Oooh. I like the "NON"FICTION idea. But can we come up with five clues and one alternate that fit the category? Here's one:
In this book by Daniel Keyes a mentally challenged adult receives an operation that makes him a genius.
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
Oooh. I like the "NON"FICTION idea. But can we come up with five clues and one alternate that fit the category? Here's one:
Seriously? What, you don't enjoy listening to a good story? Or seeing a good movie that's fiction?twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:12 am
I abhor fiction - all the time invested in reading it and you have learned nothing real. I'd rather read history. I believe I read the RBoC book in high school but thought it was a "short story", wtf that is... But no excuse, I just didn't know it was a Jeopardy fave.
Exactly the same for me. Although I felt as though I dimly remembered learning that 1895 date from a previous Jeopardy! Turns out it came up a little over 2 years ago, 21 Dec 2016. Maybe this time it'll stick.This Is Kirk! wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:17 am The Red Badge of Courage certainly seemed to be the obvious choice. My only hesitation was that I didn't realize it was written so long after the Civil war.
Put a DD in the category and someone could make some real dough.
You're not going to curry any favor around here with a comeback like that.
Thank you, Kirk, for clarifying the issue.
My "abhor" statement is kind of like saying Mexico is going to pay for the wall . I was basically referring to the paperbacks and best sellers they sell in airports. I read a couple of James Bond books in high school, but never got the "page turner" bug for novels. I don't enjoy adrenaline, emotional roller coasters, or suspense. But lately I've read a half dozen books about the Riemann Hypothesis and number theory with great enjoyment (also fallen asleep from the drudgery).John Boy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:42 amSeriously? What, you don't enjoy listening to a good story? Or seeing a good movie that's fiction?twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:12 am
I abhor fiction - all the time invested in reading it and you have learned nothing real. I'd rather read history. I believe I read the RBoC book in high school but thought it was a "short story", wtf that is... But no excuse, I just didn't know it was a Jeopardy fave.
To each his own, but I don't recall hearing anyone...ANYONE...ever say that before.
twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:35 pmMy "abhor" statement is kind of like saying Mexico is going to pay for the wall . I was basically referring to the paperbacks and best sellers they sell in airports. I read a couple of James Bond books in high school, but never got the "page turner" bug for novels. I don't enjoy adrenaline, emotional roller coasters, or suspense. But lately I've read a half dozen books about the Riemann Hypothesis and number theory with great enjoyment (also fallen asleep from the drudgery).John Boy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:42 amSeriously? What, you don't enjoy listening to a good story? Or seeing a good movie that's fiction?twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:12 am
I abhor fiction - all the time invested in reading it and you have learned nothing real. I'd rather read history. I believe I read the RBoC book in high school but thought it was a "short story", wtf that is... But no excuse, I just didn't know it was a Jeopardy fave.
To each his own, but I don't recall hearing anyone...ANYONE...ever say that before.
One loophole is comedy, but even then I prefer joke tellers to story tellers - Jim Gaffigan and Mitch Hedburg (RIP) are awesome. OK, Kathleen Madigan is funny with her stories, but she isn't just filibustering for 40 minutes like many standups. Sitcoms on TV are OK until they flip into RomComs or worse (citation: every sitcom ever, except Seinfeld).
The other loophole is popcorn movies, but only the comic book genre, or Harry Potter type, or outright comedies. Avengers, Ghostbusters, etc.. Hell'ya - once a week on popcorn night:).
I think there are others out there -- I can't be alone...
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:22 pm So anyone wanna tell me how "water lily" BMSes to "lotus"? A cursory check showed those to be two different things.
No one else has tackled it, so I'll give it a go. Yes, the plants are different biologically, but originally they were thought to be of the same family. Plus you're being expected to ID the plant by an already stylized rendering, and I expect TPTB wanted to give a mulligan in case they were thrown off by the minimalist drawing. So, in a way, I don't think it's -technically- a 'be more specific' but there's no other terminology in J! Alex could say for a mulligan like that.TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:47 pm Bumping since this got lost in the shuffle:
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:22 pm So anyone wanna tell me how "water lily" BMSes to "lotus"? A cursory check showed those to be two different things.
So the only call was to mislead and deceive the contestant? I, too, had no idea how to BMS "water lily" because I was like "isn't it just water lily, no more specific than that?"Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:09 pm No one else has tackled it, so I'll give it a go. Yes, the plants are different biologically, but originally they were thought to be of the same family. Plus you're being expected to ID the plant by an already stylized rendering, and I expect TPTB wanted to give a mulligan in case they were thrown off by the minimalist drawing. So, in a way, I don't think it's -technically- a 'be more specific' but there's no other terminology in J! Alex could say for a mulligan like that.
It's just a guess. *shrug*TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:10 pmSo the only call was to mislead and deceive the contestant? I, too, had no idea how to BMS "water lily" because I was like "isn't it just water lily, no more specific than that?"Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:09 pm No one else has tackled it, so I'll give it a go. Yes, the plants are different biologically, but originally they were thought to be of the same family. Plus you're being expected to ID the plant by an already stylized rendering, and I expect TPTB wanted to give a mulligan in case they were thrown off by the minimalist drawing. So, in a way, I don't think it's -technically- a 'be more specific' but there's no other terminology in J! Alex could say for a mulligan like that.
I'm sure there's no contestant that wouldn't prefer being potentially misled and deceived over being negged outright.TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:10 pmSo the only call was to mislead and deceive the contestant? I, too, had no idea how to BMS "water lily" because I was like "isn't it just water lily, no more specific than that?"Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:09 pm No one else has tackled it, so I'll give it a go. Yes, the plants are different biologically, but originally they were thought to be of the same family. Plus you're being expected to ID the plant by an already stylized rendering, and I expect TPTB wanted to give a mulligan in case they were thrown off by the minimalist drawing. So, in a way, I don't think it's -technically- a 'be more specific' but there's no other terminology in J! Alex could say for a mulligan like that.
I am mystified by this comment. It was an instaget for you, but you're shocked that all three contestants got it right in 30 seconds?
Because I honestly thought Friday's FJ was easier, and it was 1/3. Now, different clues, different people, different strengths, etc. (this includes me, of course), and don't get me wrong, 2/3 wouldn't have surprised me. But if you showed me a list of this season's FJs and asked me to predict the triple gets, I wouldn't have picked this one. *shrug*BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:25 amI am mystified by this comment. It was an instaget for you, but you're shocked that all three contestants got it right in 30 seconds?