c4countdown

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jennifer Turner wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Nowt wrong with a slim girl.

Just don't sneeze in the same room or she may break.

Jealous of the new girl already?

It was a generic "size zero" joke. Got the new girl on a pedestal already?

Jennifer Turner wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jennifer Turner wrote:
Just don't sneeze in the same room or she may break.

Jealous of the new girl already?

It was a generic "size zero" joke. Got the new girl on a pedestal already?

Susie's still cuter.

Jennifer Turner wrote:It was a generic "size zero" joke. Got the new girl on a pedestal already?

You really are a tedious turd. I suspect you only watch the show to fill yourself the latent anger required for you to have anything to post here. May I suggest the Daily Mail as an excellent alternative outlet for your frustrations?

Ian Volante wrote:Susie's still cuter.

Not to disagree with you, but I think everyone who attended CoC would agree that Rachel is even prettier than the press photographs suggest, so reconsider your position in a few months' time

Charlie Reams wrote: Not to disagree with you, but I think everyone who attended CoC would agree that Rachel is even prettier than the press photographs suggest, so reconsider your position in a few months' time

For those who missed out: build up your expectations, on all fronts, as high as possible. You won't be disappointed.

John Evans wrote:For those who missed out: build up your expectations, on all fronts, as high as possible. You won't be disappointed.

This.

I thought she looked pretty in the press photos, but I was genuinely amazed when I saw her for the first time at just how stunning she was. Add the fact that she is a ridiculously lovely person (she missed not one but two trains back home after filming to hang around in a bar drinking with us lot after filming) and it's a winning combination

Please tell me this wasnt the Monday night after i rushed home, please no.

Matthew Green wrote:Please tell me this wasnt the Monday night after i rushed home, please no.

Fear not, it was Tuesday evening.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jennifer Turner wrote:It was a generic "size zero" joke. Got the new girl on a pedestal already?

You really are a tedious turd. I suspect you only watch the show to fill yourself the latent anger required for you to have anything to post here. May I suggest the Daily Mail as an excellent alternative outlet for your frustrations?

For fuck's sake. I watch the show because I like the game. I don't necessarily like all the other stuff that goes on around it. I have criticisms of the show, like a lot of people have. Harry wrote "I just can't imagine how all of the essential plumbing can fit through her waist." and I responded in what was intended to be the same spirit, because if the feedline's there, of course I'm going to go for the punchline. And I am certain that if one of the male denizens of this forum had posted it, you wouldn't even care. But if a woman posts what isn't even a criticism but merely a very mild joke then you don't like that, do you?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matthew Green wrote:Please tell me this wasnt the Monday night after i rushed home, please no.

Fear not, it was Tuesday evening.

Still though, dammit- next time I'm going to remember to actually book more tickets, free up some more time and remember to bring more pants. Plenty of Scrabblers I could needle into applying in order to get back on the show...

Jennifer Turner wrote:For fuck's sake. I watch the show because I like the game. I don't necessarily like all the other stuff that goes on around it. I have criticisms of the show, like a lot of people have. Harry wrote "I just can't imagine how all of the essential plumbing can fit through her waist." and I responded in what was intended to be the same spirit, because if the feedline's there, of course I'm going to go for the punchline. And I am certain that if one of the male denizens of this forum had posted it, you wouldn't even care. But if a woman posts what isn't even a criticism but merely a very mild joke then you don't like that, do you?

That's right, I don't like you being insulting about Rachel's weight because I'm secretly a massive sexist. Once again your sparkling intellect leaves me floored!

Jon Corby wrote:

John Evans wrote:For those who missed out: build up your expectations, on all fronts, as high as possible. You won't be disappointed.

This.

I thought she looked pretty in the press photos, but I was genuinely amazed when I saw her for the first time at just how stunning she was. Add the fact that she is a ridiculously lovely person (she missed not one but two trains back home after filming to hang around in a bar drinking with us lot after filming) and it's a winning combination

Good to hear Rachel hung around after filming, something that others in the past haven't done.

