Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
Moderator: James Robinson
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
3rd (?) numbers, target 474
(100 + (4 x 10) + (9 x 2)) x 3
(100 + (4 x 10) + (9 x 2)) x 3
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
Last numbers: (75-7)x50x9/(10x10) = 306
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:32 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
ACTOREENS in whichever round it was.
- Johnny Canuck
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
- Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
Apparently, today's challenger (Peter Sheridan) is notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
Nice method. I did it a different way (outside the time) - (75+10+10-50)*7-9 = 306.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
It's not valid on Apterous but that's not necessarily 100% in line with how they adjudicate on the show.Philip Wilson wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 9:16 pm In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
I can't see it in any of the example sentences linked to 'defame' so I'll conclude it's not a word then. So why not just say 'no exact match'?Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:16 pmIt's not valid on Apterous but that's not necessarily 100% in line with how they adjudicate on the show.Philip Wilson wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 9:16 pm In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
So you're saying in situations like this the word is valid, right?David Williams wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:09 pm In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
CORRALED (and many similar words) certainly wasn't valid in the print dictionary. I don't know of any reason why this would change. I just can't see where it tells you now what is and isn't valid when it comes to inflexions. The only thing that differentiates is that CORRALLED is the way it's spelt in the examples.Philip Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:20 amSo you're saying in situations like this the word is valid, right?David Williams wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:09 pm In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
I don't think the free version of the dictionary gives any inflections nowadays.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Kempston, Bedford
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
How about CAROTENES for 9???
- Johnny Canuck
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
- Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃
Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017
Sorry, no banana -- CAROTENE is explicitly listed as a mass noun.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/carotene
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
- Thomas Carey
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
- Location: North-West of Bradford
- Contact: