c4countdown

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:36 pm**

Brian seems to making beating Countdown contestants his new hobby along with Dr. Who.

So far his 2 opponents have scored just 63 points between them. That's only around 60% of either of Brian's scores. Has anyone else ever done anything that remarkable in the history of the show

He does seem to have the hallmarks of an octochamp in waiting, but I think he will have to brush up on his maths skills and conundrum speed, if he's to have any chance of beating any of the Apterous bunch in the finals, saying he gets there of course.

See you later for the recap.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:59 pm**

James Robinson wrote:Brian seems to making beating Countdown contestants his new hobby along with Dr. Who.

He's only beat 2 contestants! I've kissed more than 2 men but I don't yet consider it a hobby.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:00 pm**

James Robinson wrote:So far his 2 opponents have scored just 63 points between them. That's only around 60% of either of Brian's scores. Has anyone else ever done anything that remarkable in the history of the show

Well, yeah, they have - and better. Just this series you have (averaged over the whole octorun): Innis (51%), Andrew (44%), and Chris (49%). Even Jeffrey Burgin's opponents only managed 65%. Not really remarkable.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:01 pm**

Simon Myers wrote:
James Robinson wrote:So far his 2 opponents have scored just 63 points between them. That's only around 60% of either of Brian's scores. Has anyone else ever done anything that remarkable in the history of the show
Well, yeah, they have - and better. Just this series you have (averaged over the whole octorun): Innis (51%), Andrew (44%), and Chris (49%). Even Jeffrey Burgin's opponents only managed 65%. Not really remarkable.

Isn't he saying that his first two opponents between them managed only 60% of either of his scores, rather than they averaged that between them?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:04 pm**

Michael Wallace wrote:
Simon Myers wrote:
James Robinson wrote:So far his 2 opponents have scored just 63 points between them. That's only around 60% of either of Brian's scores. Has anyone else ever done anything that remarkable in the history of the show
Well, yeah, they have - and better. Just this series you have (averaged over the whole octorun): Innis (51%), Andrew (44%), and Chris (49%). Even Jeffrey Burgin's opponents only managed 65%. Not really remarkable.
Isn't he saying that his first two opponents between them managed only 60% of either of his scores, rather than they averaged that between them?

Perhaps I misread. I think I can find something to beat that too.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:08 pm**

Brian Selway's my favourite.

Simon Myers wrote:Perhaps I misread. I think I can find something to beat that too.

Don't you dare.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:19 pm**

Ben Hunter wrote:Brian Selway's my favourite.

Simon Myers wrote:Perhaps I misread. I think I can find something to beat that too.
Don't you dare.

Too late! Stewart Holden.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:53 pm**

Simon Myers wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:Brian Selway's my favourite.

Simon Myers wrote:Perhaps I misread. I think I can find something to beat that too.
Don't you dare.
Too late! Stewart Holden.

I've calculated that in Stewart's octochamp run, his 8 opponents scored 409 points between them, which is 47% of Stewart's 870 point total.

Brian has scored 211 points, so far, compared to 63 by his 2 opponents. That is only 30%. Quite a huge gap, wouldn't you say.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:16 pm**

James Robinson wrote:I've calculated that in Stewart's octochamp run, his 8 opponents scored 409 points between them, which is 47% of Stewart's 870 point total.

Brian has scored 211 points, so far, compared to 63 by his 2 opponents. That is only 30%. Quite a huge gap, wouldn't you say.

I was addressing the original constraints (as noted by Michael) of the combined score of the first two opponents compared with either of the champion's first two scores.

So for Brian:
His first two opponents scored 63 total which is 61.8% and 57.8% of his first two scores of 102 and 109.

For Stewart:
His first two opponents scored 66 total which is 61.1% and 57.4% of his first two scores of 108 and 115.

Hence given the original stipulations Stewart has the better record. We can compare full octochamp runs when (if!) Brian reaches 8. So hold your

s.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:21 pm**

James Robinson wrote: See you later for the recap.

