A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Jono beat on a numbers attackJon O'Neill wrote:Shaun Hegarty 148-138 Jon O'Neill
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=123314
Didn't practise my conundrums!
Good game.
Nothing newKai Laddiman wrote:Jono beat on a numbers attackJon O'Neill wrote:Shaun Hegarty 148-138 Jon O'Neill
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=123314
Didn't practise my conundrums!
Good game.
Chris Maudsley wrote:Yikes. So far already, myself, Kirk and Jono
Charlie Reams wrote:Still waiting for the following games:-
Div B:
James Hall vs Josh Overhill
Bad things will happen if these are not played by midnight tonight. Please sort it out.
Oliver Garner wrote:Nothing newKai Laddiman wrote:Jono beat on a numbers attack
Jeez. There are some fucking big-headed pricks playing apterous.Oliver Garner wrote:Chris Maudsley wrote:Yikes. So far already, myself, Kirk and Jono
Yeah, I admit my first post there was a bit misjudged.Matt Morrison wrote:Oliver Garner wrote:Nothing newKai Laddiman wrote:Jono beat on a numbers attackJeez. There are some fucking big-headed pricks playing apterous.Oliver Garner wrote:Chris Maudsley wrote:Yikes. So far already, myself, Kirk and Jono
I disagree. Jono is known as a numbers specialist, so you are quite justified in being proud at managing to beat him. I think MWM misunderstood the point of your second post though, as weren't you just picking Chris up on his use of the word "myself"?Oliver Garner wrote:Yeah, I admit my first post there was a bit misjudged.Matt Morrison wrote:Oliver Garner wrote:Nothing newJeez. There are some fucking big-headed pricks playing apterous.Oliver Garner wrote:"Chris Maudsley: "Yikes. So far already, myself, Kirk and Jono"
Fair enough, I understand your point.Matt Morrison wrote:Apologies, maybe a bit harsh.
I don't think I misunderstood Oliver's point in either post though. If anything the first wasn't so bad as at least it had a possibly valid point ("Jono isn't unbeatable at numbers") but it was the way it was phrased in a bit of a "check out how great I am" way that sucks. The second one just seemed to be a sleight on Chris's ability for no reason. IMHO there's enough "me, me, look at me!" in the birthdays and brag threads, that's all. Maybe that is only my opinion.
But yeah, sorry Oliver, I should have said you came across as a big-headed prick rather than suggested you were actually a big-headed prick, which I'm sure you're not.
I would suggest there's every reason for that post, given Chris's rather comical inclusion of himself among other shock losses in the first round (which IMO aren't really that shock, given that numbers plays a relatively small role in the standard game, but anyway).Matt Morrison wrote:The second one just seemed to be a sleight on Chris's ability for no reason.
I certainly wasn't shocked that he lost.Charlie Reams wrote:I would suggest there's every reason for that post, given Chris's rather comical inclusion of himself among other shock losses in the first round (which IMO aren't really that shock, given that numbers plays a relatively small role in the standard game, but anyway).Matt Morrison wrote:The second one just seemed to be a sleight on Chris's ability for no reason.
So you weren't joking?Chris Maudsley wrote:http://apterous.org/statland.php?sectio ... rs_numbers
That should demonstrate why I felt surprised to lose my first round game (although I'll be the first to congratulate Stuart, who's a very good numbers player himself.)
Kimbo>Jimmy.Jimmy Gough wrote:I'm the best.