Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by James Robinson »

Well, Oliver is now the #1 seed for at least the next week, but can he reach his 6th win today?

His opponent today should keep his/her guard up, as he has been in fantastic form after his seemingly nervous start last week. Quite a lots of his words have been pretty impressive. (Still amazed that FECKERS/FOCKERS isn't in the dictionary though, well not yet anyway.)

John Stapleton remains in DC for the rest week, as he continues his 2nd stint next to Susie.

Can Oliver make it 6 out of 6 :?: Answers on a postcard, or below this message. ;) :) :D
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Kirk Bevins »

James Robinson wrote: Can Oliver make it 6 out of 6 :?: Answers on a postcard, or below this message. ;) :) :D
Yes.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Marc Meakin »

Kirk Bevins wrote:
James Robinson wrote: Can Oliver make it 6 out of 6 :?: Answers on a postcard, or below this message. ;) :) :D
Yes.
Spoilers within spoilers?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Niall Seymour
Rookie
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Niall Seymour »

Upset that you haven't mentioned that Huddersfield are going to stuff my team, Bristol Rovers tonight James.
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by James Robinson »

Niall Seymour wrote:Upset that you haven't mentioned that Huddersfield are going to stuff my team, Bristol Rovers tonight James.
My apologies, Niall. I actually didn't know they were your team.

P.S. 3-0 to the Terriers tonight, I'm fairly sure. ;) :) :D :mrgreen:
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Matt Morrison »

James Robinson wrote:Well, Oliver is now the #1 seed for at least the next week, but can he reach his 6th win today?
You left a question mark in, James - oops.
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Matt Morrison »

She's not been practising her Triggonomics.
User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Sue Sanders »

James Robinson wrote:Still amazed that FECKERS/FOCKERS isn't in the dictionary though, well not yet anyway.
FECKERS getting into the dictionary soon makes sense, because FECK is already in ..but why would FOCKERS get in??

CROONING for 8 in RACCOON round?
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Sue Sanders wrote:
CROONING for 8 in RACCOON round?
Not two Ns.
User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Sue Sanders »

Did wonder if I'd made a mistake. That's the problem with working with pen and paper.
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.
User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Sue Sanders »

Ha - but got both 9's. Pen and paper rule!
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Sue Sanders wrote:Did wonder if I'd made a mistake. That's the problem with working with pen and paper.
I work with pen and paper and have no problems at all. I do have a degree in copying though.

Anyway, another marvellous performance, Oli. Would have been a crucial conundrum between us today - you just don't relent. Top stuff.
User avatar
Mark Kudlowski
Enthusiast
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Mark Kudlowski »

3rd numbers:

(25 + 6 + 3) x 2 x 8
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by James Robinson »

Alternative To 2nd Numbers:

4 x 100 = 400, 7 + 6 = 13, 13 x 9 = 117, 400 + 117 = 517
User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Brian Moore »

Image
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by David Williams »

I know what a fine-tooth comb looks like, but I've never seen a toothcomb. Something to do with aggressive flossing? Quite surprised to see it's in the dictionary.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Kirk Bevins »

David Williams wrote:I know what a fine-tooth comb looks like, but I've never seen a toothcomb. Something to do with aggressive flossing? Quite surprised to see it's in the dictionary.
Oh? Toothcomb is quite a normal word I thought, i.e. the verb "to toothcomb" meaning to look meticulously.
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by James Robinson »

James Robinson wrote:
Niall Seymour wrote:Upset that you haven't mentioned that Huddersfield are going to stuff my team, Bristol Rovers tonight James.
My apologies, Niall. I actually didn't know they were your team.

P.S. 3-0 to the Terriers tonight, I'm fairly sure. ;) :) :D :mrgreen:
HUDDERSFIELD TOWN 0 - 0 BRISTOL ROVERS

Oh well, at least I was half right.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Michael Wallace »

Brian Moore wrote:Image
Ollie, how could you? :(
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by David Williams »

Kirk Bevins wrote:
David Williams wrote:I know what a fine-tooth comb looks like, but I've never seen a toothcomb. Something to do with aggressive flossing? Quite surprised to see it's in the dictionary.
Oh? Toothcomb is quite a normal word I thought, i.e. the verb "to toothcomb" meaning to look meticulously.
The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.

I only need a few hundred more of these and I could do the Susie Dent spot.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Michael Wallace »

David Williams wrote:The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.
OR MAYBE THERE IS?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by David Williams »

Michael Wallace wrote:
David Williams wrote:The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.
OR MAYBE THERE IS?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!
I really should do my research before I make pronouncements! Not sure how to use one for searching, and why only a fine one will do, but there you go.
User avatar
Martin Bishop
Enthusiast
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Tadworth, Surrey

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Martin Bishop »

David Williams wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:
David Williams wrote:The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.
OR MAYBE THERE IS?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!
I really should do my research before I make pronouncements! Not sure how to use one for searching, and why only a fine one will do, but there you go.
That sense of toothcomb hasn't made it into the ODE. My copy has the fine toothcomb definition only, with the fine-tooth comb derivation explained beneath.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Michael Wallace »

Martin Bishop wrote:That sense of toothcomb hasn't made it into the ODE. My copy has the fine toothcomb definition only, with the fine-tooth comb derivation explained beneath.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Still, thought it was pretty cool.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Charlie Reams »

Seems we've captured the zeitgeist once again; from the current Private Eye:
C. J. Rose wrote:Mr Brian Leedham says that "fine tooth comb" should be a "fine-toothed comb". Not so. The word "toothcomb" has a long and respectable history. The word presumably indicates the difference between a comb with teeth and other sorts of comb, such as a currycomb or possibly a cock's-comb. "Fine toothcomb" is therefore perfectly acceptable.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13331
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by Gavin Chipper »

And that's a mighty fine toothcomb you've got yourself there sir, if you don't mind my saying so.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers For Tuesday January 19th 2010

Post by David Williams »

Charlie Reams wrote:Seems we've captured the zeitgeist once again; from the current Private Eye:
C. J. Rose wrote:Mr Brian Leedham says that "fine tooth comb" should be a "fine-toothed comb". Not so. The word "toothcomb" has a long and respectable history. The word presumably indicates the difference between a comb with teeth and other sorts of comb, such as a currycomb or possibly a cock's-comb. "Fine toothcomb" is therefore perfectly acceptable.
We?
Post Reply