|
Title: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 24, 2014, 11:08:11 AM Unashamedly simple. No tricks, no fancy scoring, two passes, just a simple RSQ that I am confident will meet the G2L standard.
The score for each question is the number of people who give that answer. The most popular answer is the sheep. Incorrect answers receive the sheep score plus 5 points. Lowest score wins. Using Google, wiki, or other research is not allowed. You may choose to pass up to two questions and will receive 0 points for that question. I am a tolerant quiz master and will not penalise poor spelling or other similar errors, although if my mood is bad at reveal time I reserve the right to be an awkward sod. You must PM your answers to me by no later than 1800 on Monday 3 March wit the reveal at some time around 2000 that evening. 1 name an original member of Westlife, Boyzone or The Spice Girls 2 name a deciduous tree that is native to the UK (as defined by The Woodland Trust) 3 pick a year since 1914 in which there was a UK General Election 4 and now, a TV Chef who has had a BBC series since 2000 which had their name in the title. Programmes first shown before 2000 and subsequently repeated don't count. 5 a country that has won the Eurovision Song Contest 6 a country whose flag appears on Tikay's Hendon Mob 7 a football club that has won the FA Cup more than three times 8 a UK theme park in the Top 10 as listed by The independent in August 2013 (easier than it sounds, at least 8 of the Top 10 are pretty obvious) 9 a breed of Hound as defined by The Kennel Club 10 a pocket pair, no suits required. That's all folks - I've done my best to make this a series of questions to which everyone has a strong chance of knowing more than one answer. Good luck all Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on February 24, 2014, 12:03:37 PM No PM for me to bet this? Farce
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on February 24, 2014, 12:03:54 PM Or vet it!
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 24, 2014, 12:08:10 PM Or vet it! Must have got lost in the post :dontask: Still, you're here now, just say the word and I'll withdraw it Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on February 24, 2014, 02:53:25 PM No subject title penalty?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 24, 2014, 02:55:57 PM No subject title penalty? Unashamedly simple. No tricks, no fancy scoring, two passes, just a simple RSQ that I am confident will meet the G2L standard. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: KarmaDope on February 24, 2014, 09:42:58 PM Must remember to enter this.
Dont think we need 2 passes for this one though. Surely being able to pass 20% of the questions is going too far... Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on February 24, 2014, 10:30:40 PM Even though you didn't win the last RSQ, overall, this is a good RSQ.
:)up Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Cf on February 25, 2014, 12:08:49 AM Must remember to enter this. Dont think we need 2 passes for this one though. Surely being able to pass 20% of the questions is going too far... I like it. Tactical passing ftw. Altho I don't think you should be allowed to pass the last couple as its a bit boring when someone has won before the last question is revealed. And Altho I did it myself I don't think I'm a fan of a "random" last question. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on February 25, 2014, 06:52:25 AM This makes much appeal, well done David, count me in please. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ant040689 on February 25, 2014, 12:25:56 PM In.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: mulhuzz on February 25, 2014, 02:33:22 PM in.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 26, 2014, 09:46:35 AM Eight entries so far, plus a promise from Tikay to submit his answers
Thanks to Horseplayer Longines TightEnd Moonandback Ant040689 RedsGirl Mullhuzz Fatcatstu Plenty of time for others to join them for what I hope will be a less than farcical return to true RSQing on Monday evening Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on February 26, 2014, 10:20:13 AM Answers SENT. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: millidonk on February 26, 2014, 10:32:25 AM (http://img.pandawhale.com/post-23914-Im-ready-Jon-Snow-gif-othl.gif)
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 26, 2014, 12:19:46 PM Eight entries so far, plus a promise from Tikay to submit his answers Thanks to Horseplayer Longines TightEnd Moonandback Ant040689 RedsGirl Mullhuzz Fatcatstu Plenty of time for others to join them for what I hope will be a less than farcical return to true RSQing on Monday evening a quick flurry today sees three more entrants Tikay millidonk Mehtab Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Cf on February 26, 2014, 05:10:44 PM I shall enter either later today or tomorrow.
Or, and this is more likely, I'll forget and enter last minute. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on February 26, 2014, 09:36:55 PM In.
Many thanks for organising this. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Claw75 on February 27, 2014, 08:24:46 PM I thoroughly approve of this 1 sport question quiz - in :)up
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on February 28, 2014, 07:25:28 AM IN :)up
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 28, 2014, 08:28:32 AM Eight entries so far, plus a promise from Tikay to submit his answers Thanks to Horseplayer Longines TightEnd Moonandback Ant040689 RedsGirl Mullhuzz Fatcatstu Plenty of time for others to join them for what I hope will be a less than farcical return to true RSQing on Monday evening a quick flurry today sees three more entrants Tikay millidonk Mehtab The list of entrants now includes Stato_1 Claw75 Kinboshi Dimsum638382919 Tal Good to see a few first-time RSQers in the list, hopefully there will be more. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Tal on February 28, 2014, 08:41:13 AM I like the use of the word "includes". Is there someone in that you haven't declared? Who are you keeping from us?
Is it TV's Jenny Powell? I appreciate the sentence is grammatically correct, but it's still fun to surmise. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on February 28, 2014, 10:49:10 AM Did you get my entry?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 28, 2014, 11:06:47 AM I like the use of the word "includes". Is there someone in that you haven't declared? Who are you keeping from us? Is it TV's Jenny Powell? I appreciate the sentence is grammatically correct, but it's still fun to surmise. Did you get my entry? Are you TV's Jenny Powell? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on February 28, 2014, 05:21:21 PM Have sent an entry but didn't make the list of 'includes'.
Sad times. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 28, 2014, 05:53:50 PM Have sent an entry but didn't make the list of 'includes'. Sad times. Are you Jenny Powell? Somebody must be! Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on February 28, 2014, 06:02:31 PM Have sent an entry but didn't make the list of 'includes'. Sad times. you and me both do i need to resend this is already a farce Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on February 28, 2014, 06:55:12 PM Have sent an entry but didn't make the list of 'includes'. Sad times. you and me both do i need to resend this is already a farce (http://atouchfarvetched.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jones_dontpanic_11.jpg) your entries have been received Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on February 28, 2014, 06:56:13 PM Have sent an entry but didn't make the list of 'includes'. Sad times. you and me both do i need to resend this is already a farce (http://atouchfarvetched.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jones_dontpanic_11.jpg) your entries have been received They just need to be translated now. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on February 28, 2014, 11:24:27 PM Have sent an entry but didn't make the list of 'includes'. Sad times. you and me both do i need to resend this is already a farce (http://atouchfarvetched.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jones_dontpanic_11.jpg) your entries have been received They just need to be translated now. why does he not speak genius? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: mondatoo on March 01, 2014, 12:59:52 AM Even I could enter this one!
