Page 1 of 1
Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:28 pm
by Matt Morrison
Cate Street-Porter looks to continue her assault on octoness against Helen Kerr.
I'd like to see Martin Gardner get a boner about the way Rachel's dressed today. Yeuch.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:29 pm
by Innis Carson
Matt Morrison wrote:Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Match, you idiot.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:30 pm
by Matt Morrison
Innis Carson wrote:Matt Morrison wrote:Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Match, you idiot.
No, because, check this out, it's actually not funny.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:34 pm
by Innis Carson
Nobody else let that get in their way.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:37 pm
by Innis Carson
TOOLBARS?
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:38 pm
by Matthew Green
BORSTAL
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:39 pm
by Richard Priest
Innis Carson wrote:TOOLBARS?
Yes, I was quite proud of that one in round 4 (spotted after 29.9 seconds).
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:39 pm
by John Douglas
Does BARSTOOL have to be hyphenated? (R4)
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:40 pm
by Matt Morrison
Innis Carson wrote:TOOLBARS?
TOOLBARS. (very nice)
I remember when Rachel first started there was a load of chat on here about the way she wrote her numbers.
Unless I'm mistaken (was only half paying attention) she wrote the 44 there with two different styles of '4'. Interesting.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:41 pm
by Matt Morrison
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:09 pm
by Mark Kudlowski
3rd numbers, far quicker than either contestant: (100 - 5) x 4
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:14 pm
by Karen Pearson
HEPARIN for a contestant beater.
MESETAS isn't in my dictionary. Does anyone know if it's in the current official version?
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:22 pm
by Richard Priest
Felt a bit sorry for Helen, she didn't play badly but Cate was rocking.
On Monday we will see Cate take on someone we know from apterous.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:26 pm
by Eoin Monaghan
Rich Priest wrote:Felt a bit sorry for Helen, she didn't play badly but Cate was rocking.
On Monday we will see Cate take on someone we know from apterous.
who??
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:52 pm
by Ben Hunter
Eoin Monaghan wrote:Rich Priest wrote:Felt a bit sorry for Helen, she didn't play badly but Cate was rocking.
On Monday we will see Cate take on someone we know from apterous.
who??
Apterous Prune.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:55 pm
by Kai Laddiman
Ben Hunter wrote:Eoin Monaghan wrote:Rich Priest wrote:Felt a bit sorry for Helen, she didn't play badly but Cate was rocking.
On Monday we will see Cate take on someone we know from apterous.
who??
Apterous Prune.
Bolas Bolas Bolas Bolas Bolas Bolas Bolas Bolas
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:21 pm
by Kieran Child
I hope Kate does become octochamp. She'll overtake Kirk as the sexiest one...
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:33 pm
by Richard Priest
For those wanting to know - and to avoid annoying anyone who wants to wait till Monday - this is Cate's next opponent -
http://www.apterous.org/viewuser.php?user=2547.
Or at least his nameplate was in place as I left - wasn't able to hang around to watch.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:35 pm
by Matt Morrison
Rich Priest wrote:his
Spoiler. And not just in an annoying "SPOILER!!" way, I had thought it might be about the time that Claire was gonna be on.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:48 pm
by Richard Priest
Matt Morrison wrote:Rich Priest wrote:his
Spoiler. And not just in an annoying "SPOILER!!" way, I had thought it might be about the time that Claire was gonna be on.
Sorry, it's just that as apterous is fairly male-dominated I didn't think anyone would be surprised

Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:55 pm
by Charlie Reams
Rich Priest wrote:Matt Morrison wrote:Rich Priest wrote:his
Spoiler. And not just in an annoying "SPOILER!!" way, I had thought it might be about the time that Claire was gonna be on.
Sorry, it's just that as apterous is fairly male-dominated I didn't think anyone would be surprised

I think Matt was joking, since it's not a spoiler to say who the challenger is going to be. Sudders starts the Monday after.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:02 pm
by Phil Reynolds
So "Gaunty" (you just know someone is a sad friendless loser when they have to give themselves a matey-sounding nickname) believes that the only people who disagree with his views are "the middle class ruling elite in London". Git. He seems to lack the basic facility that most of us have to some degree or another that allows us to monitor and check what we're about to say and think: "No - that would really make me sound like a total tosser."
