Official Series 61 Finals Spoilers

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:08 am

There were some good games and some good rounds. The total number of games was 7. The winner was [redacted].

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:21 am

Another spoiler.

Some players scored more than others.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:44 am

Tthere were more than 6 octochamps at the finals (some were in the audience).

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:36 am

Someone got the numbers!

John Bosley · Post by **John Bosley** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:50 am

Kirk looked sad on the train - we all did.

Andy Wilson · Post by **Andy Wilson** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:29 am

and Sir Alex Ferguson was fantastic in dictionary corner.

Matthew Green · Post by **Matthew Green** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:26 am

Somebody who practises a lot on apterous beat someone else who also practises a lot on apterous. They both scored lots of points for spotting words they learnt mainly on apterous and then in the end one of them happened to score slightly more points than the other and won.

Douglas Wilson · Post by **Douglas Wilson** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:40 am

Matthew Green wrote:Somebody who practises a lot on apterous beat someone else who also practises a lot on apterous. They both scored lots of points for spotting words they learnt mainly on apterous and then in the end one of them happened to score slightly more points than the other and won.

So that rules out at least three players then.

Love your new picture by the way Matthew.

Matthew Green · Post by **Matthew Green** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:23 pm

Douglas Wilson wrote:So that rules out at least three players then.

Well yes, it does.

Ralph Gillions · Post by **Ralph Gillions** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:28 pm

I trust Jason has been asked for permission to use his avatar picture!

Matthew Green · Post by **Matthew Green** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:30 pm

I trust Jason has asked my permission to use my avatar picture.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:32 pm

At one point during the finals, filming was delayed as one of the finalists appeared to be missing. So Jeff sent his dad, who had turned up to watch, out to look for him.

A few minutes later Jeff's dad reappeared.

"Well?", said Jeff.

Jeff's dad looked up sheepishly, and gave his reply . . . "He's in his car, son".

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:09 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:At one point during the finals, filming was delayed as one of the finalists appeared to be missing. So Jeff sent his dad, who had turned up to watch, out to look for him.

A few minutes later Jeff's dad reappeared.

"Well?", said Jeff.

Jeff's dad looked up sheepishly, and gave his reply . . . "He's in his car, son".

Seriously dude, give it a rest.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:11 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Seriously dude, give it a rest.

I've been told off by the boss. Does that mean I've made it?

My apologies for thinking this was a spoof thread.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:51 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:My apologies for thinking this was a spoof thread.

Your posts are occasionally amusing and I don't doubt that you're a nice guy, but given that approximately 95% of everything you post is a joke (I use the term loosely), I think you could afford to trade quantity for quality somewhat.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:14 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:My apologies for thinking this was a spoof thread.
Your posts are occasionally amusing, but given that approximately 95% of everything you post is a joke of some description, I think you could afford to trade quantity for quality somewhat.

Okay, but you seem to have self-destructive tendencies. You have started a successful forum, but then you seem compelled to keep trying to put people off of posting on it. It has taken you a long time to get round to me on your hitlist considering I am a regular, but I knew the time had to come eventually. Perhaps it's because we never got around to meeting at the finals this week, although you now know who I am, so the mystery has been ruined.

Not really surpising in hindsight now though that I felt trepidation about making an effort to introduce myself. If you don't welcome certain people on the forum, then it's best to just come straight out and say so, rather than dropping these kind of unnecessarily mean-spirited digs.

I have always tried to be helpful on here and balance proper posts with humour. If you don't like them, you could foe me and let another moderator deal with them. In addition, I have been quietly making numerous worthy additions to your Wiki.

Matthew Green · Post by **Matthew Green** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:16 pm

Also, between filming, there was a Dictionary Corner contest between Susie and Anne Widdicombe to see who could do the best sketch of a Mancunian suburb.

Susie did a charcoal depiction of Moss Side, Anne drew Hulme.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:18 pm

Matthew Green wrote:Also, between filming, there was a Dictionary Corner contest between Susie and Anne Widdicombe to see who could do the best sketch of a Mancunian suburb.

Susie did a charcoal depiction of Moss Side, Anne drew Hulme.

Lol Matthew. You've got a lot of guts, but it put a smile back on my face anyway.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:59 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:Okay, but you seem to have self-destructive tendencies. You have started a successful forum, but then you seem compelled to keep trying to put people off of posting on it.

I run this place because I enjoy it and for the most part I like reading people's contributions, I would rather have a small number of good posts than a large number of bad ones. When I say I don't like some particular posts, that's just me talking as a user, I'm not going to use my Magic Powers to restrain your apparently insatiable desire to be funny.