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 01, 2014, 08:14:11 AM Have sent an entry but didn't make the list of 'includes'. Sad times. you and me both do i need to resend this is already a farce (http://atouchfarvetched.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jones_dontpanic_11.jpg) your entries have been received They just need to be translated now. why does he not speak genius? Genius is my first language. The omission of yours and HutchGF's name was one of... a) a device so that I could use the sentence which moved Tal to post b) done specifically to wind you up with HutchGF caught in the crossfire c) an oversight A comprehensive list of entrants may or may not be posted later today, meantime keep posting and let's see how many more Blondites can be enticed into entering. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Cf on March 02, 2014, 01:30:41 PM In :)
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on March 03, 2014, 08:49:53 AM Good luck with the reveal tonight, David. I'll be otherwise engaged I'm afraid, so won't be able to Post, but I'll be viewing the thread throughout the evening. Whatever happens, this is an excellent RSQ, nice & straightforward, & I hope it goes well tonight, as I know it matters very much to you to do it "just so". Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:05:22 AM Good luck with the reveal tonight, David. I'll be otherwise engaged I'm afraid, so won't be able to Post, but I'll be viewing the thread throughout the evening. Whatever happens, this is an excellent RSQ, nice & straightforward, & I hope it goes well tonight, as I know it matters very much to you to do it "just so". Thank you Lord Tony of Kendall currently we have 26 entries and I have a busy day ahead with wallpaper and paste and a puppy to walk but will start the preparation this afternoon ready for what could be a fun reveal Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:13:18 AM Current entrants
Horseplayer Longines TightEnd moonandback Ant040689 RedsGirl Mulhuzz Fatcatstu Tikay Millidonk Mehtab Ironside George2Loose HutchGF Stato_1 Claw75 Kinboshi Tomson87 Tal Mondatoo MintTrav Waz1892 Sharplea Cf Borntobubble Stribling Spread the word, let's make this a big one Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 09:35:56 AM Pls let tikay win I want to see him as a QM
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:40:04 AM Pls let tikay win I want to see him as a QM One would assume that that would be a task for Jeeves. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Jeeves on March 03, 2014, 09:42:20 AM One has one's questions at the ready. My former master paid quite handsomely for my time too
One problem, he has to win it first Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 09:44:21 AM One has one's questions at the ready. My former master paid quite handsomely for my time too surprised he doesn't make you enter for himOne problem, he has to win it first Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on March 03, 2014, 09:47:53 AM One has one's questions at the ready. My former master paid quite handsomely for my time too surprised he doesn't make you enter for himOne problem, he has to win it first If ONLY I had thought of that! Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 12:47:39 PM One has one's questions at the ready. My former master paid quite handsomely for my time too One problem, he has to win it first My happiness would be immeasurable were you to submit your own entry Jeeves Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 01:54:43 PM Current entrants Horseplayer Longines TightEnd moonandback Ant040689 RedsGirl Mulhuzz Fatcatstu Tikay Millidonk Mehtab Ironside George2Loose HutchGF Stato_1 Claw75 Kinboshi Tomson87 Tal Mondatoo MintTrav Waz1892 Sharplea Cf Borntobubble Stribling Spread the word, let's make this a big one Plus the inimitable Jeeves Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 07:56:19 PM I did say the reveal would be some time around 8pm...
Have to pick up the grandson from gymnastics at 8 so let's say 8.30 prompt? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 08:09:31 PM Just busted a gut to get home in time for the reveal and Davy boy has pottered off somewhere! Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 08:34:21 PM I'm back now, little one is having stories with Grandma and I'm ready to roll, just about, but I did say 8.30.....
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 08:43:53 PM Welcome to the back to Basics RSQ reveal
Will it be (http://www.colourbox.com/preview/1723584-849782-twin-mast-sailboat-floating-on-the-calm-sea.jpg) will it be (http://design15.clickstay.net/music/images/NoisesOffgroupWeb.jpg) No bonuses, but can you name the play? Or will it all just descend into (http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/abstract-chaos-2824671.jpg) Let's jump straight into Question 1 name an original member of Westlife, Boyzone or The Spice Girls Pass Jeeves – 0 four each for Tomson87 Melanie Chisholm Longines Melanie Chisholm Stato_1 Melanie Chisholm Borntobubble Melanie Chisholm three for Cf Brian McFadden TightEnd Brian McFadden Stribling Brian McFadden Mulhuzz Kean Egan Kinboshi Kean Egan Fatcatstu Kean Egan Claw75 keith Duffy Ironside keith Duffy Sharplea keith Duffy George2Loose Victoria Adams dwh103 Victoria Adams Tikay Victoria Beckham two for Waz1892 Emma Bunton Millidonk Emma Bunton HutchGF Melanie Brown Tal Melanie Brown Mondatoo Ronan Keating Ant040689 Ronan Keating Aces Mehtab Geri Halliwell MintTrav Richard Rock RedsGirl Shane Lynch moonandback Stephen Gately Honorable mention to Horseplayer for an incorrect guess of (http://showbizgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-20-at-19.41.33.png) and a score of 5+4 = 9 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 08:46:08 PM Objection - Emma Bunton was not an original member of The Spice Girls.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 08:55:03 PM I've just had a look at Wiki. I knew she wasn't an original member of the group, but it seems that they changed their name from Touch to the Spice Girls subsequent to her joining, so although she wasn't an original member of the group, she was there when the Spice Girls name came into being. It's up to you, David, but I'll withdraw my objection.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 08:59:28 PM farce keith duffy is ace
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: dwh103 on March 03, 2014, 09:04:22 PM Loose acceptance of Victoria Beckham imo. No woman under this name was an original member of the Spice Girls...
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on March 03, 2014, 09:05:48 PM Loose acceptance of Victoria Beckham imo. No woman under this name was an original member of the Spice Girls... +1 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 09:06:52 PM Come on, while we're young!
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 09:07:35 PM Who the feck is Kean Egan?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 09:11:46 PM Some one nip round Davids house and make sure he's still conscious please.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:14:10 PM I've just had a look at Wiki. I knew she wasn't an original member of the group, but it seems that they changed their name from Touch to the Spice Girls subsequent to her joining, so although she wasn't an original member of the group, she was there when the Spice Girls name came into being. It's up to you, David, but I'll withdraw my objection. Emma Bunton was a member of touch when they became The Spice Girls Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:15:05 PM We're cooking on gas now...
