Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:55 pm
Did Carol really just make 3 by doing 4-(75-50)/25 ?
. But she must have missed the basic 75/25 to give you the 3!c4countdown
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Page 1 of 1
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:56 pm
Probably just trying to show off by using all the numbers . But she must have missed the basic 75/25 to give you the 3!
. But she must have missed the basic 75/25 to give you the 3!Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:58 pm
Yeah, I was wondering that...
Also - what's the verdict on PAROLES? It's a mass noun, but can also be a verb, but there are various criteria that I don't really understand, so thought I'd ask you lot.
Also - what's the verdict on PAROLES? It's a mass noun, but can also be a verb, but there are various criteria that I don't really understand, so thought I'd ask you lot.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:58 pm
Actually, no.Charlie Reams wrote:Did Carol really just make 3 by doing 4-(75-50)/25 ?
(She did it by (50/(75-25))
)Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:59 pm
Rd 2. AMNIOTES plus L =? Is it SEMITONAL?
Plus Carol could have just said 75/25 = 3 for the 2nd numbers game.
Plus Carol could have just said 75/25 = 3 for the 2nd numbers game.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:14 pm
It's definitely fine, as are PAROLED and PAROLING.Michael Wallace wrote:Also - what's the verdict on PAROLES? It's a mass noun, but can also be a verb, but there are various criteria that I don't really understand, so thought I'd ask you lot.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:58 pm
I did a Jono in round 10. As the target is near 300, I did:
75x100 = 7500. 7500-50 = 7450. 7450/25 = 298. 298-4-3 = 291.
I'd have looked a right pillock if the other guy had said 100-(75/25)=97. 97x3= 291.
75x100 = 7500. 7500-50 = 7450. 7450/25 = 298. 298-4-3 = 291.
I'd have looked a right pillock if the other guy had said 100-(75/25)=97. 97x3= 291.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:15 pm
Hiyo,
Is it just me or was that game a touch on the dodgy side.
R2 he declares "6 not written down", Des then went to Pat who presumably had hers written down, Peter goes "Lemons as well". Was a bit taken on trust that. With at least five 8's available (I had MANLIEST and AILMENTS) it was hardly a top quality round but it did have an impact on the outcome of the game.
Also R14 she declares "160 and I've just seen how to do it". A little push with "can you do 163" or something like that might have got her the 10 points that would have levelled the game after her conundrum spot.
Worth giving her another go do we think?
DC
Is it just me or was that game a touch on the dodgy side.
R2 he declares "6 not written down", Des then went to Pat who presumably had hers written down, Peter goes "Lemons as well". Was a bit taken on trust that. With at least five 8's available (I had MANLIEST and AILMENTS) it was hardly a top quality round but it did have an impact on the outcome of the game.
Also R14 she declares "160 and I've just seen how to do it". A little push with "can you do 163" or something like that might have got her the 10 points that would have levelled the game after her conundrum spot.
Worth giving her another go do we think?
DC
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:08 pm
It seemed as she saw 163 just out of time but she could have easily said "163 not written down" so I guess fair play to her. I'm not sure what you mean with "a little push". Once she's declared 160, that's it - there's no changing your declaration - like RETAKEN she declared as 8. Had she have said "I've got an 8, er I mean 7" I think they'll have given it her as she corrected straight away. Going from "I have 160 -- oh I've just seen it now" implies that she hadn't made a mistake and had seen it out of time.
I don't think this warrants another go.
I don't think this warrants another go.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:24 pm
Agreed, and she was rubbish anyway.Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't think this warrants another go.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:27 pm
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.Charlie Reams wrote:Agreed, and she was rubbish anyway.Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't think this warrants another go.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:44 pm
My thoughts too. I think it'd open the floodgates a bit if she was given another go.Michael Wallace wrote:Yeah, that's what I was thinking.Charlie Reams wrote:Agreed, and she was rubbish anyway.Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't think this warrants another go.
Re: Spoilers for Monday 14 July 2008
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Yup - she must be a lot worse than rubbish, as I beat her easily in both of her games.Charlie Reams wrote:Agreed, and she was rubbish anyway.Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't think this warrants another go.
