Friday 20th February 2009 (Series 60-Prelim 15)

[Allan Harmer]

Countdown recap for Friday 20 February 2009.

C1: Champion Neil Zussman (4 wins, 381 points.) The likeable and self-deprecating forum member who has quietly chalked up 4 wins showing good all-round skills
C2: Challenger Matthew (Matt) Meads from Chester. He works as a developer of games for mobile phones. He is a member of MENSA with an ambition to finish a novel as he has written 7 unfinished ones to date and has never got past the 5th chapter. He is also a Millwall fan and is certainly going into the lion's den against Neil!
DC: Susie Dent and Kate Humble. We learn that Kate worked on a crocodile farm in Zambia. I have found her very engaging in DC and am pleasantly impressed with her. Looking forward to seeing her back again in the near future.
RR: Rachel Riley.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: L E B D O R I H W
R02: L G T N E A E D U
R03: N I R T U N A R L
R04: M T G L E A E S M
R05: 5, 4, 8, 3, 3, 8. Target: 793.
TTT: BIGPAPER - "He's always on the lookout for a good squeeze"
R06: C H N S O I E F Z
R07: R E R S O M T A O
R08: T I P E S E N P A
R09: T I R J A R O U O
R10: 3, 1, 1, 6, 5, 50. Target: 753.
TTT: ROOSPIPE - "Bad posture for this lovely creature"
R11: K U X R E C A O E
R12: F P N L U E O A T
R13: Y E S B O S A D M
R14: 4, 2, 1, 6, 3, 25. Target: 722.
R15: E Q U I P K A P S (conundrum)


And now a brief interlude before our main feature:

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

Enjoy the show.

Round 1: L E B D O R I H W

C1: BROILED (7)
C2: WHIRLED (7)
DC: BLOWIER (7)
OT: WHORLED (7)
Score: 7–7 (max 7)

Round 2: L G T N E A E D U

C1: DETANGLE (8)
C2: TANGLED (7)
DC: DETANGLE (8)
Score: 15–7 (max 15)
DETANGLE - Well remembered Neil - This word came up in Charlie's 5th qualifier as an alternative to UNTANGLE.

Round 3: N I R T U N A R L

C1: NUTRIA (6) .
C2: URINAL (6)
OT: ANNULI (6) UNNAIL (6) RITUAL (6)
NUTRIA = Another name for the fur of the coypu
ANNULI = the plural of ANNULUS, a ring or doughnut shaped structure.
Jeff points out that there is no 'P' in urinal - groans all round!
Score: 21–13 (max 21)

Round 4: M T G L E A E S M

C1: LEGATES (7)
C2: GLEAMS (6)
DC: GLAMMEST (8)
Score: 28–13 (max 29)
GLAMMEST is derived from the word GLAM, which is an abbreviation for glamorous.

Round 5: 5, 4, 8, 3, 3, 8. Target: 793.

C1: 797. 8-3=5 X 4 X 5 X 8 = 800-3 (7)
C2: -
RR: 792. 8+3=11X8X(4+5) (7)
Score: 35–13 (max 36)
Neil looks to have built a winning lead as he goes for Matt's jugular with a 6 small numbers round and a target that proves to be insoluble.

Kate tells us how to escape from a runaway train and leaves Neil well prepared for the train journey back to Warwick Uni.

Teatime teaser: BIGPAPER -> BAGPIPER

Round 6: C H N S O I E F Z

C1: FINCHES (7)
C2: FINCHES (7)
DC: FINCHES (7)
Score: 42–20 (max 43)

Round 7: R E R S O M T A O

C1: tearooms
C2: roomates
DC: RESTROOM (8)
Score: 42–20 (max 51)
Both players take a gamble on an 8 and come unstuck.

Round 8: T I P E S E N P A

C1: NAPPIES (7)
C2: PASTIE (6)
DC: NAPPIEST (8)
Score: 49–20 (max 59)
NAPPIEST = The most frizzy, as in hair.
Round 9: T I R J A R O U O

C1: ORATOR (6)
C2: ORATOR (6)
DC: ORATOR (6)
OT:
Score: 55–26 (max 65)

Susie tells about the history of words in the good and bad axis, with some interesting facts.

