MinnesotaMyron wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:00 pm
Jennifer's 4-day total is $100 more than Brian Weikle's 4-day total.
Also, I gotta get those damn Presidential dates on some flashcards.
I did the math and arrived at 1836, and honestly didn't know if it was Jackson or Van Buren. Then it occurred to me that the general would likely never have consented to be anyone's #2 guy. So Van Buren it was, and I'll take the W no matter how I arrived at it.
Meanwhile, Jennifer is looking really, really strong. You go, girl!!
I was aware of the MVB/GHWB nugget--I think I may have written a question about it several months ago--but I have also recently memorized the presidents' years in office, so this FJ! was up my alley.
I really liked the path of the Godwin clue. You have to be aware of Harold Godwinson, then realize what that implies with respect to his father's name.
I always thought people were just saying "disassociative" lazily. Thankful for the reversal there.
Last edited by BigDaddyMatty on Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I didn't see any mention here about Jennifer's FJ! wager. Had she missed, she put herself at exactly 2x the third place contestant. Why not bid $1 less than she did, thereby avoiding any possible tiebreaker? I'll never understand how so many brilliant people are so poor at wagering on FJ!
BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:18 pm
I always thought people were just saying "disassociative" lazily. Thankful for the reversal there.
That reversal was puzzling. So what if the OED contains the word "disassociative"? The clue wasn't asking for any word with that meaning. It was asking for the word that gets used with "identity disorder". "Multiplicate" is in the OED as a synonym for "multiple". But that doesn't prove that the former term was Multiplicate Personality Disorder.
The thing to consult is whatever diagnostic manual specifies the term. If it says "dissociative", then that's the right response. If it allows for both, great. If there's significant discussion among the congnoscenti about which term is acceptable, maybe "disassociative" can sneak in that way. But showing that the word exists doesn't prove jack for the purposes of this clue.
BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:18 pm
I always thought people were just saying "disassociative" lazily. Thankful for the reversal there.
That reversal was puzzling. So what if the OED contains the word "disassociative"? The clue wasn't asking for any word with that meaning. It was asking for the word that gets used with "identity disorder". "Multiplicate" is in the OED as a synonym for "multiple". But that doesn't prove that the former term was Multiplicate Personality Disorder.
The thing to consult is whatever diagnostic manual specifies the term. If it says "dissociative", then that's the right response. If it allows for both, great. If there's significant discussion among the congnoscenti about which term is acceptable, maybe "disassociative" can sneak in that way. But showing that the word exists doesn't prove jack for the purposes of this clue.
It's an interesting question. Did the judges take it as an alternate pronunciation? If they asked for the full name of "Alcoa," and someone responded, "Aluminium Company of America," would they be ruled correct? Probably not...But perhaps a disorder was deemed less official than a company name.
BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:18 pm
I always thought people were just saying "disassociative" lazily. Thankful for the reversal there.
That reversal was puzzling. So what if the OED contains the word "disassociative"? The clue wasn't asking for any word with that meaning. It was asking for the word that gets used with "identity disorder". "Multiplicate" is in the OED as a synonym for "multiple". But that doesn't prove that the former term was Multiplicate Personality Disorder.
The thing to consult is whatever diagnostic manual specifies the term. If it says "dissociative", then that's the right response. If it allows for both, great. If there's significant discussion among the congnoscenti about which term is acceptable, maybe "disassociative" can sneak in that way. But showing that the word exists doesn't prove jack for the purposes of this clue.
It's an interesting question. Did the judges take it as an alternate pronunciation? If they asked for the full name of "Alcoa," and someone responded, "Aluminium Company of America," would they be ruled correct? Probably not...But perhaps a disorder was deemed less official than a company name.
Mark Lowenthal did almost precisely this in his ToC-winning game: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=182 (CORPORATE AMERICA, $300) The clue just asked for what the "Al" stood for, he gave the five-syllable name of the element, and it was accepted and later reversed. A company name has less wiggle room. Accepting "disassociative" reminds me of the time they accepted "not suitable for work" as what NSFW stood for (instead of "safe"). I think Alex intended to say that "disassociative" and "dissociative" were fully synonymous in the OED, but prematurely ended his sentence after merely saying that the former could be found in the OED.
seaborgium wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:33 pm
Mark Lowenthal did almost precisely this in his ToC-winning game: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=182 (CORPORATE AMERICA, $300) The clue just asked for what the "Al" stood for, he gave the five-syllable name of the element, and it was accepted and later reversed. A company name has less wiggle room.
