Spoilers For Friday December 4th 2009

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:26 pm

The week has reached its end. Tom is still champ. If he loses, the quarter-finals will be decided. If he wins, Monday's show will make interesting viewing. I'm sure you all know the rest.

I will add that it seem that the popularity rating of Jon Gaunt seem to have shattered the floor.

Would I be right in suggesting this

One last thing before I go.

THE MIGHTY TERRIERS WILL GIVE LEEDS A HUGE STUFFING TOMORROW!

That'll do.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:27 pm

James Robinson wrote:MIGTHY

I presume this is just to bait Phil, James? I think that's particularly mean in the current climate.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:10 pm

So yes, if Tom loses today, Jacqueline Baker is in the finals. If he wins today, she just has to hang on and hope he loses on Monday with a poor score.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:14 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:So yes, if Tom loses today, Jacqueline Baker is in the finals. If he wins today, she just has to hang on and hope he loses on Monday with a poor score.

So how many points does Tom need, exactly.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:17 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:So yes, if Tom loses today, Jacqueline Baker is in the finals. If he wins today, she just has to hang on and hope he loses on Monday with a poor score.
So how many points does Tom need, exactly.

Tom is currently on 337. Jackie is on 510, a lead of 173. Tom has to win today and hope that his scores for today's & Monday's show add upto 174 points.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:18 pm

James Robinson wrote:Tom has to win today and hope that his scores for today's & Monday's show add upto 174 points.

...or simply to win both today's and Monday's games.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 pm

Howard Somerset wrote:
James Robinson wrote:Tom has to win today and hope that his scores for today's & Monday's show add upto 174 points.
...or simply to win both today's and Monday's games.

Well said, Howard.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:28 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:So yes, if Tom loses today, Jacqueline Baker is in the finals. If he wins today, she just has to hang on and hope he loses on Monday with a poor score.
So how many points does Tom need, exactly.
Tom is currently on 337. Jackie is on 510, a lead of 173. Tom has to win today and hope that his scores for today's & Monday's show add upto 174 points.

Cheers.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 pm

James Robinson wrote: Tom is currently on 337. Jackie is on 510, a lead of 173. Tom has to win today and hope that his scores for today's & Monday's show add upto 174 points.

And if he does lose on Monday then to total 174 over two days he must average 87. To lose with 87 is pretty unlucky so I'd guess he'd need like 100 in today's show and then perhaps lose on Monday with something like 74. Or, as Howard said, just win them both!

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:35 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:And if he does lose on Monday then to total 174 over two days he must average 87. To lose with 87 is pretty unlucky so I'd guess he'd need like 100 in today's show and then perhaps lose on Monday with something like 74. Or, as Howard said, just win them both!

Speculating on something you already know is so difficult isn't it, Kirk?

But predictive mathematics must surely be more infallible than predictive text.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:28 pm

Don't lose your head, Tom.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:28 pm

We've had a debate on pedantry on the board today, inspired by someone who also does proofreading as a job, and then today's contestant confesses to being a compulsive proofreader. What? Another coincidence!

AnnieHall · Post by **AnnieHall** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:38 pm

I sat next to Jan when we had our auditions, she made some really long words and was one of the best there, so she could give Tom a real run for his money today!

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:41 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:We've had a debate on pedantry on the board today, inspired by someone who also does proofreading as a job, and then today's contestant confesses to being a compulsive proofreader. What? Another coincidence!

To be fair there is a bit of pedantry, most days on this thread.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:46 pm

Also SPORTIER

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:50 pm

Aha, I knew the name was familiar.

Also, first time in ages I've been able to watch "live", hurrah!

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:51 pm

James Robinson wrote:I will add that it seem that the popularity rating of Jon Gaunt seem to have shattered the floor.

Would I be right in suggesting this

Hard to tell, given that your sentence doesn't make any sense.

We've not had 1 letter, 1 email or 1 call protesting at the apperances of Jon Gaunt, nor are we expecting any. I don't think we had any last time he was on either. Sorry to disappoint you, but he'll be back in 2010.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:53 pm

Would I be right in thinking this is the first day in a while Susie hasn't be thinking about Jon Corby when she speaks? This is the first time I can remember her not saying "Yes." before she begins her bit.

