c4countdown

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

But..but.. Damian..I thought we meant something to you? We represent upwards of HALF A WHOLE PERCENT of your contestants... you NEED us..right? I thought one day... maybe, just maybe... I could be on again... if I just kept improving... and demonstrated enough ice-cool sardonicism (oh, and personal insults, and picking up on any and all types of mistake anyone makes) in the forum...please Mr Eadie, please don't take my hope away, PLEASE!

Apterous the online game is a stunning piece of computer engineering and for that Charlie is a genuine star and clearly very clever person. I'll play it and pay for it for as long as he keeps it going!

I have, however, never come across such a rude, misogynistic, immature, sarcastic (my attempt above in italics!), cliquey, male-dominated in-crowd forum in 15 years of using the internet (i'm sure there are worse out there somewhere but hey). This isn't in sole response to this particular thread by the way, it's just some of the stuff on the whole "let me on again" thing was the straw that broke...

So like a few before (most of whom don't announce it, but I just can't help myself!), I've decided to stop reading and posting to the forum. So I leave you on post number 37 with a short paraphrase of my second ever post, the general sentiments of which are as fresh and relevant today as they were at the start when I was so naive regarding "Apt" behaviour.

why the sarcasm? Is it "put off new people" week?

Cheers to the people who have been nice and friendly to me, you (obviously) know who you are, and a special hug to those who don't think using the C word all the time is acceptable.
Rob.


p.s To anyone who reads this via Google when checking me out for a job interview, or if coming in to be interviewed by me, I will happily talk you through what i'm on about here. Or if you've got the time, just look through the forum for a bit, you'll soon get the idea.

Rob Thomas wrote:a special hug to those who don't think using the C word all the time is acceptable.

To be fair, it is a Countdown forum...

Rob Thomas wrote:Cheers to the people who have been nice and friendly to me, you (obviously) know who you are, and a special hug to those who don't think using the C word all the time is acceptable.

I've never been horrible to you but on the other hand I love saying cunt from time to time. Please can you provide some sort of clarification for me and let me know whether I get a hug or whether I should be upset.

Rob Thomas wrote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

But..but.. Damian..I thought we meant something to you? We represent upwards of HALF A WHOLE PERCENT of your contestants... you NEED us..right? I thought one day... maybe, just maybe... I could be on again... if I just kept improving... and demonstrated enough ice-cool sardonicism (oh, and personal insults, and picking up on any and all types of mistake anyone makes) in the forum...please Mr Eadie, please don't take my hope away, PLEASE!

Apterous the online game is a stunning piece of computer engineering and for that Charlie is a genuine star and clearly very clever person. I'll play it and pay for it for as long as he keeps it going!

I have, however, never come across such a rude, misogynistic, immature, sarcastic (my attempt above in italics!), cliquey, male-dominated in-crowd forum in 15 years of using the internet (i'm sure there are worse out there somewhere but hey). This isn't in sole response to this particular thread by the way, it's just some of the stuff on the whole "let me on again" thing was the straw that broke...

So like a few before (most of whom don't announce it, but I just can't help myself!), I've decided to stop reading and posting to the forum. So I leave you on post number 37 with a short paraphrase of my second ever post, the general sentiments of which are as fresh and relevant today as they were at the start when I was so naive regarding "Apt" behaviour.

why the sarcasm? Is it "put off new people" week?

Cheers to the people who have been nice and friendly to me, you (obviously) know who you are, and a special hug to those who don't think using the C word all the time is acceptable.
Rob.


p.s To anyone who reads this via Google when checking me out for a job interview, or if coming in to be interviewed by me, I will happily talk you through what i'm on about here. Or if you've got the time, just look through the forum for a bit, you'll soon get the idea.

Cool story bro

I guess there's no real point replying to this but I don't think I can really let you insult a couple hundred people and then flounce off with the last word.

Rob Thomas wrote:rude

Sure.

Rob Thomas wrote:misogynistic

Examples please.

Rob Thomas wrote:immature

Which is a bad thing because...?

Rob Thomas wrote:sarcastic

I'm not even sure this is a criticism.

Rob Thomas wrote:cliquey

I guess you didn't use the Internet much in that 15 years.

Rob Thomas wrote:male-dominated

Surely you're not really surprised that an Internet forum about a word game is male-dominated?

a special hug to those who don't think using the C word all the time is acceptable.

Total number of posts using the word "cunt" in the last two weeks: 1.

