Official Series 61 Finals Spoilers
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:08 am
There were some good games and some good rounds. The total number of games was 7. The winner was [redacted].
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
So that rules out at least three players then.Matthew Green wrote:Somebody who practises a lot on apterous beat someone else who also practises a lot on apterous. They both scored lots of points for spotting words they learnt mainly on apterous and then in the end one of them happened to score slightly more points than the other and won.
Well yes, it does.Douglas Wilson wrote:So that rules out at least three players then.
Seriously dude, give it a rest.Derek Hazell wrote:At one point during the finals, filming was delayed as one of the finalists appeared to be missing. So Jeff sent his dad, who had turned up to watch, out to look for him.
A few minutes later Jeff's dad reappeared.
"Well?", said Jeff.
Jeff's dad looked up sheepishly, and gave his reply . . . "He's in his car, son".
I've been told off by the boss. Does that mean I've made it?Charlie Reams wrote:Seriously dude, give it a rest.
Your posts are occasionally amusing and I don't doubt that you're a nice guy, but given that approximately 95% of everything you post is a joke (I use the term loosely), I think you could afford to trade quantity for quality somewhat.Derek Hazell wrote:My apologies for thinking this was a spoof thread.
Okay, but you seem to have self-destructive tendencies. You have started a successful forum, but then you seem compelled to keep trying to put people off of posting on it. It has taken you a long time to get round to me on your hitlist considering I am a regular, but I knew the time had to come eventually. Perhaps it's because we never got around to meeting at the finals this week, although you now know who I am, so the mystery has been ruined.Charlie Reams wrote:Your posts are occasionally amusing, but given that approximately 95% of everything you post is a joke of some description, I think you could afford to trade quantity for quality somewhat.Derek Hazell wrote:My apologies for thinking this was a spoof thread.
Lol Matthew. You've got a lot of guts, but it put a smile back on my face anyway.Matthew Green wrote:Also, between filming, there was a Dictionary Corner contest between Susie and Anne Widdicombe to see who could do the best sketch of a Mancunian suburb.
Susie did a charcoal depiction of Moss Side, Anne drew Hulme.
I run this place because I enjoy it and for the most part I like reading people's contributions, I would rather have a small number of good posts than a large number of bad ones. When I say I don't like some particular posts, that's just me talking as a user, I'm not going to use my Magic Powers to restrain your apparently insatiable desire to be funny.Derek Hazell wrote:Okay, but you seem to have self-destructive tendencies. You have started a successful forum, but then you seem compelled to keep trying to put people off of posting on it.
I don't really get your point here, although the fact you quoted the pre-edited version of my post suggests that it might be my fault for being unclear originally. You're not "unwelcome" here, I just think you're not very funny. If you disagree then knock yourself out, it's easy enough for me to ignore your posts, but since some of them are good I thought I'd try suggesting (with all my usual tact and politeness) that you cut down a bit. But that's just me. No doubt someone will start a poll and all the people who hate me but for some reason are addicted to posting on my forum will come out to vote in favour of even more Derek Hazell jokes.Derek Hazell wrote:Not really surpising in hindsight now though that I felt trepidation about making an effort to introduce myself. If you don't welcome certain people on the forum, then it's best to just come straight out and say so, rather than dropping these kind of unnecessarily mean-spirited digs.
I don't follow the wiki too closely any more, but thanks.Derek Hazell wrote:In addition, I have been quietly making numerous worthy additions to your Wiki.
Yes, I can see that viewpoint, although I don't share it where the forum is concerned. This is the best forum I have found so far on the Internet, so I would rather see a lot of posts on here, whatever their quality. You can soon get used to who you find funny or interesting, and nobody has to read everything. I don't have any insatiable desires, but if I suddenly think of something which I think is funny then I will post it. Ironically the post you picked me up on is the only "joke" I can remember actually pre-planning and not making spontaneously or after a few moments thought.Charlie Reams wrote:I run this place because I enjoy it and for the most part I like reading people's contributions, I would rather have a small number of good posts than a large number of bad ones. When I say I don't like some particular posts, that's just me talking as a user, I'm not going to use my Magic Powers to restrain your apparently insatiable desire to be funny.