Derek Hazell wrote:Not really surpising in hindsight now though that I felt trepidation about making an effort to introduce myself. If you don't welcome certain people on the forum, then it's best to just come straight out and say so, rather than dropping these kind of unnecessarily mean-spirited digs.

I don't really get your point here, although the fact you quoted the pre-edited version of my post suggests that it might be my fault for being unclear originally. You're not "unwelcome" here, I just think you're not very funny. If you disagree then knock yourself out, it's easy enough for me to ignore your posts, but since some of them are good I thought I'd try suggesting (with all my usual tact and politeness) that you cut down a bit. But that's just me. No doubt someone will start a poll and all the people who hate me but for some reason are addicted to posting on my forum will come out to vote in favour of even more Derek Hazell jokes.

Derek Hazell wrote:In addition, I have been quietly making numerous worthy additions to your Wiki.

I don't follow the wiki too closely any more, but thanks.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:36 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I run this place because I enjoy it and for the most part I like reading people's contributions, I would rather have a small number of good posts than a large number of bad ones. When I say I don't like some particular posts, that's just me talking as a user, I'm not going to use my Magic Powers to restrain your apparently insatiable desire to be funny.

Yes, I can see that viewpoint, although I don't share it where the forum is concerned. This is the best forum I have found so far on the Internet, so I would rather see a lot of posts on here, whatever their quality. You can soon get used to who you find funny or interesting, and nobody has to read everything. I don't have any insatiable desires, but if I suddenly think of something which I think is funny then I will post it. Ironically the post you picked me up on is the only "joke" I can remember actually pre-planning and not making spontaneously or after a few moments thought.

Believe it or not, I actually censor myself too, in that if I think a joke is excrutiatingly bad I don't post it. The most recent was when I was going to say they could easily solve the two Ryans problem by calling the Canadian one "Ryan-eh".

Charlie Reams wrote:I don't really get your point here, although the fact you quoted the pre-edited version of my post suggests that it might be my fault for being unclear originally. You're not "unwelcome" here, I just think you're not very funny. If you disagree then knock yourself out, it's easy enough for me to ignore your posts, but since some of them are good I thought I'd try suggesting (with all my usual tact and politeness) that you cut down a bit.

Yes, I was on the site just after you posted, so I did see the original version. The reconsidered version is fairer, and even mildly amusing, so I thank you for that at least. The feeling is mutual though about most of your posts not being funny. It's just I have never felt the need to announce this in front of everyone else. We obviously have different senses of humour, but equally you post other things which are enjoyable.

Charlie Reams wrote:But that's just me. No doubt someone will start a poll and all the people who hate me but for some reason are addicted to posting on my forum will come out to vote in favour of even more Derek Hazell jokes.

It's not going to happen. Anyone who defended me would just be putting themselves in the firing line. Nobody's going to do that when you run Apterous, as that is more important to most members than virtually anything else on the net, including the forum. Plus, you're astute enough to know that by suggesting something, you are double-bluffing people into not doing it.

Anyway, it's taken us about 3 years to have this big falling-out. What a shame it was in the same week as our great last couple of days.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:40 pm

Matthew Green wrote:Also, between filming, there was a Dictionary Corner contest between Susie and Anne Widdicombe to see who could do the best sketch of a Mancunian suburb.

Susie did a charcoal depiction of Moss Side, Anne drew Hulme.

Fuck me, Matthew, so it was you who stole my jokebook.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:46 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Seriously dude, give it a rest.
I've been told off by the boss. Does that mean I've made it?

My apologies for thinking this was a spoof thread.

Hey, don't worry Derek it's not like you've let the cat out of the bag and told everyone that Jaqueline Baker won the final on a 5th crucial conundrum (oops).

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:49 pm

All's fair in love and warp.

Anyway Derek, what's this with you adding to the Countdown Wiki?

You do realise that those of us at ITV Yorkshire and C4, who are stilll waiting for you to tell us what's happening with the 2010 specials, will feel slightly marginalised?

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:54 pm

D Eadie wrote:All's fair in love and warp.

Anyway Derek, what's this with you adding to the Countdown Wiki?

You do realise that those of us at ITV Yorkshire and C4, who are stilll waiting for you to tell us what's happening with the 2010 specials, will feel slightly marginalised?

