c4countdown

I haven't got any spoilers yet, because it hasn't started yet...

Rival threads!

Edit: deleted mine since I used a joke I'd used in another thread.

R4: MAESTROS

MAJOREST ?

If for no real reason you wanted to use all 6 numbers, you can do:

(100-6-5-9-1)*10 = 790

Mike Brailsford wrote:MAJOREST ?

Frayed knot.

For the last numbers game: "This game can be solved perfectly and has a difficulty rating of 87% (very difficult)."

I didn't get WHINGED and decided not to risk WIDGEON and WENDIGO because I know the primarily from Scrabble. Other than that, agonisingly close to a max game as well. Of course, someone might get a DC-beater a bit later.

3rd numbers:

((100-8)x10)-6
divided by (6-4)

Couldn't find a divided sign...

Bad luck Mike. Seems we have a female-dominated series at the moment.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:3rd numbers:

((100-8)x10)-6
divided by (6-4)

Couldn't find a divided sign...

On computers it's conventional to use a forward slash (/), I suppose because it looks like a fraction (e.g. 3/4). There is a proper division sign (÷) but it doesn't appear on a standard keyboard so it's a bit of a pain to type.

Thanks Charlie. And now I'm jealous because you have one. Shall familiarise myself with my keyboard.

Or,
(((100*6)-6)*8)-(100/4)=457

or (6x100-4) x 6/8 +10

I was pleased to beat the contestants in round 1 with OLEANDER

Letters 1 – LEARNED

Letters 2 – CRIMES

Letters 3 – DOZEN

Letters 4 – MAJORS

Numbers 1 – 790!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tea Time Teaser 1 – Nope!

Letters 5 – ABORTS

Letters 6 – ORDAIN

Letters 7 – STREAM

Letters 8 – SPINES

Numbers 2 – 626!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tea Time Teaser 2 – Brain underwent a 404 error. The answer cannot be displayed.

Letters 9 – FLEET

Letters 10 – WIGEON (type of duck)

Letters 11 – TACKLER

Numbers 3 – 460

Conundrum – GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Katherine Birkett wrote:Tea Time Teaser 2 – Brain underwent a 404 error. The answer cannot be displayed.

Hate (love) to be the pedantic web git but 404 is a File Not Found error (the answer doesn't exist). Perhaps you mean a 503 Service Unavailable (answer temporarily not accessible).

Matt Morrison wrote:

Katherine Birkett wrote:Tea Time Teaser 2 – Brain underwent a 404 error. The answer cannot be displayed.

Hate (love) to be the pedantic web git but 404 is a File Not Found error (the answer doesn't exist). Perhaps you mean a 503 Service Unavailable (answer temporarily not accessible).

Maybe 418 would be more appropriate, although arguably she's more full of hot air than hot water.

(That sound you hear is a joke being stretched to breaking point.)

Martin Gardner wrote:Other than that, agonisingly close to a max game as well. Of course, someone might get a DC-beater a bit later.

Hmm I've wondered recently about when you mention you have hit a -2 game and I've been doubtful as it now appears that you don't use solvers to check your scores. DC miss lots of obscure words and I'll think I have a near-max game but then use countmax or similar and realise that I have indeed missed words. For example, I thought I was close to a max game (I spotted WIDGEON and WENDIGO) but then realised I missed VEINLET and SUBTOPIA too. So - were you really agonisingly close to a max game or did you get something like 11/15 maxes?

Did John Sergeant mishear what Mike's phobia was at the end?

Phil Reynolds wrote:Did John Sergeant mishear what Mike's phobia was at the end?

I'm quite sure he did. I had to replay it to be certain that I'd heard correctly.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Did John Sergeant mishear what Mike's phobia was at the end?

Yep! Poor old John thought I had a fear of Clouds! Either that or theres a clown that looks like a mushroom somewhere!
I feel like I threw this game away to be honest, wasn't brave enough to go for the more obscure words!
Oh Well I got myself a new Teapot!

Mike Spellar wrote:Poor old John thought I had a fear of Clouds!

Fancy confusing coulrophobia with nephophobia, I dunno.

During Susie's origins of words, you could clearly see Mike's score as 72 (this was his final score). Looks like Susie screwed up and redid her bit at the end.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:Other than that, agonisingly close to a max game as well. Of course, someone might get a DC-beater a bit later.

Hmm I've wondered recently about when you mention you have hit a -2 game and I've been doubtful as it now appears that you don't use solvers to check your scores. DC miss lots of obscure words and I'll think I have a near-max game but then use countmax or similar and realise that I have indeed missed words. For example, I thought I was close to a max game (I spotted WIDGEON and WENDIGO) but then realised I missed VEINLET and SUBTOPIA too. So - were you really agonisingly close to a max game or did you get something like 11/15 maxes?

