Except that it wasn't 'semanitc squabbling'.

Networkbabe was making a perfectly sound point about the amount of time amount of time it took to make phone calls and how, as a result of that, Jamie did not find any supplier for three of the items.

It was you who introduced what was, under the circumstances, a complete irrelevance, i.e. that he may not even have had tried to find three of the items - something that in fact supports Networkbabes's point.

Whether he didn't find something because he tried but ran out of time or because he ran out of time before he even started trying was irrelevant in the context in which it was mentioned.

Your attempt to muddy the waters by making a pointless distinction was where the 'semantic squabbling' was to be found.

So my response was not semantic squabbling but making a perfectly sound point.


Well, you can try and spin it like that if you wish but it's interesting that now I've had to start breaking things down into very small, very basic, steps that would require you to actually point to some specific error in fact or logic (such as how the task could have been flipped if the traffic had been different) you seem to want to give up whereas when you could just reply 'nonsense' or attempt to extrapolate from some speculated specific to the general you were happy to 'debate'.

If you like.

Well, no. He said he tried every number in the book. Both teams had the same books, and Liz's team did find someone. It seems pretty clear that he called the same supplier Liz had used, and that he got different service because he was calling too late.

I have argued elsewhere in the thread that at £270 the worktop was the single most expensive item. It makes some sense that he'd put all his efforts into sourcing that, and try much less hard with the other two items. I think that's why he failed with those two: because he didn't look, rather than because he was unlucky.


I'm surprised you can say that. It seems blindingly obvious to me that some parts of town are going to be cheaper than others. The truffles are a classic example. It wasn't random in that instance and there's no reason to assume it was random in other cases, especially given the consistency of the outcome.


Yep. Again, this is about finding a suitable area of town which has several vendors close to each other.


I don't think it was bad luck. They just didn't research as well.

Also, I think there was an element of stupidity (as some of the interpretations for Blue Book were obviously wrong), which was probably due to their lack of sleep.


You assess it according to the task rules, which set fines for failing to find items and fines for taking so much time that you are late.

it shows they got lower 5 times out of 6. As I said. What's you're point?


And? Are you saying my figures are wrong? Do you have any evidence for that?


You are demanding a level of proof which is unrealistic. Yes, it might have been luck, but it probably wasn't.


Why do you have to get insulting? I understand you. I don't agree with you.


That may be a reasonable gripe, but it's not really on topic. We know that Jamie's team bargaining tactics were accepted as legitimate; that's not a point of debate.

That they didn't always get the lowest starting price so there was not some magical method they had for divining which supplier charged less.

It's all down to the number of suppliers versus the number of calls they could make.


I'm saying that they are different from others posted here and no one has posed a link to a reliable external source to back up one side or the other.


No, you see you are speculating and then using that speculation to prove a point.

That is not logical.

Even if it were true in this instance it does not alter the fact that there are other instances when it would not be true.


I don't understand this.

I said if you don't trust me. How is that insulting to you?

Most people are a lot weaker than they think they are when assessing probabilities and since you don't know me from Adam I saw no reason why you should trust my statement on the matter.


Sorry, I wasn't aware that DS had nominated you as the final arbiter of what could and could not be debated here.

When someone asked how the boys could have won, pointing out that they only won because the person doing the judging cared so little for ethical business practices and general honesty that he allowed purchases made on the back of bare faced lying to stand seems a vary reasonable response.

Or, by random happenstance, got to speak to someone less diligent than the person the girl's team spoke to.

We have no way of knowing.


But the fact that he didn't have time to look may well have been down to the random misfortune of not speaking to someone who would have put him on the right tracks - or even told him his quest was pointless at that time of day.


Quite. They give them a needlessly complicated task after piling on unnatural pressure and depriving them of a proper amount of sleep in order to make 'amusing' television where people can laugh at 'stupid' mistakes that they would probably make themselves in similar circumstances.


But in the context of debating how a team won when their performance was pretty abysmal, badly designed task rules come under as much scrutiny as any other factor.

The debate seems to be tiresome now.

I think if both side knew that the fine was £50 per item before they started Boys win is fair enough.

If the fine was raised to £100 per item missed then Girls win.

We don't know if the fines were specified to them, or just described as "significant". If it was the latter, then the production team / LS could pick their preferred winner.

Next episode now. This one is played out......

They did so 5 times out of 6. It's not proof, but it is suggestive.


It's on iPlayer. I gave detailed reasoning for the figures where I differ.


No. I am showing that although your interpretation can't be disproved, the evidence makes it unlikely.


You are implying I don't understand basic maths.


Of course I am not arbiter. You are being foolish again. However, I personally can choose not to debate issues which aren't relevant to the thread, and I can also say why I am not debating them.


The original question was clearly numerical in nature. That Jamie's team discounts were accepted despite being ethically questionable was known to the original poster.

But the ACTUAL task was to negotiate the best prices and get back on time, rather than get ALL the items and be late. LAS quite clearly states that in "Why I fired them" programme.

The girls lost signt of what was expected of them and treated it more like a treasure hunt and got ALL the items with at least one of those items (truffles) being at double the wholesale value. The latter being down to Laura's stupidity at offering £200 as the most they would pay.

The boys followed the task instructions properly and that is why they won.

Good lord! Are you still banging on about this?

It's old news and it became quite clear that the two sides of the debate were never going to agree.

Believe me, correctly calculating probabilities, especially over multiple events, is in no way 'basic maths'.

The probability of a random person, even if they appear well educated and logical getting composite probability calculations correct is not high. In fact, it's pretty low.

Which was why I initially suggested that you would have good reason not to trust me (as an effectively random person) to get it right.

So, no insult intended.

Of course we won't agree... Because you are clearly wrong!