DS Forums

 
 

Countdown - so much better these days!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-09-2016, 15:51
HiMyNameIs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,292
Strange occurance with the numbers rounds today, all four were p*ss easy
HiMyNameIs is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-09-2016, 15:55
JELLIES0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,361
Yes three very easy numbers games, all round numbers 500 (5 x 100), 750 (various methods 8x100-50 etc) and another I can't remember plus a crucial conundrum that appeared before the clock started.
JELLIES0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2016, 18:15
mikebuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blackpool, England
Posts: 8,616
Yep nearly 3 seconds before. Guessing edits the studio probably didn't see.
mikebuk is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 15:46
kempshott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,506
4,10 and 10 in the selection, Tim can't get the 400 he declared.
kempshott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 09:23
steviex
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 776
4,10 and 10 in the selection, Tim can't get the 400 he declared.
He only got one (really easy) numbers round correct, slightly worrying as he is a trainee accountant and about to start a job in the city.
steviex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 13:10
Durham Viper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 321
And Rachel avoided embarrassing the contestant who failed to make 718 in the numbers round. He'd done the hard part and made 725 and was left with 2 and 5. Instead of adding them to make the 7 he needed, he multiplied them to subtract 10 and declared 715 instead. Instead of pointing this out, Rachel used a different method of making the total.
Durham Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 13:33
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
And Rachel avoided embarrassing the contestant who failed to make 718 in the numbers round. He'd done the hard part and made 725 and was left with 2 and 5. Instead of adding them to make the 7 he needed, he multiplied them to subtract 10 and declared 715 instead. Instead of pointing this out, Rachel used a different method of making the total.
No, she probably just didn't spot it. She's done this before. She's fantastic at difficult sums but quite often misses easy ones and is slow to react to what contestants do. It wouldn't have embarrassed the contestant.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 13:39
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
No, I disagree. I don't think she misses easy ones or is slow to react at all. She simply chooses to show alternate methods other than the most obvious ones.

But I fear we may have had this discussion before....
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 13:44
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
No, I disagree. I don't think she misses easy ones or is slow to react at all. She simply chooses to show alternate methods other than the most obvious ones.

But I fear we may have had this discussion before....
Yes we have and yes she does and is.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 14:32
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
I seem to recall never seeing any evidence for that, other than you simply saying she's bad at easy sums and guessing as to her motives for not doing everything the easiest way possible, every time.

Fair enough to have that opinion I guess, but it does still seem rather random.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 14:34
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
I seem to recall never seeing any evidence for that, other than you simply saying she's bad at easy sums and guessing as to her motives for not doing everything the easiest way possible, every time.

Fair enough to have that opinion I guess, but it does still seem rather random.
Not random at all. Based on evidence from having watched Countdown.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 14:36
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
Simply guessing as to her thought processes as she calculates sums is not evidence.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 14:38
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
Simply guessing as to her thought processes as she calculates sums is not evidence.
I don't know why you choose to ignore the evidence presented to you on television, but that's up to you. Pretty pointless discussion as I am never going to agree with you, and doubtless, you with me.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 14:42
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
How can I ignore evidence that doesn't exist?

You never seemed able to understand that yours was just an opinion of why she does what she does. It's a guess - or an argument at best. Not evidence. Unless you had access to her very thought processes.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 15:08
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
How can I ignore evidence that doesn't exist?

You never seemed able to understand that yours was just an opinion of why she does what she does. It's a guess - or an argument at best. Not evidence. Unless you had access to her very thought processes.
The evidence does exist.

Why would she deliberately not change 5 times 2 to 5 plus 2 if she had seen it? She would just seem like a show off and a bit silly for starting from scratch to do the solution in another way.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 15:11
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
Because that's not the way she operates. She likes to toy with alternate solutions whenever possible.

As for whether you think that makes her 'silly' or 'showing off', or that she doesn't even see simple solutions - that's just a random guess/opinion. There is no evidence that can prove what you're saying.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 15:14
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
Because that's not the way she operates. She likes to toy with alternate solutions whenever possible.

As for whether you think that makes her 'silly' or 'showing off', or that she doesn't even see simple solutions - that's just a random guess/opinion. There is no evidence that can prove what you're saying.
Whatever. I am confident that I am correct.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 15:52
Ginger Daddy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,798
Ive seen her "embarrass" contestants before by doing something rather simple which would have got them the full 10 points.
Ginger Daddy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 16:44
Mrs Mills
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 781
It's a shame when the contestants have failed and she says ' there are several methods for this!'
Mrs Mills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2016, 15:39
Mudbox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 4,125
https://postimg.org/image/ymdkkhkyb/
Mudbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 15:56
stewartuu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 262
Countdown goes back to 2:10 from Monday to make way for DOND.
stewartuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 16:07
Ginger Daddy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,798
Countdown goes back to 2:10 from Monday to make way for DOND.
Only for one day though surely because at 4pm its the Paralympic victory parade thing?
Ginger Daddy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 16:07
mikebuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blackpool, England
Posts: 8,616
So now you have to be 16 to be a contestant ? - have they forgotten the great young contestants of the past. Some as young as 8 or 9 ?
mikebuk is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 16:22
Lecate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 235
So now you have to be 16 to be a contestant ? - have they forgotten the great young contestants of the past. Some as young as 8 or 9 ?
The ones who got on that young were reared to do so by glory-seeking parents. Right from birth the parents focussed on teaching their child to recognize letters, and then forced rote memorization of dictionary words upon them as soon as possible, denying them play in favour of repetition, all so they could boast about producing a Countdown winner

A minimum age of 16 prevents this kind of horrid abuse and will prevent childhoods from being robbed in this way.
Lecate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 16:37
stewartuu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 262
Only for one day though surely because at 4pm its the Paralympic victory parade thing?
No, seems permanent; it's Countdown at 2:10 and DOND at 3 for as far as my listings go.

So now you have to be 16 to be a contestant ? - have they forgotten the great young contestants of the past. Some as young as 8 or 9 ?
Indeed. It doesn't sound like something they'd implement themselves, though - probably new rules and regulations preventing young children from taking part. A shame though, that was one of the draws of the programme when I was a kid.
stewartuu is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:16.