willwoodlen wrote:... but when he makes such poorly judged (even if well meant) comments like, "Let's go for the sweep," a viewer has at least some reason to theorize.
What? Are you serious? Poorly judged? I cannot believe anybody would think that poorly judged.
Maybe I'll start a poll.
Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
MarkBarrett wrote:
Mr. Blandings... (1948) is before my time, but it was cited enough times when The Money Pit came out in 1986 I was able to file it away.
I was torn between Blanding and Blandings so I might have stayed clam on that one, given the point value.
Johnblue wrote:Jennifer, I like the guy fine. But I've noticed that there have been certain contestants who get roundly criticized and then they show up here and the criticism ends. And nothing said about any contestant that's been written on this board is anything like what I read at other boards.
When a contestant shows up here it can shock us into remembering that we're talking about actual human beings with feelings and stuff. And if we've said things we wouldn't want to have said to the person's face, we feel awkward and embarrassed and we try to make up for it and hope to do better next time. Well, most of us anyway. That does make us a bit different from most other places on the net. I like it that way. It's why I stick around.
I thought it was the free krill dispenser we had installed that was the reason why you stick around.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
grindcore wrote:
Thought the boards were relatively easy today and though I should have gobbled up FJ!, I got stuck on repent and remission (cuz of "manumission") but knew they weren't quite right.
Sorry you missed, but glad you missed the same way I did (misery loves company ya know). I never considered repent because I immediately thought of remission (and "manumission" assured me that that was a good answer). Never for a moment doubted it until Amanda's answer was revealed.
Once again, awesome, just awesome job by Matt. I figured Amanda wasn't going anywhere when she thought the 1962 Mets had 120 wins. Seriously?
I had already thought the same thing Alex said about Matt counting his wins. I figured Matt couldn't celebrate an 11th win without taking off his shoes, and his 21st without, well, that's where the FCC steps in....
willwoodlen wrote:... but when he makes such poorly judged (even if well meant) comments like, "Let's go for the sweep," a viewer has at least some reason to theorize.
What? Are you serious? Poorly judged? I cannot believe anybody would think that poorly judged.
Maybe I'll start a poll.
Count one vote for "that was brilliant — if anything, I'm jealous I didn't (realize I had the opportunity to) do it"!
bpmod wrote:I am baffled as to what constitutes anti-social behaviour when one is competing on a game show.
Brian
Well, there's stabbing an opponent....But so far Matt hasn't had to resort to such things. I don't recall who it was last week who bashed Matt for "pummelling" the opponents on the signaling device as if that were somehow unfair or unkind. This strikes me as much the same thing. You know, if you utterly dominate your opponents you must be some kind of evil genius.
Opus, you came up with Fashion Huns for those who were criticizing a contestant's wardrobe. To what name would you assign the group of posters who diagnose a contestant as having some sort of autism or social disorder?
I have a slight eye tick. I think if I ever get the call, I'll intentionally overdo it just to annoy people on twitter.
Bamaman wrote:Opus, you came up with Fashion Huns for those who were criticizing a contestant's wardrobe. To what name would you assign the group of posters who diagnose a contestant as having some sort of autism or social disorder?
I have a slight eye tick. I think if I ever get the call, I'll intentionally overdo it just to annoy people on twitter.
No doubt Opus will come up with a better answer, but as one of the 14-and-counting people who lost to Matt, I've started referring to them (just to myself) as the Spectrum Police.
Can't tell you the number of friends and colleagues and even some strangers who have privately expressed condolences for my not doing better, then immediately followed up with "but there's something about that champ" with a range of amateur diagnoses. He struck me as a polite but intense young man, who was there to win.
willwoodlen wrote:... but when he makes such poorly judged (even if well meant) comments like, "Let's go for the sweep," a viewer has at least some reason to theorize.
What? Are you serious? Poorly judged? I cannot believe anybody would think that poorly judged.
Maybe I'll start a poll.
Count one vote for "that was brilliant — if anything, I'm jealous I didn't (realize I had the opportunity to) do it"!
I'm with MarkBarrett on this one. If I had been playing, I'd have wanted to smack him in the head for spiking the ball like that.
Big fan of the gameplay, but I can't stand the other stuff. Just my taste.
Bamaman wrote:Opus, you came up with Fashion Huns for those who were criticizing a contestant's wardrobe. To what name would you assign the group of posters who diagnose a contestant as having some sort of autism or social disorder?
Hmmmm. This is a good question. Usually I have to wait for inspiration to strike. And we risk running out of bellicose people groups that are in the public domain.
I tried to work up something around the concept of Mongol Whored, but it's just not gelling for me. Similar roadblock toying around with Ass Burgers.
The specific malady we're dealing with might be termed Hypochondria by Proxy. But that's already a mouthful. The Hypochondria by Proxy Visigoths probably won't catch on.
I mentioned this on another board, but I wanted to back up what some of the other contestants have said - on tape day, Matt seemed nice, anxious to play, and very, very excited to be there. I didn't know he was some kind of quiz bowl superstar, but he seemed like a competitive person (pretty sure he reacted with boom! at one point during rehearsal) and there's absolutely nothing wrong with being competitive and wanting to win.
Chill out, armchair psychiatrists. Your envy is showing.
Bamaman wrote:Opus, you came up with Fashion Huns for those who were criticizing a contestant's wardrobe. To what name would you assign the group of posters who diagnose a contestant as having some sort of autism or social disorder?
I have a slight eye tick. I think if I ever get the call, I'll intentionally overdo it just to annoy people on twitter.
No doubt Opus will come up with a better answer, but as one of the 14-and-counting people who lost to Matt, I've started referring to them (just to myself) as the Spectrum Police.
This is perfect!
Myself, with my lazy eye (seriously guys, it's creepy!), weird voice, head that tilts slightly to the right (that I only just noticed recently, why has no one mentioned this before?) and anything else anyone can add that has had the misfortune of not fast-forwarding through my parts on Live Panels, I have already prepared to take on my own haters (I guess they won't be Spectrum Police since I haven't been diagnosed as being on the spectrum) with my usual humour and aplomb. (Being bullied through elementary, junior high, and high school has prepared me well for this moment)
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
I remember back on the old Sony boards when Ken Jennings was on his winning streak, a few posters were supposing that Ken had Asperger's and/or manifested symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorder.
