c4countdown

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:I like Jeff Stelling.

I like him too - very approachable and friendly. He even remembered my name which I've heard a lot of presenters probably wouldn't.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:I like Jeff Stelling.

I like him too - very approachable and friendly. He even remembered my name which I've heard a lot of presenters probably wouldn't.

anosrep VT sih ton s'ti os hgouht mih tem ev'uoy

Kirk Bevins wrote:I like him too - very approachable and friendly. He even remembered my name which I've heard a lot of presenters probably wouldn't.

All the Countdown people are like that, which I think is why everyone who goes on the show has such a great time. I really don't see how he's smug, patronising, talentless or a waste of space, although each to their own I guess.

We decided within 4 posts to ban Nigel?


I like Jeff Stelling. I love his style of jokes.

Will you be including any profane words in your dissertation, then, Charlie?

Percy Round wrote:Will you be including any profane words in your dissertation, then, Charlie?

?

knockabout chat with mates on a forum != dissertation

Percy Round wrote:Will you be including any profane words in your dissertation, then, Charlie?

I got the word 'fuckload' onto my S1 exam, and got an A

Kieran Child wrote:I got the word 'fuckload' onto my S1 exam, and got an A

My mate wrote a load of explicit gay lyrics on the back of his GCSE DT exam and was severely reprimanded. I usually just write some jokes on the back to try and win the examiner over- example from A-Level Nazi Germany this year:

Which film star was known as the Fuhrer?
Brad-olf Pitt-ler.

That joke's my own work as well.

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Which film star was known as the Fuhrer?
Brad-olf Pitt-ler.

That joke's my own work as well.

Well, it spurred my laughing gear into achtung!

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Which film star was known as the Fuhrer?
Brad-olf Pitt-ler.

Kieran Child wrote:We decided within 4 posts to ban Nigel?

No, I decided.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:We decided within 4 posts to ban Nigel?

No, I decided.

I worded it poorly. I wanted a cross between "within 4 posts we all hated Nigel" and "this lead to him getting banned"
I fused the two great sentences into one AWESOME sentence that didn't really mean what I wanted it to.

Kieran Child wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:We decided within 4 posts to ban Nigel?

No, I decided.

I worded it poorly. I wanted a cross between "within 4 posts we all hated Nigel" and "this lead to him getting banned"
I fused the two great sentences into one AWESOME sentence that didn't really mean what I wanted it to.

Nevertheless we knew what you meant and agreed with you and Charlie.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:Nevertheless we knew what you meant and agreed with you and Charlie.

And it was definitely awesome.

What happened to the post I submitted about this time yesterday, Charlie?

Percy Round wrote:What happened to the post I submitted about this time yesterday, Charlie?

Urm, here, right where you left it. You seem to have a strange and unmotivated fear that I'm deleting your posts or otherwise restricting your ability to make a bit of an idiot of yourself. Rest assured that I am not.

Yes, Charlie, you're probably right: I am making an idiot of myself, although, when I was your age, we didn't say things like that to people old enough to be our grandparents. Your brain- power and certainly your eyesight are obviously greater than mine, because you can see my post that began, as I recall, "Let me put (or set - I can't remember which) the record straight" and ended with a message to you about profanities and obscenities. I still can't see it. All things considered, I think I no longer deserve a place among the delightful intellectuals who use your website, so I resign. Good luck with your PhD - don't forget to include a few obscenities (I refer, of course, to the post that you can see and I can't)

I'm probably the only person who is thinking "George Jenkins would destroy Percy Round in a fight".

Percy Round wrote:Yes, Charlie, you're probably right: I am making an idiot of myself, although, when I was your age, we didn't say things like that to people old enough to be our grandparents. Your brain- power and certainly your eyesight are obviously greater than mine, because you can see my post that began, as I recall, "Let me put (or set - I can't remember which) the record straight" and ended with a message to you about profanities and obscenities. I still can't see it. All things considered, I think I no longer deserve a place among the delightful intellectuals who use your website, so I resign. Good luck with your PhD - don't forget to include a few obscenities (I refer, of course, to the post that you can see and I can't)

Lighten up pal, I was only having a gentle prod at your senior moment in apparently forgetting which topic you'd posted in. I checked the link I posted and your post is still there, and indeed has stimulated several replies.

