c4countdown

So, we've reached Thursday, and we might have to change the studio colours from blue to a shade of pink, now that we have our first female champion of 2011, in the form of Michelle Nevitt, but can she improve further to possibly challenge the seedings

Join me for the 3rd Robinson Recap of the week later.

Much less convoluted for first numbers: (25-8)x50+5

JAPERY as beater in R6

MADRONA as an equaller in R8 (not 7)

PUJARI was there in round 6 as a beater to add to Adam's Japery. Oh Adam, you're always playing the fool.

Pretty sure we had "pot calling the kettle black" relatively recently in OoW.

Edward McCullagh wrote:MADRONA as an equaller in R8 (not 7)

Equaller schmequaller. MANDORA too if we're just going for anagrams of what DC had.

sipppp

Adam Gillard wrote:sipppp

It's different when you're in the studio

Aww come on Susie, as if you can't remember!

Woulda had SHITLOADS of points if consonant was last pick just now

Could be a record for most references to Jeff's height in a show - James, any idea?

SCOURGER for equaliser in round 1.

My C4 signal went before the last numbers so I am going out in disgust....

Who won?

Ben Hunter wrote:Who won?

Michelle won 86-83 despite her opponent winning 20-0 in the last 2 rounds.

Adam Gillard wrote:Could be a record for most references to Jeff's height in a show - James, any idea?

Erm, fraid not, Adam.

As well as doing Rachel's method for the 1st numbers, I also found just after: ((((8 + 4) x 5) + 50) x 8) - 25 = 855

IMPETIGO in round 7 as well.

The easy way of doing the first numbers is 4x8x25 +50 +5.....

IMPETIGO in the PIMIENTO round as a DC-equaller.

I would have done a MM picture entry, but it might have put you off your supper. Eurgh.

Just got round to opening 4oD: had 855=(50-5)x(25-8+8/4), also JABIRU in R6

James Robinson wrote:As well as doing Rachel's method for the 1st numbers, I also found just after: ((((8 + 4) x 5) + 50) x 8) - 25 = 855

Tony Atkins wrote:The easy way of doing the first numbers is 4x8x25 +50 +5.....

Peter Mabey wrote:had 855=(50-5)x(25-8+8/4)

Adam Gillard wrote:Much less convoluted for first numbers: (25-8)x50+5

I think I done a numbers neater than everyone else Had to triple-check my calculations to make sure I wasn't dreaming!

I knew that my way wasn't simplest - only posted it because I'd independently found something completely different

I'd have thought DIASTOLES would have been valid - it's been on my 'to play' list for ages and I've never seen it come up before, so I 'went for it' only for DC to say they wouldn't allow it. Oh and from last week, add BUTANES to the list of mass nouns which have been both allowed and disallowed in the plural. Mike Wenble had it allowed in Series 50 (I think) although I suppose the dictionary definition may have changed since then. Chances are it hasn't.

Martin Gardner wrote:I'd have thought DIASTOLES would have been valid - it's been on my 'to play' list for ages and I've never seen it come up before, so I 'went for it' only for DC to say they wouldn't allow it. Oh and from last week, add BUTANES to the list of mass nouns which have been both allowed and disallowed in the plural. Mike Wenble had it allowed in Series 50 (I think) although I suppose the dictionary definition may have changed since then. Chances are it hasn't.

After a flick through my brand spanking new ODE3 (which came yesterday from amazonland) I can clarify that neither BUTANES^ nor DIASTOLES^ seems to have any reason to be pluralisable^.

Joseph Krol wrote:After a flick through my brand spanking new ODE3 (which came yesterday from amazonland) I can clarify that neither BUTANES^ nor DIASTOLES^ seems to have any reason to be pluralisable^.

DIASTOLES does get more than 8,590 Google Book hits, so it's a word in the sense people use it as a word.

Both BUTANES & DIASTOLES are OK for Scrabble, but that doesn't prove much, as OSW & SOWPODS include lots of unlikely plurals