c4countdown

D Eadie wrote:The same methods of [...] beating the best.

Cheers for that Damian. Was all speculation really, and I'm guessing that you rightfully realised that I wasn't trying to offend your producer's sensibilities, as your response unusually contained absolutely no abuse at all

I pretty much agree with everything you said, I was just concerned that one audition is not as good an indicator as months and months of apterous evidence. I'd happily put everything I own on any of the aforementioned three from Series 61 becoming octochamps because I know their apterous records, but I'd probably be hesitant to do so on the basis of seeing them at one audition. But then, needless to say, I'm very aware that you'd be miles better at quickly spotting a good player than I would be, presumably better in fact than anyone else here, and I'm certainly willing to be satisfied by your confidence.

I'm definitely largely in the dark when it comes to contestants from back in time - despite having watched on and off for possibly over 15 years, I rarely took notice of the players involved; they were mere contestants rather than people. Yes, I'd follow runs and keep track of current champions, but they'd be forgotten by the following week. Charlie and Junaid changed all of that for me, and before I knew it I found myself on the forum. I wonder though whether you would consider including any of the aforementioned Carson/Hulme/Davies trilogy to be of the quality to join that list of players you mentioned? (rhetorical I guess, as you can't reveal even the inevitable spoilers!) IF you did see two or three of them as fit to join your own all-time favourites list, that still says something in that we're just talking about one series' worth of contestants (and maybe there's even more treasures to follow in Series 61 beyond these three). As you point out, apterous IS only a year old, and it won't be a few more years before we really see the difference it makes, if any, to the show.

Your points about personality were also interesting - despite being happily vocal at times about which contestants have and haven't made good telly, I'd never considered before that it could be even more beneficial to the show to help along more personable players than it is to help along quality players. Obviously you've done pretty well to find a balance. Also, it may have got lost in translation but the 'easiness' of the "easy path" to which I referred was just using the same words that you'd used yourself. I'm more than aware that a cursory glance at my apterous record makes it fucking laughable for me to call anything Countdown-related 'easy', it's a word of relative measure of course.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:I waited 10 years to return and would happily have waited another 10

So that someone else could win Series 59

(OOPZ SPOILERZ!!!!)

Absolutely never offended at all Matt. Its a tough thread to take part in because i know from personal experience how bloody amazing and fabulous it was to take part in Countdown and win it, and heart over head, i'd give everyone a chance to do it all again as it's addictive, it drives me out of bed every morning and has done so for 13 years.

But, there's a minefield of shit to wade through, in that who gets another go, what's the criteria, does it open up cans of worms, cause problems, animosity etc. I'd take a punt that around 90% of ex-contestants would love to come on again, but it's not practical.

The safe thing for me was the old "they were only kids last time" line, and granted Hamish slipped through the net, but that was purely because by the time we realised he'd played before, he'd already re-auditioned, passed, bought train tickets etc and had been given a recording slot. Couldn't shaft him like that and say no after going so far down the line.

There are a couple of others who get another shot, but we're talking decades after their first stab, not 24 months etc.

I don't have particular favourites from the past or present, suffice to say that 99% have been an absolute pleasure, and that's not just me talking, Kate, Lara and Sarah will tell you the same thing. We've met some terrific people down the years and long may it continue. Wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of Series 61 has more twists than a helter-skelter. Let's see !!

I imagine you were quite pleased Hamish slipped through the net in the end, He was very entertaining and great value!

Well... I'm having another go, I got a letter today saying I've got an audition at the end of this month so wish me luck!

My justification is that I was on in the 9 round days and that I had the highest losing score of the series against an opponent who went on to become the number one seed so on any other day would probably (and I stress, probably!) have won, so I'm interested to see what would happen in a 15 round game against a different opponent (unless they give Ballheimer another shot as well!). Obviously I have the hurdle of the audition to get through but if I get on and don't win this time I'm quite happy to hang my Countdown hat up and move on...

Jason

I'd have kept quiet if I were you Jason...

Ian Dent wrote:I'd have kept quiet if I were you Jason...

I did say on the application that I'd been on before, so surely they wouldn't have called me for an audition if it was an issue? (hope not, anyway...). And looking at Damian's responses above, I like to think I fit his criteria for a return player.

Jason

Jason Witcher wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:I'd have kept quiet if I were you Jason...

I did say on the application that I'd been on before, so surely they wouldn't have called me for an audition if it was an issue? (hope not, anyway...)