Onwards to Question 2 name a deciduous tree that is native to the UK (as defined by The Woodland Trust) Straightforward line between correct and incorrect here and any issues should be taken up with the Woodland Trust direct. Eleven passes... Longines Ant040689 Mulhuzz Fatcatstu Millidonk Mehtab Mondatoo Waz1892 Sharplea Borntobubble Threes Stribling oak Ironside oak dwh103 oak Two for Tomson87 english elm Tikay english elm HutchGF white willow MintTrav willow Aces RedsGirl silver birch Stato_1 blackthorn Kinboshi aspen jeeves ash Incorrect 5+3 = 8 Horseplayer Apple Tal horse chestnut G2L horse chestnut Cf juniper moonandback larch TightEnd poplar Claw75 sycamore Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on March 03, 2014, 09:17:09 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species.
Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:22:05 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:23:02 PM Question 3
pick a year since 1914 in which there was a UK General Election Twenty five possible answers here with fifteen in my lifetime Passes kinboshi – presumably a tactical decision for someone of such a political mind Four each... George2Loose 1997 Cf 1997 Sharplea 1997 Ant040689 1997 Three apiece... moonandback 1918 Waz1892 1918 Mehtab 1918 jeeves 1945 Stato_1 1945 RedsGirl 1945 Twos Borntobubble 1992 Claw75 1992 Tal 1979 Ironside 1979 Tikay 1964 HutchGF 1964 Aces for Mulhuzz 1923 Fatcatstu 1950 TightEnd 1966 MintTrav 1974 Longines 1983 Tomson87 1987 dwh103 2001 Millidonk 2010 Incorrect 5+4 = 9 Horseplayer 1916 Stribling 2007 Mondatoo 2007 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 09:25:48 PM tal you suck how can anyone put down the year maggie came to power
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:28:24 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: TightEnd on March 03, 2014, 09:29:03 PM objection
Poplars are deciduous http://www.2020site.org/trees/poplar.html 12 references to deciduous poplars on page one alone: https://www.google.co.uk/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=are+poplar+trees+deciduous&btnG= Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: horseplayer on March 03, 2014, 09:30:07 PM Louis Walsh
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:30:57 PM Scores after three questions
Millidonk 3 Mulhuzz 4 Fatcatstu 4 Mehtab 4 Kinboshi 4 jeeves 4 Longines 5 Ant040689 5 RedsGirl 5 HutchGF 5 Waz1892 5 Borntobubble 6 Tikay 7 Tomson87 7 Sharplea 7 dwh103 7 Ironside 8 Stato_1 8 Mondatoo 10 MintTrav 10 TightEnd 12 moonandback 12 Tal 12 Claw75 13 George2Loose 15 Cf 15 Stribling 15 Horseplayer 26 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on March 03, 2014, 09:31:12 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: dwh103 on March 03, 2014, 09:32:51 PM Loose acceptance of Victoria Beckham imo. No woman under this name was an original member of the Spice Girls... +1 QM?? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:33:53 PM objection Poplars are deciduous http://www.2020site.org/trees/poplar.html They are indeed deciduous, but they aren't listed on the declared reference point as a native of the UK Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 09:34:04 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. The question didn't ask for a specific species - it asked for a tree. A willow is a tree. There may be different types, but they are all willows and they are all trees, so I maintain that my answer is correct. Incidentally, some willows are native to the UK and some are not. The White Willow is one of those that is not, so is an incorrect answer. "Salix alba (white willow) is a species of willow native to Europe and western and central Asia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_alba Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:35:43 PM Loose acceptance of Victoria Beckham imo. No woman under this name was an original member of the Spice Girls... +1 QM?? Are you suggesting that the woman we now know as Victoria Beckham is not the same woman as Victoria Adams, who was indisputably an original member of The Spice Girls? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 09:39:09 PM Loose acceptance of Victoria Beckham imo. No woman under this name was an original member of the Spice Girls... +1 QM?? Are you suggesting that the woman we now know as Victoria Beckham is not the same woman as Victoria Adams, who was indisputably an original member of The Spice Girls? you are correct they are not the same person i used too fancy vicky adams but cant stand mrs beckham i blame stepford wives Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on March 03, 2014, 09:40:41 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. The question didn't ask for a specific species - it asked for a tree. A willow is a tree. There may be different types, but they are all willows, so I maintain that my answer is correct. Incidentally, some willows are native to the UK and some are not. The White Willow is one of those that is not, so is an incorrect answer. "Salix alba (white willow) is a species of willow native to Europe and western and central Asia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_alba Wikipedia ftw http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/white-willow/ Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: dwh103 on March 03, 2014, 09:41:34 PM Loose acceptance of Victoria Beckham imo. No woman under this name was an original member of the Spice Girls... +1 QM?? Are you suggesting that the woman we now know as Victoria Beckham is not the same woman as Victoria Adams, who was indisputably an original member of The Spice Girls? Simply testing pedantry. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on March 03, 2014, 09:42:11 PM Tilting that horse chestnut is a fail.
Adams/Beckham is an interesting argument Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 09:45:07 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. The question didn't ask for a specific species - it asked for a tree. A willow is a tree. There may be different types, but they are all willows and they are all trees, so I maintain that my answer is correct. Incidentally, some willows are native to the UK and some are not. The White Willow is one of those that is not, so is an incorrect answer. "Salix alba (white willow) is a species of willow native to Europe and western and central Asia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_alba Wikipedia ftw http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/white-willow/ Willow is a correct answer. There are willows, which are trees, that are native to the UK. The question didn't ask for us to go into sub-species. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: TightEnd on March 03, 2014, 09:48:52 PM Further objection
The Woodland trust itself identifies a Poplar as native to Britain Black poplar | Native trees | British trees | Learn | The Woodland Trust www.woodlandtrust.org.uk › Learn › British trees › Native trees Black poplar (Populus nigra) is a broadleaf deciduous tree native to the UK and Europe. A declining species, it is rarely found and grows in isolation in boggy ... Fairly sub-standard quiz if the source material is inaccurate, in my opinion Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:50:54 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. The question didn't ask for a specific species - it asked for a tree. A willow is a tree. There may be different types, but they are all willows and they are all trees, so I maintain that my answer is correct. Incidentally, some willows are native to the UK and some are not. The White Willow is one of those that is not, so is an incorrect answer. "Salix alba (white willow) is a species of willow native to Europe and western and central Asia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_alba Wikipedia ftw http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/white-willow/ Willow is a correct answer. There are willows, which are trees, that are native to the UK. The question didn't ask for us to go into sub-species. The question asked you to 'name a deciduous tree that is native to the UK (as defined by The Woodland Trust)' the White Willow is listed, no other species of willow is. The error was allowing your answer to stand initially. Once again, my apologies. Scores as amended stand Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: KarmaDope on March 03, 2014, 09:53:51 PM Farce that this is taking forever :)
Gotta agree with Tighty though, think he has got this one right. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:54:53 PM Further objection The Woodland trust itself identifies a Poplar as native to Britain Black poplar | Native trees | British trees | Learn | The Woodland Trust www.woodlandtrust.org.uk › Learn › British trees › Native trees Black poplar (Populus nigra) is a broadleaf deciduous tree native to the UK and Europe. A declining species, it is rarely found and grows in isolation in boggy ... Fairly sub-standard quiz if the source material is inaccurate, in my opinion I have to refer you to the issue regarding Willow / White Willow.... Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:55:55 PM Question 4
and now, a TV Chef who has had a BBC series since 2000 which had their name in the title. Programmes first shown before 2000 and subsequently repeated don't count Some surprising incorrect answers here, especially Jamie Oliver who I would have confidently called as correct. A few names who never quite managed to get their name in the title of the show they presented, and the gurning fool Ainsley Harriott hasn't managed a programme with his name in since 1999.. Passes moonandback Mehtab Waz1892 Stato_1 Tikay Ironside Tomson87 George2Loose Sharplea Mondatoo Three chose.. Ant040689 Nigella Lawson Stribling Nigella Lawson jeeves Nigella Lawson two picked Delia and Rick RedsGirl Delia Smith Claw75 Delia Smith TightEnd Rick Stein Longines Rick Stein Aces Borntobubble James Martin Cf Michel Roux jr Incorrect 5+3 = 8 Horseplayer – Anthony Worral Thompson Mulhuzz – Nigel Slater Fatcatstu – Ainsley Harriott Millidonk – Jamie Oliver HutchGF – Loraine Pascalle kinboshi – Rachel Khoo Tal – Simon Rimmer (UKTV may well be 50% owned by the BBC but it ain't the BBC) MintTrav – Keith Floyd Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 09:56:43 PM In case no one noticed, I haven't objected yet.