Round 10: 3, 1, 1, 6, 5, 50. Target: 753.

C1: 753. 5X50=250+1=251X3 (10)
C2: 753. 3X5=15X50=750+(8/(1+1)) (10)
Score: 65–36 (max 75)

Teatime teaser: ROOSPIPE -> PORPOISE

Round 11: K U X R E C A O E

C1: CREAK (5)
C2: CROAK (5)
DC: KEREX (5) EUREKA (6)
OT: COAXER (6)
Score: 70–41 (max 81)
KEREX is a plant.

Neil keeps things nice and tight with 5 vowels as a containing strategy.

Round 12: F P N L U E O A T

C1: POLENTA (7)
C2: POLENTA (7)
DC: OPULENT (7)
OT: APOLUNE (7)
Score: 77–48 (max 88)
APOLUNE = The point of an orbit around the moon farthest from the moon's centre, as its name implies.

Round 13: Y E S B O S A D M

C1: EMBASSY (7)
C2: EMBODY (6)
DC: EMBASSY (7)
Score: 84–48 (max 95)

Round 14: 4, 2, 1, 6, 3, 25. Target: 722.

C1: 724. 6X4=24+3+2=29X25=725-1 (7)
C2: 724. 6X4=24+3+2=29X25=725-1 (7)
RR: 721. 25X4=100+3X(6+1) (7)
OT: 722. 25-1=24X(6+4)=240X3=720+2 (10)
Score: 91–55 (max 105)

Another tough numbers round.

Round 15: E Q U I P K A P S

C1 buzzes on 14 seconds to say PIPSQUEAK which is correct.
Score: 101–55 (max 115)

Well played again Neil - Another very competent performance and I hope that Matt's prediction of Neil gaining octochamp status proves to be correct.

Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=60

[Phil Reynolds]

NUTRIA = Another name for the coypu

No - it's a name for the skin or fur of the coypu, not the animal itself.

Neil looks to have built a winning lead as he goe's for Matt's jugular with a 6 letter numbers round and a TARGET that proves to be insoluble.

I guess you mean "a 6 small numbers round". (And while I'm at it I may as well add that there's no apostrophe in "goes", and no need to capitalise "target". Soz!)

[Allan Harmer]

NUTRIA = Another name for the coypu

No - it's a name for the skin or fur of the coypu, not the animal itself.

Neil looks to have built a winning lead as he goe's for Matt's jugular with a 6 letter numbers round and a TARGET that proves to be insoluble.

I guess you mean "a 6 small numbers round". (And while I'm at it I may as well add that there's no apostrophe in "goes", and no need to capitalise "target". Soz!)

FFS! Haven't you got anything better to do? - I suggest that you take over the recap on alternate Fridays as I am sure you will make a far better job of it than me.

It's all yours mate!

[Phil Reynolds]

FFS! Haven't you got anything better to do?

The answer is yes. Unfortunately, that rarely stops me doing things I shouldn't be wasting my time on.

I suggest that you take over the recap on alternate Fridays as I am sure you will make a far better job of it than me.

I'm happy to have a go at recapping if you're serious. Incidentally, I thought the rest of your recap was very good...

[Charlie Reams]

FFS! Haven't you got anything better to do? - I suggest that you take over the recap on alternate Fridays as I am sure you will make a far better job of it than me.

It's all yours mate!

Dave C, is that you?

[Allan Harmer]

I suggest that you take over the recap on alternate Fridays as I am sure you will make a far better job of it than me.

I'm happy to have a go at recapping if you're serious. Incidentally, I thought the rest of your recap was very good...

Yes I am serious - I willingly spent a lot of my spare time doing my bit for the forum and tried to do as good a job as possible on the recaps by attempting to make them as interesting as I could.

Sadly, that clearly wasn't good enough, so please feel free to take over w.e.f. Friday week (6th March), as Joseph Bolas is due to do the one this Friday.

I suggest that you liaise with Joseph to agree which weeks you do + Charlie to get the appropriate accesses and passwords.

Good luck!

[Phil Reynolds]

I willingly spent a lot of my spare time doing my bit for the forum and tried to do as good a job as possible on the recaps by attempting to make them as interesting as I could.

