Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:33 pm

Janet Street Porter is looking likely to become the first female octochamp for five years, but will Kelsey Grammar stop her?

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:35 pm

FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:37 pm

Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5

Mark Kudlowski · Post by **Mark Kudlowski** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:38 pm

Numbers 1 (quickest): (100-4)x7

Chris Davies · Post by **Chris Davies** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:38 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1

Excellent.
MERINO as a beater in Round 2.

ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.

Mark Kudlowski · Post by **Mark Kudlowski** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:40 pm

Howard Somerset wrote:Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5

That's when you know your numbers with many prime factors, as well as your dozens tables !

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:40 pm

SOLITUDE is a noun so I guess SOLITUDES is allowed - I would have gone for it in Round 3 but it is probably a mass noun and not allowable

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:43 pm

Mark Kudlowski wrote:
Howard Somerset wrote:Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5
That's when you know your numbers with many prime factors, as well as your dozens tables !

Er...actually it's just working down from 700 and realising that the difference is conveniently also a multiple of 7, rather than identifying 672 as a multiple of 7 automatically. However most contestants refuse to add before multiplying, leading to more contrived solutions like we've just seen.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 pm

ARSONIST as beater in that round with INSOFAR.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:48 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:ARSONIST as beater in that round with INSOFAR.

There was only one 'S' Ben in the selection.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:48 pm

THERAPODS returns.

Edit: therapods isn't a word, what was that word Kate Richardson got? I'm seeing all kinds of shit today.

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:54 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:THERAPODS returns.

Edit: therapods isn't a word, what was that word Kate Richardson got? I'm seeing all kinds of shit today.

I think it was THEROPODS Ben

Mark Kudlowski · Post by **Mark Kudlowski** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:55 pm

Numbers 2: ((5 x 3) + 4)) x 3 x 4

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:05 pm

3rd numbers alternate

(75+7-2) = 80
80 x 7 = 560, +1 = 561

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:10 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Er...actually it's just working down from 700 and realising that the difference is conveniently also a multiple of 7, rather than identifying 672 as a multiple of 7 automatically. However most contestants refuse to add before multiplying, leading to more contrived solutions like we've just seen.

Agreed. Exactly my approach, Junaid.

Jojo Apollo · Post by **Jojo Apollo** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:14 pm

Chris Davies wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1
Excellent.
MERINO as a beater in Round 2.

ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.

Great stuff lads.

I thought I had a 14 max game there

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:49 pm

Chris Davies wrote:ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.

IAWTP... By which I mean I spotted them too. Not sure how I could disagree. Surprised DC didn't get ERUPTION unless it was edited out.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:38 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Chris Davies wrote:ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
IAWTP... By which I mean I spotted them too. Not sure how I could disagree. Surprised DC didn't get ERUPTION unless it was edited out.

I had all that were mentioned and got beaten in round 1 when I had lots of obscure 7s. When Cate said FORMULAS, I repeated "fuck" numerous times out loud as I'd then spotted FUMAROLES (learning FORMULAE = FUMAROLE). So annoying when you learn a word then fail to spot it. I blame tiredness. So I got a 14 max game but actually spotted 15 maxes, albeit getting FUMAROLES too late. Agonisingly close.

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:50 pm

I thought I'd done well with a DC-beating CADENCE in R12, but I see that's been beaten here already. It wasn't a vintage DC day today - surprising, given the intellectual capacity and rigour of Jon Gaunt (as evidenced by his cogently argued homilies).

I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:26 pm

Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.

Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:27 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.

Thirded. Even though I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:31 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
JimBentley wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.
Thirded. Even though I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.

Erm...fourthed. Will actually be gutted if she loses tomorrow.

Rosemary Roberts · Post by **Rosemary Roberts** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:42 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.

You've done dozens of recaps - you can't still be nervous !?

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:46 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Erm...fourthed. Will actually be gutted if she loses tomorrow.

fifthed

- after her initial nerves she is playing way above the standard of her first few games and is visibly enjoying it now. She is no pushover now that her confidence has considerably increased. Credit where it is due!

