Kai Laddiman wrote:Do you think anyone else could have a crack at doing one of these? That would rock.
OK, here goes. PM your answers to me before midnight on Tuesday. Same scoring system as Chris's original comp. Prize details yet to be announced but it will be something highly desirable.
Deceive (or start to terrorise) partygoers.
In France, I shop around for missile.
Nine blows, approximately.
Scottish church gives bill of exchange for French wines.
Crudely bears analysis.
Exercise room, we hear, with posh car.
Told little lies back when faced with shortage.
New York goes in to maze.
Dickens initially keen to overdose on his little heroine.
Brand new? Makes me sick!
Last edited by Phil Reynolds on Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ooh this is hard for a newbie like myself... not knowing everyone's surname (they're not always in the profile)... or even everyone's name full stop... but I'm having fun nonetheless! Got the first five so far. Really should be doing other things...
Sadly I struggle to catch the letters and numbers most of the time, and unless you pay attention to names in the first few seconds of the game, you're buggered... Life with small children, you see...
No worries though, I've got them all now (I think). I didn't know either of the surnames in question, but one of them I guessed from the clue, and the other I did a little detective work.
That was fun, thank you.
[edited to avoid multiple posting]
Last edited by Clare Sudbery on Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clare Sudbery wrote:Sadly I struggle to catch the letters and numbers most of the time, and unless you pay attention to names in the first few seconds of the game, you're buggered...
For most contestants, perhaps. But when people have appeared on the show repeatedly, become octochamps, gone on to series finals, and appeared in CofC... surely you pick up on their names at some point?
But they're all members of this forum, right?
Yes, although not necessarily frequent posters of late.
"surely you pick up on their names at some point?"
Nope. I didn't know any players' names until I started hanging round on here. Thing is, my kids won't let me watch Countdown properly. It's just on in the background, and when I get a chance I stop and look at the letters and numbers, try to play along. A lot of the time the sound is down. And I don't watch every episode, every week or even every month, so I often don't pick up on repeated appearances. And when I do it's the faces I recognise - still don't know their names. I didn't see any of the final before Christmas, for instance, because I was busy getting the house ready for a mass influx of Xmas visitors.
Recently I've been getting frustrated because I'm now aware (from here and Apterous) who a large number of the CofC contestants are, but unless you catch the first five mins of the show - which I mostly don't because I'm picking my son up from school - you can't tell what their names are. Yes, they have name plates, but the camera doesn't focus in on them, so you only know their first names (from Jeff talking to them).
Anyway it doesn't matter cos I managed to get all the answers simply from the clues, and a bit of detective work. All the info is available if you look in the right places. Again, thank you - 'twas fun.
Sadly not for those posts above. I think it's only there for recent posts (made in last 5 mins, something like that maybe?)
Normally I just multi-post with gay abandon - I'm impulsive and I'm always thinking of something else to say just after I hit the Submit button. But I suspect it annoys people, so I've been trying to curb the tendency.
Clare Sudbery wrote:Sadly not for those posts above. I think it's only there for recent posts (made in last 5 mins, something like that maybe?)
You're damn right, I've never noticed it disappears... must be because I make such great posts and never have to think about deleting them
Wonder if that's a forum setting Charlie can change.... seems silly not to give users power over their own posts.
There's a reason for it though, I think... if people come along later and start deleting posts, then people who come late to the thread will struggle to follow the flow of what's being said. Although of course people can still edit, so it can still be corrupted for later viewers. But at least they'll know that something was said, and also that it was edited at some point.
Yes, I'll more than likely only delete posts if there's a clear accidental double-post. There's nothing like responding to a deleted post to confuse people.
Back on topic, quite a nice set of clues. There is one clue I'm not really happy with but won't elaborate until next week. Overall very good though.
Clare Sudbery wrote:There's a reason for it though, I think... if people come along later and start deleting posts, then people who come late to the thread will struggle to follow the flow of what's being said. Although of course people can still edit, so it can still be corrupted for later viewers. But at least they'll know that something was said, and also that it was edited at some point.
