Page 1 of 1
รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:14 am
by Jon Corby
รק๏เlєгร เภ ђєгє ๓๏tђєгl๏ยєгร
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:48 pm
by James Robinson
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Brian is going for win No.7 today. He seems to have got over that midway blip last week, so hopefully I'll be doing his octochamp recap tomorrow.
Interesting having Jane Moore in DC this week. She's the 3rd Sun/News of the World journalist in DC since Jeff & Rachel's arrival and the previous 2, Jon Gaunt & Ian Hyland, didn't get universal approval, shall we say. It'd be interesting to see what everyone else thinks of her as the week goes on.
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:09 pm
by Matt Morrison
Jon Corby wrote:รק๏เlєгร เภ ђєгє ๓๏tђєгl๏ยєгร
James Robinson wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world
This seems to be some sort of casual racism. Please advise.
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:11 pm
by Charlie Reams
Matt Morrison wrote:Jon Corby wrote:รק๏เlєгร เภ ђєгє ๓๏tђєгl๏ยєгร
James Robinson wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world
This seems to be some sort of casual racism. Please advise.
What do you expect from the sort of person who would write "cunt" on a family forum?
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:34 pm
by Ralph Gillions
James Robinson wrote: It'd be interesting to see what everyone else thinks of her as the week goes on.
I'm not a fan.
She comes across (to me) as hard and not a warm person (reflected in her writing too.)
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:37 pm
by Mark Kudlowski
1st numbers (easier)
(50 + 3 + 7 ) x 9
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:40 pm
by Helen James
There's one good thing about being a maths 'o' level failure - I always see the easy way to get the numbers:
Round 5
50 + 4 = 54 times 7 + 3 = 10 (answer 540)
Why did they make such a meal of it??
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:56 pm
by Mark Kudlowski
2nd numbers (had TV off for phone call, so correct me if it had been done)
((6 + 7) x 8) + 75
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:08 pm
by Helen James
easier way for last numbers game:
50 + 5 times 6 x 3 (55 x 18) = 990 - 7
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:13 pm
by Kirk Bevins
My dad beat me and DC in round 2 with a nine: BLUENOSED. Quality spot.
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:15 pm
by Matthew Green
Matt Morrison wrote:Jon Corby wrote:รק๏เlєгร เภ ђєгє ๓๏tђєгl๏ยєгร
James Robinson wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world
This seems to be some sort of casual racism. Please advise.
He's also from West Yorkshire which means that statistically he's 92% likely to vote BNP.
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:16 pm
by Liam Tiernan
Helen James wrote:easier way for last numbers game:
50 + 5 times 6 x 3 (55 x 18) = 990 - 7
That's twice today I've been happy with a solution ( I got this one the same way as Rachel) only for you to point a much simpler way. Maybe playing too much Apterous means we tend to overcomplicate things sometimes?
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:33 pm
by Ben Hunter
I thought Jane Moore was Jan Moir until I saw her name in the credits.
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:04 pm
by Joyce Phillips
Jane Moore seems way too pleased with herself. Penny Smith was my favourite in a long time.
Re: รק๏เlєгร tยєร๔คא ๏ςt๏๒єг 27
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:11 pm
by Clive Brooker
Helen James wrote:There's one good thing about being a maths 'o' level failure - I always see the easy way to get the numbers:
Round 5
50 + 4 = 54 times 7 + 3 = 10 (answer 540)
Why did they make such a meal of it??
The charm of 2 large is that it gives a lot of ways to begin, and often they don't all work. You can use just one of the large numbers. You can use the 2 in tandem, as Brian did. You can combine them to give another large number. Occasionally it helps to divide one into the other.
This was a particularly dull example because most of the natural ways of starting led to a simple solution. Solutions based on 50*10, 50*9, 100*9, 150*4, 50*9+100, 100*5+50 all work quite easily. I assume Brian simply found that the first method he tried worked, and left it there. The challenger must have been paralysed by nerves.
Judging by your solution to R14, which I think was far from obvious (code for I didn't get it), you must be pretty good at the numbers game.
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:43 pm
by James Robinson
Matthew Green wrote:Matt Morrison wrote:Jon Corby wrote:รק๏เlєгร เภ ђєгє ๓๏tђєгl๏ยєгร
James Robinson wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world
This seems to be some sort of casual racism. Please advise.
He's also from West Yorkshire which means that statistically he's 92% likely to vote BNP.
Fortunately, I'm 92 + 8% likely to never ever vote for the BNP.
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:50 pm
by Jon Corby
James Robinson wrote:Matthew Green wrote:He's also from West Yorkshire which means that statistically he's 92% likely to vote BNP.
Fortunately, I'm 92 + 8% likely to never ever vote for the BNP.
Only 99.36%? Shame on you.
Re: Spoilers For Tuesday October 27th 2009
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:22 pm
by Charlie Reams
Jon Corby wrote:James Robinson wrote:Matthew Green wrote:He's also from West Yorkshire which means that statistically he's 92% likely to vote BNP.
Fortunately, I'm 92 + 8% likely to never ever vote for the BNP.
Only 99.36%? Shame on you.
92 + 8% is 99.36, but maybe it was out of 99.36. You racist.