c4countdown

Countdown recap for Friday 3rd October 2008

C1: Champion : KAI LADDIMAN (1 win)
C2: Challenger : JEFF FRANCIS

DC: Susie Dent and Barry Cryer
CV: Carol Vorderman
OT: Other words or solutions

R01: X O A N F P E H T
R02: K V A E I R B W M
R03: R N O A D D R I M
R04: S A E I D S T N B
R05: 75, 25, 3, 8, 9, 2. Target: 482.
TTT: GRABDICE - "There are two wings to this prison"
R06: R G S O E I R P C
R07: N G U I T L E P S
R08: R D O E A L Q L M
R09: I N S S A O D S Z
R10: 25, 100, 50, 6, 5, 8. Target: 313.
TTT: SHEPNECK - "The bird chips away at you, literally"
R11: A P Y N E L A J T
R12: C R T U I E D T S
R13: L U E F C N O G R
R14: 100, 75, 10, 6, 5, 3. Target: 408.
R15: M U D T E M P L E (conundrum)

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Round 1: X O A N F P E H T
C1: PHONE (5)
C2: PHONE (5)
DC: PANTO (5), PHAETON (7)
OT: PHONATE (7)
Score: 5–5 (max 7)

Round 2: K V A E I R B W M
C1: WAVIER (6)
C2: mawkier
DC: WAIVER (6)
OT: EMBARK (6), RAMKIE (6)
Score: 11–5 (max 13)

Round 3: R N O A D D R I M

C1: DRAIN (5)
C2: ORDAIN (6)
DC: DIAMOND, (7), MIRADOR (7)
OT: ANDROID (7), DIAMOND (7)
Score: 11–11 (max 20)


Round 4: S A E I D S T N B
C1: STAINED (7)
C2: BANDIEST (8)
DC: BEASTS (6), BASTIDES (8)
OT: BASINETS (8), BASSINET (8), DESTAINS (8), SANDIEST (8)
Score: 11–19 (max 28)

Round 5: 75, 25, 3, 8, 9, 2. Target: 482.
C1: 483. ( 75 + 25 ) * ( 3 + 2 ) - 9 - 8 (7)
C2: 472.
CV: 482. ( 8 - 3 ) * ( 75 + 25 ) - ( 2 * 9 ) (10)
Score: 18–19 (max 38)

Teatime teaser: GRABDICE -> BIRDCAGE

Round 6: R G S O E I R P C
C1: PRICERS (7)
C2: COPIERS (7)
DC: PORGIES (7)
OT: CORRIES (7), CROSIER (7), CRISPER (7), GRICERS (7), GRIPERS (7), GROCERS (7), GROPERS (7), PROSIER (7), SCORPER (7)
Score: 25–26 (max 45)

Round 7: N G U I T L E P S
C1: PELTING (7)
C2: LUSTING (7)
DC: PESTLING (8)
Score: 32–33 (max 53)

Round 8: R D O E A L Q L M
C1: ORDEAL (6)
C2: ROLLED (6)
DC: EARLDOM (7)
Score: 38–39 (max 60)

Round 9: I N S S A O D S Z
C1: OASIS (5)
C2: SANDS (5)
DC: SODAS (5)
OT: DANIOS (6) SASINS (6)
Score: 43–44 (max 66)

Round 10: 25, 100, 50, 6, 5, 8. Target: 313.
C1: 313. 50 * 6 + 5 + 8 (10)
C2: 313. 50 * 6 + 5 + 8 (10)
Score: 53–54 (max 76)

Teatime teaser: SHEPNECK -> HENPECKS

Round 11: A P Y N E L A J T
C1: PENALTY (7)
C2: APLENTY (7)
Score: 60–61 (max 83)

Round 12: C R T U I E D T S
C1: CURTSIED (8)
C2: CURTSIED (8)
DC: CRUDITES (8)
OT: DESTRUCT (8) DETRITUS (8)
Score: 68–69 (max 91)

Round 13: L U E F C N O G R
C1: LOUNGER (7)
C2: FLOUNCE (7)
DC: FURLONG (7)
OT: FLEURON (7) FROUNCE (7)
Score: 75–76 (max 98)

Round 14: 100, 75, 10, 6, 5, 3. Target: 408.
C1: 408. ( 10 - 6 ) * 100 + 5 + 3 (10)
C2: 408. ( 10 - 6 ) * 100 + 5 + 3 (10)
Score: 85–86 (max 108)

R15: CONUNDRUM

M U D T E M P L E
C1 buzzes in on 3 seconds, PLUMMETED is correct.