11/15 is correct. I don't usually write the letters down, I check the recap which usually appears about 24 hours later (or sometimes, a lot less!). So yeah I checked the SUBTOPIA round for another word (AIRPOST^, I seem to think that was in my old Oxford Dictionary which eventually got chucked when I won the SODE.) and found SUBTOPIA, but I wanted to let someone else post it if they had it. Plus I hadn't checked the other rounds, so it seemed a bit pointless to check one round out of 11, but post it anyway.

Mike Spellar wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Did John Sergeant mishear what Mike's phobia was at the end?

Yep! Poor old John thought I had a fear of Clouds! Either that or theres a clown that looks like a mushroom somewhere!
I feel like I threw this game away to be honest, wasn't brave enough to go for the more obscure words!
Oh Well I got myself a new Teapot!

In fairness, I heard CLOUDS as well, I suppose you didn't want to interrupt him on national TV? Fair dos.

So was it supposed to be CLOWNS then, not CLOUDS? But Jeff said it's a strange phobia to have if you SKY- DIVE (Which Mike said was his hobby). That wouldn't be relevent if it were CLOWNS would it?

Charlie Reams wrote: although arguably she's more full of hot air than hot water.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Katherine Birkett wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: although arguably she's more full of hot air than hot water.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Interesting that you managed to spot this post but not the other thirty asking why on Earth you think we care whether you got the teatime teaser every day.

The joke isn't really worth explaining but looking up HTTP Error 418 is a good start.

AnnieHall wrote:So was it supposed to be CLOWNS then, not CLOUDS? But Jeff said it's a strange phobia to have if you SKY- DIVE (Which Mike said was his hobby). That wouldn't be relevent if it were CLOWNS would it?

I think Jeff was saying, that if I could do Sky-diving, (which is obviously fairly scary), how on earth could I be afraid of clowns, (which I suppose people deem as friendly types)!
As for John, he was just a little confused!

Martin Bishop wrote:During Susie's origins of words, you could clearly see Mike's score as 72 (this was his final score). Looks like Susie screwed up and redid her bit at the end.

Yeah Susie, kept saying Rogan Gosh instead of Rogan Josh !!!

I was feeling rather smug with ROBUSTA only to discover it wasn't even a max

Hard luck Mike. By the way, are you the twin brother of Andre Agassi?

Charlie Reams wrote: Interesting that you managed to spot this post but not the other thirty asking why on Earth you think we care whether you got the teatime teaser every day..

Thakyou for your massive words of encouragement regarding any progress of mine. Not all of us may possess Oxbridge degrees, not all of us are as able as you (who I actually look up to and respect enormously) at the game.

I came on this site initially to try and build a network of supportive, able friends who might be able to give me the confidence boost I need to get on the show and do the best I can. Identifying the Teatime Teaser, you must see, is a good method of practise for us of inferior brain circuitry for making the transition towards solving the harder conundrums. I saw this community as the best able to help me towards my goal.

You're all intelligent people who I thought might have no problem in helping those who are less able at the game, and sharing a common interest in solving word and number games. When at both primary and secondary school, I always did what I could to help people who weren't as good readers and who struggled with spelling, I was always prepared to share my expertise for other people's benefit.

To hear that these people I respect and look up to with much regard are making fun of my enthusiasms is a massive disappointment, a blow to my self-confidence and quite frankly smacks of cliquey intellectual elitism. If someone had just sent me a PM asking me not to divulge whether or not I got the Teatime Teasers right, I would have done so. Why the lack of discretion? I have tried my damn hardest to fit in here, and made every effort to get on with people. Why be so unaccommodating and talk about me behind my back? If you have a problem with what I'm doing, TALK TO ME FIRST BY PRIVATE MESSAGE.

Why make it a trial for someone with social, emotional and behavioural problems to fit in somewhere and develop self-confidence?

I think it's great that you're improving. I just don't need to know every detail about it. You're fitting in just fine.

Katherine Birkett wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: Interesting that you managed to spot this post but not the other thirty asking why on Earth you think we care whether you got the teatime teaser every day..

Thakyou for your massive words of encouragement regarding any progress of mine. Not all of us may possess Oxbridge degrees, not all of us are as able as you (who I actually look up to and respect enormously) at the game.

I came on this site initially to try and build a network of supportive, able friends who might be able to give me the confidence boost I need to get on the show and do the best I can. Identifying the Teatime Teaser, you must see, is a good method of practise for us of inferior brain circuitry for making the transition towards solving the harder conundrums. I saw this community as the best able to help me towards my goal.

