

Although I'm impressed that you have a full OED, you should be careful how you interpret it. The full version is no more "right" than the short version; "descriptive not perscriptive" is the motto. There are plenty of words used all over the world all the time that aren't include even in the full OED, for reasons of space, editorial decision or just being too recent, so it's meaningless to say that any word in English is right or wrong. The only definitive thing one can say is that, for the purpose of Countdown, SEEDINGS is not valid. I'm 100% sure of that.