I can barely contain my excitement.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:24 pm**

I was expecting Simon to be a geeky little sidekick character - kind of like a Penfold to Charlie's Dangermouse. But, looking at the CoLei2 pictures, he's actually quite a robust, and probably not unattractive to the ladies man.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:30 pm**

Derek Hazell wrote:I was expecting Simon to be a geeky little sidekick character - kind of like a Penfold to Charlie's Dangermouse. But, looking at the CoLei2 pictures, he's actually quite a robust, and probably not unattractive to the ladies man.

Standing next to Charlie, i think a scatologists vest would be considered probably not unattractive to the ladies.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:31 pm**

D Eadie wrote:
James Robinson wrote: See you later for the recap.

I can barely contain my excitement.

I am so excited I just ejaculated into a cupped hand.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:37 pm**

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (Lesleys singing again)
my trainers now resemble Aladdins slippers

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:38 pm**

Get the mute button on NOW!!

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:40 pm**

Sue Sanders wrote:Get the mute button on NOW!!

Why didn't I think of that

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:41 pm**

James Robinson wrote: He does seem to have the hallmarks of an octochamp in waiting
See you later for the recap.

Not right now, he doesn't. Missing IONIZERS and ENQUIRED?? Doesn't bode well.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:41 pm**

(75*25+3)/(100/50)+7 for one away on the first numbers, I think Rachel probably did the same.

Got GOPURAM in round 8.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:43 pm**

Sue Sanders wrote:
James Robinson wrote: He does seem to have the hallmarks of an octochamp in waiting
Not right now, he doesn't. Missing IONIZERS and ENQUIRED?? Doesn't bode well.

More to the point, declaring ESTATE when there were two Ss, and INDURED when there were two Es.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:44 pm**

Derek Hazell wrote:looking at the CoLei2 pictures

What pictures?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:46 pm**

EARWAX as an equaller

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:47 pm**

Phil Reynolds wrote:What pictures?

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event ... 863&ref=mf

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:48 pm**

Also MORGUE

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:49 pm**

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:
James Robinson wrote: He does seem to have the hallmarks of an octochamp in waiting
Not right now, he doesn't. Missing IONIZERS and ENQUIRED?? Doesn't bode well.
More to the point, declaring ESTATE when there were two Ss, and INDURED when there were two Es.

More to the point, does that wineglass in your profile pic contain your bottom teeth?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:51 pm**

GOOPIER? round 9

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:52 pm**

Was Susie talking bollocks there?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:55 pm**

Derek Hazell wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:What pictures?
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event ... 863&ref=mf

That just takes me to a login screen.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:56 pm**

D Eadie wrote: More to the point, does that wineglass in your profile pic contain your bottom teeth?

How recently was a bottom removed from your finger?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:58 pm**

Phil Reynolds wrote:That just takes me to a login screen.

Oh okay, well if you're not a member of Facebook, you'll have to PM Jeff and ask him for some pictures, or chat to somebody else who was there.

James, seeing as this is your thread, I'll let you know here that the first ever James Bond villain is dead.

And back to the game . . .
Oh dear, what happened to this wildcard coming out of the woodwork and upsetting the apple cart with his cat among the pigeons?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:03 pm**

D Eadie wrote:More to the point, does that wineglass in your profile pic contain your bottom teeth?

No, but this one does:

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:06 pm**

Bloody hell Brian had a complete nightmare, very lucky on that last numbers.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:06 pm**

Hmm. Not a sparkling performance.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:07 pm**

Played badly and won....mark of a champion?

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:08 pm**

Easier Numbers 3:

(10 x (8 + 2) x 3) - 7

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:14 pm**

Mark Harrison wrote:Played badly and won....mark of a champion?

Or mark of a lucky git. GOPURAM for a beater in round 8. I did the old 937.5 rule for the 4 large game too Chris, kept getting one away with it though. When Rachel mentioned she got it an unusual way I think it was going to be this method - just wish Jeff had asked her.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:14 pm**

Phil Reynolds wrote:
D Eadie wrote:More to the point, does that wineglass in your profile pic contain your bottom ?
No, but this one does:

That's a bit unfair on your face, Phil.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:54 pm**

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:What pictures?
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event ... 863&ref=mf
That just takes me to a login screen.

