c4countdown

Well, Oliver is now the #1 seed for at least the next week, but can he reach his 6th win today?

His opponent today should keep his/her guard up, as he has been in fantastic form after his seemingly nervous start last week. Quite a lots of his words have been pretty impressive. (Still amazed that FECKERS/FOCKERS isn't in the dictionary though, well not yet anyway.)

John Stapleton remains in DC for the rest week, as he continues his 2nd stint next to Susie.

Can Oliver make it 6 out of 6 Answers on a postcard, or below this message.

James Robinson wrote: Can Oliver make it 6 out of 6 Answers on a postcard, or below this message.

Yes.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

James Robinson wrote: Can Oliver make it 6 out of 6 Answers on a postcard, or below this message.

Yes.

Spoilers within spoilers?

Upset that you haven't mentioned that Huddersfield are going to stuff my team, Bristol Rovers tonight James.

Niall Seymour wrote:Upset that you haven't mentioned that Huddersfield are going to stuff my team, Bristol Rovers tonight James.

My apologies, Niall. I actually didn't know they were your team.

P.S. 3-0 to the Terriers tonight, I'm fairly sure.

James Robinson wrote:Well, Oliver is now the #1 seed for at least the next week, but can he reach his 6th win today?

You left a question mark in, James - oops.

She's not been practising her Triggonomics.

James Robinson wrote:Still amazed that FECKERS/FOCKERS isn't in the dictionary though, well not yet anyway.

FECKERS getting into the dictionary soon makes sense, because FECK is already in ..but why would FOCKERS get in??

CROONING for 8 in RACCOON round?

Sue Sanders wrote:
CROONING for 8 in RACCOON round?

Not two Ns.

Did wonder if I'd made a mistake. That's the problem with working with pen and paper.

Ha - but got both 9's. Pen and paper rule!

Sue Sanders wrote:Did wonder if I'd made a mistake. That's the problem with working with pen and paper.

I work with pen and paper and have no problems at all. I do have a degree in copying though.

Anyway, another marvellous performance, Oli. Would have been a crucial conundrum between us today - you just don't relent. Top stuff.

3rd numbers:

(25 + 6 + 3) x 2 x 8

Alternative To 2nd Numbers:

4 x 100 = 400, 7 + 6 = 13, 13 x 9 = 117, 400 + 117 = 517

I know what a fine-tooth comb looks like, but I've never seen a toothcomb. Something to do with aggressive flossing? Quite surprised to see it's in the dictionary.

David Williams wrote:I know what a fine-tooth comb looks like, but I've never seen a toothcomb. Something to do with aggressive flossing? Quite surprised to see it's in the dictionary.

Oh? Toothcomb is quite a normal word I thought, i.e. the verb "to toothcomb" meaning to look meticulously.

James Robinson wrote:

Niall Seymour wrote:Upset that you haven't mentioned that Huddersfield are going to stuff my team, Bristol Rovers tonight James.

My apologies, Niall. I actually didn't know they were your team.

P.S. 3-0 to the Terriers tonight, I'm fairly sure.

HUDDERSFIELD TOWN 0 - 0 BRISTOL ROVERS

Oh well, at least I was half right.

Brian Moore wrote:

Ollie, how could you?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

David Williams wrote:I know what a fine-tooth comb looks like, but I've never seen a toothcomb. Something to do with aggressive flossing? Quite surprised to see it's in the dictionary.

Oh? Toothcomb is quite a normal word I thought, i.e. the verb "to toothcomb" meaning to look meticulously.

The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.

I only need a few hundred more of these and I could do the Susie Dent spot.

David Williams wrote:The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.

OR MAYBE THERE IS?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!

Michael Wallace wrote:

David Williams wrote:The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.

OR MAYBE THERE IS?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!

I really should do my research before I make pronouncements! Not sure how to use one for searching, and why only a fine one will do, but there you go.

David Williams wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

David Williams wrote:The point is that you would look meticulously with a comb with fine teeth - a fine-tooth comb. For some reason most people just get this wrong, and it's become a fine toothcomb. The word has found its way into common usage and even into the dictionary even though there's no such thing.

OR MAYBE THERE IS?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!

I really should do my research before I make pronouncements! Not sure how to use one for searching, and why only a fine one will do, but there you go.

That sense of toothcomb hasn't made it into the ODE. My copy has the fine toothcomb definition only, with the fine-tooth comb derivation explained beneath.

Martin Bishop wrote:That sense of toothcomb hasn't made it into the ODE. My copy has the fine toothcomb definition only, with the fine-tooth comb derivation explained beneath.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Still, thought it was pretty cool.

Seems we've captured the zeitgeist once again; from the current Private Eye:

C. J. Rose wrote:Mr Brian Leedham says that "fine tooth comb" should be a "fine-toothed comb". Not so. The word "toothcomb" has a long and respectable history. The word presumably indicates the difference between a comb with teeth and other sorts of comb, such as a currycomb or possibly a cock's-comb. "Fine toothcomb" is therefore perfectly acceptable.

And that's a mighty fine toothcomb you've got yourself there sir, if you don't mind my saying so.

Charlie Reams wrote:Seems we've captured the zeitgeist once again; from the current Private Eye:

C. J. Rose wrote:Mr Brian Leedham says that "fine tooth comb" should be a "fine-toothed comb". Not so. The word "toothcomb" has a long and respectable history. The word presumably indicates the difference between a comb with teeth and other sorts of comb, such as a currycomb or possibly a cock's-comb. "Fine toothcomb" is therefore perfectly acceptable.

We?