Cause I'm on phiar! Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on March 03, 2014, 09:56:57 PM Confused
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 09:57:32 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. The question didn't ask for a specific species - it asked for a tree. A willow is a tree. There may be different types, but they are all willows and they are all trees, so I maintain that my answer is correct. Incidentally, some willows are native to the UK and some are not. The White Willow is one of those that is not, so is an incorrect answer. "Salix alba (white willow) is a species of willow native to Europe and western and central Asia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_alba Wikipedia ftw http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/white-willow/ Willow is a correct answer. There are willows, which are trees, that are native to the UK. The question didn't ask for us to go into sub-species. The question asked you to 'name a deciduous tree that is native to the UK (as defined by The Woodland Trust)' the White Willow is listed, no other species of willow is. The error was allowing your answer to stand initially. Once again, my apologies. Scores as amended stand So that's decided, then. The willow is not a tree. There is no tree called a willow. The White Willow is not a willow. The QM is not drunk. This quiz is not a farce. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:59:31 PM Objection : Willow is a group of trees, not a specific species. Unlike White willow which is a fantastic answer. It is indeed - I will review this shortly Scores adjusted to reflect the accuracy of HutchGF's statement. Hutch gets an ace, MintTrav gets 5+5 = 10 - sorry John. The question didn't ask for a specific species - it asked for a tree. A willow is a tree. There may be different types, but they are all willows and they are all trees, so I maintain that my answer is correct. Incidentally, some willows are native to the UK and some are not. The White Willow is one of those that is not, so is an incorrect answer. "Salix alba (white willow) is a species of willow native to Europe and western and central Asia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_alba Wikipedia ftw http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/white-willow/ Willow is a correct answer. There are willows, which are trees, that are native to the UK. The question didn't ask for us to go into sub-species. The question asked you to 'name a deciduous tree that is native to the UK (as defined by The Woodland Trust)' the White Willow is listed, no other species of willow is. The error was allowing your answer to stand initially. Once again, my apologies. Scores as amended stand So that's decided, then. The willow is not a tree. There is no tree called a willow. The White Willow is not a willow. The QM is not drunk. This quiz is not a farce. There is no gull called a SeaGull either - I asked for a tree listed on the Woodlands Trust website... Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 09:59:52 PM Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on March 03, 2014, 10:00:52 PM Tighty's quote saying it is and your source saying it isn't. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:01:09 PM While the tree debate rages pointlessly on, George suffers confusion, and Adam gets impatient we may as well press on
scores to come after question 5 a country that has won the Eurovision Song Contest (http://www.outabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/url-2.jpeg) Passes – none Five for Fatcatstu Israel Ant040689 Israel Ironside Israel dwh103 Israel Longines Israel Three for Borntobubble Sweden Mondatoo Sweden Cf Sweden Tomsom87 Finland Sharplea Finland Tal Finland Two points to Stato_1 Azabhaijan TightEnd Azabhaijan Horseplayer Latvia Mulhuzz Latvia jeeves UK Waz1892 UK George2Loose Republic of Ireland Kinboshi Republic of Ireland Aces MintTrav Monaco Tikay Netherlands Millidonk Norway RedsGirl Russia Mehtab Serbia Claw75 Denmark moonandback Switzerland HutchGF Ukraine Incorrect 5+5 = 10 Stribling Malta Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:01:48 PM Tighty's quote saying it is and your source saying it isn't. Black Poplar is listed, poplar isn't. simple really Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: dwh103 on March 03, 2014, 10:02:28 PM You don't have me down for a Pass on Q4 btw
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 10:06:27 PM There is no gull called a SeaGull either - I asked for a tree listed on the Woodlands Trust website... Er, no you didn't. But I'm tired of that one now. You're obviously not going to change your deranged mind. Please explain why you think Keith Floyd is not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Floyd Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: horseplayer on March 03, 2014, 10:08:31 PM My answer was Anthony Worrrrrallllll cheese thief thompson
hope this answer can be checked Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:08:45 PM There is no gull called a SeaGull either - I asked for a tree listed on the Woodlands Trust website... Er, no you didn't. But I'm tired of that one now. You're obviously not going to change your deranged mind. Please explain why you think Keith Floyd is not correct. Because as far as my research can show he didn't make any programmes which met the criteria set in the question. Show me an Imdb entry to support your belief that he did? I am open to reasonable argument... Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on March 03, 2014, 10:09:59 PM Fiairly sure Lorraine Pascale had a show called 'Lorraine's fast fresh and easy food.' Did it have to be surname inclusive?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: TightEnd on March 03, 2014, 10:10:14 PM Come on David you are indulging in complete pedantry and insulting those people who came up with clever answers by saying they are pointlessly debating it
I have given the woodland trust saying that the poplar is a native of the UK. It doesn't matter if it is black, orange or even worse from teesside its a poplar the question did not ask for sub species of poplar or willow A type of poplar is native to the uk. therefore I have not failed the question Utterly ludicrous marking I object again. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: horseplayer on March 03, 2014, 10:10:50 PM Fiairly sure Lorraine Pascale had a show called 'Lorraine's fast fresh and easy food.' Did it have to be surname inclusive? Think it was Lorraine Kelly Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on March 03, 2014, 10:12:18 PM IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337014/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1a Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:16:11 PM Come on David you are indulging in complete pedantry and insulting those people who came up with clever answers by saying they are pointlessly debating it I have given the woodland trust saying that the poplar is a native of the UK. It doesn't matter if it is black, orange or even worse from teesside its a poplar the question did not ask for sub species of poplar or willow A type of poplar is native to the uk. therefore I have not failed the question Utterly ludicrous marking I object again. the debate is fine, and I wouldn't dream of insulting anyone I'll review if there is significant support from entrants other than you or MintTrav Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:16:49 PM Fiairly sure Lorraine Pascale had a show called 'Lorraine's fast fresh and easy food.' Did it have to be surname inclusive? Think it was Lorraine Kelly not that I could find - show me a link? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:18:37 PM Scores after 5 and now in a rush to get the rest out there
