c4countdown

Time for two new contestants - could we have another Apterite on our hands?

Like Bob de Caux for example.......

Whoever appears, apparently this is a very special date. Because it's 9/9/9 there has been a big rush on people wanting to get married today for example. So, if you believe in luck/fate/omens etc. I am sure you can put some kind of spin on today's game, however it turns out.

I wonder if this date will be mentioned today or do they not know the airdate in advance?

Marc Meakin wrote:I wonder if this date will be mentioned today or do they not know the airdate in advance?

Well actually I heard they are abandoning the usual theme tune today and replacing it with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRZq3J0uz4.

Marc Meakin wrote:I wonder if this date will be mentioned today or do they not know the airdate in advance?

They do know the airdate in advance.

Darren Carter wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:I wonder if this date will be mentioned today or do they not know the airdate in advance?

They do know the airdate in advance.

Yeah Medallion Man, I'd already made that clear in my reply. Anyway, if you want to give a sobre answer, virtually every day Jeff mentions some kind of anniversary which occurs on the transmission day of the programme, so Marc obviously doesn't pay as much attention to Jeff's every word as many of this site's members.
I am impressed with Marc's knowledge of the word "airdate" though, considering both Jeff Stelling and Des O'Connor denied all knowledge of the word, despite working in television for about 70 years.

I suppose they could have an appropriate teatime teaser like EMERGENCY or AMBULANCE

Marc Meakin wrote:I suppose they could have an appropriate teatime teaser like EMERGENCY or AMBULANCE

Teatime teasers are eight letters

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:I suppose they could have an appropriate teatime teaser like EMERGENCY or AMBULANCE

Teatime teasers are eight letters

Oh yeah, must pay more attention
athough as it is 09/09/09 they might make an exception

Marc Meakin wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:I suppose they could have an appropriate teatime teaser like EMERGENCY or AMBULANCE

Teatime teasers are eight letters

Oh yeah, must pay more attention
athough as it is 09/09/09 they might make an exception

I doubt they will tbh, but in answer to your original question they do love anything nine-based so I'd expect a mention today.

OPENLY round 2

APNOEA round 2 as well.

Anyone think today's 'banter' was a little X-rated as well?

HOKIEST in round 3?
Oops not in da book

SUDARIA as an equaller

Marc Meakin wrote:HOKIEST in round 3?
Oops not in da book

HOKIEST is fine.

PEONAGES for Round 9(?)

2nd numbers alternative:

9*2*10=180.
8-5=3.
3*9=27.
180+27=207.

I'm shit at numbers, I need this.

Whoops - Bob obviously doesn't know the divisibility by 9 rule.

ELITISM in the MILLETS round

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:HOKIEST in round 3?
Oops not in da book

HOKIEST is fine.

So it is

It's good to see 2 normal people playing against each other.
The continual stream of "apterous superstars" is a bit wearing.

Davy Affleck wrote:It's good to see 2 normal people playing against each other.
The continual stream of "apterous superstars" is a bit wearing.

Bob interestingly is actually ranked 39th in the Apterous rankings, although I don't know how long ago he stopped playing.

PAEONY also round 2 - surprised Suzy only found 5's that round

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote:It's good to see 2 normal people playing against each other.
The continual stream of "apterous superstars" is a bit wearing.

Bob interestingly is actually ranked 39th in the Apterous rankings, although I don't know how long ago he stopped playing.

OK don't split hairs

Davy Affleck wrote:It's good to see 2 normal people playing against each other.
The continual stream of "apterous superstars" is a bit wearing.

Who are you calling "normal"?

In the "HORNIEST" round, I kept seeing THORNIEST (which I had on my audition) and I couldn't get that out of my head. I was a bit miffed that they did a re-take on MILLETS but it wouldn't have affected the outcome.

Now, I wonder if I'm allowed to re-apply.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Whoops - Bob obviously doesn't know the divisibility by 9 rule.

Really? He might know it but didn't spot to use it - there's a difference.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Whoops - Bob obviously doesn't know the divisibility by 9 rule.

Nor do I. Can you explain please Phil?

Kathleen Batlle wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Whoops - Bob obviously doesn't know the divisibility by 9 rule.

Nor do I. Can you explain please Phil?

A number is always divisible by 9 if the sum of its digits is divisible by 9. The target in this case was 207 which, provided you remember the rule, takes a split second to recognise as being divisible by 9 - and there were two 9s in the selection. 207/9 = 23, so the problem is then reduced to making 23 from 5 small numbers - there were loads of ways of doing this.

Ken MacKenzie wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote:It's good to see 2 normal people playing against each other.
The continual stream of "apterous superstars" is a bit wearing.

Who are you calling "normal"?

In the "HORNIEST" round, I kept seeing THORNIEST (which I had on my audition) and I couldn't get that out of my head. I was a bit miffed that they did a re-take on MILLETS but it wouldn't have affected the outcome.

Now, I wonder if I'm allowed to re-apply.

Unlucky Ken - you gave it a good go. Re Millets, this is a valid word on Apterous.

With regard to reapplying, I suggest you look at this link.

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2423

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kathleen Batlle wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Whoops - Bob obviously doesn't know the divisibility by 9 rule.

Nor do I. Can you explain please Phil?

A number is always divisible by 9 if the sum of its digits is divisible by 9. The target in this case was 207 which, provided you remember the rule, takes a split second to recognise as being divisible by 9 - and there were two 9s in the selection. 207/9 = 23, so the problem is then reduced to making 23 from 5 small numbers - there were loads of ways of doing this.

Thanks Phil. I've jotted the rule down for future reference.

Did Suzie say 'zenith' as opposite to 'apogee' when possibly she meant 'nadir'?

Depends where you are in the universe I suppose!

I thought the 'opposite' of an apogee was a perigee, I'm no expert though.

Ben Hunter wrote:I thought the 'opposite' of an apogee was a perigee, I'm no expert though.

You are right, Ben, but Suzie said 'zenith'

Philip Jarvis wrote:With regard to reapplying, I suggest you look at this link.

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2423

Bummer! I would have thought that people who missed the win by only a few points would have been considered worthy opponents and allowed back.

The shame is that in Bob's next game, I was in the audience and beat him hands down!

Ah well, Eggheads next, I suppose.

Ken MacKenzie wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:With regard to reapplying, I suggest you look at this link.

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2423

Bummer! I would have thought that people who missed the win by only a few points would have been considered worthy opponents and allowed back.

The shame is that in Bob's next game, I was in the audience and beat him hands down!

Ah well, Eggheads next, I suppose.

Well done Ken, was a close game. It was you I saw in the bar late on the Tuesday night!