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:I got the word 'fuckload' onto my S1 exam, and got an A

My mate wrote a load of explicit gay lyrics on the back of his GCSE DT exam and was severely reprimanded. I usually just write some jokes on the back to try and win the examiner over- example from A-Level Nazi Germany this year:

Which film star was known as the Fuhrer?
Brad-olf Pitt-ler.

That joke's my own work as well.

I made up my own episode of Curb your enthusiasm for my GCSE English exam and they gave me an A* for it. I don't really know if that is comparable to swearing in an exam.

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:
Which film star was known as the Fuhrer?
Brad-olf Pitt-ler.

That joke's my own work as well.

Loved that!

I also liked the WW2 joke on 'Mock The Week' on Thursday:

We were evacuated to Dorset during the war.
Then everyone was shocked by the surprise Japanese attack on Poole Harbour.

^ that was Milton Jones I love Milton Jones. You must listen to his radio show at some point, it's brilliant. "another case of Milton Jones" is probably my favourite set.

I noticed with silent (well until now) interest that nobody jumped on Sue when she ran down Jeff a few times recently.
Conversely people are still very quick to defend Rachel to an obsessive degree.

I have just read this interesting paragraph by Damian from his book from 2001:

"Would we really want to see a Brylcreemed Mr. Clean sitting there spewing out word-perfect introductions day in, day out, getting the score right every time, calling the contestants by the right name every time? I shudder at the thought of how boring and stale that would become."

To use an expression of which Jeff would approve - food for thought.

Derek Hazell wrote:I noticed with silent (well until now) interest that nobody jumped on Sue when she ran down Jeff a few times recently.

I think you may be under the misapprehension that anyone cares what Sue Sanders thinks.

Derek Hazell wrote:I noticed with silent (well until now) interest that nobody jumped on Sue when she ran down Jeff a few times recently.
Conversely people are still very quick to defend Rachel to an obsessive degree.

I have just read this interesting paragraph by Damian from his book from 2001:

"Would we really want to see a Brylcreemed Mr. Clean sitting there spewing out word-perfect introductions day in, day out, getting the score right every time, calling the contestants by the right name every time? I shudder at the thought of how boring and stale that would become."

To use an expression of which Jeff would approve - food for thought.

Good lord that's 8 years old and was written about the comments that Richard Whiteley used to get about him being an incompetent bumbling presenter at times. What i was basically saying there was, take away Richard's fallibilities, which were often his most endearing qualities, and you've lost a lot of what made him Richard Whiteley. Not sure how this relates to Countdown in 2009 though.

Derek Hazell wrote:anosrep VT sih ton s'ti os hgouht mih tem ev'uoy

¿ƃuıʇıɹʍ ʇuoɹɟ-oʇ-ʞɔɐq ǝɥʇ ɥʇıʍ s,ʇɐɥʍ

Alec Rivers wrote:¿ƃuıʇıɹʍ ʇuoɹɟ-oʇ-ʞɔɐq ǝɥʇ ɥʇıʍ s,ʇɐɥʍ

WOW. I assumed at first that was an image. I have absolutely no idea how you did that. Clarke's Third Law applies.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Clarke's Third Law applies.

Indeed it does. And, accordingly, I would hate to spoil the mystery so soon.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:I noticed with silent (well until now) interest that nobody jumped on Sue when she ran down Jeff a few times recently.

I think you may be under the misapprehension that anyone cares what Sue Sanders thinks.

Hmm. I'm torn between 'a pair of built-up shoes' or 'more sex'.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:¿ƃuıʇıɹʍ ʇuoɹɟ-oʇ-ʞɔɐq ǝɥʇ ɥʇıʍ s,ʇɐɥʍ

WOW. I assumed at first that was an image. I have absolutely no idea how you did that. Clarke's Third Law applies.

Basically there are enough weird characters in Unicode that you can find passable upside-down versions of most common characters (notice how some are defective, like i and the apostrophe).

Charlie Reams wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:¿ƃuıʇıɹʍ ʇuoɹɟ-oʇ-ʞɔɐq ǝɥʇ ɥʇıʍ s,ʇɐɥʍ

WOW. I assumed at first that was an image. I have absolutely no idea how you did that. Clarke's Third Law applies.

Basically there are enough weird characters in Unicode that you can find passable upside-down versions of most common characters (notice how some are defective, like i and the apostrophe).

Alec Rivers wrote:I would hate to spoil the mystery so soon.

I was going to reveal all tomorrow.

Surprisingly, they don't work in this version of IE.