Are you sure about this? I can't believe that I referred more to Series 4 than to Series 1, as I know Series 1 considerably better than Series 4. I also can't believe that in the two years that I have been on this forum, I have referred to any of the adult series such a small number of times (this is my 4,946th Digital Spy post, and I am on these forums more than any other). I also can't believe that I have collectively referred to the YA series more than a thousand times more than the other series, or that you would take the time and effort to weigh up every single post that I have ever made. It specifically makes no sense that I referred to YA2 that many more times than Series 9, as I was actually on the forums whilst Series 9 was broadcasting whereas I wasn't whilst YA2 was broadcasting.

Also, how did you look through all the posts I have made on here? To the best of my knowledge, you can only look at the last 20 pages of someone's posts, and from looking at my last 20 pages it only takes you back to the start of October. If you've only been looking since the start of October, that really isn't very reliable evidence. And besides, I don't think I have referred to any series more than a thousand times in the last month and a half. So I don't think these figures stack up at all.

Do you have a SINGLE shred of humour within you? Are you incapable of understanding a JOKE?

I'm not sure. Is it one of those things where someone says something and then pauses for laughter?

Frankly I'm with George here, what relevance does how much he refers to each series make any difference to the discussion also you are presenting these "statistics" as fact therefore they are hardly to be taken as a joke. Yeah sure George does refer to YA a lot particularly series 2 of it but why should that matter? Some of us poke fun on occasion for it but you do seem to be making a bit of a personal attack here. Anyway getting way off topic sorry.

He wasn't saddled with anything. He volunteered to write the questions and described the "quirky" style he was aiming for. Pamela agreed he should do it. Unfortunately his questions were poor and the scoring was based on his arbitrary opinion of what men and woman should think.

So he should take ownership of his questions. That means taking the credit if they were any good and criticism if they were bad. However they weren't the only reason they lost. The whole idea of a relationship board doomed to fail. That was largely Pamela's fault.

As long as there is laughter.

It started as a mild irritation with his annoying constant mentioning of a childs version of a series that deals, in the main, with adults, on equal terms, which is wrong, but he won't be told, so, I've taken to light mockery, which he is unable to shake off, and laugh at, because he was denied the humour gene at birth and is incapable of just saying 'lol'.

Obviously the 'statistics' are made up, do you REALLY think I counted each and every sodding mention he has made of every specific series? Even if I did have the time, I wouldn't be bothered.

Let's all lighten up shall we.

Anyway, back on to topic.

Who the hell do you think your are telling another poster what to post . George is one of the most intelligent, reasonable posters on here and I enjoy his posts .

You are treading on very thin ice and I suggest you read the T&C's regarding criticism of another poster .

No hard feelings, Rhydler. As you know, personally I consider them to be one and the same, and will refer to them as such. Obviously you don't. I respect that. With regards to me 'not being told' - sure, I'll take another person's point of view on board, but it doesn't mean I will necessarily agree with them, or do what they tell me. In this instance, I disagree with you. You can post whatever you want on here, as can I. However, I would suggest that it may be better to refrain from making assumptions about me on a personal level, because you really know very little about me save for my opinions about elements of The Apprentice, and possibly a few other things that may have come up whilst discussing them.

Peace and love


Thanks, I appreciate your comments and your good opinion of my posts.

I'm not doubting the guys intelligence, but I'll challenge his posts whenever I see fit. I'm pretty intelligent myself

The ice I tread on is sturdy and my posts were fine

Then why did you respond to my ludicrous stats post as if it was a serious post? I mean really?

I've got no hard feelings at all, clearly you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the show and that's great, I love it myself. the YA thing is just a bugbear, I am allowed to have them after all. And I, too, won't be moved in my views

Just don't take everything I say so literally, there's certainly no malice intended, though some will react as if there is

Can't see a significant difference. The YA tasks were no easier.The major difference was that the endurance factor was different , and his Lordship smarls less. Young Apprentice had fewer of the stock characters, fewer joke candidates, and more high flyers than most adult series. In several tasks they did better than the adults do most years. . There's a classic boardroom demolition job in series 2 . And some of them are already in similar jobs to some of the better adult candidates.