You say that, Jason, but when I went for my audition back in February, I had put on my application form that I had been on before and they completely missed it. Only when Lara (the associate producer) asked all of us at the audition if we'd been on before did I say that I had, but it didn't make too much difference in the end, as I got a letter the next day saying that I had passed the audition.

James Robinson wrote:

Jason Witcher wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:I'd have kept quiet if I were you Jason...

I did say on the application that I'd been on before, so surely they wouldn't have called me for an audition if it was an issue? (hope not, anyway...)

You say that, Jason, but when I went for my audition back in February, I had put on my application form that I had been on before and they completely missed it. Only when Lara (the associate producer) asked all of us at the audition if we'd been on before did I say that I had, but it didn't make too much difference in the end, as I got a letter the next day saying that I had passed the audition.

Sorry, reedited my last post to add the bit about Damian. So what was the gap between your appearances? Hopefully in my case the nine year gap and the fact that I lost a close-fought match will count in my favour. If I'd won I wouldn't even be reapplying and if it had been in the last few years I'd have left it a bit longer.

Jason

James Robinson wrote:Only when Lara (the associate producer) asked all of us at the audition if we'd been on before did I say that I had, but it didn't make too much difference in the end, as I got a letter the next day saying that I had passed the audition.

Seems like an odd thing to ask at the audition, are you sure she didn't just ask if anyone had auditioned before?

Also IMO it was a terrible decision to allow you back on, as you were a bit of a cock and saw off some nice lasses.

The bit on the application form asks about previous TV show appearances, it doesn't specifically ask if you've been on Countdown before. James, you were a kid when you first came on and we've covered all that.

Ian Dent wrote:I'd have kept quiet if I were you Jason...

I think you were right, just got a call to say I was invited 'erroneously' ... Sounds like Mr Eadie intervened, but then I'd rather find out now than after schlepping up to Bristol so it's probably just as well.

Thanks to those who said I should be given another chance, but it is true that I'm pretty rubbish at the game, and haven't improved (or tried to) since my appearance. The only reason for letting me back on would be that I lost my first game to an octochamp (so he wasn't that bad...) but I don't think that's enough justification.

Derek's right that I'd find the experience too stressful anyway.

There's an outside chance I'll return to Apterous at some point, get reinvigorated, practise a very very lot (much more than I did first time round)... but even then I'm not sure I'd improve much. If I did get better, and if it were several years down the line, there might be an argument for letting me back on (and I might be all fired up again and not scared/nervous any more). But even then, I wasn't exactly young first time round so I don't think I'd qualify.

Then again... I tell you what. I'll spend the next 30 years on Apterous getting sloooowly better, then go back on the show when I'm 70. I'll be needing a decent teapot by then anyway. Sounds like a plan to me.

Sorry Jason, but you sort of brought it on yourself.

Out of interest, what made Jason ineligible? Did he already have a teapot (he implies not but doesn't say so), was he not young enough first time round, or was it that he hasn't improved enough?

D Eadie wrote:Sorry Jason, but you sort of brought it on yourself.

No, no, that's fine, as I said in my last (re-edited) post, I'd rather find out now than have a fruitless trip up to Bristol. I don't want to sneak in through the back door, if you want me back I'll come back and have another go, if not c'est la vie. And as I've mentioned I did put the previous appearance on my application form, so it's not like I was hiding anything.

Clare Sudbery wrote:Out of interest, what made Jason ineligible? Did he already have a teapot (he implies not but doesn't say so), was he not young enough first time round, or was it that he hasn't improved enough?

I wasn't young enough first time round - I didn't win (was the highest scoring loser of the series though), whether I've improved or not... hmmm, I'll reserve judgement on that!

Jason Witcher wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:I'd have kept quiet if I were you Jason...

I think you were right, just got a call to say I was invited 'erroneously' ... Sounds like Mr Eadie intervened, but then I'd rather find out now than after schlepping up to Bristol so it's probably just as well.

Do you mean Manchester?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jason Witcher wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:I'd have kept quiet if I were you Jason...

I think you were right, just got a call to say I was invited 'erroneously' ... Sounds like Mr Eadie intervened, but then I'd rather find out now than after schlepping up to Bristol so it's probably just as well.

Do you mean Manchester?

No, Bristol, for the audition.

D Eadie wrote:Sorry Jason, but you sort of brought it on yourself.

