c4countdown

In response to widespread complaints about yesterday's spoliers, I'll be brief.

Today's match is No.2 Seed vs. No.7 Seed, Chris Davies vs. Steve Wood.

Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade, but hopefully not the last time ever.

Enjoy the show.

James Robinson wrote:In response to widespread complaints about yesterday's spoliers, I'll be brief.

Today's match is No.2 Seed vs. No.7 Seed, Chris Davies vs. Steve Wood.

Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade, but hopefully not the last time ever.

Enjoy the show.

I don't think it was widespread but you certainly pissed off Damo.

Marc Meakin wrote:

James Robinson wrote:In response to widespread complaints about yesterday's spoliers, I'll be brief.

Today's match is No.2 Seed vs. No.7 Seed, Chris Davies vs. Steve Wood.

Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade, but hopefully not the last time ever.

Enjoy the show.

I don't think it was widespread but you certainly pissed off Damo.

It's the critical references to how other people have done that i didn't like, especially when in comparison to James himself, they've outperformed him by a country mile. Sorry, make that a country.

I applaud the use of the word "spoliers".

TUTORS

UNCLAMP also a contestant beater.

Kirk does it again.

Was that Kirk?

He's a changed man.

Well played Chris, that's two of the big guns through so far. Hopefully Innis will make it the hattrick on Monday.

Ian Dent wrote:Was that Kirk?

He's a changed man.

Why? Or do you mean I've changed my shirt?

Edit: You'll see Hulme casually chewing away on his gum behind me ...what a lovely mouth he has.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:Was that Kirk?

He's a changed man.

Why? Or do you mean I've changed my shirt?

Edit: You'll see Hulme casually chewing away on his gum behind me ...what a lovely mouth he has.

I don't know about your shirt, but you changed seats to give the answer.

Alternative To 3rd Numbers:

75 + 6 + 6 = 87, 10 - 8 = 2, 87 x 2 = 174

I had an OK alternative to yesterday's last numbers, but it's a bit late now, so I won't bother.

Kirk Bevins wrote:You'll see Hulme casually chewing away on his gum behind me ...what a lovely mouth he has.

And while I'm looking at the audience...

I think Innis is asleep!

[quote="James Robinson"] Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade/quote]

Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.

Andy Thomson wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade

Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.

Unfortunately, we were encouraged to celebrate the new millennium a year early, so we're all stuck with it now.

Andy Thomson wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade

Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.

Explain how 2010 is in the 2000s

James Robinson wrote:

Andy Thomson wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Dr. Phil's in DC for the last time this decade

Really? So he isn't going to be on at all next year then? 2010 is the last year of this decade.

Explain how 2010 is in the 2000s

Don't think you phrased that right James. You've basically just asked someone to explain how 1910 could possibly be in the 1900s.

Anyway, the answer is because we went from 1 BC to 1 AD, there was no Year Zero.
So decades and millennia and suchlike ought officially to start on xxx1 years, not on the xxx0 years when we celebrate them.

Another alternative to 3rd nmbers:

The target divides by 6 to give 29, so

5 + 6 + 8 + 10 = 29, x 6 = 174.

Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?

In an admittedly hypocritical attempt to try to forestall picky replies, I do appreciate you probably didn't interview them and ask; but you get my idea, I hope

Thanks Matt for saving me the bother.

Richard Adams wrote: Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?

Tbf for the evening recordings the audiences to the best of my knowledge are always older, the audience for my morning recording on Monday was made up of a lot of students as there were a few uni groups in plus a lot of Ryan and Andrew's mates. This thought struck me when I spotted a number of hotties in the audience well under the usual 60+ average.

Richard Adams wrote:Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?

Chris' girlfriend, Innis' sister, that guy who hangs around with Mike Brown...

Matt Morrison wrote:So decades and millennia and suchlike ought officially to start on xxx1 years, not on the xxx0 years when we celebrate them.

Decades can begin whenever you want them to. If you want to talk about the "swinging 197th decade", then obviously you mean the years 1961 to 1970; but if you want to talk about the "swinging sixties", then the years beginning nineteen sixty-something are correct.

