Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Moderator: James Robinson
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Janet Street Porter is looking likely to become the first female octochamp for five years, but will Kelsey Grammar stop her?
Last edited by Ben Hunter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Series 59 Champion
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Numbers 1 (quickest): (100-4)x7
- Chris Davies
- Series 61 Champion
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:50 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Excellent.Junaid Mubeen wrote:FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1
MERINO as a beater in Round 2.
ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
Last edited by Chris Davies on Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
That's when you know your numbers with many prime factors, as well as your dozens tables !Howard Somerset wrote:Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:32 pm
- Location: Petersfield (Hants)
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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
-
- Series 59 Champion
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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.Mark Kudlowski wrote:That's when you know your numbers with many prime factors, as well as your dozens tables !Howard Somerset wrote:Surprised that neither when for the much more obvious (100-4)x7 in r5
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
ARSONIST as beater in that round with INSOFAR.
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
There was only one 'S' Ben in the selection.Ben Hunter wrote:ARSONIST as beater in that round with INSOFAR.
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
THERAPODS returns.
Edit: therapods isn't a word, what was that word Kate Richardson got? I'm seeing all kinds of shit today.
Edit: therapods isn't a word, what was that word Kate Richardson got? I'm seeing all kinds of shit today.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:32 pm
- Location: Petersfield (Hants)
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
I think it was THEROPODS BenBen 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.
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Numbers 2: ((5 x 3) + 4)) x 3 x 4
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
3rd numbers alternate
(75+7-2) = 80
80 x 7 = 560, +1 = 561
(75+7-2) = 80
80 x 7 = 560, +1 = 561
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Agreed. Exactly my approach, Junaid.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.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:29 am
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Great stuff lads.Chris Davies wrote:Excellent.Junaid Mubeen wrote:FUMAROLES as a beater in rd 1
MERINO as a beater in Round 2.
ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
I thought I had a 14 max game there
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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.Chris Davies wrote:ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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.Dinos Sfyris wrote: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.Chris Davies wrote:ERUPTION - round 11.
DERACINE - round 12.
- Brian Moore
- Devotee
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
- Location: Exeter
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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.
I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Thirded. Even though I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.JimBentley wrote:Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
-
- Series 59 Champion
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Erm...fourthed. Will actually be gutted if she loses tomorrow.Dinos Sfyris wrote:Thirded. Even though I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.JimBentley wrote:Totally, totally agree. She might've seemed stern to begin with, but now I think she's lovely.Brian Moore wrote:I've really warmed to Cate - it would be nice to see her in the finals as an octochamp.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
You've done dozens of recaps - you can't still be nervous !?Dinos Sfyris wrote:I kind of slated her in my recap last week. But maybe it was just nerves.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:32 pm
- Location: Petersfield (Hants)
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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!Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Erm...fourthed. Will actually be gutted if she loses tomorrow.
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
It would be 2 years actually - Jean Webby in series 56.Ben Hunter wrote:Janet Street Porter is looking likely to become the first female octochamp for five years, but will Kelsey Grammar stop her?
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
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
You heard it here first. Cate was touched by a priest.Rich Priest wrote:Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
I presume this is unusual only insofar™ as she is (a) female (b) aged over 15.Dinos Sfyris wrote:You heard it here first. Cate was touched by a priest.Rich Priest wrote:Perhaps my presence in the audience for her fourth and fifth games inspired her
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
- Devotee
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
- Location: Exeter
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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."Brian Moore wrote:How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.Brian Moore wrote:How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
SUICIDE is a verb in the ODE, as you probably know. Although I've never heard it used that way personally.Kirk Bevins wrote: This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.Phil Reynolds wrote:Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
- Ian Fitzpatrick
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Wimborne, Dorset
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
There are lyrics???Ben Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.Phil Reynolds wrote:Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
I thought I was good at Countdown until I joined this forum
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Haha, you listen to modern hip-hop pop songs!Ben Hunter wrote:
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
and from Borat.Ben Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.Phil Reynolds wrote:Or "having sex". You never hear of someone doing sex without having it.Kirk Bevins wrote:This reminds me of "committing suicide". You never heard someone doing suicide without committing it.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
I've sexed guineapigs before now ...Ben Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
... but no animals were harmed in the course of this activity.
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I've sexed guineapigs before nowBen Hunter wrote:You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
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
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Just the rubbish ones.Kirk Bevins wrote:Haha, you listen to modern hip-hop pop songs!Ben Hunter wrote:
You tend to hear lyrics like "I wanna sex you" in rubbish modern hip-hop pop songs.
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
I presume this is akin to announcing their intention to "wake you up", but with an additional surprise element.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?"
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Phil Reynolds wrote: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.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I've sexed guineapigs before now
- Derek Hazell
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1535
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
- Location: Swindon
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Well before your nice little 9 becomes valid, we can apparently also have "inasmuch" for 8 (pending the right letters obviously).Brian Moore wrote:How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
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.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
It's been a Tea Time Teaser beforeDerek Hazell wrote:Well before your nice little 9 becomes valid, we can apparently also have "inasmuch" for 8 (pending the right letters obviously).Brian Moore wrote:How long before it turns into insofaras™ ? (Do you ever get 'insofar' without 'as'?)Phil Reynolds wrote:insofar™ as
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.
- Derek Hazell
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1535
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
- Location: Swindon
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on somethingJon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
I wasn't being a wiseguy, I was confirming it was valid.Derek Hazell wrote:Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on somethingJon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
I'm so misunderstood
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
"Inasmuch" is perfectly valid. Which is more than can be said for "wiseguy".Derek Hazell wrote:Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on somethingJon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
So has SEAHORSE...Jon Corby wrote: It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
- Derek Hazell
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1535
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
- Location: Swindon
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday, 31st March
Indeed, but if you continue with such posts I am sure they will add it just for youPhil Reynolds wrote:"Inasmuch" is perfectly valid. Which is more than can be said for "wiseguy".Derek Hazell wrote:Oh okay wiseguy, I thought I finally had a chance to get in first on somethingJon Corby wrote:It's been a Tea Time Teaser before
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.