Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, econgator, dhkendall, trainman

User avatar
earendel
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:22 pm
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by earendel » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:08 pm

Kenny wrote:
snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."
Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2428
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by davey » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:17 pm

earendel wrote:
Kenny wrote:
snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."
Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.
But he wasn't writing letters B.C.
In the 1st century B.C., this epistle apostle called for God to curse competing preachers

Kenny
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:37 am

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Kenny » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 pm

earendel wrote:
Kenny wrote:
snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."
Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.
Was he writing letters at 5 years old?

User avatar
TenPoundHammer
Not J! Contestant Material
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by TenPoundHammer » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:43 pm

Kenny wrote:Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.
Was he writing letters at 5 years old?[/quote]

As long as he wasn't drinking liquor and being asked to find a wife when he was only 11 years old.
Ten Pound Hammer

This space for rent

User avatar
Linear Gnome
One Miner Gal
Posts: 1314
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:55 am
Location: Rolla, MO

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Linear Gnome » Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:16 pm

Well, I learned something. I had known that Diego was a way to say James in Spanish (so I got FJ), but I had always assumed that Santiago was a variant of San Diego. I had never realized that Santiago was derived from Iago = Jacob = James, and that Diego derives from Santiago.

I don't have much to add about Cindy, other than that she's my hero. I generally like words, but sometimes they're inadequate.

Vowela
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:07 am

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Vowela » Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:50 pm

goatman wrote:No clue how they arrived at Asuncion but two players pulled it must be thinking 'Ascension' of Jesus?
That's how I got to Asuncion. Seemed like a pretty logical chain from St. James to Jesus to Ascension to Asuncion. Not knowing where Santiago came from, it seemed like the reasonable choice. Wrong, but reasonable :lol:.

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2428
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by davey » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:11 pm

Vowela wrote:
goatman wrote:No clue how they arrived at Asuncion but two players pulled it must be thinking 'Ascension' of Jesus?
That's how I got to Asuncion. Seemed like a pretty logical chain from St. James to Jesus to Ascension to Asuncion. Not knowing where Santiago came from, it seemed like the reasonable choice. Wrong, but reasonable :lol:.
The wording of the clue - "refers to" rather than, say, "is synonymous with" - sent me down that path for a few seconds before I thought again (I came up with the Cuban city first). I would think it was a conscious deflection to make the clue a bit more challenging.

User avatar
Ultraman
Valued Contributor
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:00 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Ultraman » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:18 pm

Just another "way to go, Cindy" and "keep it going" post. Inspiring!

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 5072
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by opusthepenguin » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:19 pm

Vowela wrote:
goatman wrote:No clue how they arrived at Asuncion but two players pulled it must be thinking 'Ascension' of Jesus?
That's how I got to Asuncion. Seemed like a pretty logical chain from St. James to Jesus to Ascension to Asuncion. Not knowing where Santiago came from, it seemed like the reasonable choice. Wrong, but reasonable :lol:.
Actually, the Ascension of Jesus would be Ascensión (same spelling but with an accent to make it cool). Asunción refers to the Assumption of the Virgin. The Biblical book of Acts tells of the Ascension of Jesus into heaven after his resurrection. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma maintain that Mary was bodily raised into heaven at the end of her life. There's debate on whether she died and was resurrected immediately prior (Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic) or was caught up into heaven without dying (standard Catholic, I think). Either way, the source of the teaching is church tradition rather than the Bible and Protestant Christians do not generally hold to it.

John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1759
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:42 pm

hbomb1947 wrote:
John Boy wrote:
hbomb1947 wrote:WTG Cindy! You could tell that she had a low energy level (and reportedly she was suffering from a blood infection during the taping), and for her to be getting in consistently on the buzzer, and to be sharp enough to access her considerable knowledge (she was an A-rundler in Learned League) was especially impressive under the circumstances. To not only appear on J!, but to be a J! champion -- and with a sole solve on FJ, no less -- I am so happy that Cindy was able to achieve this. So now I get to root for her again tomorrow night!

If she was seriously ill, though, it makes her win even more impressive. Kinda like Bob Harris's description of his ToC experience. My NEXT question, though is: if you know you get one and only one chance to be on the show, and the week comes and you are really ill, don't you just figure it's not a good time to be on a show where so much is riding on having sharp mental faculties? Makes me think if that happened to me, I would call and ask to reschedule my taping.
.
That would be the case for most people who had more than a few months left and weren't facing continued deterioration of their health in that time.
I may have been the only one in America who was not aware of her condition. I was thinking she was "under the weather," not aware that she was in mortal danger. Uh, yeah, that's very different. All props to the lady.

User avatar
B-Rich
Just Starting Out on JBoard
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:56 am
Location: Metairie, LA

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by B-Rich » Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:40 am

Just to put (hopefully) an end to the discussion over Sault Ste. Marie and the notion of whether or not there are/were "falls" there.

