Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

[zerobandwidth]

To defame or slander

"Malign" was given. I said "impugn". Judges?

That's what I said, so I'd give it credit!

I went straight for "impugn" as well, however a quick peek at dictionary.com reveals:

• malign — to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame
• impugn — to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

…so I'm guessing that the J! judges would have negged "impugn" because neither "defame" nor "slander" comes up explicitly in the definition, and "impugn" does not imply that the accusations are false, whereas "malign" does. I must admit I'd never thought of "malign" having that connotation, and have used the words interchangeably; perhaps if enough of the J! judges shared that habit, they would have gifted a reversal at the end of the round.

[John Boy]

So I got La Gazza Ladra but not the Beatles

Now THERE's something you won't hear from just anyone. (I had the same results, though: classical music knowledge FAAAAAARRRRR outstrips pop music knowledge).

And apparently both far outstrip Katy's, uh, either wagering knowledge or wagering confidence. My, my, my...go into FJ with the lead, get FJ right, and still lose! Wow!

[Elijah Baley]

To defame or slander

"Malign" was given. I said "impugn". Judges?

That's what I said, so I'd give it credit!

I went straight for "impugn" as well, however a quick peek at dictionary.com reveals:

• malign — to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame
• impugn — to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

…so I'm guessing that the J! judges would have negged "impugn" because neither "defame" nor "slander" comes up explicitly in the definition, and "impugn" does not imply that the accusations are false, whereas "malign" does. I must admit I'd never thought of "malign" having that connotation, and have used the words interchangeably; perhaps if enough of the J! judges shared that habit, they would have gifted a reversal at the end of the round.

I'd have to see the clue again but I don't know if there's really a meaningful difference between those words. Neither really have any specific legal significance so it really comes down to how they're used and to me, they're effectively synonymous.

[davey]

To defame or slander

"Malign" was given. I said "impugn". Judges?

That's what I said, so I'd give it credit!

I went straight for "impugn" as well, however a quick peek at dictionary.com reveals:

• malign — to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame
• impugn — to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

…so I'm guessing that the J! judges would have negged "impugn" because neither "defame" nor "slander" comes up explicitly in the definition, and "impugn" does not imply that the accusations are false, whereas "malign" does. I must admit I'd never thought of "malign" having that connotation, and have used the words interchangeably; perhaps if enough of the J! judges shared that habit, they would have gifted a reversal at the end of the round.

I'd have to see the clue again but I don't know if there's really a meaningful difference between those words. Neither really have any specific legal significance so it really comes down to how they're used and to me, they're effectively synonymous.

The clue is in the post above, and zerobandwidth just gave us evidence that the meanings are different. I counted myself wrong with "impugn" for this reason, though it is possible we would have gotten away with it.
BTW, " impugn," a word useful in a court of law for its specific meaning, is defined in my edition of Black's Law Dictionary, while "malign" is not.

If only I was smart enough to put down Beatles as my knee jerk and default response to FJ, even though I was lost in thinking of appropriate songs... I somehow ended up with the Supremes...

[Elijah Baley]

"Malign" was given. I said "impugn". Judges?

That's what I said, so I'd give it credit!

I went straight for "impugn" as well, however a quick peek at dictionary.com reveals:

• malign — to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame
• impugn — to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

…so I'm guessing that the J! judges would have negged "impugn" because neither "defame" nor "slander" comes up explicitly in the definition, and "impugn" does not imply that the accusations are false, whereas "malign" does. I must admit I'd never thought of "malign" having that connotation, and have used the words interchangeably; perhaps if enough of the J! judges shared that habit, they would have gifted a reversal at the end of the round.

I'd have to see the clue again but I don't know if there's really a meaningful difference between those words. Neither really have any specific legal significance so it really comes down to how they're used and to me, they're effectively synonymous.

The clue is in the post above, and zerobandwidth just gave us evidence that the meanings are different. I counted myself wrong with "impugn" for this reason, though it is possible we would have gotten away with it.
BTW, " impugn," a word useful in a court of law for its specific meaning, is defined in my edition of Black's Law Dictionary, while "malign" is not.

If only I was smart enough to put down Beatles as my knee jerk and default response to FJ, even though I was lost in thinking of appropriate songs... I somehow ended up with the Supremes...

Ah - I missed seeing the clue in there. But, I stand by my argument that the judges should accept both. To defame or slander under the law is pretty broad and to the extent that "impugn" includes, for example, "to cast aspersions one" or "call into question," I think it fits the category. That said, judging is often fairly capricious so I could see them drawing a distinction. But they'd be wrong.