Argh, arguing. Not wishing to make myself unpopular (or 'more' unpopular as I already have at least one foe who's vocalised the fact) but I find a lot of the way people treat each other in here quite unfriendly and uncalled for. I accept that we're all different and express ourselves and different views in different ways, but I (maybe wrongly) expect Charlie to rise above it as admin.
I KNOW that a lot of you are far more intellectual than me as far as Countdown, Scrabble etc goes, but well when it comes to basic people skills, there's a lot left to be desired. (*Awaits the wrath...*)

Lesley Jeavons wrote:I KNOW that a lot of you are far more intellectual than me as far as Countdown, Scrabble etc goes, but well when it comes to basic people skills, there's a lot left to be desired. (*Awaits the wrath...*)

I think you confuse "people skills" with "being nice". Sometimes being nice is not the best option. If people are talking bollocks then I'd rather say so than pretend meekly that all opinions are created equal. In any case, our friend Jennifer Turner wasn't expressing an opinion, she was just being bitchy about someone she's never met, and I don't feel any need to be "nice" in response to that sort of thing.

Sorry I provoked some of this.

In my defence, there's something that makes some middle aged bores like me get unreasonably irritated by what they see as females' obsessions with primping themselves. Young males clearly react favourably, which presumably encourages the women in their efforts.

Carol, for some reason, is proud of the fact that her bum sticks out so far, so she wears clothes that accentuate the fact.

Rachel, for her part, feels her slim waist is a plus point, but I should have refrained from flippancy about it.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jennifer Turner wrote:For fuck's sake. I watch the show because I like the game. I don't necessarily like all the other stuff that goes on around it. I have criticisms of the show, like a lot of people have. Harry wrote "I just can't imagine how all of the essential plumbing can fit through her waist." and I responded in what was intended to be the same spirit, because if the feedline's there, of course I'm going to go for the punchline. And I am certain that if one of the male denizens of this forum had posted it, you wouldn't even care. But if a woman posts what isn't even a criticism but merely a very mild joke then you don't like that, do you?

That's right, I don't like you being insulting about Rachel's weight because I'm secretly a massive sexist. Once again your sparkling intellect leaves me floored!

I think this has been blown out of proportion - and probably more by you than Jennifer, Charlie.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think this has been blown out of proportion - and probably more by you than Jennifer, Charlie.

Yes probably, but I felt one more whiny comment was symptomatic of a wider problem. I guess I can't really understand the point of people who come on here just to moan and never contribute anything.

Charlie Reams wrote:I think you confuse "people skills" with "being nice". Sometimes being nice is not the best option. If people are talking bollocks then I'd rather say so than pretend meekly that all opinions are created equal. In any case, our friend Jennifer Turner wasn't expressing an opinion, she was just being bitchy about someone she's never met, and I don't feel any need to be "nice" in response to that sort of thing.

I agree, you're prob right with my choice of words - "people skills".
It's very easy to grasp the wrong meaning from a post, but I didn't read Jennifer's post as being bitchy at all. Perhaps you've found some of her prev posts (no idea if this is the case as don't know everyone well enough yet to know who's posted what) in that vein so assumed this of this one too.
In another forum I spend time in (for a band I like), we all spend too much time kissing each others ass so I guess I'm just not used to what can seem quite blunt to me. Though saying that I do like a certain amount of the fire in here - it shows character and passion!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think this has been blown out of proportion - and probably more by you than Jennifer, Charlie.

Yes probably, but I felt one more whiny comment was symptomatic of a wider problem. I guess I can't really understand the point of people who come on here just to moan and never contribute anything.

Fair enough. Her posts haven't registered that much with me so I won't comment on that. Although I do remember a few people moaning about some posts of hers in the past.

And that description definitely doesn't apply to me, in case that's what you're also hinting at, but obviously you weren't because it doesn't (apply to me, that is). I hope that's clear!

Edit - Well I say "fair enough" but it might not be depending on what the posts actually are like. And having said that, of the moans I have vague memories about, I don't remember the initial posts actually being that bad. One thing I often notice on forums is people moaning about moaning, but the moaning about the moaning is often far worse than the original moaning!

Lesley Jeavons wrote:In another forum I spend time in (for a band I like), we all spend too much time kissing each others ass

Sometimes you just need to kick each other's donkey.

Um, it's me, I'm back. Hi. Shall we continue with the Rachel Riley thread? Unfortunately this next story is from the Daily Mail, but anyway...

Rachel Riley's Boyfriend Unveiled: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... Q-173.html

Jennifer Turner wrote:Um, it's me, I'm back. Hi. Shall we continue with the Rachel Riley thread? Unfortunately this next story is from the Daily Mail, but anyway...

Rachel Riley's Boyfriend Unveiled: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... Q-173.html

Can someone please delete this post. It's far too upsetting on what's supposed to be a family friendly forum. Some people just have no respect for others.

'She’s wonderful at maths. I never understood her work at university – it all looked like random squiggles to me.’

That's a coincidence. My maths looks like random squiggles too.