Meanie

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Only when Lara (the associate producer) asked all of us at the audition if we'd been on before did I say that I had, but it didn't make too much difference in the end, as I got a letter the next day saying that I had passed the audition.

Seems like an odd thing to ask at the audition, are you sure she didn't just ask if anyone had auditioned before?

Also IMO it was a terrible decision to allow you back on, as you were a bit of a cock and saw off some nice lasses.

She did ask that, but since I'd been on before and she did have my application form, it seemed logical that she should know that I'd been at an audition since I'd been on before.

Also, in regards to your second point, while I did beat 2 lovely ladies in Karyn and Louise, I think the cock thing is a bit OTT.

Jason, thats hilarious. You're like the Milli Vanilli of Countdown. Sort of.

Clare, no offence (well actually, maybe a little), but if you ever went back on the show after losing easily despite having apterous and being 40+ then I think i would actually write a formal letter of complaint to Channel 4 and never watch the show again in disgust.

Matthew Green wrote:Jason, thats hilarious. You're like the Milli Vanilli of Countdown. Sort of.

Clare, no offence (well actually, maybe a little), but if you ever went back on the show after losing easily despite having apterous and being 40+ then I think i would actually write a formal letter of complaint to Channel 4 and never watch the show again in disgust.

I'm torn tbh Matt - watching her talk herself up then get destroyed again would be freaking hilarious

James Robinson wrote:Also, in regards to your second point, while I did beat 2 lovely ladies in Karyn and Louise, I think the cock thing is a bit OTT.

Matthew Green wrote:Jason, thats hilarious. You're like the Milli Vanilli of Countdown. Sort of.

Funny you should say that as I was actually miming when I was on.

How has this thread got so far without anyone correcting the spelling mistake in the title?

Jon Corby wrote:How has this thread got so far without anyone correcting the spelling mistake in the title?

I subtly corrected it in my companion thread. I suppose people were just getting so excited about going on again that they missed it, which is possibly not a good sign . . .

Matthew Green wrote:Clare, no offence (well actually, maybe a little), but if you ever went back on the show after losing easily despite having apterous and being 40+ then I think i would actually write a formal letter of complaint to Channel 4 and never watch the show again in disgust.

Like I said, I'm not a good player. You'd be right to be annoyed. Shane beat me because he was better than me. Damian's right about that - it's a competition, and I lost because I wasn't good enough. No offence taken.

Just to throw my two-pence worth in, I think the system was fine as it was- let some very select players, i.e. those who are obviously very good now and had a number of mitigating circumstances surrounding their first appearance such as age and quality of opponent (I'm thinking specifically of Bevins, Hulme and Mubeen here) back to have another go- and for anyone else I'm sorry but dem's the roolz. It's been brought up on various occasions about how far sympathy would extend, but I don't think anyone originally was implying that those who had won once or twice only to lose to an octochamp would be allowed back on- like I said, instances of reappearances are very rare anyway and often with fair circumstances as listed above. Interestingly though, I wasn't aware top players were deliberately separated- whilst I accept this adds to the entertainment value and indeed standard of the show, does this not contradict the idea that if you're drawn against a good player then sorry, but that's tough luck? I'm not criticising the decision, it's just it seems a bit unfair on those who may not have been as stunning in auditions but easily could have gone on to achieve great things on the show.

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Interestingly though, I wasn't aware top players were deliberately separated- whilst I accept this adds to the entertainment value and indeed standard of the show, does this not contradict the idea that if you're drawn against a good player then sorry, but that's tough luck? I'm not criticising the decision, it's just it seems a bit unfair on those who may not have been as stunning in auditions but easily could have gone on to achieve great things on the show.

Makes you wonder if people consider cheating if they get a telephone audition though.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Interestingly though, I wasn't aware top players were deliberately separated- whilst I accept this adds to the entertainment value and indeed standard of the show, does this not contradict the idea that if you're drawn against a good player then sorry, but that's tough luck? I'm not criticising the decision, it's just it seems a bit unfair on those who may not have been as stunning in auditions but easily could have gone on to achieve great things on the show.

Makes you wonder if people consider cheating if they get a telephone audition though.

Damian must be tearing his hair out reading this!


Well, if he had any.

Jon Corby wrote:Damian must be tearing his hair out reading this!