Richard Priest · Post by **Richard Priest** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:23 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:Janet Street Porter is looking likely to become the first female octochamp for five years, but will Kelsey Grammar stop her?

It would be 2 years actually - Jean Webby in series 56.

Cate's play has improved tremendously since her first couple of games, I thought she was brilliant today. Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:00 pm

Rich Priest wrote:Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her

You heard it here first. Cate was touched by a priest.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:10 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Rich Priest wrote:Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her
You heard it here first. Cate was touched by a priest.

I presume this is unusual only insofar™ as she is (a) female (b) aged over 15.

As others have said, I've warmed to Cate with each successive game. It's noticeable that she only wears her stern, unsmiling face when she's actually concentrating on the game; as soon as Jeff asks her to talk about her life and interests, she relaxes and smiles.

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:19 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as

How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:27 pm

Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)

I sometimes wonder the same thing about the expression "...and the rest is history". You hardly ever hear anyone say it in that form now; almost invariably, it's "...and the rest, as they say, is history". It's as if the words "as they say" have become part of the expression; so really we should now be saying "...and the rest, as they say, as they say, is history."

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:43 pm

Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)

This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:53 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote: This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.

SUICIDE is a verb in the ODE, as you probably know. Although I've never heard it used that way personally.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:03 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.

Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:34 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.

You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.

Ian Fitzpatrick · Post by **Ian Fitzpatrick** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:36 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.

There are lyrics???

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:36 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.

Haha, you listen to modern hip-hop pop songs!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:36 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.

and from Borat.

Rosemary Roberts · Post by **Rosemary Roberts** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:58 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.

I've sexed guineapigs before now ...

... but no animals were harmed in the course of this activity.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:11 pm

Rosemary Roberts wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
I've sexed guineapigs before now

Indeed. So when a hip-hop "artist" proclaims "I wanna sex you", he is in effect saying, "I wish to determine your gender on the basis of empirical observation. Kindly show me your genitals." Nothing wrong with that.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:56 pm

Ah, but what if - like rubbish proto-boyband Color Me Badd sang on their early-90s no. 1 - they want to "sex you up?"

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:59 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
Haha, you listen to modern hip-hop pop songs!

Just the rubbish ones.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:10 pm

JimBentley wrote:Ah, but what if - like rubbish proto-boyband Color Me Badd sang on their early-90s no. 1 - they want to "sex you up?"

I presume this is akin to announcing their intention to "wake you up", but with an additional surprise element.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:06 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Rosemary Roberts wrote:I've sexed guineapigs before now
Indeed. So when a hip-hop "artist" proclaims "I wanna sex you", he is in effect saying, "I wish to determine your gender on the basis of empirical observation. Kindly show me your genitals." Nothing wrong with that.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:41 am

Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)

Well before your nice little 9 becomes valid, we can apparently also have "inasmuch" for 8 (pending the right letters obviously).

I saw it in this week's Radio Times, and checking a dictionary it seems to be legitimate, although I don't have the Countdown dictionary to hand.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:45 am

Derek Hazell wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)
Well before your nice little 9 becomes valid, we can apparently also have "inasmuch" for 8 (pending the right letters obviously).

I saw it in this week's Radio Times, and checking a dictionary it seems to be legitimate, although I don't have the Countdown dictionary to hand.

It's been a Tea Time Teaser before

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:03 am

Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before

Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:10 am

Derek Hazell wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something

I wasn't being a wiseguy, I was confirming it was valid.

I'm so misunderstood

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:16 am

Derek Hazell wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something

"Inasmuch" is perfectly valid. Which is more than can be said for "wiseguy".

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:40 am

Jon Corby wrote: It's been a Tea Time Teaser before

So has SEAHORSE...

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:42 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on something
"Inasmuch" is perfectly valid. Which is more than can be said for "wiseguy".

Indeed, but if you continue with such posts I am sure they will add it just for you