Final Score: 95-86 (max 118)

-------------------------------

Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=59

DaveC wrote: note: "kaibosh" and related affixes are not in the dictionary alas.

The correct spellings (KYBOSH/KIBOSH) are, though.

The final score here is incorrect, it should be 95 - 86.

The max is wrong too. I'm not sure if we're supposed to be reporting these or not.

DaveC wrote:********************************************************************************

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

********************************************************************************

In the event of any errors or omissions bear with me, it's not been fully checked through or credited yet. Sports deadlines beckon. Bye..

********************************************************************************

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

********************************************************************************

Was the above too small? Perhaps a larger font would help?

I left the totals as they were from the previous week quite deliberately, I thought I'd see if anyone was listening. No further comment necessary in that department really is there? I did suspect kaiboshed wasn't the correct spelling but had not the time to explore it. The effort was to use then point out a deliberate misspelling because the humour value doesn't work as well if spelled correctly.

I guessed people might appreciate a slightly iffy version available right away, minor edits later. Fair enough when someone is rushing out I would have thought. Obviously not.

In the event that a person does make the odd mistake after giving their work a reasonable check I'd love to know exactly what the problem is with telling them privately so that it's not permanently recorded in the public domain. They could do a quick edit and there's no trace of it or awareness of it beyond the person who made the mistake and the person who spotted it. In the event that a kid does badly in an exam would the tutor photocopy it and hand it round to everyone? Answer that for yourself, then extend the logic, see what you end up with.

DC

You implied you hadn't had chance to check it. Posting it on here gives you an army of people willing to check for you. What's the problem?

Read my last paragraph with comprehension abilities switched on (was the text too small, go "view", "text size" on your browser and change to your convenience). The meaning contained, when extended a little, can be applied to people who manage people and is often the difference between being popular or an arsehole.

-----

Both most recent friday reviews exist as text documents suitably backed up, checked and correct. Not yet "submitted" as it were in the usual way, just in case the index ends up having to point to somewhere slightly different for some reason. Hmm. I wonder does that give anyone a cunning plan?

DC

DaveC wrote:Read my last paragraph with comprehension abilities switched on (was the text too small, go "view", "text size" on your browser and change to your convenience). The meaning contained, when extended a little, can be applied to people who manage people and is often the difference between being popular or an arsehole.

I find it rather amusing that you could come up with this tripe only to accuse someone else of being an arsehole.

DaveC wrote:In the event that a person does make the odd mistake after giving their work a reasonable check I'd love to know exactly what the problem is with telling them privately so that it's not permanently recorded in the public domain. They could do a quick edit and there's no trace of it or awareness of it beyond the person who made the mistake and the person who spotted it. In the event that a kid does badly in an exam would the tutor photocopy it and hand it round to everyone? Answer that for yourself, then extend the logic, see what you end up with.

Doesn't really apply though, does it? By submitting it here, you're putting the recap (including any mistakes) in the public domain. A kid doesn't submit an exam publicly.

Charlie Reams wrote:DaveC wrote:
Read my last paragraph with comprehension abilities switched on (was the text too small, go "view", "text size" on your browser and change to your convenience). The meaning contained, when extended a little, can be applied to people who manage people and is often the difference between being popular or an arsehole.

I find it rather amusing that you could come up with this tripe only to accuse someone else of being an arsehole.