Shame it was about crumpets if so.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:54 pm

D Eadie wrote:We've not had 1 letter, 1 email or 1 call protesting at the apperances of Jon Gaunt, nor are we expecting any. I don't think we had any last time he was on either.

Did you get any about James's appearances?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:54 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:Would I be right in thinking this is the first day in a while Susie hasn't be thinking about Jon Corby when she speaks? This is the first time I can remember her not saying "Yes." before she begins her bit.

Shame it was about crumpets if so.

lol wat

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:57 pm

D Eadie wrote:
James Robinson wrote:I will add that it seem that the popularity rating of Jon Gaunt seem to have shattered the floor.

Would I be right in suggesting this

Hard to tell, given that your sentence doesn't make any sense.

We've not had 1 letter, 1 email or 1 call protesting at the apperances of Jon Gaunt, nor are we expecting any. I don't think we had any last time he was on either. Sorry to disappoint you, but he'll be back in 2010.

I'm curious if you ever get complaints about any of the guests on the show. (outside of this forum anyway)

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:03 pm

CONFLATE for 8

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:07 pm

After her Catesian jump just then, Mr. Volante can finally stop beating himself up with guilt!

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:08 pm

Well played, Jan, and congratulations to Jacqueline on reaching the quarter finals.

AnnieHall · Post by **AnnieHall** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:08 pm

Told you Jan was good- she could be a female octochamp for next series!

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:09 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:Well played, Jan, and congratulations to Jacqueline on reaching the quarter finals.

Oh, that means we'll get to meet Jacqueline. Nice

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:10 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:After her Catesian jump just then, Mr. Volante can finally stop beating himself up with guilt!

Derek, your posts are becoming increasingly leftfield and opaque (at least to me, anyway). What are you on about? Are you on drugs or something (and if so, can I have some)?

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:11 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:Well played, Jan, and congratulations to Jacqueline on reaching the quarter finals.
Oh, that means we'll get to meet Jacqueline. Nice

I bet your looking forward to that.
May I suggest that you wear a comedy wig to mark the occasion.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:15 pm

JimBentley wrote:Aha, I knew the name was familiar.

Also, first time in ages I've been able to watch "live", hurrah!

I notice she played this Classic Game, which is really just masochism...

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:20 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:CONFLATE for 8

There was no T. Want coffee instead?

John Bosley · Post by **John Bosley** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:27 pm

D Eadie wrote:...... We've not had 1 letter, 1 email or 1 call protesting at the apperances of Jon Gaunt, nor are we expecting any. I don't think we had any last time he was on either. Sorry to disappoint you, but he'll be back in 2010.

Thank you, sir. I now feel rather put down. Can no notice be taken of comments on this forum? He is the most unpleasant person I have ever seen in dictionary corner and I cannot understand why he is to be invited back.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:31 pm

John Bosley wrote: He is the most unpleasant person I have ever seen in dictionary corner and I cannot understand why he is to be invited back.

Why is he unpleasant? He was stating his views on car drivers, on mobile phones etc etc. I don't agree with him half the time but if they're his views, then fair enough. I think we should get Nick Griffin on.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:56 pm

John Bosley wrote:
D Eadie wrote:...... We've not had 1 letter, 1 email or 1 call protesting at the apperances of Jon Gaunt, nor are we expecting any. I don't think we had any last time he was on either. Sorry to disappoint you, but he'll be back in 2010.

Thank you, sir. I now feel rather put down. Can no notice be taken of comments on this forum? He is the most unpleasant person I have ever seen in dictionary corner and I cannot understand why he is to be invited back.

We do take notice of comments on this forum, and nobody is trying to put anybody down.
We can't possibly make everybody happy. Lesley Garrett got it in the neck from certain quarters last time. Sue Sanders clearly expresses her disliking of Jeff Stelling, others have had a pop at Rachel. Let's get it into perspective. If you can find another show on British TV where the Series Producer and Associate Producers interact with some of the viewers, virtually on a daily basis all year round, then i'll eat my hat, and i don't even have one. But just because we post and read here, it doesn't mean we consider the opinions of those who post here as gospel, as some kind of authority on all things Countdown, because we don't and never will. We might read your posts, we sometimes on occasion, read something quite sensible and helpful, but we're not going to be told how to make the show.