Haha Damian, you're a cheeky man! I was actually trying to back you up when I said that you have to deal with that lot of executives when you want to do anything different with the show, because people were worrying you about specials. I know you're in charge of the show itself, but until Countdown gets its own channel (Charlie?) you still have to bang your head against a brick wall sometimes.

Was nice to see you yesterday - maybe we'll say hello next time.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:02 am

Derek Hazell wrote: Was nice to see you yesterday - maybe we'll say hello next time.

Oohh, i didn't realise you had seen me? I take it you were at the finals. Hard for me to say hello when i have no idea who you are or what you look like. You're not the letter 'V' by any chance?

Edit -Howard pointed out to me that it had gone missing. We conducted a thorough search and found it later that evening, dressed in a toga, attempting to disguise itself as a number 5.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:03 am

Derek Hazell wrote:This is the best forum I have found so far on the Internet

Right, so give me some credit. I've been running this place, with capable help, for a good while now and I know what I'm doing. I don't miss the contributions of a single person that was scared off by a bit of robust debate, from Zef to Rob Thomas, more than I'd miss the ability to have those debates. If you call that self-destructive then I think you're confused about what I want to preserve.

Derek Hazell wrote:the only "joke" I can remember actually pre-planning and not making spontaneously or after a few moments thought

I think we may have stumbled upon the root of the problem...

Derek Hazell wrote:Anyone who defended me would just be putting themselves in the firing line. Nobody's going to do that when you run Apterous, as that is more important to most members than virtually anything else on the net, including the forum.

You seem to be implying that I would wield my Aptopowers against anyone who disagreed with me on here. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that, but I can't figure out what you're talking about otherwise.

Derek Hazell wrote:Plus, you're astute enough to know that by suggesting something, you are double-bluffing people into not doing it.

Obviously you've not met Richard Brittain.

Derek Hazell wrote:this big falling-out.

*puzzled look*

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:07 am

D Eadie wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote: Was nice to see you yesterday - maybe we'll say hello next time.
Oohh, i didn't realise you had seen me? I take it you were at the finals. Hard for me to say hello when i have no idea who you are or what you look like.

Yeah, you were pretty busy at the time. Well; busy anyway. I was just overwhelmed by the other two people who I had already met - Susie and Rory.

D Eadie wrote:You're not the letter 'V' by any chance?

No, I just looked like that because I had my legs spread wide - waiting for Charlie to kick me in the balls!

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:10 am

Charlie Reams wrote: Right, so give me some credit. I've been running this place, with capable help, for a good while now and I know what I'm doing.

Welcome to my world.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:24 am

Charlie Reams wrote:I don't miss the contributions of a single person that was scared off by a bit of robust debate, from Zef to Rob Thomas, more than I'd miss the ability to have those debates. If you call that self-destructive then I think you're confused about what I want to preserve.

How are you now managing to say things I agree with, whilst we are still arguing? Having said that©JR, I do miss some of the people that have left.

Charlie Reams wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:the only "joke" I can remember actually pre-planning and not making spontaneously or after a few moments thought
I think we may have stumbled upon the root of the problem...

That actually did make me laugh...

Charlie Reams wrote:You seem to be implying that I would wield my Aptopowers against anyone who disagreed with me on here. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that, but I can't figure out what you're talking about otherwise.

No, I didn't mean to imply that you would take any action against them, as I know you don't agree with censorship. But, there are a lot of people who like to stay "in" with someone who runs their favourite site, and I wouldn't know whether they all know you well enough to realise that.

Charlie Reams wrote:Obviously you've not met Richard Brittain.

That's a good point, but you have a friendly rivalry, or a love-hate relationship with him, in the same way that you do with Gevin. It works because they make great points in amongst their wind-ups and bizarre tangents.

Charlie Reams wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:this big falling-out.
*puzzled look*

Well, I don't know. But I'm just realising that after the initial distress of your first reply, I have actually enjoyed this debate more than whatever my last couple of posts were.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:32 am

Charlie Reams wrote: No doubt someone will start a poll and all the people who hate me but for some reason are addicted to posting on my forum will come out to vote in favour of even more Derek Hazell jokes.

No-one has had to spend more time with Derek Hazell over the last couple of days than me, so you can imagine...I'm at absolute bloody breaking point

However, from little acorns, great oaks grow - so surely by now it's become the people's forum?

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:37 am

Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:38 am

Christ no!!!!!! HAVE YOU MET DEREK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But a brownie point surely for him sticking up for himself?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:39 am

Sue Sanders wrote:However, from little acorns, great oaks grow

I didn't realise you were such a Hazell nut.