For sure. My exact thoughts - either allow edits AND deletions or neither, seems to make more sense. Talking of edits, that opens up a whole new kettle of fish. Recently I've noticed that only some edited posts have the "edited one time... etc" tag line on them, others don't show me any evidence of editing either (cue lots of confused thread reading with people referring to edited posts that don't look edited to me).
Anyway I'll shut up now, don't want to litter Phil's excellent thread with this boring stuff!
Wow - clearly I didn't make these tough enough. Take a bow, Mr Gary Male, with a perfect score of 20/20. Others are still welcome to enter, and anyone tying with Gary will share the prize. Gary, I'm fascinated to know which clue you were unhappy about - any chance of a supplementary PM?
Other scores so far:
Clare - 9/20 (9 right answers but no explanations)
Dinos - 8/20 (4 right, all correctly explained)
Kai - 2/20 (1 right, correctly explained)
Matt - 1/20 (he'll know why)
In case anyone else is as confused as Dinos: the answer to each clue is two words, a forename and surname. My earlier post merely pointed out that two of the people concerned do not use their full name on this forum.
I've never ever got on with cryptic crosswords in all my life. They frustrate the hell out of me, my brain simply doesn't work that way, which is odd, as I'm pretty fucking cryptic myself!
Gary's effort of 20/20 therefore impresses the hell out of me.
Now I've just got to work out which one I got right!
p.s. Thanks Phil! (you'll know why!)
Phil Reynolds wrote:9 right answers but no explanations
Eh? Were there extra rules hiding further down in that thread you linked to, or did I just not read the initial post properly?
Edit: OK, I just didn't read the initial post properly. Drat, drat and double drat.
Bother.
Can I glean extra points if I send you explanations now, or is it too late?
Looks like that one I was unhappy with probably was wrong after all then... hmmm... (and don't worry, I wasn't going to ask for a second chance on that - would seem a bit much).
Phil Reynolds wrote:9 right answers but no explanations
Eh? Were there extra rules hiding further down in that thread you linked to, or did I just not read the initial post properly?
I would guess you didn't read the initial post (of the linked-to thread) properly, as it states in the very first paragraph: "Two points available for each correct answer: 1 point for the full name, the other point for a few words as to how you arrived at the answer (Max 20)".
Can I glean extra points if I send you explanations now, or is it too late?
The worst bit is that I still can't work out which one I have got right.
Anyone have a good link to a quick guide to the shorthand of cryptic clues?
I know "in" tends to mean a word inside another word, and that's about all I know.
Matt Morrison wrote:Anyone have a good link to a quick guide to the shorthand of cryptic clues?
I know "in" tends to mean a word inside another word, and that's about all I know.
Just for you Kai... A thousand times, I'll add (hear me) one man to this list.
Incidentally, in the process of solving those clues I found a brilliant dictionary definition of someone's surname, which made me wonder if it's a pseudonym...
Last edited by Clare Sudbery on Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matt Morrison wrote:The worst bit is that I still can't work out which one I have got right.
Sorry Matt, you didn't actually get any of them right.
Ha! Ok... so then you gave me a point for my working out? Which if I remember rightly pretty much amounted to telling you that you loved me.
Oh well, at least I've got that to be happy about. (this is the point where you tell me you actually meant you'd made a mistake and that I should have got 0/20, and then I run off crying and never speak to you again)
Clare Sudbery wrote:"You can enter as many times as you like."
Ooh, brill!
(and yes, I know there's a quote button, but it really is quicker to copy and paste when you only want to quote part of the post)
(but it takes a lot longer if you then type lengthy explanations for your actions).
The main thing is that visually it's a lot neater to use the normal quote function. A real quote block is instantly recognisable by the colour and style, and I usually just glance at the author to get the context. With speech marks, I have to work out whether it's a quote from someone on the forum, some other quote, or just some other use of quote marks. And even when I realise it's a quote, you don't always put the author, so I'm still lost for context. Having a consistent visual style around the site is surprisingly useful, although at least you forced me to consider why that is.
Clare Sudbery wrote:"You can enter as many times as you like."
Ooh, brill!
(and yes, I know there's a quote button, but it really is quicker to copy and paste when you only want to quote part of the post)
(but it takes a lot longer if you then type lengthy explanations for your actions).