So by that rule...
Alex: Wilford Brimley advertises for Liberty Medical, which provides assistance for people afflicted with this disease.
Jeff: What is diabetes?
Alex: (looks offscreen) Uh... no, soary, we can't give that to you. Steve?
seaborgium wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:33 pm
Mark Lowenthal did almost precisely this in his ToC-winning game: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=182 (CORPORATE AMERICA, $300) The clue just asked for what the "Al" stood for, he gave the five-syllable name of the element, and it was accepted and later reversed. A company name has less wiggle room. Accepting "disassociative" reminds me of the time they accepted "not suitable for work" as what NSFW stood for (instead of "safe"). I think Alex intended to say that "disassociative" and "dissociative" were fully synonymous in the OED, but prematurely ended his sentence after merely saying that the former could be found in the OED.
Aluminum and aluminium are fully synonymous as well, yeah? Unless the diagnostic title itself uses the words interchangeably, then one of them is in the title and the other isn't. There may be grounds for that reversal but as far as I can tell, the OED don't enter into it. Evidence that over in the UK, or on the west coast of the US, or whatever, they expand DID to Disassociative Identity Disorder would be on point. But I feel as though the closest I can get to agreeing with the decision is if I become convinced they made the right reversal for the wrong reason.
seaborgium wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:33 pm
Mark Lowenthal did almost precisely this in his ToC-winning game: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=182 (CORPORATE AMERICA, $300) The clue just asked for what the "Al" stood for, he gave the five-syllable name of the element, and it was accepted and later reversed. A company name has less wiggle room. Accepting "disassociative" reminds me of the time they accepted "not suitable for work" as what NSFW stood for (instead of "safe"). I think Alex intended to say that "disassociative" and "dissociative" were fully synonymous in the OED, but prematurely ended his sentence after merely saying that the former could be found in the OED.
Aluminum and aluminium are fully synonymous as well, yeah? Unless the diagnostic title itself uses the words interchangeably, then one of them is in the title and the other isn't. There may be grounds for that reversal but as far as I can tell, the OED don't enter into it. Evidence that over in the UK, or on the west coast of the US, or whatever, they expand DID to Disassociative Identity Disorder would be on point. But I feel as though the closest I can get to agreeing with the decision is if I become convinced they made the right reversal for the wrong reason.
Aluminium is of course identical in meaning to aluminum, but company names and literary titles have less wiggle room for rephrasing. My feeling is, if any medical professional has ever used the phrase "dissasociative identity disorder," then it should be accepted, and since the words mean the same thing and you can't prove a negative, TPTB decided to err on the side of caution by accepting it.
So what would they have done if the contestant had a British English background? I can see them looking at the word 'aluminum' and pronouncing it like 'aluminium'. I'm not sure I agree with that reversal.
alietr wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:24 pm
So what would they have done if the contestant had a British English background? I can see them looking at the word 'aluminum' and pronouncing it like 'aluminium'. I'm not sure I agree with that reversal.
It just comes down to the fact that Alcoa was a shortening of Aluminum Company of America. I'm sure TPTB didn't like it either, but he said a word that wasn't in the name.
merica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:57 am
I didn't see any mention here about Jennifer's FJ! wager. Had she missed, she put herself at exactly 2x the third place contestant. [...]
MarkBarrett mentioned that in the very first post in this thread:
MarkBarrett wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:59 am
I could smell the reversal coming and that padded Jennifer's total having to cover 30400 instead of 22400. Jennifer went for more and if she missed it could have been 10400 for her and 10400 if Jeff had doubled and got it.
merica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:57 am
I didn't see any mention here about Jennifer's FJ! wager. Had she missed, she put herself at exactly 2x the third place contestant. [...]
MarkBarrett mentioned that in the very first post in this thread:
MarkBarrett wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:59 am
I could smell the reversal coming and that padded Jennifer's total having to cover 30400 instead of 22400. Jennifer went for more and if she missed it could have been 10400 for her and 10400 if Jeff had doubled and got it.
Reading comprehension was never a strong suit, I suppose. Thanks for pointing that out!