Consider this my resignation from the Internet.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:42 am

Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?

Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:48 am

Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?

Apparently my nickname at my local is 'Camp David' - I'd be offended if I wasn't so fucking amused.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:59 am

Sue Sanders wrote:Christ no!!!!!! HAVE YOU MET DEREK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But a brownie point surely for him sticking up for himself?

I am sure Derek can hold his own.
I for one like Derek's wit. (I consider myself something of a wit, well I am half right)
But I don't think that there is much wrong with with this bantering.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:03 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:However, from little acorns, great oaks grow
I didn't realise you were such a Hazell nut.

Consider this my resignation from the Internet.

It's the forum that's the Great Oak, as well you know, so don't you go making really crap Hazellesque jokes too. I've had to put up with Derek in my car for enough hours this week to leave me feeling like I've just got back from 'Nam. Whilst generally, the technique is just to blank him out - scan read, move on... he was in my car, Charlie. In my friggin' car!!!!!! I admit as a project, I've failed (though I did confiscate the wig) and I bow out leaving him needing a lot more work but I've taken the bullets for the team in the last 72 hours so you didn't have to!

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:04 am

Derek Hazell wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?
Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.

Are you my long lost twin?

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:13 am

Marc,
Do you like to meet new people wearing a comedy wig, are your coat pockets stuffed full of the contents of an old man's shed, if you've forgotten your watch - which is always - do you tell the time by buying something from a shop and checking the time on the till receipt? If so, yes you are Derek's twin. But that will also mean that you mean well, (and not in the way that Jason thinks Damian 'means well'), are essentially harmless, are kind to your nan, and actually do edit yourself before posting really bad jokes.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:54 am

Sue Sanders wrote: do you tell the time by buying something from a shop and checking the time on the till receipt?

I have done this

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:56 am

Sue Sanders wrote:Marc,
Do you like to meet new people wearing a comedy wig, are your coat pockets stuffed full of the contents of an old man's shed, if you've forgotten your watch - which is always - do you tell the time by buying something from a shop and checking the time on the till receipt? If so, yes you are Derek's twin. But that will also mean that you mean well, (and not in the way that Jason thinks Damian 'means well'), are essentially harmless, are kind to your nan, and actually do edit yourself before posting really bad jokes.

I have a mental image of a cross between Colin Hunt and Selwyn Froggit.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:56 am

Derek Hazell wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:Is this the point where we divide into Camp Charlie or Camp Derek?
Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.

I've been active on this forum and played Apterous for about three months, during which time things haven't always seemed particularly rosy. But I persisted and now I've settled at a happy level, and I think this is the normal process in any new environment. It just takes a bit of time to get a feel for the general atmosphere of the forum and to pick up on the quirks and peculiarities of the individuals who use it and of those who very kindly keep it running.

I have been the target of a few Reamsian put-downs myself and, if I were small-minded enough, I might have concluded that he is not to be liked. But, on reflection, I feel I have actually benefited from what one might call 'tough love'. Although I say so myself, I think I am a noticeably better forum participant now than I was three months ago, owing primarily to some seemingly acerbic responses which I got from Charlie and one or two others, and which were not too dissimilar from the one you're complaining about. I have discovered that such comments often have the effect of holding up a mirror to myself, with the result that any disappointing thoughts prove to have their roots in me and my own shortcomings, not in the responders themselves.

Nowadays I have a lot of respect for Charlie, and I'm grateful for all the work he does. I think he deserves better than to be berated for expressing his opinion. But that, in turn, is just mine.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:02 am

I am sure Charlie has broad shoulders as I hope, does Derek.

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:03 am

Alec Rivers wrote:I feel I have actually benefited from what one might call 'tough love'

Man, now that sounds interesting! Ought we move this to Off Topic?

Am I in danger of losing my innocent label yet?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:13 am

Alec Rivers wrote:Nowadays I have a lot of respect for Charlie

I wouldn't go that far! But I'm glad you take the feedback positively. Almost everything comes across meaner in text, and I'm usually too lazy/apathetic to tone done my phrasing accordingly.

Lesley Hines wrote:Am I in danger of losing my innocent label yet?

Can I have my Mars bar back yet?

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:16 am

Lesley Hines wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:I feel I have actually benefited from what one might call 'tough love'
Man, now that sounds interesting! Ought we move this to Off Topic?

Am I in danger of losing my innocent label yet?