John Evans wrote:

Jennifer Turner wrote:Um, it's me, I'm back. Hi. Shall we continue with the Rachel Riley thread? Unfortunately this next story is from the Daily Mail, but anyway...

Rachel Riley's Boyfriend Unveiled: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... Q-173.html

Can someone please delete this post. It's far too upsetting on what's supposed to be a family friendly forum. Some people just have no respect for others.

I think that's one post too far for Jennifer. She needs to be burnt at the stake!

Well I'm certainly not remotely jealous of him in any way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... ndrum.html

It was only a matter of time...

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Argh, arguing. Not wishing to make myself unpopular (or 'more' unpopular as I already have at least one foe who's vocalised the fact) but I find a lot of the way people treat each other in here quite unfriendly and uncalled for. I accept that we're all different and express ourselves and different views in different ways, but I (maybe wrongly) expect Charlie to rise above it as admin.
I KNOW that a lot of you are far more intellectual than me as far as Countdown, Scrabble etc goes, but well when it comes to basic people skills, there's a lot left to be desired. (*Awaits the wrath...*)

Please don't take what I said to heart Lesley, I really didn't mean it. My opinion doesn't matter and most people really like you on the forum. I mean I'm deff more unpopular than you on the forum. I guess my "basic people skills" are somewhat lacking. I hope that's why you don't seem to be posting as much . I disagree that people on here treat each other unfriendlily ( ) though. Just my stupid comment. Soz.

Kirk Bevins wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... ndrum.html

It was only a matter of time...

Carol wouldn't get many (if any) solutions that the contestants didn't spot in a Champion of Champions series either. And if RR is having problems just checking contestants' working-out, surely that's only to be expected from a maths graduate. I think you automatically fail a maths degree if you can add up 2 and 2 without going through at least eight intermediate stages and assuming the truth of the Riemann hypothesis.

Pete Fraser wrote: I think you automatically fail a maths degree if you can add up 2 and 2 without going through at least eight intermediate stages and assuming the truth of the Riemann hypothesis.

Haha - I would agree with you but I passed my maths degree and I'm not too shabby at arithmetic

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Pete Fraser wrote: I think you automatically fail a maths degree if you can add up 2 and 2 without going through at least eight intermediate stages and assuming the truth of the Riemann hypothesis.

Haha - I would agree with you but I passed my maths degree and I'm not too shabby at arithmetic

Yeah, we have to know about countable infinites and stuff, that's counting, right?

Jimmy wrote:Please don't take what I said to heart Lesley, I really didn't mean it. My opinion doesn't matter and most people really like you on the forum. I mean I'm deff more unpopular than you on the forum. I guess my "basic people skills" are somewhat lacking. I hope that's why you don't seem to be posting as much . I disagree that people on here treat each other unfriendlily ( ) though. Just my stupid comment. Soz.

Aw, thank you Jimmy. *kiss* (BTW why's there no 'kiss' smilie here? I guess there's not much use for one eh, with all the fighting! Though I'm suprised we don't have the one with a mallet over the head. )
That little thing called 'Christmas' has kept me away. And people here, even when being gits to each other, are hugely entertaining. It's just that I don't have a very thick skin - call me a wuss - but as I'm hanging around, I'm sure it'll develop.

I've just read Jason's 'Dear me! Please!' thread on Rachel's maths ability, but it's locked so can't reply there, so replying here...

... all I can say is poor Rachel hasn't been given a chance, and this is just crap tabloid fodder. I am very much in the 'I love, worship and adore Carol and won't hear a word against her' brigade, as you all know, BUT FFS Carol hasn't get solutions on numerous occassions recently. Given that Rachel is new to TV and has big shoes to fill, just as contestants often don't perform as well in the studio as they do at home, then why should she be any different under pressure and whilst nervous?

Lesley Jeavons wrote:I've just read Jason's 'Dear me! Please!' thread on Rachel's maths ability, but it's locked so can't reply there, so replying here...

I think the two threads should be merged, to make it easier to reply to Jason's posts (although Kirk posted the link before him )

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Lesley Jeavons wrote:I've just read Jason's 'Dear me! Please!' thread on Rachel's maths ability, but it's locked so can't reply there, so replying here...