I thought about that, but then thought that the only people who'd consider it would be the people who a) know about it, and ii) are good enough that they're confident they'd be an octochamp anyway (and just wanted to make sure). I figured it was sufficiently obvious that it wasn't really a case of alerting the masses to a new oh exploitable.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Interestingly though, I wasn't aware top players were deliberately separated- whilst I accept this adds to the entertainment value and indeed standard of the show, does this not contradict the idea that if you're drawn against a good player then sorry, but that's tough luck? I'm not criticising the decision, it's just it seems a bit unfair on those who may not have been as stunning in auditions but easily could have gone on to achieve great things on the show.

Makes you wonder if people consider cheating if they get a telephone audition though.

Speaking of which, has anyone done a telephone audition?

I'm only asking because I'm still wondering how it works!?

Surely, it's almost impossible to do a conundrum over the phone or have I missed something completely obvious

James Robinson wrote:Surely, it's almost impossible to do a conundrum over the phone or have I missed something completely obvious

Can't they just spell/read out the conundrum over the 'phone?

James Robinson wrote:Surely, it's almost impossible to do a conundrum over the phone or have I missed something completely obvious

I certainly can't think of any way that, having given them about six letters rounds over the phone already, you could give them one that has a guaranteed nine in it. Anyone?

[quote="Junaid Mubeen"]Okay, time to break my slience over the whole second chance issue, although I don't think what I say ought to be too controversial. I was absolutely gutted when I lost first time round. I was just 13, lost on a crucial to a fairly decent champ (4 time winner), and it was over 9 rounds not 15. These were arguably all plausible reasons for allowing me to return. However, that judgement is left to the production team and I always respected their decision. I waited 10 years and was turned down several times. I never felt I had a right to go back on and saw it as nothing but a privilege - one I'll always be grateful for. I waited 10 years to return and would happily have waited another 10. If I was never allowed back on, I'd content myself with the knowledge that appearing on Countdown was probably the best experience of my childhood, even if it didn't end as I'd hoped.

I reserve judgement on who should/shouldn't be allowed back on, but I would hope that anyone who is given a second shot realises what a gift it is.

quote]

Love you, Junaid!!

Jon Corby wrote:Damian must be tearing his hair out reading this!

He's probably half wishing that somebody wasn't in France, so that he could have got peed off with these forums earlier!

Damian makes some great contributions here, but I can see how it would get very wearying having your judg(e)ment questioned all the time. Having said that, Jason seems like a great guy, and it would be nice to see him on a different show instead as a consellation.

Derek Hazell wrote:Having said that, Jason seems like a great guy, and it would be nice to see him on a different show instead as a consellation.

Which one? Orion? Ursa Major?

Edit: Nice quoting, Kate.

Jon Corby wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:Having said that, Jason seems like a great guy, and it would be nice to see him on a different show instead as a consellation.

Which one? Orion? Ursa Major?

I'm surprised you didn't say "Witcher one"!

EDIT: Oh right, yeah. The peril of typing fast to try to get the post accepted on the most active thread ever!

Derek Hazell wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Damian must be tearing his hair out reading this!

He's probably half wishing that somebody wasn't in France, so that he could have got peed off with these forums earlier!

Damian makes some great contributions here, but I can see how it would get very wearying having your judg(e)ment questioned all the time. Having said that, Jason seems like a great guy, and it would be nice to see him on a different show instead as a consellation.

Thanks Derek. Cheque's in the post.

Jeffrey Burgin wrote: I wasn't aware top players were deliberately separated- whilst I accept this adds to the entertainment value and indeed standard of the show, does this not contradict the idea that if you're drawn against a good player then sorry, but that's tough luck?

Not for those drawn against the good players, no.

D Eadie wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of Series 61 has more twists than a helter-skelter. Let's see !!

A helter-skelter has only one twist, of course. Mind you, when did we last have a series that had more twists than that?

I bet there's a few of you that wish you'd thought of applying under a false name and wearing a disguise the first time you were on.

James Robinson wrote: Speaking of which, has anyone done a telephone audition?

I'm only asking because I'm still wondering how it works!?

Surely, it's almost impossible to do a conundrum over the phone or have I missed something completely obvious

I had a telephone audition - they read out the letters for the conundrum over the phone.

Darren Carter wrote:

James Robinson wrote: Speaking of which, has anyone done a telephone audition?

I'm only asking because I'm still wondering how it works!?

Surely, it's almost impossible to do a conundrum over the phone or have I missed something completely obvious

I had a telephone audition - they read out the letters for the conundrum over the phone.