Sometimes, a phone goes at 4.10, and its a viewer saying we've let a contestant use a number twice, illegally. We know they are wrong, yet we still listen, check the DVD if necessary, and thank them for their call. How do we know they are wrong? Because they're the only person ringing. When 200 people ring and block the switchboards, we know they are right.

Analogy over.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:23 pm

I've realised that giving negative comments on DC guests might be a bad idea for forumites who intend to go on the show in the future. If you do it a lot of the time, it could be a real possibility that you end up being in the studio with a DC guest you have slagged off, and feeling really awkward the whole time.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:55 pm

D Eadie wrote:it doesn't mean we consider the opinions of those who post here as gospel, as some kind of authority on all things Countdown

Now I feel put down.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:19 pm

JackHurst wrote:I've realised that giving negative comments on DC guests might be a bad idea for forumites who intend to go on the show in the future. If you do it a lot of the time, it could be a real possibility that you end up being in the studio with a DC guest you have slagged off, and feeling really awkward the whole time.

Haha that would be so funny!

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:01 pm

D Eadie wrote:
James Robinson wrote:I will add that it seem that the popularity rating of Jon Gaunt seem to have shattered the floor.

Would I be right in suggesting this

Hard to tell, given that your sentence doesn't make any sense.

We've not had 1 letter, 1 email or 1 call protesting at the apperances of Jon Gaunt, nor are we expecting any. I don't think we had any last time he was on either. Sorry to disappoint you, but he'll be back in 2010.

I'm not disappointed at all, Damian. I was just pointing out that compared to certain other guests, Jon Gaunt hasn't been the most liked of DC guests, which might be slightly understandable, considering he is a journalist/columnist/however you see it.

P.S. In regards to my earlier quote, I was trying to say that if guests in DC are well received, they sort of raise the roof or break the ceiling, a sort of heavenly guest, whereas if they shatter the floor, they're more a sort of hellish guest.

I'm pretty sure you don't agree with me though.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:03 pm

Alternative To 1st Numbers:

50 x 10 = 500, 8 + 1 = 9, 9 x 25 = 225, 500 + 225 = 725, 725 - 2 = 723

Alternative To 3rd Numbers:

7 + 6 = 13, 13 x 8 = 104, 104 + 100 - 6 - 3 = 195

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:35 pm

JimBentley wrote:Derek, your posts are becoming increasingly leftfield and opaque (at least to me, anyway). What are you on about? Are you on drugs or something (and if so, can I have some)?

To be fair, quite a few posts on here are confusing, but feel free to PM me if there are any of mine you don't understand - and we can sort out the "drugs" at the same time!

Marc Meakin wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:Well played, Jan, and congratulations to Jacqueline on reaching the quarter finals.
Oh, that means we'll get to meet Jacqueline. Nice
I bet your looking forward to that.
May I suggest that you wear a comedy wig to mark the occasion.

Nice comeback

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:02 pm

James Robinson wrote:Jon Gaunt hasn't been the most liked of DC guests

Based on what, 6 or 7 posts on here?
We had a peak audience of 1.3million yesterday. Get real.

Jim Treloar · Post by **Jim Treloar** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:23 pm

Now that everyone knows who the quarter finalists will be, and forum-ites seem pleased that we'll see Jacqueline again, I just wanted to say that I sat beside her in the audience during the game prior to her quarter final, and she is is a smashing lady.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:11 pm

D Eadie wrote:
James Robinson wrote:Jon Gaunt hasn't been the most liked of DC guests
Based on what, 6 or 7 posts on here?
We had a peak audience of 1.3million yesterday. Get real.

OK, I wasn't trying to start a war or anything. I do read his column in The Sun at times, and more often than not it isn't too bad. I just think that some people don't take to his ways of displaying his opinions very well.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 am

It's worth remembering that although we have a VERY wide range of ages on here, we are not a fair representation of the Countdown audience. Retired people are under-represented, and housewives are barely represented at all. Our grandparents have a very different attitude to life to us, some are a lot less tolerant of various minorities, and because they see the olden days as a golden age, many would cheer on the views of someone like Jon Gaunt. We'd better just grin and bear him for their sake, and because of the wide range of guests, enjoy the fact that we get people that appeal to our tastes as well.