I think it's an idea of perception and definition. Several have come on and posted that they've been there, and there are no falls there. Now, if you are talking about a large, deep drop off-- as an example, visualize one of the most famous falls, Niagara Falls-- there isn't one there, and there never was. Sault Ste. Marie (literally, in old French "Jumps/rapids of St. Mary ") was originally a series of what most today would call "rapids", but also can correctly be called "falls", as the river falls 21 feet in a short stretch. It is very similar to the old Falls of the Ohio River which were located near Louisville, KY.

Like the Falls of the Ohio, the need for river navigation called for the construction of dams and locks, which almost completely eliminated the natural state of the rapids or falls, which for both rivers used to extend from bank to bank. At Sault Ste. Marie, the center area between the Canadian locks and American locks still has a series of rapids, though with changes in water flow due to the locks, they are a shadow of their original self.
Sault.jpg
Sault.jpg (133.66 KiB) Viewed 850 times

bbird
Contributor
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:32 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by bbird » Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:23 pm

Interesting -- thanks for that. I suppose the other obvious thing I should've done was check some dictionaries.

Falls:
a precipitous descent of water : waterfall
a cataract or waterfall

I'd never heard the term cataract used in a non-ophthalmological sense before, but
steep rapids in a river
any furious rush or downpour of water; deluge

Having read that and B-Rich's post, I'm satisfied that their word choice wasn't as obscure as I'd initially thought. I do think rapids would have been more clear, but perhaps tying it to the French name was supposed to be a hint.

marethyu
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by marethyu » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:01 am

Kenny wrote:
earendel wrote:
Kenny wrote:
snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."
Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.
Was he writing letters at 5 years old?
Yeah, that one made no sense. The BC thing is a glaring mistake, but I'm not even sure where they got the notion that Paul called on God to curse other preachers. He certainly wasn't a fan of the "super apostles" as he called them or those who were trying to force Jewish rituals on Gentile believers, but I did a Bible search for the word "curse" and none of Paul's epistles come close to saying that God should "curse" them. He does say at one point that he wishes they'd emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12), which is admittedly harsh, but isn't the same thing.

marethyu
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by marethyu » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:07 am

On a different note, as a person who has been dealing with colorectal cancer myself for 9 years, I was glad to hear that Cindy got this chance. As I watched today (on my DVR), I was sad to see how frail she looked. Cancer sucks, and the treatment can often be as debilitating as the disease. I am glad she won and it's great that she and her family are donating the money to cancer research. My sympathies to her family and friends, though I hope seeing her achieve her goal of getting on the show was a special thing that they'll remember.

marethyu
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by marethyu » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:12 am

Oh, and I totally got the Button Gwinnett question because of Stephen Colbert and Lin-Manuel Miranda!
phpBB [video]

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2428
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by davey » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:13 pm

marethyu wrote:
Kenny wrote:
earendel wrote:
Kenny wrote:
snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."
Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.
Was he writing letters at 5 years old?
Yeah, that one made no sense. The BC thing is a glaring mistake, but I'm not even sure where they got the notion that Paul called on God to curse other preachers. He certainly wasn't a fan of the "super apostles" as he called them or those who were trying to force Jewish rituals on Gentile believers, but I did a Bible search for the word "curse" and none of Paul's epistles come close to saying that God should "curse" them. He does say at one point that he wishes they'd emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12), which is admittedly harsh, but isn't the same thing.

Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

User avatar
goatman
Man Who Stares At Goats!
Posts: 1340
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:43 pm
Location: Calvert, Maryland

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by goatman » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:43 pm

bbird wrote:Interesting -- thanks for that. I suppose the other obvious thing I should've done was check some dictionaries.

Falls:
a precipitous descent of water : waterfall
a cataract or waterfall

I'd never heard the term cataract used in a non-ophthalmological sense before, but
steep rapids in a river
any furious rush or downpour of water; deluge

Having read that and B-Rich's post, I'm satisfied that their word choice wasn't as obscure as I'd initially thought. I do think rapids would have been more clear, but perhaps tying it to the French name was supposed to be a hint.
Cataract typically implies a kind of stepping-stone or serial cascade, which is yet another fine riparian tributary term! Don't take me littorally! :lol:
The corridors of my mind are plastered with 3M Post-It notes!

marethyu
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by marethyu » Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:14 am

Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Good find! I didn't think to look for variations on the word curse. It still raises the question of why they said BC, but he clearly was calling on them to be cursed.

snowdenscold
Contributor
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:46 am

Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by snowdenscold » Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:37 am

marethyu wrote:
Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Good find! I didn't think to look for variations on the word curse. It still raises the question of why they said BC, but he clearly was calling on them to be cursed.
I commented on this in my post on page 3 ;)
snowdenscold wrote:Also, I thought the phrase "called for god to curse competing preachers" (emphasis mine) was a bit misleading. I assume it's a reference to Galatians 1. You can technically justify the way the phrased it, but I would have worded it differently. Anyway, not as bad as the "B.C." part obviously.
My issue is with the choice of the word 'competing'. I think it gives the wrong impression to someone just reading the clue without any background/context.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 21 guests