Usually it's possible to provide a 'public link' to a photo album from the bottom of the page, but since these aren't my photos OR I never joined the Colei2 group, I can't.
So I've posted the three most people-based photos here for you Phil (and anyone else anti-Facebook).

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:17 pm**

IRONIZES is an obvious equaller to IONIZERS.

Brian was incredibly lucky to scrape through, such a shame his opponent didn't get the last numbers game which was incidentally the only numbers game I have managed to get spot on in the last two days!

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:19 pm**

First numbers (took a while!):

75 × 50 = 3750
7 + 3 = 10
3750 - 10 = 3740
100 / 25 = 4
3740 / 4 = 935

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:45 pm**

As I was browsing the internet I came across this article on Brian. Thought I'd post the link as a warning as it contains some mega spoilers. Bit reckless of the newspaper publishers I'd say. I unfortunately stumbled across it whilst searching Countdown related articles, so if anybody else were to do the same, then be warned.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/midweekh ... 3A42%3A513

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:54 pm**

Steven Briers wrote:As I was browsing the internet I came across this article on Brian. Thought I'd post the link as a warning as it contains some mega spoilers. Bit reckless of the newspaper publishers I'd say. I unfortunately stumbled across it whilst searching Countdown related articles, so if anybody else were to do the same, then be warned.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/midweekh ... 3A42%3A513

Edited to remove spoilers.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:19 pm**

I came to post the same as you, Steven. I was just googling to find out who he is, and up that pops.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:08 pm**

Too late Damien - I innocently followed the link too

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:25 pm**

Has google ruined c4countdown

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:57 pm**

Davy Affleck wrote:Too late Damien - I innocently followed the link too

Damian.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:03 pm**

D Eadie wrote:
Steven Briers wrote:As I was browsing the internet I came across this article on Brian. Thought I'd post the link as a warning as it contains some mega spoilers. Bit reckless of the newspaper publishers I'd say. I unfortunately stumbled across it whilst searching Countdown related articles, so if anybody else were to do the same, then be warned.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/midweekh ... 3A42%3A513

Edited to remove spoilers.

I wonder how many people fell for that

Apart from me
Yes I am the sort of person who immediately responds to "don't turn round but........" by looking round

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:15 pm**

I think you guys have misunderstood Damian.

"Edited to remove spoilers" refers to him removing the original comments he made about the article. I didn't read the article but I did read Damian's comments, and they gave away (to a certain extent) what had been said in the article anyway. I mentioned this in aptochat, Damian noticed, and removed his comment.

He's not referring to the article being edited, only his comments. Article still contains spoilers.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:18 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:I think you guys have misunderstood Damian.

"Edited to remove spoilers" refers to him removing the original comments he made about the article. I didn't read the article but I did read Damian's comments, and they gave away (to a certain extent) what had been said in the article anyway. I mentioned this in aptochat, Damian noticed, and removed his comment.

He's not referring to the article being edited, only his comments. Article still contains spoilers.

doh

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:18 pm**

Steven Briers wrote:As I was browsing the internet I came across this article on Brian. Thought I'd post the link as a warning as it contains some mega spoilers. Bit reckless of the newspaper publishers I'd say. I unfortunately stumbled across it whilst searching Countdown related articles, so if anybody else were to do the same, then be warned.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/midweekh ... 3A42%3A513

I wasn't looking, but since you put it front of me I couldn't help but look.

Steven Briers is killing Countdown.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:54 pm**

Ben Hunter wrote:
Steven Briers wrote:As I was browsing the internet I came across this article on Brian. Thought I'd post the link as a warning as it contains some mega spoilers. Bit reckless of the newspaper publishers I'd say. I unfortunately stumbled across it whilst searching Countdown related articles, so if anybody else were to do the same, then be warned.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/midweekh ... 3A42%3A513
I wasn't looking, but since you put it front of me I couldn't help but look.