That must be slightly odd considering that on the show, all the letters are shown at the same time, whereas based on what you've just said, they do it one at a time.

James Robinson wrote:

Darren Carter wrote:

James Robinson wrote: Speaking of which, has anyone done a telephone audition?

I'm only asking because I'm still wondering how it works!?

Surely, it's almost impossible to do a conundrum over the phone or have I missed something completely obvious

I had a telephone audition - they read out the letters for the conundrum over the phone.

That must be slightly odd considering that on the show, all the letters are shown at the same time, whereas based on what you've just said, they do it one at a time.

That's true, but I guess that's the only way they can do it over the telephone. And besides, from what I've heard from other people on here, I don't think the conundrums count towards whether you pass the audition (although I could be wrong).

Darren Carter wrote: That's true, but I guess that's the only way they can do it over the telephone. And besides, from what I've heard from other people on here, I don't think the conundrums count towards whether you pass the audition (although I could be wrong).

Even in normal auditions they read out the conundrums one letter at a time. I'm not sure why James is confused.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Darren Carter wrote: That's true, but I guess that's the only way they can do it over the telephone. And besides, from what I've heard from other people on here, I don't think the conundrums count towards whether you pass the audition (although I could be wrong).

Even in normal auditions they read out the conundrums one letter at a time. I'm not sure why James is confused.

Not in mine, they didn't, Kirk, they showed a placard with the letters on and we were given the time to work it out.

James Robinson wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Darren Carter wrote: That's true, but I guess that's the only way they can do it over the telephone. And besides, from what I've heard from other people on here, I don't think the conundrums count towards whether you pass the audition (although I could be wrong).

Even in normal auditions they read out the conundrums one letter at a time. I'm not sure why James is confused.

Not in mine, they didn't, Kirk, they showed a placard with the letters on and we were given the time to work it out.

Mine too James. Nonetheless, I don't see what your issue is with giving the letters of a conundrum individually, or as a "phrase" (eg ELITEBOUT). Otherwise you're effectively saying blind people can't audition.

Jon Corby wrote:

Matthew Green wrote:Jason, thats hilarious. You're like the Milli Vanilli of Countdown. Sort of.

Clare, no offence (well actually, maybe a little), but if you ever went back on the show after losing easily despite having apterous and being 40+ then I think i would actually write a formal letter of complaint to Channel 4 and never watch the show again in disgust.

I'm torn tbh Matt - watching her talk herself up then get destroyed again would be freaking hilarious

So you think a women being reduced to tears is 'freaking hilarious'.

What a twat you are.

Douglas Wilson wrote:So you think a women being reduced to tears is 'freaking hilarious'.

What a twat you are.

In certain circumstances, sure, why not?

Thanks for your comments though. Duly noted

What is your connection to Ms Sudbery by the way? You turn up here "out of the blue" (as it were) asking to see her episode, fail to locate it, then champion her for a return despite having never seen her and not knowing anything about her? Bit fucking strange that, innit mate?

Douglas Wilson wrote: So you think a women being reduced to tears is 'freaking hilarious'.

What a twat you are.

Congratulations, you're a sexist.

PS You stopped replying to our last argument after about 12 people completely rinsed you. I hope you're not going to pussy out this time as well.

Jon Corby wrote:

Douglas Wilson wrote:So you think a women being reduced to tears is 'freaking hilarious'.

What a twat you are.

In certain circumstances, sure, why not?

Thanks for your comments though.

What is your connection to Ms Sudbery by the way? You turn up here "out of the blue" (as it were) asking to see her episode, fail to locate it, then champion her for a return despite having never seen her and not knowing anything about her? Bit fucking strange that, innit mate?

Now you really are showing your ignorance.

How have I turned up 'out of the blue'. I joined this forum as 'a lover of the Channel 4 game show', as the title suggest; I asked too see the game of the date Sudbery was on since I had been off work ill that morning and was catching up on episodes I had missed. http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2280 If you read that thread properly I didn't know who she was until yourself and others tipped me off that she was a member of the forum who had written about her experience in detail on her website. I thought someone with her passion, commitment and personality would have been good to give another go to but obviously that won't happen now.

I had also made several topics which had generated good discussion on this board; one about gender and the other about what the likes of Paul Gallen, Matthew Shore and Mark Tourneoff were doing now as I couldn't see them on here or apterous.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Douglas Wilson wrote: So you think a women being reduced to tears is 'freaking hilarious'.

What a twat you are.