Mehtab 5 RedsGirl 6 Waz1892 6 jeeves 7 Fatcatstu 8 Tikay 9 Sharplea 9 dwh103 10 Mulhuzz 11 Stato_1 11 Borntobubble 11 Kinboshi 12 Millidonk 13 MintTrav 13 moonandback 14 HutchGF 14 Longines 15 Tal 15 Tomson87 16 Claw75 17 Ant040689 18 Ironside 18 George2Loose 19 Stribling 20 TightEnd 21 Mondatoo 21 Cf 28 Horseplayer 31 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: BorntoBubble on March 03, 2014, 10:18:49 PM best reveal ive seeen so far! Loving it
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 10:19:18 PM IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337014/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1a Do keep up man. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:20:29 PM best reveal ive seeen so far! Loving it Thanks - I think we're through the contentious ones... Question 6 Name a country whose flag appears on the Hendon Mob listing for this man (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qHXqsLjnejg/UwdfKwc8z_I/AAAAAAAARDU/6pvNbfnM8cA/w398-h597-no/IMG_6067.JPG) I made it nine possible correct answers, which isn't too shabby, stretching back to 5th in a PLO at Sheffield in 2003 Passes TightEnd Claw75 Cf Tomson87 Ironside MintTrav George2Loose Kinboshi RedsGirl moonandback HutchGF dwh103 England Longines England Mehtab England Borntobubble England Waz1892 England Stato_1 France Tal France Fatcatstu France Mulhuzz France Stribling USA Mondatoo USA Millidonk Republic of Ireland jeeves Republic of Ireland Aces Tikay Italy Ant040689 Netherlands Incorrect 5+5 = 10 Horseplayer Australia Sharplea Spain Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 10:21:17 PM There is no gull called a SeaGull either - I asked for a tree listed on the Woodlands Trust website... Er, no you didn't. But I'm tired of that one now. You're obviously not going to change your deranged mind. Please explain why you think Keith Floyd is not correct. Because as far as my research can show he didn't make any programmes which met the criteria set in the question. Show me an Imdb entry to support your belief that he did? I am open to reasonable argument... It seems you are correct. Although he was mainly associated with the BBC, his later shows were for other channels. I cannot dispute that. I can, however, wonder why on earth you specified which channel they had to be on. Who would know that? A TV chef with their name in the title would have been a more reasonable question, without having to specify stuff that no-one would know. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: stato_1 on March 03, 2014, 10:23:37 PM Was annoyed i missed this when I only remembered at 10pm... luckily theres still half lefT!!!
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:23:51 PM IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337014/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1a OK - I'd have accepted Nigella's ..... or Jamie's ..... revised scores Mehtab 5 RedsGirl 6 Waz1892 6 jeeves 7 HutchGF 7 Fatcatstu 8 Tikay 9 Sharplea 9 dwh103 10 Mulhuzz 11 Stato_1 11 Borntobubble 11 Kinboshi 12 Millidonk 13 MintTrav 13 moonandback 14 Longines 15 Tal 15 Tomson87 16 Claw75 17 Ant040689 18 Ironside 18 George2Loose 19 Stribling 20 TightEnd 21 Mondatoo 21 Cf 28 Horseplayer 31 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:24:54 PM Question 7
a football club that has won the FA Cup more than three times Two passes Claw75 RedsGirl jeeves There's a gag to be made there somewhere, but probably only by someone braver than me Five Mehtab Liverpool Tikay Liverpool Kinboshi Liverpool Stribling Liverpool Mondatoo Liverpool Four Longines Aston Villa Tal Aston Villa George2Loose Aston Villa moonandback Aston Villa Three Tomson87 Everton Millidonk Everton Sharplea Everton Two Borntobubble Manchester United Stato_1 Manchester United Mulhuzz Newcastle Cf Newcastle Waz1892 Wanderers TightEnd Wanderers Aces Ironside Tottenham dwh103 manchester city Fatcatstu West Ham MintTrav Wolverhampton Wanderers Ant040689 Arsenal HutchGF Blackburn Rovers Incorrect 5+5 = 10 Horseplayer Terry Nutkins Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on March 03, 2014, 10:25:43 PM Question 4 and now, a TV Chef who has had a BBC series since 2000 which had their name in the title. Programmes first shown before 2000 and subsequently repeated don't count Some surprising incorrect answers here, especially Jamie Oliver who I would have confidently called as correct. A few names who never quite managed to get their name in the title of the show they presented, and the gurning fool Ainsley Harriott hasn't managed a programme with his name in since 1999.. Passes moonandback Mehtab Waz1892 Stato_1 Tikay Ironside Tomson87 George2Loose Sharplea Mondatoo Three chose.. Ant040689 Nigella Lawson Stribling Nigella Lawson jeeves Nigella Lawson two picked Delia and Rick RedsGirl Delia Smith Claw75 Delia Smith TightEnd Rick Stein Longines Rick Stein Aces Borntobubble James Martin Cf Michel Roux jr Incorrect 5+3 = 8 Horseplayer – Anthony Worral Thompson Mulhuzz – Nigel Slater Fatcatstu – Ainsley Harriott Millidonk – Jamie Oliver HutchGF – Loraine Pascalle kinboshi – Rachel Khoo Tal – Simon Rimmer (UKTV may well be 50% owned by the BBC but it ain't the BBC) MintTrav – Keith Floyd Why is Rachel Khoo a fail? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:27:47 PM There is no gull called a SeaGull either - I asked for a tree listed on the Woodlands Trust website... Er, no you didn't. But I'm tired of that one now. You're obviously not going to change your deranged mind. Please explain why you think Keith Floyd is not correct. Because as far as my research can show he didn't make any programmes which met the criteria set in the question. Show me an Imdb entry to support your belief that he did? I am open to reasonable argument... It seems you are correct. Although he was mainly associated with the BBC, his later shows were for other channels. I cannot dispute that. I can, however, wonder why on earth you specified which channel they had to be on. Who would know that? A TV chef with their name in the title would have been a more reasonable question, without having to specify stuff that no-one would know. yeah, it's a puzzle ain't it, why have questions at all really, why not just ask everybody to give themselves a score and the nearest to a random number selected in advance by rachel riley's RNG wins? :-* Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:29:18 PM Why is Rachel Khoo a fail? YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYzezPHO20g The series was called The Little Paris Kitchen Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on March 03, 2014, 10:29:37 PM No, it wasn't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dy7yt Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on March 03, 2014, 10:30:47 PM The book (that I bought for the missus) was called that, but the TV series had a longer title - that included her name.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: TightEnd on March 03, 2014, 10:34:30 PM why when willow and poplar have been shown to be logically and practically correct do the objections need significant support from others with no knowledge of willows and poplars? Bizarre. I object once more.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 10:37:26 PM whats the scores?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: millidonk on March 03, 2014, 10:38:25 PM Jamie Oliver's name is Jamie. That has been in tonnes of food programmes!