I think the two threads should be merged, to make it easier to reply to Jason's posts (although Kirk posted the link before him )

I personally can't wait for the new programme to start and we really must give Rachel a chance. Poor girl, she must have been very nervous recording those first few shows so it's understandable that she's going to make mistakes. This makes the whole show so much more 'human'. Carol often got stuck with the numbers, but I never once thought of her as incompetent. The fact that Channel 4 have managed to set the whole programme up again is to be commended and I really hope the new hosts do as well as the old ones did. I'm really not expecting to spend my time comparing the old show with the new one and just want to get cracking, join in and enjoy the return of Countdown.

kathleen batlle wrote:Poor girl, she must have been very nervous recording those first few shows so it's understandable that she's going to make mistakes.

Before my game she asked me how I was feeling. I said "terrified". She said "me too".

Pete Fraser wrote:And if RR is having problems just checking contestants' working-out, surely that's only to be expected from a maths graduate.

FTR, I don't remember her "having any trouble checking contestant's working-out." She may have once written down a slightly inaccurate answer to a multiplication and then corrected herself, but Carol did that too, and you make the pertinent point that missed answers in a CoC are by definition not going to be easy. Article = rubbish, she'll be just fine.

Rachel and I share the same birthday


Edit: Oh. Apparently not. Wikipedia lied to me

Jon Corby wrote:Rachel and I share the same birthday

Edit: Oh. Apparently not. Wikipedia lied to me

You need to consult Wikipedia to find out when your birthday is?

Just wanted to say as someone who's just registered on the forum, I am finding this thread hysterically funny! I love the way a seemingly nerdy TV gameshow can illicit such brilliantly wicked banter FWIW, I am thoroughly jealous of Charlie and you other guys who have had the pleasure of being in the same room as Rachel Riley; on the TV she looks jaw-droppingly gorgeous and everything I read about her suggests that would be an understatement. She's obviously a brainiac to have got the gig in the first place, and I'm just waiting to see this fantastic personality you contestants have had first-hand experience get a chance to show itself on camera. Apologies to any less-attractive forum members who may be overcome by jealousy after this public expression of appreciation.

Vikash Shah wrote:I love the way a seemingly nerdy TV gameshow can illicit such brilliantly wicked banter

Illicit is not a verb.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Vikash Shah wrote:I love the way a seemingly nerdy TV gameshow can illicit such brilliantly wicked banter

Illicit is not a verb.

I think some people are going way too far when it comes to correcting spelling and grammar.
Fair enough if you've got OCD and you absolutely HAVE to point it out, but it's a bit wrong when it comes at the expense of making any sort of appropriate response to the post in question.

If you had at least pointed out the difference between 'elicit' and 'illicit' (or 'compliment' and 'complement' in that other thread) then I would wholeheartedly approve but this way it just feels like smug superiority. At the end of the day, isn't it great that people who don't have perfect spelling/grammar are watching and enjoying Countdown and getting into the forum? They should be encouraged, not ridiculed.
That said, I find far worse the posts that are correcting insignificant spelling mistakes, which are often innocent keys-next-to-each-other typos.

You're by no means the worst offender Phil but just mentioning as I like you, and like your wit, and I think you've get plenty more to add to this forum than this sort of post suggests.

I agree with you, Matt, about posts picking on insignificant typos. However, if I see an example of a common confusion between two words (typically homophones), I feel I'm giving the poster an opportunity to learn and improve if I point it out. I'll admit my style could sometimes benefit from being less abrupt as it creates the impression I'm being intentionally sarcastic, which (usually) isn't the case - I just feel it's sufficient for me to point out the mistake, after which the original poster (or anyone who else who cares) can look the word up for themselves. Perhaps I'm wrong. Anyway, feedback noted and genuinely appreciated.

To be honest that rant was brewing for quite a while, I almost made a new thread of it as it really gets my goat, and must be putting people off becoming regular forum types, but then I'm not so loony that I think I have any chance of changing people's attitudes and forum approach.
But yeah, glad you didn't take offence as none was intended!

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Vikash Shah wrote:I love the way a seemingly nerdy TV gameshow can illicit such brilliantly wicked banter

Illicit is not a verb.

Obviously I knew that and was testing you. Well done, you passed, you clever sausage

Phil Reynolds wrote:IHowever, if I see an example of a common confusion between two words (typically homophones), I feel I'm giving the poster an opportunity to learn and improve if I point it out.

I can see why that would be a sore point for you. Those bloody homophones!

I think, if you really want to help the guy improve his grammar, these things are better placed in a PM, as it is generally of no use to everyone else.

Also, Rachel Riley illicits happiness from me.