Congratulations, you're a sexist.

PS You stopped replying to our last argument after about 12 people completely rinsed you. I hope you're not going to pussy out this time as well.

I must admit in that topic I was ‘rinsed’, as you so eloquently put it for someone of your education. I stand by my views in my opinion what you have written in the ‘why donate’ is slightly misleading but there I realised there was no point championing that cause when your customers either didn’t agree with me or stayed silent.

Douglas Wilson wrote:I must admit in that topic I was ‘rinsed’, as you so eloquently put it for someone of your education.

In fairness blud, you was proper cussed innit.

Douglas Wilson wrote:Now you really are showing your ignorance.

Ignorance of what? Your posting history? Fair enough, I'll hold my hands up on that one. You don't have that many posts, and the majority lately seemed to have been about a player you didn't seem to know anything about, hadn't seen, but then seemed to like enough to start a thread about getting her back on the show. It seemed odd, maybe I'm the only one who thought that, fine, whatever. Clare & I didn't get on, that's pretty much all there is to it. You won't have seen a fair chunk of our discussion because it's been deleted.

To be honest, I don't particularly want to get into an argument. Surprisingly, it's not why I'm here. I couldn't give two shits if you think I'm a twat. I'd imagine you want to blame me for people like Rob leaving, whereas if you look through his post history you'll find only two occasions where people were (very slightly) rude to him, and my only involvement was to stick up for him on one of those occasions.

Jon Corby wrote:Clare & I didn't get on, that's pretty much all there is to it. You won't have seen a fair chunk of our discussion because it's been deleted.

Has it? Which argument was this? Moderated out or Clare removed her parts?

Douglas Wilson wrote:I must admit in that topic I was ‘rinsed’, as you so eloquently put it for someone of your education.

Talking of stereotypes, you're not doing much to reverse my opinion that Douglas is a name for idiots.

Matt Morrison wrote:Clare removed her parts?

I think you misspelled "pants".

Ignorance of what? Your posting history? Fair enough, I'll hold my hands up on that one. You don't have that many posts, and the majority lately seemed to have been about a player you didn't seem to know anything about, hadn't seen, but then seemed to like enough to start a thread about getting her back on the show. It seemed odd, maybe I'm the only one who thought that, fine, whatever.

Honestly this thread was not started to champion a campaign to get Sudbery back on the show. If there was an opputunity I would have liked to see her on again as I really enjoyed reading her blog. However this thread was started as I thought it would provoke a good discussion and give me a greater insight into Countdown's history. I would far rather see Dinos and Anna Sarr given another go.

Clare & I didn't get on, that's pretty much all there is to it. You won't have seen a fair chunk of our discussion because it's been deleted.

That is ignorance on my part then for which I apologise as I didn't know you had history with her, although I still think it's a bit harsh too find a women being reduced to tears as 'freaking hillarious;/

To be honest, I don't particularly want to get into an argument. Surprisingly, it's not why I'm here. I couldn't give two shits if you think I'm a twat. I'd imagine you want to blame me for people like Rob leaving, whereas if you look through his post history you'll find only two occasions where people were (very slightly) rude to him, and my only involvement was to stick up for him on one of those occasions.

I'm not here for an argument either and I think you're a lot less of a twat for taking the time to construct this post.

Douglas Wilson wrote:That is ignorance on my part then for which I apologise as I didn't know you had history with her, although I still think it's a bit harsh too find a women being reduced to tears as 'freaking hillarious;/

The stuff that was removed was on Sudbery's own website, where she had started a discussion about these forums. Who mentioned tears though, until you brought them up? Even Clare herself didn't say anything about crying - she just said she was disappointed to have lost, and it spoilt her enjoyment of the show.

On her website she has written a detailed account of her experience of the show. She mentions how distraught she was after losing.

Jon Corby wrote:Mine too James. Nonetheless, I don't see what your issue is with giving the letters of a conundrum individually, or as a "phrase" (eg ELITEBOUT). Otherwise you're effectively saying blind people can't audition.

What rubbish about blind people. My point is that when you're playing a conundrum, you're given a mixed-up 9-letter word already ready, calling for a fast reaction to solve it ahead of your opponents (OK, it might be slightly different in terms of the audition).

Whereas, if the conundrum was just put out a letter at a time, that's basically the same as a normal letters game with the only difference being that you have the knowledge of knowing that there is a guaranteed 9-letter word in that selection. That's the point I'm making.