To anyone who reads this via Google when checking me out for a job interview, or if coming in to be interviewed by me, I will happily talk you through what i'm on about here. Or if you've got the time, just look through the forum for a bit, you'll soon get the idea.

Unlikely. This place is not indexed by Google and your name is hardly unusual.

Charlie Reams wrote:

a special hug to those who don't think using the C word all the time is acceptable.

Total number of posts using the word "cunt" in the last two weeks: 1.

And it was entirely in context, a proper noun too!


As for the post you mentioned, I've just had a look through it, and I can't really understand what's so irksome about it. It's a mixture of genuinely relevant posts and banter between well-acquainted forumites with overdeveloped sarcasm glands. I can't see how this would cause offence unless your own glands haven't developed enough!

Ian Volante wrote:I can't see how this would cause offence unless your own glands haven't developed enough!

Which, judging by the failed attempt at sarcasm that opens this thread, is exactly the case.

Ian Volante wrote:And it was entirely in context, a proper noun too!

I didn't count that (UMD), the post in question was actually Corby calling himself a cunt, which is only offensive if you're of the "I'm offended on your behalf" persuasion.

Rob Thomas wrote:p.s To anyone who reads this via Google when checking me out for a job interview, or if coming in to be interviewed by me, I will happily talk you through what i'm on about here. Or if you've got the time, just look through the forum for a bit, you'll soon get the idea.

Somehow I doubt you'll have to worry about this at interviews. Or interviews in general, for that matter.

Please dont go.

That was sarcasm BTW.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:And it was entirely in context, a proper noun too!

I didn't count that (UMD), the post in question was actually Corby calling himself a cunt, which is only offensive if you're of the "I'm offended on your behalf" persuasion.

Fair point. I'm always impressed that you explicitly know about these things that are implicitly somewhere in my brain. Probably.

That wasn't a chat up line, duck.

Ian Volante wrote: Fair point. I'm always impressed that you explicitly know about these things that are implicitly somewhere in my brain. Probably.

Most of science is making explicit things which most people know intuitively. It's only the really cool stuff that breaks your intuition.

I wonder if this is the first time "cliquey" and "Jason Larsen" have ever been used together in context.

(Edit: This is probably the first time "cliquey" and me have been used together in context, as far as that goes.)

I just wonder if Rob Thomas will be tempted to have just one peek to see if he's got any "yes, I agree" posts. Is there a sneakylastlookometer running on the site ?

Brian Moore wrote:I just wonder if Rob Thomas will be tempted to have just one peek to see if he's got any "yes, I agree" posts. Is there a sneakylastlookometer running on the site ?

If you look at someone's profile you can see when they last visited, which is probably good enough.

Brian Moore wrote:I just wonder if Rob Thomas will be tempted to have just one peek to see if he's got any "yes, I agree" posts. Is there a sneakylastlookometer running on the site ?

Admins can ban by IP address if that's what you mean.

Rob Thomas wrote:We represent upwards of HALF A WHOLE PERCENT of your contestants

Your 0.07% of total posts will be much missed.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:I just wonder if Rob Thomas will be tempted to have just one peek to see if he's got any "yes, I agree" posts. Is there a sneakylastlookometer running on the site ?

If you look at someone's profile you can see when they last visited, which is probably good enough.

But you don't have to log in to have a sneaky look. That would be stupid

Brian Moore wrote:But you don't have to log in to have a sneaky look. That would be stupid

Good point. Although if someone has their account set to automatic log in (you have to pay a duel jewel to get out) then that might catch them out.

Nobody announces that they're leaving an internet forum. You just don't visit any more. Seems to me you'd have to be exceedingly self-centred to think that anyone would give a toss.

Andy Thomson wrote:Nobody announces that they're leaving an internet forum. You just don't visit any more. Seems to me you'd have to be exceedingly self-centred to think that anyone would give a toss.

Yes, though pointing out that no-one gives a toss after 18 posts maybe lessens the strength of your argument.

Those that agree with Rob know what treatment they'll get if they bother to say so. Or they've already left, for the same reasons as Rob.

Brian Moore wrote:

Andy Thomson wrote:Nobody announces that they're leaving an internet forum. You just don't visit any more. Seems to me you'd have to be exceedingly self-centred to think that anyone would give a toss.

Yes, though pointing out that no-one gives a toss after 18 posts maybe lessens the strength of your argument.

See, that's why you guys are all so much cleverer than me, innit?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rob Thomas wrote:male-dominated

Surely you're not really surprised that an Internet forum about a word game is male-dominated?

The assumption being that women are not interested in word games... which is based on what?