Not a criticism (it adds to the entertainment), but I find it hilarious the way Rachel pronounces some of the vowels when the contestants are picking letters.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Not a criticism (it adds to the entertainment), but I find it hilarious the way Rachel pronounces some of the vowels

Yes. I know what you mean. But I find her voice a bit hard and harsh. Not sweet-sounding to my ears sadly.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Not a criticism (it adds to the entertainment), but I find it hilarious the way Rachel pronounces some of the vowels when the contestants are picking letters.

Um.... which ones?

Jon Corby wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Not a criticism (it adds to the entertainment), but I find it hilarious the way Rachel pronounces some of the vowels when the contestants are picking letters.

Um.... which ones?

I can never seem to remember afterwards. I'm fairly sure A and O and possibly I. Maybe the others too! I'll have to make a note.

I thought this was just my East London upbringing which made me immune to this hilarity, but Gavin's from Essex, so I'm stumped.

She is rather strong on the first vowel she picks up and especially on 'u'.

In yesterday's ep, when Rachel nearly dropped a tile, she interjected with something along the lines of "... if I can keep it up ...", which kinda made me smile

(I do know that "kinda" isn't a valid word, before any pedants try to correct me.)

Vikash Shah wrote:(I do know that "kinda" isn't a valid word, before any pedants try to correct me.)

SELF-MERK!

Kinda is very much an allowable word in Countdown

Jon Corby wrote:Kinda is very much an allowable word in Countdown

There's slang in the dictionary????

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Kinda is very much an allowable word in Countdown

There's slang in the dictionary????

Indeed, DesO, there's lots of slang in the dictionary!

Thinking back to my schooldays, surely Rachel is grammatically incorrect in referring to a multiplication as "times by". In this context "times" means "multiplied by" so she is saying "multiplied by by" which is tautology. Carol never made this mistake - perhaps they taught better English at Cambridge than they do at Dxford.

Albert Vennison wrote:Thinking back to my schooldays, surely Rachel is grammatically incorrect in referring to a multiplication as "times by". In this context "times" means "multiplied by" so she is saying "multiplied by by" which is tautology. Carol never made this mistake - perhaps they taught better English at Cambridge than they do at Dxford.

Er...not quite. To 'times' is to multiply. So 'times by' is 'mutiply by' and 'timesed by' is 'multiplied by' and a perfectly fine alternative. This is obviously a very important point so let's spend all day discussing it. Or not.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure Rachel was taught English long before she arrived at Oxford. It's a fairly useful skill for one to have before embarking on an undergraduate course there. Judging by your post, I'm assuming you went to neither Oxford or Cambridge, or even a very good school for that matter.

Albert Vennison wrote:Thinking back to my schooldays, surely Rachel is grammatically incorrect in referring to a multiplication as "times by". In this context "times" means "multiplied by" so she is saying "multiplied by by" which is tautology. Carol never made this mistake - perhaps they taught better English at Cambridge than they do at Dxford.

Words fail me.




No, wait - one's coming....





Cock.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:

Albert Vennison wrote:Thinking back to my schooldays, surely Rachel is grammatically incorrect in referring to a multiplication as "times by". In this context "times" means "multiplied by" so she is saying "multiplied by by" which is tautology. Carol never made this mistake - perhaps they taught better English at Cambridge than they do at Dxford.

Er...not quite. To 'times' is to multiply. So 'times by' is 'mutiply by' and 'timesed by' is 'multiplied by' and a perfectly fine alternative. This is obviously a very important point so let's spend all day discussing it. Or not.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure Rachel was taught English long before she arrived at Oxford. It's a fairly useful skill for one to have before embarking on an undergraduate course there. Judging by your post, I'm assuming you went to neither Oxford or Cambridge, or even a very good school for that matter.

See, this is the sort of post that deserves a "me too". So here is one.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:

Albert Vennison wrote:Thinking back to my schooldays, surely Rachel is grammatically incorrect in referring to a multiplication as "times by". In this context "times" means "multiplied by" so she is saying "multiplied by by" which is tautology. Carol never made this mistake - perhaps they taught better English at Cambridge than they do at Dxford.

Er...not quite. To 'times' is to multiply. So 'times by' is 'mutiply by' and 'timesed by' is 'multiplied by' and a perfectly fine alternative. This is obviously a very important point so let's spend all day discussing it. Or not.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure Rachel was taught English long before she arrived at Oxford. It's a fairly useful skill for one to have before embarking on an undergraduate course there. Judging by your post, I'm assuming you went to neither Oxford or Cambridge, or even a very good school for that matter.

Could the study of Rachel's perceived tautology and its correllation to how well or not she was taught at Oxford be called "taught-ology"?