You're all intelligent people who I thought might have no problem in helping those who are less able at the game, and sharing a common interest in solving word and number games. When at both primary and secondary school, I always did what I could to help people who weren't as good readers and who struggled with spelling, I was always prepared to share my expertise for other people's benefit.

To hear that these people I respect and look up to with much regard are making fun of my enthusiasms is a massive disappointment, a blow to my self-confidence and quite frankly smacks of cliquey intellectual elitism. If someone had just sent me a PM asking me not to divulge whether or not I got the Teatime Teasers right, I would have done so. Why the lack of discretion? I have tried my damn hardest to fit in here, and made every effort to get on with people. Why be so unaccommodating and talk about me behind my back? If you have a problem with what I'm doing, TALK TO ME FIRST BY PRIVATE MESSAGE.

Why make it a trial for someone with social, emotional and behavioural problems to fit in somewhere and develop self-confidence?

You make some valid points, Katherine. We do encourage up and coming stars to progress and do well at Countdown, however, it isn't seen as totally exciting to read what everyone got for each round. Imagine if everyone started doing this it would be pretty tedious. You can post the odd thing like "yes!! I was so happy I spotted ORDINATES!" which is OK even if 95% of the geeks on this forum think that that's bread and butter Countdown.

In short, please keep your enthusiasm with us (if I may say so myself) and keep doing the teatime teasers (I always do them, they're great practice) but please try to refrain posting round by round what you got.

I remember many years ago I used to post running commentary of the games like "I was 16 behind then I got a 9, what a close game" etc which I can imagine was so tedious for everyone to read and it took Jono the courtesy to insult me to make me be embarrassed and stop. I was rubbish then and any close contest was exciting but I was also young and naive and didn't realise how bloody boring my messages must have been. It's all a learning curve, Katherine - don't worry.

Kirk Bevins wrote: You make some valid points, Katherine. We do encourage up and coming stars to progress and do well at Countdown, however, it isn't seen as totally exciting to read what everyone got for each round. Imagine if everyone started doing this it would be pretty tedious. You can post the odd thing like "yes!! I was so happy I spotted ORDINATES!" which is OK even if 95% of the geeks on this forum think that that's bread and butter Countdown.

In short, please keep your enthusiasm with us (if I may say so myself) and keep doing the teatime teasers (I always do them, they're great practice) but please try to refrain posting round by round what you got.

I remember many years ago I used to post running commentary of the games like "I was 16 behind then I got a 9, what a close game" etc which I can imagine was so tedious for everyone to read and it took Jono the courtesy to insult me to make me be embarrassed and stop. I was rubbish then and any close contest was exciting but I was also young and naive and didn't realise how bloody boring my messages must have been. It's all a learning curve, Katherine - don't worry.

TLDR

Katherine, I understand why you're upset, but I think you have misunderstood something. Nobody here is talking about you behind your back, least of all Charlie. He and one or two other people have replied on the forum several times now to your posts describing your solutions for each round, asking why you do it; so far you've ignored all these replies, which were made in public, not behind your back. You'll fit in here just fine - and hopefully, in time, develop the network of supportive friends you seek - if you recognise that forum members are generally more valued if they have something to say that people want to hear, and are sensitive to feedback that might suggest otherwise.

Charlie Reams wrote: TLDR

Oi.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Hard luck Mike. By the way, are you the twin brother of Andre Agassi?

no but my tennis isn't too bad!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Katherine Birkett wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: although arguably she's more full of hot air than hot water.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Interesting that you managed to spot this post but not the other thirty asking why on Earth you think we care whether you got the teatime teaser every day.

The joke isn't really worth explaining but looking up HTTP Error 418 is a good start.

Maybe it's not a joke. Look at this diagram from a Sinclair Research project: http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09062/imgp0336954.jpg

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: TLDR

Oi.

Too long didn't read! (Childish)
Well done Charlie on another creative use of language and your highly esteemed education.

Katherine was certainly right about the elitist attitude on here, with all the bods who think because they have a better education, career or amount of games won on Countdown, that they are in a position to treat people with utter disdain.

Not all are tarred with the same brush though, some people on here are very pleasant and welcoming, Junaid, (who actually beat Charlie in the final of series 59), is a very pleasant guy, Jon Corby, Jason Larsen, Dinos Sfyris and RP.

