c4countdown

Onwards we go into the depths of Series 65, and with Graeme Cole as our leader, he should hopefully navigate through the mighty seas with the greatest of ease.

Well 2 centuries to the good so far, are there going to be many more in this series for Graeme or anyone else for that matter

Join me, Cap'n Robinson, for the Robinson later.

You could surely say 'The two project's outsets were very different' or something?

Aye and it's valid for Apterous, wouldn't be surprised to see them give Graeme those extra seven points back at some point.

So the new competitor gets airtime to witter about going to Lourdes (and I thought he meant to watch the cricket!) and Dev's wife does some palm reading. We will be having payers in Countdown next.

Well played again Graeme, unlucky with not getting a third ton, but I'm sure you don't mind about that.

Edit: Unless you do get the 7 points for OUTSETS, in which case you would have 3 centuries.

Joseph Krol wrote:You could surely say 'The two project's outsets were very different' or something?

'Outset' mean 'beginning', but you only use the former in 'at the outset' and, if there were more than one project you would say 'at the outset of both/all projects'.

And, since when has apterous been the definitive arbiter of eligibility?

Tricky language English!

The decision to disallow OUTSETS wasn't made on a whim. Susie and Damian discussed it during the cut before the last numbers round, and again just before the next game.

Basically, OUTSET is listed in the dictionary as a noun "in singular". At the front of the dictionary it says this means "a noun which is used as a count noun but is never or rarely found in the plural". So the question was whether OUTSETS was a "never" or "rarely" case. Susie felt that there wasn't any case where you'd pluralise it. Even if you had two projects that were complete failures from the start (perhaps you're watching The Apprentice?) you'd say "the projects were both failures from the outset" rather than "both failures from their outsets". Joseph's example is an alternative case I didn't think of though.

As for it costing me a third century, that was entirely my doing for not thinking to put the ER on the end of RAFT.

Good explanation Graeme - I was confused as Joseph's example seem to make sense.

Graeme Cole wrote:The decision to disallow OUTSETS wasn't made on a whim. Susie and Damian discussed it during the cut before the last numbers round, and again just before the next game.
[...]
the question was whether OUTSETS was a "never" or "rarely" case. Susie felt that there wasn't any case where you'd pluralise it.

Graeme Cole used it on the telly once; surely that gives it enough credence to be allowed under the "rarely" category.

John Bosley wrote:So the new competitor gets airtime to witter about going to Lourdes (and I thought he meant to watch the cricket!) and Dev's wife does some palm reading. We will be having payers in Countdown next.

Payers? Are you suggesting Damian will soon be accepting bribes for a place on the show?

left the r out of prayers - serves me right for being such a pompous atheistic git -

John Bosley wrote:So the new competitor gets airtime to witter about going to Lourdes (and I thought he meant to watch the cricket!) and Dev's wife does some palm reading. We will be having payers in Countdown next.

When Susie was asked what she thought about palm reading at the end of the show, it was funny because it seemed as though she was desperately trying to be polite despite thinking 'this is a load of crap'.