Steven Briers is killing Countdown.

I haven't looked at it yet and might ultimately resist (but I doubt it). Is there anything else in it worth reading aside from the spoilery stuff, like maybe Brian has a sideline starring in amateur internet porn films or has the world's largest collection of photographs of Tessa Jowell or something?

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:04 pm**

JimBentley wrote:Is there anything else in it worth reading aside from the spoilery stuff

Not really. Here's the text of the article with all spoilers removed:

BRIAN Selway has got a way with words and this week you can see him in action - on daytime television show Countdown.

Mr Selway, 36, of George Street, Honiton was nominated to appear on the show by his sister, Emma Smith, after being a great fan of the show for many years.

The kitchen assistant, who works for Abbeyfield Hill House, Combe Raleigh, said: "I auditioned in Bristol in July on a Wednesday and on the Friday I received an email to say I had got on the show, which was filmed earlier this month."

Although a dab hand at the word games, Mr Selway, who was educated at Honiton Community College, said he came unstuck a few times when it came to the questions involving numbers.

He was presented with a champion's goody bag, which included a number of one-off and limited edition Countdown gifts.

Countdown, hosted by Jeff Stelling and Rachel Riley, is screened on Channel 4 from Monday to Friday at 3.25pm.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:34 pm**

Fascinating

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:24 pm**

Brian is dangerously close to being disqualified from taking any further part in the series.

Not sure what the exact outcome will be as it's a first, and i am pressing for a complete disqualification, but anyone repeating his publicity stunt who qualifies for the finals, will most definitely be barred from any further involvement in the show from here on in.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:43 pm**

Replace the next four episodes with Tom and Jerry repeats.

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:08 am**

...or Champion of Champion repeats

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:12 am**

...or a hastily arranged special between Tom Hargreaves and Jerry Humphreys?

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:36 am**

D Eadie wrote:Brian is dangerously close to being disqualified from taking any further part in the series.

Not sure what the exact outcome will be as it's a first, and i am pressing for a complete disqualification

Is the ultimate decision not yours and yours alone then? Who do you need to press for such action to be agreed upon?

I presume it's the case, BTW, that all Countdown contestants sign a release form which includes a statement that they will not disclose details of their appearance to the press prior to transmission? If so, Brian really doesn't have a leg to stand on. This has certainly been the case on shows that I've done; our local paper wanted to interview me after I was on Weakest Link and I still contacted the show's press office to make sure it was OK even though it was after transmission - I was terrified they might demand the money back (which the contract I'd signed said they could).

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:39 am**

Phil Reynolds wrote:Is the ultimate decision not yours and yours alone then? Who do you need to "press" for such action to be agreed upon?

Charlie.

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:40 am**

D Eadie wrote:Brian is dangerously close to being disqualified from taking any further part in the series.

Not sure what the exact outcome will be as it's a first, and i am pressing for a complete disqualification, but anyone repeating his publicity stunt who qualifies for the finals, will most definitely be barred from any further involvement in the show from here on in.

Presumably contestants are made aware of this when they go on the show

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:24 am**

Phil Reynolds wrote:I presume it's the case, BTW, that all Countdown contestants sign a release form which includes a statement that they will not disclose details of their appearance to the press prior to transmission? If so, Brian really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Somewhat to my surprise, the declaration I signed did not appear to include such a statement. Having had a quick scan through the documentation, I can still see nothing in the guidelines relating to this subject at all. However I was well aware of the need to be careful and that knowledge must have come from somewhere.

To me, it's not hard to imagine a contestant giving details to a local paper on the condition that no detail is published before the transmission date, and then being badly let down. Not saying that's what happened here of course.

Paul Varlaam is confirming his status (in my eyes) as the most fortunate contestant ever. He must be a certainty for the series title now.

c4countdown

Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009

Re: Spoilers For Wednesday October 21st 2009