Phil Reynolds wrote:He and one or two other people have replied on the forum several times now to your posts describing your solutions for each round, asking why you do it; so far you've ignored all these replies

I hardly ever return back to the Spoilers, so I don't read anything else after what I've posted. I might do every once in a while if I think I've achieved something outstanding by my own performance standards to see if I have a 'well done' or anything.... And I post everything because I genuinely don't know what's appropriate to post and what isn't if I have no guidance at the point of registry. So, I just post the lot and have done with it. I don't do 1-15 or whatever, because that system has no meaning to me. I like to be accurate to the point of pedantic and refer to it as Letters round number 1, Numbers round number 1 etc; then I know where I stand....

I post everything rather than nothing because I assume I'll be regarded on here as stupid, worthless and thick by these super-intelligent people if I have no meritorious feedback to post after the show. Throughout my life, I have had very fragile self-confidence that's easily knocked back by poor social performance...... at least if you have all the info from every round, you can see if there's a trend of improvement that you can make an encouraging comment on......

If it's any consolation Katherine, I always read your rundown of the show and compare your results with mine, so don't get too upset. You always do better than me, incidentally, and will have more of a chance of getting on the show than I have. I did actually get the conundrum today, which is very unusual for me! I recorded the show today, that's why I'm late with my comments, although I doubt whether anyone would want to know that.

Katherine Birkett wrote: I hardly ever return back to the Spoilers, so I don't read anything else after what I've posted.

So you don't read replies to you own posts, but you still expect us to post something encouraging every time you get the teatime teaser?

I don't do 1-15 or whatever, because that system has no meaning to me. I like to be accurate to the point of pedantic and refer to it as Letters round number 1, Numbers round number 1 etc; then I know where I stand....

I don't see what is "inaccurate" about numbering the rounds 1 to 15.

I post everything rather than nothing because I assume I'll be regarded on here as stupid, worthless and thick by these super-intelligent people if I have no meritorious feedback to post after the show. Throughout my life, I have had very fragile self-confidence that's easily knocked back by poor social performance...... at least if you have all the info from every round, you can see if there's a trend of improvement that you can make an encouraging comment on......

I guess I should have PMed you about it, or something, but I had no idea that you have such low self-esteem. I don't think it requires a great deal of "social awareness" to notice that no one else ever posts a round-by-round account of their performance, and to realise that if they did this place would be absolutely awash with totally formulaic posts that no one ever read.

Mike Spellar wrote:Too long didn't read! (Childish)
Well done Charlie on another creative use of language and your highly esteemed education.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed this joke that I shared with my good friend Kirk, and didn't just jump to some smarmy conclusion on the basis that I have a degree.

Katherine was certainly right about the elitist attitude on here, with all the bods who think because they have a better education, career or amount of games won on Countdown, that they are in a position to treat people with utter disdain.

Maybe you should actually read a bit of this site before leaping in with your brilliant amateur psychology. Given that some of the people I respect most on here have no degree and/or no games won (they'd struggle to have less of a career than me) it's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Junaid, (who actually beat Charlie in the final of series 59)

I like how you're all "being better at Countdown isn't an excuse to be insulting" (I agree) and then try to use this as some kind of put-down.

Katherine Birkett wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:He and one or two other people have replied on the forum several times now to your posts describing your solutions for each round, asking why you do it; so far you've ignored all these replies

I hardly ever return back to the Spoilers, so I don't read anything else after what I've posted. I might do every once in a while if I think I've achieved something outstanding by my own performance standards to see if I have a 'well done' or anything.... And I post everything because I genuinely don't know what's appropriate to post and what isn't if I have no guidance at the point of registry. So, I just post the lot and have done with it. I don't do 1-15 or whatever, because that system has no meaning to me. I like to be accurate to the point of pedantic and refer to it as Letters round number 1, Numbers round number 1 etc; then I know where I stand....

I post everything rather than nothing because I assume I'll be regarded on here as stupid, worthless and thick by these super-intelligent people if I have no meritorious feedback to post after the show. Throughout my life, I have had very fragile self-confidence that's easily knocked back by poor social performance...... at least if you have all the info from every round, you can see if there's a trend of improvement that you can make an encouraging comment on......

http://www.livejournal.com or http://www.blogspot.com or anything similar.

No, really, hear me out here- you'll be able to keep a running tally of your best scores, be able to compare them day-to-day, any comments on your performances will be directed solely towards the performance itself- and few people will complain about seeing a breakdown or your performance on a blog dedicated to exactly that- and it'll stop some people here frothing at the mouth.

Katherine Birkett wrote:I hardly ever return back to the Spoilers, so I don't read anything else after what I've posted.