Yes, I was on the site just after you posted, so I did see the original version. The reconsidered version is fairer, and even mildly amusing, so I thank you for that at least. The feeling is mutual though about most of your posts not being funny. It's just I have never felt the need to announce this in front of everyone else. We obviously have different senses of humour, but equally you post other things which are enjoyable.Charlie Reams wrote:I don't really get your point here, although the fact you quoted the pre-edited version of my post suggests that it might be my fault for being unclear originally. You're not "unwelcome" here, I just think you're not very funny. If you disagree then knock yourself out, it's easy enough for me to ignore your posts, but since some of them are good I thought I'd try suggesting (with all my usual tact and politeness) that you cut down a bit.
It's not going to happen. Anyone who defended me would just be putting themselves in the firing line. Nobody's going to do that when you run Apterous, as that is more important to most members than virtually anything else on the net, including the forum. Plus, you're astute enough to know that by suggesting something, you are double-bluffing people into not doing it.Charlie Reams wrote:But that's just me. No doubt someone will start a poll and all the people who hate me but for some reason are addicted to posting on my forum will come out to vote in favour of even more Derek Hazell jokes.
Fuck me, Matthew, so it was you who stole my jokebook.Matthew Green wrote:Also, between filming, there was a Dictionary Corner contest between Susie and Anne Widdicombe to see who could do the best sketch of a Mancunian suburb.
Susie did a charcoal depiction of Moss Side, Anne drew Hulme.
Hey, don't worry Derek it's not like you've let the cat out of the bag and told everyone that Jaqueline Baker won the final on a 5th crucial conundrum (oops).Derek Hazell wrote:I've been told off by the boss. Does that mean I've made it?Charlie Reams wrote:Seriously dude, give it a rest.
My apologies for thinking this was a spoof thread.
Haha Damian, you're a cheeky man! I was actually trying to back you up when I said that you have to deal with that lot of executives when you want to do anything different with the show, because people were worrying you about specials. I know you're in charge of the show itself, but until Countdown gets its own channel (Charlie?) you still have to bang your head against a brick wall sometimes.D Eadie wrote:All's fair in love and warp.
Anyway Derek, what's this with you adding to the Countdown Wiki?
You do realise that those of us at ITV Yorkshire and C4, who are stilll waiting for you to tell us what's happening with the 2010 specials, will feel slightly marginalised?
Derek Hazell wrote: Was nice to see you yesterday - maybe we'll say hello next time.
Right, so give me some credit. I've been running this place, with capable help, for a good while now and I know what I'm doing. I don't miss the contributions of a single person that was scared off by a bit of robust debate, from Zef to Rob Thomas, more than I'd miss the ability to have those debates. If you call that self-destructive then I think you're confused about what I want to preserve.Derek Hazell wrote:This is the best forum I have found so far on the Internet
I think we may have stumbled upon the root of the problem...Derek Hazell wrote:the only "joke" I can remember actually pre-planning and not making spontaneously or after a few moments thought
You seem to be implying that I would wield my Aptopowers against anyone who disagreed with me on here. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that, but I can't figure out what you're talking about otherwise.Derek Hazell wrote:Anyone who defended me would just be putting themselves in the firing line. Nobody's going to do that when you run Apterous, as that is more important to most members than virtually anything else on the net, including the forum.
Obviously you've not met Richard Brittain.Derek Hazell wrote:Plus, you're astute enough to know that by suggesting something, you are double-bluffing people into not doing it.
*puzzled look*Derek Hazell wrote:this big falling-out.
Yeah, you were pretty busy at the time. Well; busy anyway. I was just overwhelmed by the other two people who I had already met - Susie and Rory.D Eadie wrote:Oohh, i didn't realise you had seen me? I take it you were at the finals. Hard for me to say hello when i have no idea who you are or what you look like.Derek Hazell wrote: Was nice to see you yesterday - maybe we'll say hello next time.
No, I just looked like that because I had my legs spread wide - waiting for Charlie to kick me in the balls!D Eadie wrote:You're not the letter 'V' by any chance?
Welcome to my world.Charlie Reams wrote: Right, so give me some credit. I've been running this place, with capable help, for a good while now and I know what I'm doing.