Do we think he did enough early enough to point out that he couldn't write viable, intelligent questions because the concept was dud? I can't see how he can write questions without some basis for the answers. So, who should have recognised this , and when?

Was he deluded, going through the motions, or doing something he knew was silly? Or is it Pamela who refuses to change - when she has time to find another option ? Is Daniel doomed to produce something terrible - because thats all there can be? Is Pamela doomed because her team have produced zero good ideas between them?

The kids were talented no question, but the tasks were dumbed down for them.

The concept of the game relied on the use of stereotypes. The questions were always going to be somewhat dodgy. They should have had a woman doing the 'female questions' but ultimately, it was doomed to fail.

Why not just say, "Pamela, your idea is a dud. The focus group has said it's sexist and all the other members of team think it's sexist. Let's spend some time addressing those issues and make into something people would want to play"...?

But he just wrote sexist questions without even trying to challenge Pamela.

I have to lay blame of all of it to Pamela.

The concept was awful and niche, then she said they had to tread carefully so as not to appear offensive, so she should've been overseeing every single question. Yet she left it in the hands of Daniel, and told him they were now going down the "funny" route. I think she knew what was going on and just washed her hands of it as much as possible.

Irony = Pamela saying the others were covering their fecking asses.

This. As someone who hasn't watched every series I enjoy George's encyclopedic knowledge of every series.


I also thought the statistics were real and the result of some kind of superior search function (a bit like when find/change in InDesign tells you how many instances it found.)

I think Pamela was a sly one....glad she got the sack....she's lethal in the way she controls the situation to make others seem extremely weak...she was always moaning and groaning....and her constant fake laugh with her head flying backwards (on apprentice you're fired) made her seem even more fake....

That would have made good TV. But no one, or team, has ever turned around and said "you are a hopeless PM, and we are all doomed by your dud decision - we fire you as PM"

Luisa got rid of Jason - but he had collapsed into complete indecision, and agreed he wasn't up to the job.

Not sure if Luisa's experience made it more or less likely that future bad PMs will be overthrown. Part of the downside is that you are seen as ruthless outside the show, and, by the time you act, it may be too late anyway to avoid the loss if you take over as PM. Its easier to say nothing and let the PM sink?

I don't htink you can save their idea - because, even if you think of less offensive questions and answers, there's still no basis to produce answers that any intelligent person could guess. If the answers and scoring are random, whats the point of playing it?

Just to pick up on that...

I'm pretty sure it was actually Daniel's idea to do a "battle of the sexes" game.

Pamela's main mistake (and one which completely justifies her firing) was to do the usual "I'm in charge and I'm making the decisions!!!" thing, even though she went with a crappy idea suggested by Daniel and then allowed Daniel to produce crappy questions for his crappy idea of a game.

Yes but anyone with half a brain or any sense of social realities wouldn't have written questions like that. They were ill thought out, unfunny, stereotypical, boring and offensive questions. Did he seriously read back through them at the end and htink "yeh, they're really good"?!?!


As for the PM or other team members not realising how fundamentally important the gameplay was then that is similarly unfathomable. But tbh everything to me on this show is unfathomable, the BBC do a fantastic job selecting Britains most uselss business cretins year in year out they really do. Sugar should employ some of the Apprentice researchers.

They are actually generally very successful in their day jobs. The tasks are a lot harder than they look. I think the majority of applicants have thought, 'Goodness, I could do better than that!' and then find that they actually can't.

It apeared to me he wrote a lot of them in isolation, he did read some out but no one took any notice. Pamela was seen reading some out and didn't object to what she saw. She should have picked up that the tone was wrong.

Daniel is deluded about his abilities but not about this. I think he tried his best to do it, especially as he had volunteered to take it on. You could understand him going through the motions if he was told to do it and he knew it was silly.

Pamela was enthusiastic about a relationships game. Mark suggested it but he realised the market research showed it was a non-starter. Once Pamela had made her "executive decision" to stick to the idea there was no turning back.

In the end he had to come up with enough qestions so it turned into quantity rather than quality. I doubt if he thought they were all good enough. The gameplay concept was flawed. You would have to think exactly like Daniel to get a good score.