You're still not reading what I put. The "arsehole" bit I said can be applied when extended a little, i.e. if you go a little further.. strictly in the context of people who manage people. You are not my manager. In the context of employment for example if a manager corrects those under them publicly rather than privately they get unpopular real fast and can probably quite safely be regarded as an arsehole, or at best naive if we're feeling charitable I suppose.

"Amusing" and "Tripe" aren't arguments against the original point which is simply this "what is the problem with correcting things privately rather than publicly". I corrected someone else's review yesterday, privately. The edit was made, there is now no trace that there ever was a mistake, me and that person are the only people who are even aware of it.

I would have no objection to private notifications of corrections to a review I posted before I'd chance to check through, quite useful in fact.

God, I'm starting to find the whole thing amusing now, I'm not sure why. I hope that doesn't detract from the point. Haha.

Feel free to delete the thread any time soon (and the previous Friday, that's got shite hanging off it too). Suits me.

DC

Jon Corby wrote:Doesn't really apply though, does it? By submitting it here, you're putting the recap (including any mistakes) in the public domain. A kid doesn't submit an exam publicly.

Remarks by other people that conflict with mine I have to reply in public, when a person publicly challenges us I guess they should expect a public response, we most likely agree on that point. A review however does not offer any position that can conflict with someone else's.

I indicated at the top I've had no chance to go through it, and did so very clearly. Given that Jon, I'd like to see your fantastically good reason why any alterations should be public and not private. I can give you why not, because polite society in general does not expose our minor failings to public scrutiny if it can be easily avoided. If I meet a friend and they have a big zit on their face I don't stand in front of 10 people and go "That's a corking zit you've got there, you wanna give that the old thumb and forefinger". That wouldn't go down well...

C'mon Jon, you're turn, haha.

DC

Wow Dave. I think you take this too seriously. Have a step back.

Nah, pursuing it is a lot of fun. It's the second silliest recap topic under active discussion at the moment.

DC

DaveC wrote:C'mon Jon, you're turn, haha.

I'm turn?

Oh, and as for my "fantastically good reason" why people should PM you rather than post publicly about corrections, I don't have one. In my opinion, it doesn't matter that it's done in public, who cares? It's a thread on a forum, it's the nature of it that you just hit "post" and write stuff. I do recaps, if I've fouled something up, it doesn't bother me that someone points it out within the thread, it seems the logical thing to do.

To summarise my position: meh.

Jon Corby wrote:DaveC wrote:
C'mon Jon, you're turn, haha.

I'm turn?

You are thus baited so easily, hence haha.

Jon Corby wrote:Oh, and as for my "fantastically good reason" why people should PM you rather than post publicly about corrections, I don't have one

Figured not... most likely because there isn't one.

Jon Corby wrote: if I've fouled something up, it doesn't bother me that someone points it out within the thread

You mean a little private message so you can do a quick edit and be done with it isn't preferrable to someone quoting the error and posting it? I doubt that. Maintaining consideration that I occasionally post preliminary versions due to friday evenings other responsibilities.

Jon Corby wrote:it seems the logical thing to do.

But probably not the sociological thing to do, here lies the difference between ourselves and computers. Most humans are socially aware.

DC

DaveC wrote:You mean a little private message so you can do a quick edit and be done with it isn't preferrable to someone quoting the error and posting it? I doubt that.

Doubt all you like, it's true. I actually get a little disappointed if I do a recap (well, one which I've put a bit of effort into personalising) which doesn't get any replies. Maybe I'll start putting errors in on purpose just to generate some discussion! I like discussion, about anything. Maybe i'm just lonely.

Anyway, I proofread to the level that I think something deserves, which if I'm honest is probably more than is necessary most of the time, because I don't particularly like to make mistakes or be seen to be careless. If I'm sending a mate a private email, it doesn't really matter that much, but nonetheless I still like to make reasonably sure that everything is spelt correctly etc. If I'm writing a document to be viewed by lots of business users, I'll take much more effort to make sure everything is correct. When I'm writing a recap, as I've said, I like not to make myself look silly with careless errors, but ultimately I don't care that much, so I won't vet it quite as carefully What baffles me is that you don't seem to tie these two things up in the same way - it seems desperately important to you that your submission appears professional and error-free, yet you don't feel that you should be the one to ensure that. I find that odd.