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:40:34 PM The book (that I bought for the missus) was called that, but the TV series had a longer title - that included her name. OK - scores adjusted and up to Q7 RedsGirl 8 jeeves 10 Ironside 11 Tomson87 11 Waz1892 13 Sharplea 13 dwh103 14 Tikay 15 Mehtab 15 HutchGF 15 Kinboshi 15 TightEnd 17 Stato_1 17 Longines 18 moonandback 18 Millidonk 18 Claw75 18 Fatcatstu 19 Borntobubble 19 Mondatoo 20 George2Loose 22 MintTrav 22 Mulhuzz 23 Ant040689 24 Stribling 27 Cf 28 Tal 31 Horseplayer 59 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on March 03, 2014, 10:40:48 PM So it was an ace?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: millidonk on March 03, 2014, 10:41:14 PM ah BBC I get ya. yeah all his stuff is Channel 4.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 10:41:35 PM why when willow and poplar have been shown to be logically and practically correct do the objections need significant support from others with no knowledge of willows and poplars? Bizarre. I object once more. Poplars and Willows are right there on the Wiki page list........ Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: kinboshi on March 03, 2014, 10:43:43 PM Why is my score 15?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on March 03, 2014, 10:44:42 PM Why is mine 22?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 10:45:17 PM FARCE 11 is too close too winning i was 18 ealier
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 10:47:15 PM i havent had this much fun on a reveal night for a cpl of years
all i need now is too beat tightend and my night will be complete Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: HutchGF on March 03, 2014, 10:47:30 PM Think my score needs adjusting if my Lorraine Pascale objection was upheld?
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:50:05 PM apologies
spreadsheet fail revised scores RedsGirl 8 jeeves 11 Kinboshi 12 Tikay 14 Ironside 14 Tomson87 14 Waz1892 14 Mehtab 15 HutchGF 15 Sharplea 15 Stato_1 16 Claw75 16 moonandback 17 Millidonk 17 Borntobubble 17 TightEnd 18 dwh103 18 Mulhuzz 20 Mondatoo 20 MintTrav 20 Longines 21 George2Loose 21 Cf 21 Fatcatstu 22 Ant040689 24 Tal 32 Stribling 35 Horseplayer 56 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 10:51:26 PM Just saw the scores! ;gobsmacked;
I only kidding, can I go back to the bottom of the table like usual please? ;pokergods; Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:52:28 PM Hopefully no arguments here in Question 8
a UK theme park in the Top 10 as listed by The independent in August 2013 (easier than it sounds, at least 8 of the Top 10 are pretty obvious) Ten possible answers ldo Passes Tal Horseplayer MintTrav Five for moonandback Chessington Tomson87 Chessington Stribling Chessington Mulhuzz Chessington jeeves Chessington Four x four for HutchGF Blackpool Pleasure Beach Sharplea Blackpool Pleasure Beach Kinboshi Blackpool Pleasure Beach Cf Blackpool Pleasure Beach George2Loose Thorpe Park Millidonk Thorpe Park dwh103 Thorpe Park Ironside Thorpe Park Ant040689 Legoland Tikay Legoland Borntobubble Legoland Waz1892 Legoland deuces Stato_1 Drayton Manor Park TightEnd Drayton Manor Park RedsGirl Flamingoland Fatcatstu Flamingoland Aces Longines Oakwood Mondatoo Alton Towers incorrect mehtab – Pleasure Island Claw75 – Peppa Pig World - sorry Clare, Peppa Pig World is only part of Paulton's Park Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 10:53:36 PM Just saw the scores! ;gobsmacked; I only kidding, can I go back to the bottom of the table like usual please? ;pokergods; Anything to please Horseplayer 56 Stribling 35 Tal 32 Ant040689 24 Fatcatstu 22 Longines 21 George2Loose 21 Cf 21 Mulhuzz 20 Mondatoo 20 MintTrav 20 TightEnd 18 dwh103 18 moonandback 17 Millidonk 17 Borntobubble 17 Stato_1 16 Claw75 16 Mehtab 15 HutchGF 15 Sharplea 15 Tikay 14 Ironside 14 Tomson87 14 Waz1892 14 Kinboshi 12 jeeves 11 RedsGirl 8 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 11:00:54 PM I'm trying to remember what we've got left to answer, sure they'll be a massive fail in there soon.
Jeeves to win! Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:02:58 PM Question 9 and then the scores before we get to the final reveal and the result
a breed of Hound as defined by The Kennel Club Passes HutchGF Cf Stato_1 Ant040689 Tikay Borntobubble Millidonk sixers moonandback Basset Hound Tomson87 Basset Hound Stribling Basset Hound Waz1892 Basset Hound Claw75 Basset Hound George2Loose Basset Hound threes Sharplea Irish Wolfhound RedsGirl Irish Wolfhound MintTrav Irish Wolfhound twos Mehtab Greyhound Ironside Greyhound Aces Longines Beagle Mulhuzz Daschhund Kinboshi Rhodesian Ridgeback TightEnd Saluki Tal Whippet jeeves Afghan Incorrect 6+5 = 11 Fatcatstu – Smooth coated chihuaha Mondatoo – cockapoo Horseplayer Wolfhound Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:06:34 PM All appeals have been considered and resolved so the scores as we ask for a pair are...
