Monday, June 11, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[econgator]

On another topic: in the "Words of Love" category I said "fealty" instead of "fidelity". Do you think they would have accepted it?

It's not a "word of love", but it fits the clue just fine. Count it.

[MarkBarrett]

For the weekly poll I will list the wording of the FJ clue and you check the box if you had it correct. "Last Supper" and "Pentecost" are two responses that should give you no hesitation in checking the box since they were either ruled correct or credited as good enough to be rewarded with money.

You can make your own judgment about other responses. It could be that any reasonable upper room tied-in response works with the clue's wording? Each voter makes their best call on whether to check the box or not. Even with the names public I don't see someone bothering to check that list vs. comments in the Monday thread to determine worthiness of voting they got it.

[Bamaman]

For the "energy source" I went old school and said candle.

[Volante]

The clue says that Acts 1:13 places an event in "an upper room." There is no event in Acts 1:13...So no response is correct. (OK, maybe "What is going up into it?"...) The writers evidently mixed up a quote from the Gospels like Luke 22:12 with this quote from Acts.

It says an event occurred in 'an upper room.' Past tense. Not that it's happening IN Acts 1:13. Whatever happened must have come before Acts 1:13 (which might hurt the Pentacost crowd, not sure when that counts as having started).

The Last Supper is the response they wanted. It doesn't matter when it occurred. What matters is that Acts 1:13 gives no information about The Last Supper, Pentecost, or anything else that happened in the room (not even prayer, which is in the next verse). Since the kerfuffle resulted in them accepting "Pentecost" (after the taping was over evidently), that crowd is not hurt. But you're right, it's not correct. Neither is The Last Supper.

Then maybe you can help me with a question I've been having. What does the verse "Jesus wept" mean?

[davey]

I'm sure there's much exegesis, but most simply the Bible suggests that Jesus wept because Lazarus was dead.

"John 11:35 says that this man was dead and so Jesus wept" would be a wrong way to make that into a clue. Maybe not as outrageous as the present instance because at least Lazarus died in the same chapter, not in a previous book, and the connection is direct. But still wrong.

[Austin Powers]

I'm not usually a softie, but given that the question arguably does not have a right answer - what occurred in the room in Acts is entirely speculation - I say EVERYBODY IS RIGHT.

[bpmod]

I'm sure there's much exegesis, but most simply the Bible suggests that Jesus wept because Lazarus was dead.

"John 11:35 says that this man was dead and so Jesus wept" would be a wrong way to make that into a clue. Maybe not as outrageous as the present instance because at least Lazarus died in the same chapter, not in a previous book, and the connection is direct. But still wrong.

And why would that be wrong? You didn't say "John 11:35 says this man died". Once he was dead, he continued to be dead until Jesus raised him, after weeping of course.

Brian

[davey]

I'm sure there's much exegesis, but most simply the Bible suggests that Jesus wept because Lazarus was dead.

"John 11:35 says that this man was dead and so Jesus wept" would be a wrong way to make that into a clue. Maybe not as outrageous as the present instance because at least Lazarus died in the same chapter, not in a previous book, and the connection is direct. But still wrong.

And why would that be wrong? You didn't say "John 11:35 says this man died". Once he was dead, he continued to be dead until Jesus raised him, after weeping of course.

Brian

Because John 11:35 doesn't mention Lazarus. "John 11 says that this man was dead [or died] and so Jesus wept"...is OK.

[TenPoundHammer]

I think that Jeopardy needs to get rid of its religious-based questions. Religion is a personal choice, period. A secular-minded person should in no way be forced to learn any religion, to do otherwise is highly immoral in my opinion.

"A person who is incredibly out of shape should in no way be forced to learn about sports or exercise, to do so otherwise is highly immoral in my opinion."

Yeah. I just don't get why people gripe about religious clues so much.

It's not like the J! writers are begging you to convert. It's not like they're saying you absolutely must learn who [insert Bible character here] is or you'll burn in Hell. And to say you're being "forced to learn" is absurd.

And even so, I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. Even if you choose not to believe in anything Christian, does it really harm you if you know a few big names in the Bible? I don't follow Hinduism, but I still recognize the names Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. I don't believe in them, but I still know who they are.

[bpmod]

I think that Jeopardy needs to get rid of its religious-based questions. Religion is a personal choice, period. A secular-minded person should in no way be forced to learn any religion, to do otherwise is highly immoral in my opinion.

"A person who is incredibly out of shape should in no way be forced to learn about sports or exercise, to do so otherwise is highly immoral in my opinion."

Yeah. I just don't get why people gripe about religious clues so much.

It's not like the J! writers are begging you to convert. It's not like they're saying you absolutely must learn who [insert Bible character here] is or you'll burn in Hell. And to say you're being "forced to learn" is absurd.

And even so, I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. Even if you choose not to believe in anything Christian, does it really harm you if you know a few big names in the Bible? I don't follow Hinduism, but I still recognize the names Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. I don't believe in them, but I still know who they are.

Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.

Brian

[Leah]

No religion (not even the evangelical branch of Christianity) forbids learning (well, except for the ultra-orthodox fundamentalist version of Islam espoused by the Taliban, but I don't think any self-respecting Taliban wants to go on Jeopardy!)