[BigDaddyMatty]

But, I stand by my argument that the judges should accept both. To defame or slander under the law is pretty broad and to the extent that "impugn" includes, for example, "to cast aspersions one" or "call into question," I think it fits the category. That said, judging is often fairly capricious so I could see them drawing a distinction. But they'd be wrong.

This is incorrect. In order to be liable for defamation or slander, you must make false claims about another person (or entity). To impugn's someone's character or testimony means that you are claiming that he is saying something false.

[Spaceman Spiff]

1960s NO. 1 SONGS was the category and of course Alex had to throw in, “You’re too young to remember.”

The Beatles? Never heard of them.

The FJ clue had a lot to process in 30 seconds. "Hard Day's Night" came to mind immediately (along with several others, including "Working in a Coal Mine" - which I knew was Devo, but thought it was a cover of a 60s song). Ok, so what is the other song? "Eight Days a Week" - that's not about work - but after 25 seconds, Beatles seemed like as good a guess as any.

That wager though - I don't get what it was intended to accomplish; if you really think that everyone is going to miss it, why bet anything at all?

I had the same logic, except I was using a wrong Beatles song - "We Can Work It Out" - and couldn't come up with it's mate, but stuck with the Fab Four because I had nothing better.

[davey]

That's what I said, so I'd give it credit!

I went straight for "impugn" as well, however a quick peek at dictionary.com reveals:

• malign — to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame
• impugn — to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

…so I'm guessing that the J! judges would have negged "impugn" because neither "defame" nor "slander" comes up explicitly in the definition, and "impugn" does not imply that the accusations are false, whereas "malign" does. I must admit I'd never thought of "malign" having that connotation, and have used the words interchangeably; perhaps if enough of the J! judges shared that habit, they would have gifted a reversal at the end of the round.

I'd have to see the clue again but I don't know if there's really a meaningful difference between those words. Neither really have any specific legal significance so it really comes down to how they're used and to me, they're effectively synonymous.

The clue is in the post above, and zerobandwidth just gave us evidence that the meanings are different. I counted myself wrong with "impugn" for this reason, though it is possible we would have gotten away with it.
BTW, " impugn," a word useful in a court of law for its specific meaning, is defined in my edition of Black's Law Dictionary, while "malign" is not.

If only I was smart enough to put down Beatles as my knee jerk and default response to FJ, even though I was lost in thinking of appropriate songs... I somehow ended up with the Supremes...

Ah - I missed seeing the clue in there. But, I stand by my argument that the judges should accept both. To defame or slander under the law is pretty broad and to the extent that "impugn" includes, for example, "to cast aspersions one" or "call into question," I think it fits the category. That said, judging is often fairly capricious so I could see them drawing a distinction. But they'd be wrong.

One could make worse decisions as a quiz show judge than joining in the "capriciousness" of a good dictionary...

[Elijah Baley]

But, I stand by my argument that the judges should accept both. To defame or slander under the law is pretty broad and to the extent that "impugn" includes, for example, "to cast aspersions one" or "call into question," I think it fits the category. That said, judging is often fairly capricious so I could see them drawing a distinction. But they'd be wrong.

This is incorrect. In order to be liable for defamation or slander, you must make false claims about another person (or entity). To impugn's someone's character or testimony means that you are claiming that he is saying something false.

Nope; to impugn necessarily requires that "you" (to keep it in your example) make a statement. Saying that "he" is making a false statement could be the basis for a claim for defamation is "your" statement is untrue. Similarly, to impugn someone's character, for example, is to call it into question.

I think your point is more that impugn doesn't necessarily include a false statement and I guess that would be accurate but I still think it's close enough that it should have been accepted.

And I guess we'll never know for sure as it never came up, and isn't likely to in any future game.

[Peter the accountant]

R: 26, W:2, costing 800
Coryat: 16,800
FJ:
DD: 1/3
LT: show jumping

Timings:
2:58 + 3:30 = 6:28
6:55
1:27

Another typical game for me - clear evidence of my lack of study time over the last couple of months. Stumped in Movie Titles, no runs.

I only noted one TS clue in the J! round and 5 in the DJ round, which tends to make thing go quickly. And that means there was enough time to get through all of the clues in spite of the painfully slow video category. The J! round didn't seem longer than average. I'd have to go over my data to be sure.

I didn't have a clue for FJ. And thinking that the Beatles were too obvious, went with Jefferson Airplane to put down someone non-obvious. I guess sometimes The Beatles aren't negbait in a 1960s music category. Oh well.

[LucarioSnooperVixey]

Dmitri appeared on The Chase in 2013 and was defeated. He later came back in the second chance episode and won along with his teammates.

[RobW]

an interesting tidbit about that FJ question...