The studio audience contains a fair few women, the contestants are often women, and personally I know more female fans of both Scrabble and Countdown than male.

I'd be very interested to see stats for the Countdown demographic - both viewers and contestants - and what the male/female ratio is. I suspect this forum would be unrepresentative. But what it does probably reflect is the proportion of women at the very top level of competitive Scrabble and Countdown. Therein lies a particular kind of testosterone-fuelled male-dominated culture which is well represented here.

Clare Sudbery wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Surely you're not really surprised that an Internet forum about a word game is male-dominated?

The assumption being that women are not interested in word games...

I don't think that's the assumption being made at all.

I came into this thread first tonight as it was the most-recently-updated, and wondered what had gone on in the "Reappearance" threads to prompt that.

And... it's nothing. What the hell brought on that little outburst?!

Clare Sudbery wrote:The studio audience contains a fair few women, the contestants are often women, and personally I know more female fans of both Scrabble and Countdown than male.

The contestants are often women. Finalists rarely are. There are two possible explanations for this:-
[1] Women are inherently stupider.
[2] Women are less interested in obsessing over the game, such as frequenting Internet forums and practising for hours on apterous.
Take your pick. I went for number 2.

Clare Sudbery wrote:Therein lies a particular kind of testosterone-fuelled male-dominated culture which is well represented here.

Indeed, what could be more testesterone-fuelled than sitting at home doing anagrams?

You seem to be under the impression that if you keep making ill-thought-out allusions to sexism then they might start being true. The reality is that it's just you that's unpopular, for reasons entirely unrelated to your gender and entirely related to your being a bit of an arse.

Superb post Charlie

Charlie Reams wrote:the post in question was actually Corby calling himself a cunt

I was quite prepared to accept it was me, but I can't find this post - can you point me to it please Charlie? It does seem unlikely that I would call myself that as I generally see myself as a bit of a smasher.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ian Volante wrote: Fair point. I'm always impressed that you explicitly know about these things that are implicitly somewhere in my brain. Probably.

Most of science is making explicit things which most people know intuitively. It's only the really cool stuff that breaks your intuition.

Quantum chromodynamics I didn't mind too much (especially the penguins). General relativity though, urgh. My frame of reference usually disappeared up my own singularity in such lectures.

Jimmy Gough wrote:Cool story bro

I knew it.

I haven't been on the forum for a while and wanted to put my opinion forward, for what it's worth, which I realise isn't much.

I would like to echo Damian's comments and say that Rob Thomas was one of the nicest contestants I've encountered in the relatively short time I've been on the show. He was friendly, charming, funny, loved the game and was genuinely excited to be on the show. He made a real effort with everyone he encountered and it makes me really uncomfortable to hear you guys talking about him so negatively.

Lara Searle wrote:I haven't been on the forum for a while and wanted to put my opinion forward, for what it's worth, which I realise isn't much.

I would like to echo Damian's comments and say that Rob Thomas was one of the nicest contestants I've encountered in the relatively short time I've been on the show. He was friendly, charming, funny, loved the game and was genuinely excited to be on the show. He made a real effort with everyone he encountered and it makes me really uncomfortable to hear you guys talking about his so negatively.

Lara, nobody* talked about him negatively until this thread, in which he basically opened by saying we were all a bunch of twats.

(* Jimmy told him to "read the forum" when he asked a FAQ once, and Ian Volante asked if he was "waiting for a personality test" when he wasn't impressed by an anecdote)

Jon Corby wrote:he was "waiting for a personality test" when he wasn't impressed by an anecdote

Wasn't that just a Scientology joke? I don't think it was remotely intended to be insulting, and I don't think Rob took it as such.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:he was "waiting for a personality test" when he wasn't impressed by an anecdote

Wasn't that just a Scientology joke? I don't think it was remotely intended to be insulting, and I don't think Rob took it as such.

Oh! If so, it was one that completely passed me by and I took it completely the wrong way (and I still don't get it now, I need to brush up on Scientology)

Well, assuming that Rob also understood it, that leaves the sum total of a slightly sarcastic RTFM from Jimmy.

Until he insulted everybody.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:he was "waiting for a personality test" when he wasn't impressed by an anecdote

Wasn't that just a Scientology joke? I don't think it was remotely intended to be insulting, and I don't think Rob took it as such.

I can't remember the thread, but you're dead right.

This thread has outlived its usefulness.

In fact, it did so halfway through the writing of the first post. My bad really for letting it go on so long but jeez, why do people need to flounce off of forums in such a dramatic manner?