AMATORY in round 12

Richard Adams wrote:Could those from here who attended please tell me, other than Apterites, was there anyone - anyone at all - in the audience who hadn't retired?

Not to mention all the (possibly Jeff's aforementioned 'hotties') Media Studies students from Staffordshire uni who came to witness a TV recording in action.

David Roe wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:So decades and millennia and suchlike ought officially to start on xxx1 years, not on the xxx0 years when we celebrate them.

Decades can begin whenever you want them to. If you want to talk about the "swinging 197th decade", then obviously you mean the years 1961 to 1970; but if you want to talk about the "swinging sixties", then the years beginning nineteen sixty-something are correct.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that one of those decades would have 9 years? That's just as odd as calling Thursday - Wednesday a week (which is exactly what we do here in Cambridge...)

Charlie Reams wrote:Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that one of those decades would have 9 years?

Very slightly, but I can live with it - far more easily than I can live with putting 1970 in the sixties. I can see no reason to be constrained 2000 years on by the fact that no year was designated as 0.

What's the problem with us oldies and Countdown? The prog is broadcast in the afternoon when people of working age aren't around, and in my experience aren't interested in it anyway. So it's students and oldies - let's be thankful for this cross generation link - we enjoy at much as you, you know. If it wasn't for us Countdown would have died years ago.

Jim Treloar wrote:What's the problem with us oldies and Countdown? The prog is broadcast in the afternoon when people of working age aren't around, and in my experience aren't interested in it anyway. So it's students and oldies - let's be thankful for this cross generation link - we enjoy at much as you, you know. If it wasn't for us Countdown would have died years ago.

Nothing at all wrong with it, but a recent poll on here showed that most of us are ordinary working people, not students or oldies.

Charlie Reams wrote:Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that one of those decades would have 9 years? That's just as odd as calling Thursday - Wednesday a week (which is exactly what we do here in Cambridge...)

If you follow the same logic, presumably you have to seek out the Babylonian (or whoever) who decided on a seven day week, and go back to wherever he back-dated his novelty. All weeks, for all time, must start on that day. Otherwise there will have been a week sometime that did not have seven days. Heaven forfend.

I may have missed something obvious, but what was Chris's comment "it's a real one this time" after declaring his nine all about in Round 8? It made Jeff laugh - was it related to something we didn't see on the recorded version?

I was in the audience for this game and I also didn't fully understand why he said it, but I think it was possibly because he declared OUTSOAR^ earlier, perhaps? I didn't notice anything when in the audience although that is not to say that something wasn't cut because I'm not the most attentive person.

Ryan Taylor wrote:I was in the audience for this game and I also didn't fully understand why he said it, but I think it was possibly because he declared OUTSOAR^ earlier, perhaps? I didn't notice anything when in the audience although that is not to say that something wasn't cut because I'm not the most attentive person.

Ah, that makes perfect sense, as OUTSOAR^ was in the previous round. Thanks Ryan.

I also got confused by this at the time as he said "9 and it's real this time" implying he had had an invalid 9 previously, which he hadn't. I'd twigged he was talking about OUTSOAR^ but it was quite ambiguous I thought.

I was referring to OUTSOAR

Lesley Hines wrote:Not to mention all the (possibly Jeff's aforementioned 'hotties') Media Studies students from Staffordshire uni who came to witness a TV recording in action.

I can confirm it was these students who constituted my aforementioned 'hotties'.

Jeffrey Burgin wrote: I can confirm it was these students who constituted my aforementioned 'hotties'.

Damn, I thought you meant me.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I also got confused by this at the time as he said "9 and it's real this time" implying he had had an invalid 9 previously, which he hadn't. I'd twigged he was talking about OUTSOAR^ but it was quite ambiguous I thought.

That's what threw me, I think - I was wondering what wasn't real about RANDOMISE! And thanks for confirming my suspicions, Chris - I can rest easy now

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:Not to mention all the (possibly Jeff's aforementioned 'hotties') Media Studies students from Staffordshire uni who came to witness a TV recording in action.

I can confirm it was these students who constituted my aforementioned 'hotties'.

seconded