Horseplayer 60 Stribling 46 Fatcatstu 35 Tal 33 Mondatoo 32 Claw75 32 George2Loose 31 Ant040689 28 moonandback 28 Mehtab 27 Mulhuzz 26 Cf 25 Tomson87 25 Waz1892 24 MintTrav 24 Longines 23 Sharplea 23 dwh103 22 Millidonk 21 Borntobubble 21 TightEnd 21 Ironside 20 HutchGF 19 Stato_1 18 Tikay 18 Kinboshi 17 jeeves 17 RedsGirl 14 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: mondatoo on March 03, 2014, 11:07:02 PM How can you fail these little fellas
(http://s27.postimg.org/s3unly6tv/23578_Black_and_Golden_Cockapoo_pups_6_weeks_old.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/hts8mpgy7/full/) Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:12:15 PM How can you fail these little fellas (http://s27.postimg.org/s3unly6tv/23578_Black_and_Golden_Cockapoo_pups_6_weeks_old.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/hts8mpgy7/full/) yeah they are cute, but they just don't cut it as hounds, my little cocker spaniel doesn't either Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:12:42 PM and finally....
if anyone is still awake Question 10 a pocket pair, no suits required. (http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Purple/v4/7b/93/ec/7b93ec26-e79b-bb84-0920-f96c8f63df6b/screen480x480.jpeg) Pass TightEnd five for Stribling 33 Longines 33 Sharplea 33 Borntobubble 33 Horseplayer 33 Mulhuzz 44 RedsGirl 44 HutchGF 44 Stato_1 44 Fatcatstu 44 Three for the rockets and lucky sevens Tomson87 AA Waz1892 AA Tal AA Mondatoo 77 Cf 77 dwh103 77 two for twos, and for sixes, nines and everbody's least favourite, jacks Ant040689 22 Kinboshi 22 jeeves 66 Claw75 66 George2Loose 99 MintTrav 99 Mehtab JJ Millidonk JJ Aces for tens and queens moonandback 10 10 Ironside QQ and rather an unusual choice, but he's old and he does kind of run the place so... Tikay Receptive mode Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: mondatoo on March 03, 2014, 11:16:25 PM How can you fail these little fellas (http://s27.postimg.org/s3unly6tv/23578_Black_and_Golden_Cockapoo_pups_6_weeks_old.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/hts8mpgy7/full/) yeah they are cute, but they just don't cut it as hounds, my little cocker spaniel doesn't either I put that answer just incase I was in contention to win ;whistle; Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 11:16:45 PM ok i have it on good authority that jeeves has been cheating and conferred with another member so that should be an auto disqualification so should mean redsgirl is the winner
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Jeeves on March 03, 2014, 11:20:16 PM Sir, I do not cheat. Congratulations to the winner, lady redsgirl
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:21:00 PM assuming the spreadsheet is now correctly set up that all adds up to the following result......
Not sure on the usual form for resolving ties, but I'm going for the name that, randomly, without my setting anything to order the results, finished at the bottom of the list... Horseplayer 65 Stribling 51 Fatcatstu 40 Tal 36 Mondatoo 35 Claw75 34 George2Loose 33 Mulhuzz 31 Ant040689 30 moonandback 29 Mehtab 29 Cf 28 Tomson87 28 Longines 28 Sharplea 28 Waz1892 27 MintTrav 26 Borntobubble 26 dwh103 25 HutchGF 24 Millidonk 23 Stato_1 23 TightEnd 21 Ironside 21 Tikay 19 Kinboshi 19 jeeves 19 RedsGirl 19 Congratulations RedsGirl - winner of the Back to basics RSQ. Over to any of the bottom four to set the next one. I'm off to bed to have nightmares about bloody trees, TV chefs and spreadsheets with minds of their own. Commiserations to Tighty, had I been a little less picky he'd have the honour of the victory. On the flip side, that would mean TipsforTikay not being updated or a deepstack not being updated whilst he got fully into quiz mode. Thanks to all who took part, and big thanks to my wife whose help in scoring and resolving the answers was invaluable. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on March 03, 2014, 11:21:42 PM Excellent reveal, with the firm hand of authority necessary to desk with pedantic objections galore, well done David.
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:21:57 PM ok i have it on good authority that jeeves has been cheating and conferred with another member so that should be an auto disqualification so should mean redsgirl is the winner shame on you Ironside for even suggesting such a thing Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 11:24:14 PM ok i have it on good authority that jeeves has been cheating and conferred with another member so that should be an auto disqualification so should mean redsgirl is the winner shame on you Ironside for even suggesting such a thing i can only say it as i was the one that he cheated off Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 11:26:25 PM Oh my gawd! This was a complete fluke on my part, and as I have previously hosted a quiz, (pantomime that it was) I insist that the joint and equally worthy winner Jeeves should take on the honour of QMing the next.
Give the people what they want! Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 03, 2014, 11:29:39 PM Oh my gawd! This was a complete fluke on my part, and as I have previously hosted a quiz, (pantomime that it was) I insist that the joint and equally worthy winner Jeeves should take on the honour of QMing the next. Give the people what they want! i want too see tikay do one Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 03, 2014, 11:30:22 PM Just noticed Kin and Teeks also won! ;ashamed;
Sorry boys, Congratulations! I'm deffo stepping aside, public vote I reckon. BTW thanks David, great job x Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: mulhuzz on March 03, 2014, 11:33:31 PM Question 4 and now, a TV Chef who has had a BBC series since 2000 which had their name in the title. Programmes first shown before 2000 and subsequently repeated don't count Some surprising incorrect answers here, especially Jamie Oliver who I would have confidently called as correct. A few names who never quite managed to get their name in the title of the show they presented, and the gurning fool Ainsley Harriott hasn't managed a programme with his name in since 1999.. Incorrect 5+3 = 8 Mulhuzz – Nigel Slater objection? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mm51f Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on March 03, 2014, 11:35:40 PM Oh my gawd! This was a complete fluke on my part, and as I have previously hosted a quiz, (pantomime that it was) I insist that the joint and equally worthy winner Jeeves should take on the honour of QMing the next. Give the people what they want! i want too see tikay do one I am frequently told to do one. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: mulhuzz on March 03, 2014, 11:36:47 PM also my score increased six points having scored an Ace - pretty sure my score is wrong.