Katherine, I appreciate your attempt to explain things a bit, and I hope Charlie does too. All I would say is that if you show sensitivity to the views, wishes and feelings of others, you will generally be treated sensitively in return. So, posting on a thread and then not bothering to check back to see if anyone has replied to you could be deemed insensitive (because you are, in effect, saying that you don't care what other people think). That may not be what you mean, but it's how it can be perceived.

And I post everything because I genuinely don't know what's appropriate to post and what isn't if I have no guidance at the point of registry. So, I just post the lot and have done with it.

Likewise, if you don't know what's appropriate to post, why not ask? Or just post something but then read people's responses to see how it's been received? No one is forcing you to do either of these things; but, if you don't, you run the risk that people will start to perceive you as someone who's more interested in expressing her own point of view than in listening to other people's. If there is a clique here, it's not a clique of the super-intelligent, but of people who respect one another - and I emphasise one another. Respect other people, and if they're worthwhile human beings they'll respect you.

God, I'm starting to sound old.

Phil, I should totally employ you as my full-time apologist.

Charlie Reams wrote:Phil, I should totally employ you as my full-time apologist.

What's the pay like?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Phil, I should totally employ you as my full-time apologist.

What's the pay like?

I have a Cambridge degree, I shouldn't have to pay people like you who haven't even been on the show.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Phil, I should totally employ you as my full-time apologist.

What's the pay like?

A Mars bar.

Charlie Reams wrote:I have a Cambridge degree, I shouldn't have to pay people like you who haven't even been on the show.

Fascist.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Respect other people, and if they're worthwhile human beings they'll respect you.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Phil, I should totally employ you as my full-time apologist.

What's the pay like?

I have a Cambridge degree, I shouldn't have to pay people like you who haven't even been on the show.

I must look up 'irony' in my dictionary.

Brian Moore wrote:I must look up 'irony' in my dictionary.

I'm unsure whether you're trying to be funny or if this is the most spectacular joke miss ever, please clarify.

Mike Spellar wrote:Not all are tarred with the same brush though, some people on here are very pleasant and welcoming, Junaid, (who actually beat Charlie in the final of series 59), is a very pleasant guy, Jon Corby, Jason Larsen, Dinos Sfyris and RP.

This probably raised a few chuckles, but thanks And I went to a rough comprehensive and eschewed university - you could be onto something here

FWIW, I have to say that the 'attack' on Katherine was one of those moments where you just read a post and go Obviously I have my moments when I round on people, but I'd like to think it's never over something as inoffensive as this. I agree that it's not particularly worthwhile or necessarily interesting to others to post a round-by-round breakdown of your own performance, but then it's also equally not difficult to pass over it should you so choose - if you feel that Katherine has nothing to offer elsewhere, you can foe her which means you won't see her posts at all. If you feel she does, surely it's not too difficult to overlook this little habit? It's not like she's posting anything offensive/inflammatory/controversial etc.

(I almost feel bad now for being all when you beat Lisa Mike, I have to confess I was very much rooting for her - well, who would you rather look at?)

(New) Best Thread Evah.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:I must look up 'irony' in my dictionary.

I'm unsure whether you're trying to be funny or if this is the most spectacular joke miss ever, please clarify.

I suppose that it must be the former (sorry, yes, it's not) ... the question is, should I stoop to using emoticons to indicate 'attempt at humour'?. Even better, I guess, do it properly or don't do it at all.

Second thoughts, it might be the latter, or both, if I credit you with having Phil's sensible "respect" quote in mind (which I guess I should) when you made your "Cambridge degree" riposte.

Sorry, it was late.

Brian Moore wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:I must look up 'irony' in my dictionary.

I'm unsure whether you're trying to be funny or if this is the most spectacular joke miss ever, please clarify.

I suppose that it must be the former (sorry, yes, it's not) ... the question is, should I stoop to using emoticons to indicate 'attempt at humour'?. Even better, I guess, do it properly or don't do it at all.

Second thoughts, it might be the latter, or both, if I credit you with having Phil's sensible "respect" quote in mind (which I guess I should) when you made your "Cambridge degree" riposte.

Sorry, it was late.

Yeah, I guess I don't really mind whether you were being funny or not, but I thought it was fairly blatant that I was parodying the ridiculous strawman being promoted by our friend Mike Spellar. I wouldn't want people to think I would actually say something that moronic (to Phil or anyone else) with a straight face.

All I can say is...make love people, not war. Love.

It's very easy to get the wrong impression of people on here. For example, I thought Jon Corby was a right prick then I actually met him and...oh hold on, that doesn't work. Anyway, point is, LOVE, not war.

I think you're joking, but it is actually quite hurtful to see that written down from somebody that you love and respect. But do you know what hurts the most?

Being anally raped by David O'Donnell in the gents toilets of Unit One.