I'd say you are, if you're insinuating that I want to give Charlie countersunk turds.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:26 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote: do you tell the time by buying something from a shop and checking the time on the till receipt?
I have done this

Oh no, we're not going to start bonding now are we? It was so much more fun when we were wary of each other.

Alec Rivers wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:Yeah, and then all the people who think some idiot who is not good enough to go on the show, can barely play Apterous, and makes "jokes" of questionable value can follow me to my rival Countdown forum.
I've been active on this forum and played Apterous for about three months [...] I think he deserves better than to be berated for expressing his opinion. But that, in turn, is just mine.

Interesting post you quoted there Alec to imagine that I was just having a go at Charlie for the fun of it. If I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it months ago. The mirror comment is interesting though.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:41 am

Derek Hazell wrote:... to imagine that I was just having a go at Charlie for the fun of it.

I said nothing of the sort, but never mind.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:49 am

Alec Rivers wrote: I have discovered that such comments often have the effect of holding up a mirror to myself, with the result that any disappointing thoughts prove to have their roots in me and my own shortcomings, not in the responders themselves.

Bloody hell. A forum isn't a tool for discovering your shortcomings. How do you decide whose opinion you're using to highlight which shortcomings on any given day? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:55 am

Sue Sanders wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote: I have discovered that such comments often have the effect of holding up a mirror to myself, with the result that any disappointing thoughts prove to have their roots in me and my own shortcomings, not in the responders themselves.
Bloody hell. A forum isn't a tool for discovering your shortcomings. How do you decide whose opinion you're using to highlight which shortcomings on any given day? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

It encourages introspection, and I have the final say. Don't worry, I don't let others shape my self-image.

Phil Makepeace · Post by **Phil Makepeace** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:20 am

Did Amey Deshpande win then?

Jeffrey Burgin · Post by **Jeffrey Burgin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:09 am

Phil Makepeace wrote:Did Amey Deshpande win then?

No, they were a finalist short and so James Robinson stepped in and made an incredible comeback appearance on his 4th attempt.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:52 am

Derek Hazell wrote:At one point during the finals, filming was delayed as one of the finalists appeared to be missing. So Jeff sent his dad, who had turned up to watch, out to look for him.
A few minutes later Jeff's dad reappeared.
"Well?", said Jeff.
Jeff's dad looked up sheepishly, and gave his reply . . . "He's in his car, son".

Mattson Greensen wrote:Also, between filming, there was a Dictionary Corner contest between Susie and Anne Widdicombe to see who could do the best sketch of a Mancunian suburb.
Susie did a charcoal depiction of Moss Side, Anne drew Hulme.

As bad puns go, you have to admit...they're pretty wry, an' taylor made

(yep -too slow, I know)

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:04 am

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:
Phil Makepeace wrote:Did Amey Deshpande win then?
No, they were a finalist short and so James Robinson stepped in and made an incredible comeback appearance on his 4th attempt.

Yeah, I even managed to surprise myself with all those fantastic words I came up with!

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:19 am

Sue Sanders wrote:As bad puns go, you have to admit...they're pretty wry, an' taylor made

(yep -too slow, I know)

Haha, nice one Sue!

It's rather a moot point picking somebody up on the quality of their jokes on a forum devoted to a programme where they deliberately make the most cringeworthy jokes they can possibly think of. So, in the spirit of our favourite show, I salute you.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:05 am

Blimey, this thread took an unexpected turn. Has it spoiled the Series 61 Finals for you, Derek? Perhaps Charlie was just trying to keep it on-topic.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:15 pm

D Eadie wrote: Edit -Howard pointed out to me that it had gone missing. We conducted a thorough search and found it later that evening, dressed in a toga, attempting to disguise itself as a number 5.

I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:58 pm

JackHurst wrote:
D Eadie wrote: Edit -Howard pointed out to me that it had gone missing. We conducted a thorough search and found it later that evening, dressed in a toga, attempting to disguise itself as a number 5.
I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.

Surely if they were that passionate they'd make an X? scissors lol

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:57 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
JackHurst wrote:I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.
Surely if they were that passionate they'd make an X?

ITYM a »

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:11 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:
JackHurst wrote:I saw two V tiles passionately making a W in the corner of the studio.
Surely if they were that passionate they'd make an X?
ITYM a »

You're all wrong, because as any lexicosexologist knows, the male V's penis is on its point and the female V has two vaginas, one on the end of each open arm. So you'd need two male Vs and a female V to satisfy the entry requirements. Unless both the Vs were lesbians, I doubt the veracity of Jack's story.