Dimitry mentioned (on the LL message board) that

"Alex told us after the game that the original clue as written had asked us to name both songs, which would have been much more challenging. They reviewed it that day and decided that asking us to write that much in 30 seconds was a little much to expect."

Good job writers for that adjustment!

Having to scribble all of that would've turned the question from wicked to downright cruel.

"What is 8 Days a Week and A Hard Day's Night"
is even longer than
"What is Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band"

with no option to shorten...

[alietr]

an interesting tidbit about that FJ question...

Dimitry mentioned (on the LL message board) that

"Alex told us after the game that the original clue as written had asked us to name both songs, which would have been much more challenging. They reviewed it that day and decided that asking us to write that much in 30 seconds was a little much to expect."

Good job writers for that adjustment!

Having to scribble all of that would've turned the question from wicked to downright cruel.

"What is 8 Days a Week and A Hard Day's Night"
is even longer than
"What is Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band"

with no option to shorten...

Yeah, that would have been ridiculous to name the songs let alone write them out in that time. I said The Beatles, but was just guessing based on A Hard Day's Night. I never would have thought of 8 Days a Week as the second song since I was thinking about a job. I'm still not sure how 8 Days a Week means a 'heavy workload'.

[Woppy T]

an interesting tidbit about that FJ question...

Dimitry mentioned (on the LL message board) that

"Alex told us after the game that the original clue as written had asked us to name both songs, which would have been much more challenging. They reviewed it that day and decided that asking us to write that much in 30 seconds was a little much to expect."

Good job writers for that adjustment!

Having to scribble all of that would've turned the question from wicked to downright cruel.

"What is 8 Days a Week and A Hard Day's Night"
is even longer than
"What is Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band"

with no option to shorten...

Yeah, that would have been ridiculous to name the songs let alone write them out in that time. I said The Beatles, but was just guessing based on A Hard Day's Night. I never would have thought of 8 Days a Week as the second song since I was thinking about a job. I'm still not sure how 8 Days a Week means a 'heavy workload'.

RobW mentioned Wikipedia, which states:

Paul McCartney has attributed the inspiration of the song to at least two different sources. In a 1984 interview with Playboy magazine, he credited the title to one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms, which similarly provided titles for the Lennon–McCartney songs "A Hard Day's Night" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". McCartney recalled: "He said it as though he were an overworked chauffeur: 'Eight days a week.' When we heard it, we said, 'Really? Bing! Got it!'"

McCartney subsequently credited the title to an actual chauffeur who once drove him to Lennon's house in Weybridge. In the Beatles Anthology book, he states: "I usually drove myself there, but the chauffeur drove me out that day and I said, 'How've you been?' – 'Oh working hard,' he said, 'working eight days a week.'" In a 2016 interview alongside Starr and Ron Howard, in preparation for the release of the documentary The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years, McCartney reiterated that he had heard it from a chauffeur who was driving him to Lennon's house while he was banned from driving. Starr has said he is not the source of the phrase.

[This Is Kirk!]

I'm still not sure how 8 Days a Week means a 'heavy workload'.

Apparently Paul thought all that loving was hard work!

Seriously, though, according to the Wikipedia entry:

McCartney subsequently credited the title to an actual chauffeur who once drove him to Lennon's house in Weybridge. In the Beatles Anthology book, he states: "I usually drove myself there, but the chauffeur drove me out that day and I said, 'How've you been?' – 'Oh working hard,' he said, 'working eight days a week.'"

[alietr]

So basically you have had to have known the backstory? Yow, that would've made it ridiculously hard. What were they thinking even making the clue that way in the first place?

[This Is Kirk!]

So basically you have had to have known the backstory? Yow, that would've made it ridiculously hard. What were they thinking even making the clue that way in the first place?

Those were the two songs that came to mind for me, so I think I'd have a chance to get it, but it's still an awful lot of writing and thinking to do in 30 seconds.

[billiej]

The FJ clue had a lot to process in 30 seconds. "Hard Day's Night" came to mind immediately (along with several others, including "Working in a Coal Mine" - which I knew was Devo, but thought it was a cover of a 60s song).

"Working in the Coal Mine" was a number 8 hit written and produced by Allen Toussaint and performed by Lee Dorsey in 1966.

The only reason I even said the Beatles was because I couldn't pull out who did "Working in the Coal Mine" in the 60s. So, I went with "Hard Day's Night" and hoped there was one other..

[bbird]

Despite (or maybe because of) being a musician myself, I often hear music first, lyrics second or not at all. So I landed on Eight Days a Week not from knowing the backstory, but from not paying attention to the lyrics! Or more accurately, in 30 seconds I didn't stop to consider what the song was about; I was just scanning for song titles. I started at 16 Tons but thought it was from the '50s, then ran to The Beatles figuring they were most likely to have hits that close together.