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:03 pm
by Kirk Bevins
Charlie Reams wrote:
I think Matt was joking, since it's not a spoiler to say who the challenger is going to be. Sudders starts the Monday after.
I had 13th April on my calendar so 2 Mondays time.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:51 pm
by Junaid Mubeen
Kirk Bevins wrote:Charlie Reams wrote:
I think Matt was joking, since it's not a spoiler to say who the challenger is going to be. Sudders starts the Monday after.
I had 13th April on my calendar so 2 Mondays time.
You have a Clare Sudbery calendar? Interesting.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:49 am
by D Eadie
Phil Reynolds wrote:So "Gaunty" (you just know someone is a sad friendless loser when they have to give themselves a matey-sounding nickname) believes that the only people who disagree with his views are "the middle class ruling elite in London". Git. He seems to lack the basic facility that most of us have to some degree or another that allows us to monitor and check what we're about to say and think: "No - that would really make me sound like a total tosser."
Hehe - so you don't like him Phil, as all your posts on the subject would indicate. Bigot, git, loser, friendless.........all pretty harsh.
Whatever happened to tolerance?
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:20 am
by Ian Fitzpatrick
I've never heard of "Gaunty" either, nor Colin Murray for that matter but both have been extremely good DC guests. I was particularly impressed with Colin doing his words on his own and using the dictionary provided.
A good call on whoever found them.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:31 am
by Phil Reynolds
D Eadie wrote:Phil Reynolds wrote:So "Gaunty" (you just know someone is a sad friendless loser when they have to give themselves a matey-sounding nickname) believes that the only people who disagree with his views are "the middle class ruling elite in London". Git. He seems to lack the basic facility that most of us have to some degree or another that allows us to monitor and check what we're about to say and think: "No - that would really make me sound like a total tosser."
Hehe - so you don't like him Phil, as all your posts on the subject would indicate. Bigot, git, loser, friendless.........all pretty harsh.
Whatever happened to tolerance?
I don't think tolerance of stupidity is a particularly worthwhile virtue but, yeah, I admit that was a pretty pointless post - after a curry and several beers on a Friday night in, the urge to descend to his level overtook my usual admirable self-restraint.
Anyway, I think you'll find Gary Male has summed up "Gaunty"
far more pithily than I would ever choose to...
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:39 am
by D Eadie
So changing your stance after a curry, does that make you a Korma Chameleon?
Gaunty had a huge audience on Talksport and was a genuinely decent guy. Never found him to be anything but a gent. He speaks for many people in what he says, although i agree that not everyone shares his viewpoint.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:08 am
by Phil Reynolds
D Eadie wrote:So changing your stance after a curry, does that make you a Korma Chameleon?
Groan. I did spend quite a long time later that evening slumped on the toilet, which I suppose constitutes ALOO SAG.
Gaunty had a huge audience on Talksport and was a genuinely decent guy. Never found him to be anything but a gent. He speaks for many people in what he says, although i agree that not everyone shares his viewpoint.
It's rare to find someone whose opinions are unique, so you could point to pretty much anyone and say that they speak for lots of others. What's irritating about JG is his constantly repeated claim that he "says what
everyone thinks", which is no doubt designed deliberately to wind up the majority of ordinary people listening to his radio show so that they phone in to disagree with him - thereby guaranteeing its success.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:40 am
by Rosemary Roberts
Phil Reynolds wrote: What's irritating about JG is his constantly repeated claim that he "says what everyone thinks".
I agree that's irritating, although he is not the only political commentator who does it. But if he spiked your curry, that must be a first.
Re: Spoilers, Friday 27th March 2009
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:06 am
by Phil Reynolds
Rosemary Roberts wrote:if he spiked your curry, that must be a first
I made the curry myself so can vouch for its purity. I blame the beer.