regardless, wouldn't have won anyway, so gratz redsgirl :) Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:39:41 PM Question 4 and now, a TV Chef who has had a BBC series since 2000 which had their name in the title. Programmes first shown before 2000 and subsequently repeated don't count Some surprising incorrect answers here, especially Jamie Oliver who I would have confidently called as correct. A few names who never quite managed to get their name in the title of the show they presented, and the gurning fool Ainsley Harriott hasn't managed a programme with his name in since 1999.. Incorrect 5+3 = 8 Mulhuzz – Nigel Slater objection? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mm51f Fair enough, hope you don't want the final score updated though. I've left the laptop downstairs and, well, to put it politely, bugger that. I thought it was a good answer when it came in, but when I checked it, the title showed as simply, 'Simple Suppers', no mention of his name. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: George2Loose on March 03, 2014, 11:41:14 PM Well done David- deece quiz
Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:46:01 PM Just noticed Kin and Teeks also won! ;ashamed; Sorry boys, Congratulations! I'm deffo stepping aside, public vote I reckon. BTW thanks David, great job x Your call RedsGirl, but as QM for this week my final act is to pass on the baton to you. Your responsibility now is to make sure that one of the four of you sets a quiz for next week. I'm sure you can persuade one of the three to set something. Although, as I recall it One has one's questions at the ready. My former master paid quite handsomely for my time too One problem, he has to win it first Shouldn't be too difficult to persuade Jeeves then Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on March 03, 2014, 11:48:00 PM Jeeves it is, then.
Over to Lord Pedant. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: MintTrav on March 03, 2014, 11:58:02 PM Nice one David - I enjoyed that.
I found a picture of a willow btw. I see what you mean now. Definitely not a tree. (http://www.trees-online.co.uk/images/Salix%20Chrysocoma.jpg) Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 03, 2014, 11:59:58 PM Nice one David - I enjoyed that. I found a picture of a willow btw. I see what you mean now. Definitely not a tree. (http://www.trees-online.co.uk/images/Salix%20Chrysocoma.jpg) You wouldn't have won anyways ya great lummox Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: pleno1 on March 04, 2014, 12:01:40 AM I think Mulhuzz was joint winner
-5 points afte an ace being a 6 -7 points after the cooking show -12points He finishes on 31 points -12= 19 Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Cf on March 04, 2014, 12:03:46 AM Erm... I'm not a tree expert but...
http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/juniper/ Not sure why that failed? I have to say that was back to basics in every way. One of the biggest farces we've had in a while :) Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 04, 2014, 12:07:28 AM think i got a near perfect score
came 2nd after all the ties and i wasnt beaten by tightend Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 04, 2014, 12:08:07 AM Erm... I'm not a tree expert but... http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/juniper/ Not sure why that failed? I have to say that was back to basics in every way. One of the biggest farces we've had in a while :) Yeah, I went to that page before marking it as a fail, maybe it was this bit Common juniper (Juniperus communis) is an evergreen conifer native to the UK, Europe and much of the northern hemisphere. Thanks for the compliment though. Bit disappointed nobody got the play from the opening post of the reveal Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Ironside on March 04, 2014, 12:16:57 AM Bit disappointed nobody got the play from the opening post of the reveal is it noises off? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Tal on March 04, 2014, 12:23:25 AM Never seen it, but is the play Shut Your Eyes and Think of England?The one where the guy has to pass off a prostitute at the office as his wife?
Good quiz, David. Excellent ruling with the Victoria Beckham/Adams whaling. And with Emma Bunton. I would have objected handsomely had either of those been ruled differently. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Cf on March 04, 2014, 12:42:44 AM Erm... I'm not a tree expert but... http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/british-trees/native-trees/juniper/ Not sure why that failed? I have to say that was back to basics in every way. One of the biggest farces we've had in a while :) Yeah, I went to that page before marking it as a fail, maybe it was this bit Common juniper (Juniperus communis) is an evergreen conifer native to the UK, Europe and much of the northern hemisphere. Thanks for the compliment though. Bit disappointed nobody got the play from the opening post of the reveal Ah so it's something to do with leaves falling off? I just read it as "name a tree" lol Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: tikay on March 04, 2014, 06:56:19 AM Never seen it, but is the play Shut Your Eyes and Think of England?The one where the guy has to pass off a prostitute at the office as his wife? Good quiz, David. Excellent ruling with the Victoria Beckham/Adams whaling. And with Emma Bunton. I would have objected handsomely had either of those been ruled differently. You would have what? It is possible to handsomely object? Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Tal on March 04, 2014, 07:01:46 AM Never seen it, but is the play Shut Your Eyes and Think of England?The one where the guy has to pass off a prostitute at the office as his wife? Good quiz, David. Excellent ruling with the Victoria Beckham/Adams whaling. And with Emma Bunton. I would have objected handsomely had either of those been ruled differently. You would have what? It is possible to handsomely object? I look to do things as handsomely as possible :) Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: Redsgirl on March 04, 2014, 09:40:05 AM Just noticed Kin and Teeks also won! ;ashamed; Sorry boys, Congratulations! I'm deffo stepping aside, public vote I reckon. BTW thanks David, great job x Your call RedsGirl, but as QM for this week my final act is to pass on the baton to you. Your responsibility now is to make sure that one of the four of you sets a quiz for next week. I'm sure you can persuade one of the three to set something. Although, as I recall it One has one's questions at the ready. My former master paid quite handsomely for my time too One problem, he has to win it first Shouldn't be too difficult to persuade Jeeves then Thanks again David. I would have happily done the next one, and the four other winners would have had to fight me in the car park for the honour but I'm off on a little last minute holiday on Saturday and I won't be back till Thursday, and as I know what a lot of effort goes into hosting these, I really wouldn't be able to make a decent offering. So as you pointed out, if the super unflappable Jeeves has his questions at the ready and providing Tikay can make his own Horlicks and warm his own bedsocks for one evening, there really is problem. Over to you my good man, I know you won't let us down! Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: david3103 on March 04, 2014, 10:23:00 AM I thoroughly enjoyed last night's reveal. The appeals add to the evening and although the Poplar and Willow questions were awkward I think both Tighty and Minty eventually accepted that the correct result was arrived at notwithstanding the outcome of the discussion.
I got lucky with the question sequence because all the issues that were open to debate came in the first five or six questions and that allowed the reveal to flow much quicker in the later stages whilst the appeals process continued. If/when I set another I shall endeavour to arrange for a similar pattern. Thanks again to Mrs3103 whose assistance proved invaluable again, especially after I messed up with the scoring spreadsheet. Thanks also to all the entrants and to those who have been kind enough to express their appreciation. Jeeves, we're waiting with bated breath for questions about the right material for socks, about ironing and about the correct way to address the aristocracy. Take it for granted that I am IN. Title: Re: The Back to Basics RSQ Post by: TightEnd on March 04, 2014, 10:24:43 AM I didn't accept it! I just didn't want to win, which looked possible if I reversed the fail.
Thank you David. I think four objections on the same point was a record, for me. |