Spoilers For Wednesday June 30th 2010

[James Robinson]

The halfway point of the year is upon, and with no football for a couple of days, us English can enjoy the cricket, while the Brits can enjoy the tennis.

And for those of you not interested in sport, there's Countdown to keep you entertained.

The champions' chair merry-go-round seems to be in full spin again, as we have our 4th different person in as many days sitting on it, Ben Cooke, an Apterite no less. How long will he stay before he's toast (Rubbish cook pun, I know. )

So, to make up for that, there'll be the brilliant Robinson Recap later on.

[Kirk Bevins]

Ohh Ryan Loughborough is an apterite too. So today and tomorrow will be battle of apterites. Good to see.

[Ray Folwell]

(75-9-8) x 6 -1 = 347

[Josh Hurst]

SWEDGES was a nice alternative in round 4. I say nice, but I don't know what it means. Could easily be something about rape...

[JackHurst]

gaberfuckingdeeeen

[Liam Tiernan]

SWEDGES was a nice alternative in round 4. I say nice, but I don't know what it means. Could easily be something about rape...

It means leaving without paying your bill, so I suppose in some circumstances you could be right.

[Kirk Bevins]

SWEDGES was a nice alternative in round 4. I say nice, but I don't know what it means. Could easily be something about rape...

I had this too. It means a fight or a brawl and can be a verb too.

[James Robinson]

IODISED in Round 3. MARTINET in Round 6, another E would've brought up TERMINATE of course. LOOFAH in Round 11 too.

[Howard Somerset]

(75-9-8) x 6 -1 = 347

I went a completely different way to 347, but only just before the 30 secs was up reaslied that I'd illegally gone via a fraction.

My method was 75 x 4 = 300, using 8/2 to make the 4.

Then splitting the multiplication by using 8 x 6, leaving the 1 to subtract.

Unfortunately that meant having an intermediate result of 37½.

Shame they have that restriction.

[Liam Tiernan]

(75-9-8) x 6 -1 = 347

I went a completely different way to 347, but only just before the 30 secs was up reaslied that I'd illegally gone via a fraction.

My method was 75 x 4 = 300, using 8/2 to make the 4.

Then splitting the multiplication by using 8 x 6, leaving the 1 to subtract.

Unfortunately that meant having an intermediate result of 37½.

Shame they have that restriction.

So what you're saying, basically, is that you used the 8 twice?

[Michael Wallace]

(75-9-8) x 6 -1 = 347

I went a completely different way to 347, but only just before the 30 secs was up reaslied that I'd illegally gone via a fraction.

My method was 75 x 4 = 300, using 8/2 to make the 4.

Then splitting the multiplication by using 8 x 6, leaving the 1 to subtract.

Unfortunately that meant having an intermediate result of 37½.

Shame they have that restriction.

So what you're saying, basically, is that you used the 8 twice?

No, he's saying he did ((75/2)+6)*8 - 1.

[Howard Somerset]

No, he's saying he did ((75/2)+6)*8 - 1.

Thanks Michael

That's exactly what I did.

(Had I used the 8 twice, Liam, I'd not have needed a fraction as an intermediate result)