The main thing is that visually it's a lot neater to use the normal quote function. A real quote block is instantly recognisable by the colour and style, and I usually just glance at the author to get the context. With speech marks, I have to work out whether it's a quote from someone on the forum, some other quote, or just some other use of quote marks. And even when I realise it's a quote, you don't always put the author, so I'm still lost for context. Having a consistent visual style around the site is surprisingly useful, although at least you forced me to consider why that is.
I usually don't include author unless I think it's necessary, e.g. in the above example it doesn't really matter who said it to me, but it should be enough to know that I'm pleased I can enter as many times I like (and anyway we could guess who told me) (but as I said, it's not important)... and personally I hate the way the quote function bulks out the post and makes threads several times more scrollworthy than they need to be... but I guess I'm in the minority on that one...
Still, I can see your point about visual cues, so I'll try and change my ways. It might be hard though, I spend a lot of time on forums like these and I've always had my little quirks... and I'm a creature of habit... a friend changed her name four years ago and I still can't get used to using the new one...
This is ridiculous. I've just spent blimmin' ages trawling through members' lists trying to work out the answer to the one I can't get. I'm getting obsessed. Well that's it, I am officially giving up now (except I bet I'll still be chewing over it in my sleep tonight). [sigh]
Matt Morrison wrote:Anyone have a good link to a quick guide to the shorthand of cryptic clues?
I know "in" tends to mean a word inside another word, and that's about all I know.
Chris, I have them all except number 10. I'll swap you?
And Kai, I daren't post hints here for fear of incurring the wrath of others, but I'll PM you some small hints if you want? Cryptic crosswording is something which it took me years to get my head around. A lot of it's just experience. And PS did you see the one I did for you, above? Can you see why there is a clue to your name embedded in what I wrote ("A thousand times, I'll add (hear me) one man to this list")?
Nice one Phil. But you're not giving us very long, especially as a lot of us are going to be at Lincoln tomorrow. (And I promised not to discuss the clues with anyone else there.)
I've printed it off, and will look at it in bed soon.
Phil Reynolds wrote:Good point, I'd forgotten about COLIN. Deadline extended to midnight on Tuesday.
And to think I took the clues to bed with me, to look at last night. Just as well the deadline's extended, cos I'd still got four to do by the time I dropped off.
Matt Morrison wrote:The worst bit is that I still can't work out which one I have got right.
Sorry Matt, you didn't actually get any of them right.
Ha! Ok... so then you gave me a point for my working out? Which if I remember rightly pretty much amounted to telling you that you loved me.
Well, not quite. You said something to the effect that you were rubbish at cryptic clues but that I'd still give you one point as a token of my eternal love. So I gave you one.
Chris Corby wrote:Grrrr. Got them all except Number 2 which is pooh
In case it helps, number 2 is the clue that Gary felt was a bit dubious. It probably wouldn't pass muster as a clue set by a professional crossword compiler as it breaks (or at least slightly bends) one of the normal conventions of cryptic clues.
Tell you what Kai, you can give me a small hint via pm.
Fwiw I've seen the Grauniad bend the same rule as num 2, but it is a little suspect. Num 1 is also slightly less than pure, and of course none of them have a definition part (description of answer as a whole) as they would in a crossword, but sod all that, they're still good.
Time for another update on the scores. No new entries, but Kai and Clare have been plugging away at improving on their earlier efforts.
Gary - 20/20
Clare - 18/20 (9 right answers, all correctly explained)
Kai - 18/20 (9 right, all correctly explained)
Dinos - 8/20 (4 right, all correctly explained)
Matt - 1/20 (sympathy vote)
Phil Reynolds wrote:Time for another update on the scores. No new entries...
It would seem I forgot to hit 'send' last night...
Just thought I'd comment here on how awesome these clues are (or at least the ones I worked out) - great examples of clues that make sense by themselves (something which even a lot of newspaper setters seem to fail at).
Thanks Michael - glad you like the clues. I can now add you to the scoreboard with 16/20 (8 correct answers + explanations). Kai's score has now risen to 19.5 (10 right answers with one only partially correctly explained).
I'll swap, for a share of the prize (which is hopefully a Mars bar).