c4countdown

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.

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

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

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...

gaberfuckingdeeeen

Josh Hurst wrote: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.

Josh Hurst wrote: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.

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

Ray Folwell wrote:(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.

Howard Somerset wrote:

Ray Folwell wrote:(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?

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Howard Somerset wrote:

Ray Folwell wrote:(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.

Michael Wallace wrote: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)