How are you now managing to say things I agree with, whilst we are still arguing? Having said that©JR, I do miss some of the people that have left.Charlie Reams wrote:I don't miss the contributions of a single person that was scared off by a bit of robust debate, from Zef to Rob Thomas, more than I'd miss the ability to have those debates. If you call that self-destructive then I think you're confused about what I want to preserve.
That actually did make me laugh...Charlie Reams wrote:I think we may have stumbled upon the root of the problem...Derek Hazell wrote:the only "joke" I can remember actually pre-planning and not making spontaneously or after a few moments thought
No, I didn't mean to imply that you would take any action against them, as I know you don't agree with censorship. But, there are a lot of people who like to stay "in" with someone who runs their favourite site, and I wouldn't know whether they all know you well enough to realise that.Charlie Reams wrote:You seem to be implying that I would wield my Aptopowers against anyone who disagreed with me on here. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that, but I can't figure out what you're talking about otherwise.
That's a good point, but you have a friendly rivalry, or a love-hate relationship with him, in the same way that you do with Gevin. It works because they make great points in amongst their wind-ups and bizarre tangents.Charlie Reams wrote:Obviously you've not met Richard Brittain.
Well, I don't know. But I'm just realising that after the initial distress of your first reply, I have actually enjoyed this debate more than whatever my last couple of posts were.Charlie Reams wrote:*puzzled look*Derek Hazell wrote:this big falling-out.
No-one has had to spend more time with Derek Hazell over the last couple of days than me, so you can imagine...I'm at absolute bloody breaking point However, from little acorns, great oaks grow - so surely by now it's become the people's forum?Charlie Reams wrote: No doubt someone will start a poll and all the people who hate me but for some reason are addicted to posting on my forum will come out to vote in favour of even more Derek Hazell jokes.
I didn't realise you were such a Hazell nut.Sue Sanders wrote:However, from little acorns, great oaks grow
Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?
Apparently my nickname at my local is 'Camp David' - I'd be offended if I wasn't so fucking amused.Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?
I am sure Derek can hold his own.Sue Sanders wrote:Christ no!!!!!! HAVE YOU MET DEREK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But a brownie point surely for him sticking up for himself?
It's the forum that's the Great Oak, as well you know, so don't you go making really crap Hazellesque jokes too. I've had to put up with Derek in my car for enough hours this week to leave me feeling like I've just got back from 'Nam. Whilst generally, the technique is just to blank him out - scan read, move on... he was in my car, Charlie. In my friggin' car!!!!!! I admit as a project, I've failed (though I did confiscate the wig) and I bow out leaving him needing a lot more work but I've taken the bullets for the team in the last 72 hours so you didn't have to!Charlie Reams wrote:I didn't realise you were such a Hazell nut.Sue Sanders wrote:However, from little acorns, great oaks grow
Consider this my resignation from the Internet.
Are you my long lost twin?Derek Hazell wrote:Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?
I have done thisSue Sanders wrote: do you tell the time by buying something from a shop and checking the time on the till receipt?
I have a mental image of a cross between Colin Hunt and Selwyn Froggit.Sue Sanders wrote:Marc,
Do you like to meet new people wearing a comedy wig, are your coat pockets stuffed full of the contents of an old man's shed, if you've forgotten your watch - which is always - do you tell the time by buying something from a shop and checking the time on the till receipt? If so, yes you are Derek's twin. But that will also mean that you mean well, (and not in the way that Jason thinks Damian 'means well'), are essentially harmless, are kind to your nan, and actually do edit yourself before posting really bad jokes.
I've been active on this forum and played Apterous for about three months, during which time things haven't always seemed particularly rosy. But I persisted and now I've settled at a happy level, and I think this is the normal process in any new environment. It just takes a bit of time to get a feel for the general atmosphere of the forum and to pick up on the quirks and peculiarities of the individuals who use it and of those who very kindly keep it running.Derek Hazell wrote:Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?
Man, now that sounds interesting! Ought we move this to Off Topic?Alec Rivers wrote:I feel I have actually benefited from what one might call 'tough love'
I wouldn't go that far! But I'm glad you take the feedback positively. Almost everything comes across meaner in text, and I'm usually too lazy/apathetic to tone done my phrasing accordingly.Alec Rivers wrote:Nowadays I have a lot of respect for Charlie
Can I have my Mars bar back yet?Lesley Hines wrote:Am I in danger of losing my innocent label yet?