Rosemary Roberts · Post by **Rosemary Roberts** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:38 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:It's worth remembering that although we have a VERY wide range of ages on here, we are not a fair representation of the Countdown audience. Retired people are under-represented, and housewives are barely represented at all. Our grandparents have a very different attitude to life to us, some are a lot less tolerant of various minorities, and because they see the olden days as a golden age, many would cheer on the views of someone like Jon Gaunt. We'd better just grin and bear him for their sake, and because of the wide range of guests, enjoy the fact that we get people that appeal to our tastes as well.

Speaking as a grandparent and housewife (who reads neither the Sun nor the Daily Mail) I found Jon Gaunt's contributions disappointing not so much because of their content - all of which we have heard many times before, not only from him - but because they were repetitive and his views simplistic. Which makes him just very slightly preferable to the people who hunt up a list of funny sayings on the Internet and offer them up as original.

I expect to be well recompensed over the next two weeks.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:43 pm

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Speaking as a grandparent and housewife (who reads neither the Sun nor the Daily Mail) I found Jon Gaunt's contributions disappointing not so much because of their content - all of which we have heard many times before, not only from him - but because they were repetitive and his views simplistic. Which makes him just very slightly preferable to the people who hunt up a list of funny sayings on the Internet and offer them up as original.

I expect to be well recompensed over the next two weeks.

Thank you for you response, Rosemary. This is the reason I was very careful to make clear I wasn't including ALL of the older generation as any kind of generalization. The fact that you are older and also not that keen on his simplistic views, perhaps justifies my comment even more that we are under-representative of the scope of Countdown viewers as a whole though.

Edit: Another point is that the way you say something can often be almost as important as what you actually say. Right-wing journalists such a Garry Bushell and Richard Littlejohn use a lot of humour in their columns, which can inadvertently make their strong views easier to swallow. Others, such as Peter Hitchens write in much more depth and don't have the same problem of seeing too simplistic as Jon Gaunt. That would be even worse for a light-hearted show though. Interestingly, many of these famous right wingers were actually socialists as youths.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:12 pm

Rosemary Roberts wrote:
I expect to be well recompensed over the next two weeks.

Good expectations as we have Dr Phil Hammond, who is always awesome, followed by Sir Rory Mcgrath (well not Sir but close enough) who tells some good anecdotes.

John Bosley · Post by **John Bosley** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:04 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:It's worth remembering that although we have a VERY wide range of ages on here, we are not a fair representation of the Countdown audience. Retired people are under-represented, and housewives are barely represented at all. Our grandparents have a very different attitude to life to us, some are a lot less tolerant of various minorities, and because they see the olden days as a golden age, many would cheer on the views of someone like Jon Gaunt. We'd better just grin and bear him for their sake, and because of the wide range of guests, enjoy the fact that we get people that appeal to our tastes as well.

A few rather annoying generalisations there, Derek. I am a grandparent, retired and 72 and I did not like being preached at (by JG) in such a self satisfied way. Both my wife and I found it almost impossible to watch Countdown last week - and it is one of our favourites.

Rosemary Roberts · Post by **Rosemary Roberts** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:20 pm

John Bosley wrote:A few rather annoying generalisations there, Derek. I am a grandparent, retired and 72 and I did not like being preached at (by JG) in such a self satisfied way. Both my wife and I found it almost impossible to watch Countdown last week - and it is one of our favourites.

It would take more than an obnoxious DC guest to stop me watching Countdown: I would sit through anybody, even Nick Griffin or Adolf himself. But I do rather hope Damian doesn't ever think of hiring retired archbishops.

Andy Wilson · Post by **Andy Wilson** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:53 pm

I suppose it's a given that we're going to discuss the guests in these threads and given the nature of the board, that people's reviews are going to be blunt and unforgiving.

After chuckling at the coincidence of David Lloyd's John of Gaunt story last week and Jon Gaunt being this weeks guest, it didn't take too long before i was sick of him. In fairness, he repeated himself and wasn't really funny at all even though it seemed he thought he might be. I've never read his column/head his show so i'm not aware of his reputation but i didn't find him entertaining in the least and although i agreed with the sentiment, by Friday's show it was like a broken record and i was fairly fed up of him shouting (which is no doubt why his hearing has deteriorated hence he needs a phone with a loud ring and earpiece). Should i make it onto the show in 2010 i'll look forward to meeting him!

I'm glad he pointed this out to me though and can't believe it's true!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... xting.html