Sadly, that clearly wasn't good enough

I'd much rather read a recap with interesting additional commentary like yours, even if it involves some typos (as long I'm allowed to point them out without causing offence), than a straightforward record of who got what. (I've probably offended Corby now. Maybe I should just stfu.)

I suggest that you liaise with Joseph to agree which weeks you do + Charlie to get the appropriate accesses and passwords.

Accesses? Passwords? I thought one just fed the data into the recap writer (which Charlie posted a link to somewhere the other day - had a quick look and it didn't seem to be restricted in any way) and then cut-and-pasted the results into the forum?

[Allan Harmer]

Sadly, that clearly wasn't good enough

I'd much rather read a recap with interesting additional commentary like yours, even if it involves some typos (as long I'm allowed to point them out without causing offence), than a straightforward record of who got what. (I've probably offended Corby now. Maybe I should just stfu.)
Good! You have the perfect opportunity to make them as interesting as possible.

I suggest that you liaise with Joseph to agree which weeks you do + Charlie to get the appropriate accesses and passwords.

Accesses? Passwords? I thought one just fed the data into the recap writer (which Charlie posted a link to somewhere the other day - had a quick look and it didn't seem to be restricted in any way) and then cut-and-pasted the results into the forum?

Sorry! - You obviously know more than me about it.

[Charlie Reams]

Allan, I have no idea why this upsets you so much. Virtually every recap attracts some corrections and these were particularly minor.

[Phil Reynolds]

Accesses? Passwords? I thought one just fed the data into the recap writer (which Charlie posted a link to somewhere the other day - had a quick look and it didn't seem to be restricted in any way) and then cut-and-pasted the results into the forum?

Sorry! - You obviously know more than me about it.

Clearly I can't know more about it than you as you've written recaps and I haven't. My question above was just that, a question - hence the question mark at the end.

I can't really tell from the tone of your posts whether I've genuinely pissed you off or if you're just mucking about. I've posted several conciliatory overtures on this thread already, but if I have pissed you off then I apologise unreservedly.

[Allan Harmer]

Allan, I have no idea why this upsets you so much. Virtually every recap attracts some corrections and these were particularly minor.

Charlie
None of us enjoys criticism but I naturally accept that when you make a mistake that it will be pointed out, hopefully in a tactful way.

I just felt that Phil was a little insensitive in the way he handled it today. However, he has apologised and I am happy to continue doing the recaps if required, as I do perversely enjoy it!

Cheers! Al

[Kirk Bevins]

Allan, I have no idea why this upsets you so much. Virtually every recap attracts some corrections and these were particularly minor.

Charlie
None of us enjoys criticism but I naturally accept that when you make a mistake that it will be pointed out, hopefully in a tactful way.

I just felt that Phil was a little insensitive in the way he handled it today. However, he has apologised and I am happy to continue doing the recaps if required, as I do perversely enjoy it!

Cheers! Al

Good lad.

[Jon Corby]

I'd much rather read a recap with interesting additional commentary like yours, even if it involves some typos (as long I'm allowed to point them out without causing offence), than a straightforward record of who got what. (I've probably offended Corby now. Maybe I should just stfu.)

Which bit were you worried would offend me? I completely agree, which is why I feel bad when circumstances contrive not to allow me to write such recaps (I don't think I ever do a Porter out of pure laziness.) I also don't care if people correct me, probably quite the opposite - it's nice to know that somebody has actually bothered to read it.

[Phil Reynolds]

Which bit were you worried would offend me?

Having said I would rather read a review like Allan's than a straightforward factual record, it occurred to me that you had only just posted one of the latter breed and might take it personally. I've made a note not to underestimate your dermatological amplitude in future.

[Jon Corby]

Yeah, thought as much. I honestly don't ever do it out of laziness, I had about 4 or 5 shows backed up and very little time to catch up, so it's unavoidable. Blame my employers for making lots of people around me redundant leaving me to pick up their workloads. (But also thank them for not making me redundant as well.)

While writing recaps can be fun, it is actually quite a commitment to take on. SRSLY.

[Charlie Reams]

(But also thank them for not making me redundant as well.)

I think you've got Kate to thank for that...