I'd say you are, if you're insinuating that I want to give Charlie countersunk turds.Lesley Hines wrote:Man, now that sounds interesting! Ought we move this to Off Topic?Alec Rivers wrote:I feel I have actually benefited from what one might call 'tough love'
Am I in danger of losing my innocent label yet?
Oh no, we're not going to start bonding now are we? It was so much more fun when we were wary of each other.Charlie Reams wrote:I have done thisSue Sanders wrote: do you tell the time by buying something from a shop and checking the time on the till receipt?
Interesting post you quoted there Alec to imagine that I was just having a go at Charlie for the fun of it. If I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it months ago. The mirror comment is interesting though.Alec Rivers wrote:I've been active on this forum and played Apterous for about three months [...] I think he deserves better than to be berated for expressing his opinion. But that, in turn, is just mine.Derek Hazell wrote:Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.
I said nothing of the sort, but never mind.Derek Hazell wrote:... to imagine that I was just having a go at Charlie for the fun of it.
Bloody hell. A forum isn't a tool for discovering your shortcomings. How do you decide whose opinion you're using to highlight which shortcomings on any given day? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.Alec Rivers wrote: I have discovered that such comments often have the effect of holding up a mirror to myself, with the result that any disappointing thoughts prove to have their roots in me and my own shortcomings, not in the responders themselves.
It encourages introspection, and I have the final say. Don't worry, I don't let others shape my self-image.Sue Sanders wrote:Bloody hell. A forum isn't a tool for discovering your shortcomings. How do you decide whose opinion you're using to highlight which shortcomings on any given day? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.Alec Rivers wrote: I have discovered that such comments often have the effect of holding up a mirror to myself, with the result that any disappointing thoughts prove to have their roots in me and my own shortcomings, not in the responders themselves.
No, they were a finalist short and so James Robinson stepped in and made an incredible comeback appearance on his 4th attempt.Phil Makepeace wrote:Did Amey Deshpande win then?
Derek Hazell wrote:At one point during the finals, filming was delayed as one of the finalists appeared to be missing. So Jeff sent his dad, who had turned up to watch, out to look for him.
A few minutes later Jeff's dad reappeared.
"Well?", said Jeff.
Jeff's dad looked up sheepishly, and gave his reply . . . "He's in his car, son".
As bad puns go, you have to admit...they're pretty wry, an' taylor madeMattson Greensen wrote:Also, between filming, there was a Dictionary Corner contest between Susie and Anne Widdicombe to see who could do the best sketch of a Mancunian suburb.
Susie did a charcoal depiction of Moss Side, Anne drew Hulme.
Yeah, I even managed to surprise myself with all those fantastic words I came up with!Jeffrey Burgin wrote:No, they were a finalist short and so James Robinson stepped in and made an incredible comeback appearance on his 4th attempt.Phil Makepeace wrote:Did Amey Deshpande win then?
Haha, nice one Sue!Sue Sanders wrote:As bad puns go, you have to admit...they're pretty wry, an' taylor made
(yep -too slow, I know)
I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.D Eadie wrote: Edit -Howard pointed out to me that it had gone missing. We conducted a thorough search and found it later that evening, dressed in a toga, attempting to disguise itself as a number 5.
Surely if they were that passionate they'd make an X? scissors lolJackHurst wrote:I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.D Eadie wrote: Edit -Howard pointed out to me that it had gone missing. We conducted a thorough search and found it later that evening, dressed in a toga, attempting to disguise itself as a number 5.
ITYM a »Dinos Sfyris wrote:Surely if they were that passionate they'd make an X?JackHurst wrote:I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.
You're all wrong, because as any lexicosexologist knows, the male V's penis is on its point and the female V has two vaginas, one on the end of each open arm. So you'd need two male Vs and a female V to satisfy the entry requirements. Unless both the Vs were lesbians, I doubt the veracity of Jack's story.Phil Reynolds wrote:ITYM a »Dinos Sfyris wrote:Surely if they were that passionate they'd make an X?JackHurst wrote:I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.