I do believe you have the makings of another SNL skit there.

[Woppy T]

I think that Jeopardy needs to get rid of its religious-based questions. Religion is a personal choice, period. A secular-minded person should in no way be forced to learn any religion, to do otherwise is highly immoral in my opinion.

"A person who is incredibly out of shape should in no way be forced to learn about sports or exercise, to do so otherwise is highly immoral in my opinion."

Yeah. I just don't get why people gripe about religious clues so much.

It's not like the J! writers are begging you to convert. It's not like they're saying you absolutely must learn who [insert Bible character here] is or you'll burn in Hell. And to say you're being "forced to learn" is absurd.

And even so, I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. Even if you choose not to believe in anything Christian, does it really harm you if you know a few big names in the Bible? I don't follow Hinduism, but I still recognize the names Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. I don't believe in them, but I still know who they are.

Nor are the writers begging you to become a Yankee fan, yet you will still say you have never heard of Alex Rodriguez the next time he comes up.

[Sherm]

I think that Jeopardy needs to get rid of its religious-based questions. Religion is a personal choice, period. A secular-minded person should in no way be forced to learn any religion, to do otherwise is highly immoral in my opinion. That consideration should apply to both contestants (the contestant should not be financially incentivized to learn religion) and viewers (Jeopardy! viewers should not have religious facts forced upon them)

This is so wrong on a lot of different levels. Almost everyone practices some form of religion, so it is something the average man knows something about. No Islamic, no Buddha, no Shinto. You eliminate religion on the show, and you eliminate a lot. Henry VIII his first remarriage, and changing to the Church of England is all religion based, many wars have been as well. Bottom line is, you are saying they should eliminate all questions on the show about the most read books on the planet, be it the bible, torah...... I don't think so, and most would agree. I suck at wordplay type categories. I think they should be eliminated from the show. Not fair that I should be forced to learn that stuff if I want to be on the show. Tuff Crap. Someone stinks at religion questions, their problem. You get on the show and it kills you. Such is life.

Jeopardy shouldn't be run like the government would run it, due to equal opportunity they would have three contestant that couldn't answer 90% of the questions and the show would be boring as hell. 90% of the people on this board wouldn't be allowed on the government run show, they are too good, and it would make the other contestants feel bad.

Last Supper is the wrong answer, not in Acts. The only question is what were they going for? About the only answer that is right for the question they asked is they replace Judas, and only a biblical scholar is going to get that one. That is what occurred in that upper room at that time, and I had to go read it to get it.

[plasticene]

It's surprising that the judges didn't scrap the whole question when they realized how flawed it was. As a poster on the Sony board pointed out, the only really correct answer might be something like

"what is, After arriving in Jerusalem, the apostles went up to the room where they were staying. "

Since both answers were about as correct as they could be, and since in this case knowledge of each other's wagers made no difference, the judges could have provided a replacement clue without penalizing either player.

The one time I attended a taping, there was a replacement of a FJ clue, but the decision came before the answers and wagers were revealed. I don't think I ever found out why they replaced it, but the unused clue was actually used in a game a year later. The two shows involved were this one with Ken Jennings and this one with Vik Vaz.

[TenPoundHammer]

I don't usually notice the bad writing except when they pull what one writer called the Sheldon Cooper clues — i.e., an attempt at TOM that only obfuscates even worse than it clarifies.

But man, this one's a total WTF? from me. How did no one even catch this?

[Volante]

I don't usually notice the bad writing except when they pull what one writer called the Sheldon Cooper clues — i.e., an attempt at TOM that only obfuscates even worse than it clarifies.

But man, this one's a total WTF? from me. How did no one even catch this?

Too clever and too brief for the clue's good. I know I've gotten attached to some really tricky turns of a phrase that, to me, make crystal sense, only to be told by an outside observer, "Just...what the Sam Hell are you trying to say here?!" A few more words and a little jiggering could have made it cleaner

"Involving those mentioned in Acts 1:13, this earlier event also took place in "an upper room."" or
"One Biblical theory states the "upper room" in Acts 1:13 also held this earlier event."

[alietr]

But why mention Acts at all? Why not cite the verse in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John and be done with it? It just wasn't a good idea to incorporate the Acts verse as an indirect reference. Period.

[bpmod]

But why mention Acts at all? Why not cite the verse in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John and be done with it? It just wasn't a good idea to incorporate the Acts verse as an indirect reference. Period.

I am no biblical scholar by any means, but I do seem to remember a telling of the Last Supper somewhere in Acts (in the past tense, of course). Obviously not in Acts 1:13.

Brian

[Austin Powers]

I don't think any mention of a "theory" repairs the question, if the theory isn't very strongly implied by the text (Jesus weeping and Lazarus' death for example).

Really the only way to fix it would be to refer to one of the Gospels but again to speculate that may have been seen as too much of a gimme.

I think this is great - I love how the champ got his money and I love seeing that mistakes happen to even the pros.

[Austin Powers]

Regarding Phil Gordon: he used to be the face of NTN/Buzztime poker (may still be, I don't play it these days). He used to give painfully obvious advice in the little flash screens they would run - stuff like "A pair of aces, also called pocket rockets, is a good hand."

Don't think he has priapism.