Jon Corby wrote:I actually get a little disappointed if I do a recap (well, one which I've put a bit of effort into personalising) which doesn't get any replies

Yup, I share that.

Jon Corby wrote:I don't particularly like to .... be seen to be careless.

You make my point.

Jon Corby wrote: I like not to make myself look silly with careless errors

You make my point again. It wouldn't be you making you look silly though would it, it'd be the person publicly pointing it out. Privately PM'ed you wouldn't look silly in said circumstance.

You forget again that I posted a preliminary version that wasn't proofread, there wasn't the time. I felt that early availability in slightly not so perfect form might be appreciated. It had a big banner at the top pointing that out. We all slip in the minor typo and whatever, and it seems so much more polite to point it out privately. You don't have a reason why not, as we've already established.

These kind of discussions lead to personal growth for those involved. That alone is worth pursuing, not to mention the humour factor.

DC

FFS it's a Countdown website: are we getting a teensy weensy bit melodramatic?

LOL @ Personal growth, Dave. I assume you are taking the piss .

For the record, in regards to recaps or whatever I don't really care about being corrected. I tend to type like I am mentally defective employing the big chubby fingers of someone with morbid obesity so mistakes are common. I kinda agree with Corby, here, it's easier to correct via a post than it is by mail and it has the added advantage that it only takes one post whereas you could be getting 30 mails each week pointing out the one bloody error.

Jon Corby wrote: What baffles me is that you don't seem to tie these two things up in the same way - it seems desperately important to you that your submission appears professional and error-free, yet you don't feel that you should be the one to ensure that. I find that odd.

Good point.

I've given the topic as much consideration as is worth doing, and am pleased to see there is no counter argument beyond "it's easier", which is not a very good one. 30 per week David, not 40 or 50? Give it two weeks, see if you get 60, now I'm taking the piss... and reminding myself of Father Jack somehow??? DRINK!

These things are not of great importance at all, all things Countdown are minor things except for the people who depend on it for their livelihood. I do find it a lot of fun to debate a point or two in an intelligent way provided nobody allows themselves to get too wound up about it all, perhaps tempting though it is. Debating stuff can be a growing experience as it were, particularly if we look at someone else's opinion with a view to understanding it rather than simply in order to respond. I suspect I'm pushing up against a viewpoint of "it should be error free in the first place".. shrug.

It is very much my preference to PM any corrections as I find it more polite, it's entirely up to anyone else if they want to share that view. It's not desperately important that things appear professional, it's just slightly more preferrable. I showed a willingness to make temporarily imperfect versions available by posting an early version for everyone as I had not had time to check it before running down the road with white pyjamas strapped to my back, as is my Friday evening tendency. I'm not inclined to do that in future... not that there is much of one, I'm retiring from the whole process in about 3 weeks or so. Arguably not before time.

A welcome break from "computational linguistics" debating that one. I think it's ran it's course.

p.s. never get involved in the whole Christian vs Atheist thing, they go round in circles and nobody ever adjusts their point of view.

DC

DaveC wrote:make my point again. It wouldn't be you making you look silly though would it, it'd be the person publicly pointing it out. Privately PM'ed you wouldn't look silly in said circumstance.

No I don't make your point, you've drawn your own incorrect conclusion from what I wrote - the distinction is that the "feeling silly" on my part comes from submitting the error, not having it pointed out. It makes no difference to me whether that is done privately or not.

I was just reading this to do my experience. I feel depressed now.

Kai Laddiman wrote:I was just reading this to do my experience. I feel depressed now.

I can't believe so much shite was written about so little.

Ian Volante wrote:

Kai Laddiman wrote:I was just reading this to do my experience. I feel depressed now.

I can't believe so much shite was written about so little.

He's a young boy, Ian, for God's sake. Leave him be and he'll grow tall eventually.