MarkBarrett wrote:Anyone on FB have a problem with Avram's "Confediration?"
Actually, looking really close, it looks like Avram left off either the last "i" or the "o". (I'll leave it up to those boardies who post screen caps in such situations, like Opus, bpmod, or yourself, to make that call). Doesn't matter since, as we all know, he would have got 2nd place regardless. FB shouldn't' have a problem, though, as all those who were up in arms over Thomasgate have stopped watching the show like they promised they would. Right?
I thought it wasn't close enough for Jeopardy!, but, as we here all know, it did not affect the outcome, so "no harm, no foul" as Alex would say.
Here it is:
Articles_of_Confederation.jpg (6.91 KiB) Viewed 2794 times
Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
I said Katherine instead of Katherina. But the Folger Shakespeare Library shows Katherine. And on the other end, so does Cliffs Notes. I assume both are acceptable.
Bamaman wrote:I can see the tion at the end, so that seems OK.
I can't. That's the only thing I would question. The 'i' shouldn't make a difference, as you say.
Brian
Ironically, I can see "tion" now that you posted it. The i is squished next to the o but it's there. The tittle of the i is quite apparent and that will help you find the body of the i.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
Bamaman wrote:I can see the tion at the end, so that seems OK.
I can't. That's the only thing I would question. The 'i' shouldn't make a difference, as you say.
Brian
Ironically, I can see "tion" now that you posted it. The i is squished next to the o but it's there. The tittle of the i is quite apparent and that will help you find the body of the i.
I can see the i's dot, but I cannot see the 'n'.
Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
It looks like what is supposed to be an n at the end, but it looks squished together. He was probably in a hurry trying to wrote a long question that only came to him towards the end. I can barely read what I wrote on my paper at home.
Sage on the Hudson wrote:Take it from this native New Englander: what gatherers freeze in the snow and make into candy is not "maple syrup," it is maple sap.
The sap is later boiled down to turn it into syrup.
Yet another example of Jeopardy's writers fabricating clues off the tops of their heads.
Well, that explains why I was trying to fit "sap" into an "up" category.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
Sage on the Hudson wrote:Take it from this native New Englander: what gatherers freeze in the snow and make into candy is not "maple syrup," it is maple sap.
The sap is later boiled down to turn it into syrup.
Yet another example of Jeopardy's writers fabricating clues off the tops of their heads.
Well, that explains why I was trying to fit "sap" into an "up" category.
Roses are red, violets are purple
Sugar's sweet and so is maple syrup-le
nserven wrote:I said Katherine instead of Katherina. But the Folger Shakespeare Library shows Katherine. And on the other end, so does Cliffs Notes. I assume both are acceptable.
nserven wrote:I said Katherine instead of Katherina. But the Folger Shakespeare Library shows Katherine. And on the other end, so does Cliffs Notes. I assume both are acceptable.
nserven wrote:I said Katherine instead of Katherina. But the Folger Shakespeare Library shows Katherine. And on the other end, so does Cliffs Notes. I assume both are acceptable.
I said Kate. Cole Porter and Samuel and Bella Spewack's take on the story notwithstanding, the character's referred to as "Kate" no fewer than seven times in the text of Shakespeare's play, so it's surely acceptable by Jeopardy!'s standards.
legendneverdies wrote:Some of us who saw the scores on the second DD in DJ! at clue 29 probably screamed to wager $800.
Not me. $5,000 works fine there. Jerry's shot for a nice round number was not only $2,200 too small to prevent Avram's breaking the lock with an extra $2,000, it was also $200 shy of putting Jerry in position for a safe preemptive strike at the next clue. Luckily for Jerry (although it's moot either way) Avram didn't have any killer instinct to take a stab on the last clue. (My wild guess would have been right.)
I like $5,000 because it puts him in a "2/3 exactly" situation if he gets it wrong.
With less confidence, $800 - $1,200 would have been good. If he gets the DD wrong, he can still claim the lock with a correct response on the last clue.
nserven wrote:I said Katherine instead of Katherina. But the Folger Shakespeare Library shows Katherine. And on the other end, so does Cliffs Notes. I assume both are acceptable.
I said Kate. Cole Porter and Samuel and Bella Spewack's take on the story notwithstanding, the character's referred to as "Kate" no fewer than seven times in the text of Shakespeare's play, so it's surely acceptable by Jeopardy!'s standards.
This Shakespeare concordance says she's called Kate 35 times. 18 for Katherine and 27 for Katherina... http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/co ... /?i=764287
And of course the title "Kiss Me, Kate" is a direct quote from Shakespeare...
I was irritated that "syrup" was the only response in the category that would not be spelled "-up". The hyphen was within the quotation marks. Why include it if it doesn't matter?
I've never seen or read Richard III, but I looked it up and the cast list showed another brother in the family besides RIII and Edward IV. I assume they'd have taken that as well?
Bamaman wrote:I've never seen or read Richard III, but I looked it up and the cast list showed another brother in the family besides RIII and Edward IV. I assume they'd have taken that as well?
If someone really wanted to say The Duke of Clarence, I don't see why not...
Bamaman wrote:I've never seen or read Richard III, but I looked it up and the cast list showed another brother in the family besides RIII and Edward IV. I assume they'd have taken that as well?
If someone really wanted to say The Duke of Clarence, I don't see why not...
I can see someone very familiar with the play blurting that out either to show off or else just from having played the role. The problem is Alex probably only has Richard III on his card and it would be rejected and someone else might get the rebound. They would have to give you credit later, but still someone else would have earned money they shouldn't have.
Bamaman wrote:I've never seen or read Richard III, but I looked it up and the cast list showed another brother in the family besides RIII and Edward IV. I assume they'd have taken that as well?
If someone really wanted to say The Duke of Clarence, I don't see why not...
I can see someone very familiar with the play blurting that out either to show off or else just from having played the role. The problem is Alex probably only has Richard III on his card and it would be rejected and someone else might get the rebound. They would have to give you credit later, but still someone else would have earned money they shouldn't have.
Or someone behind the judges' desk knows it fits and the ruling is made right away. It's not that obscure a fact really.
Bamaman wrote:I've never seen or read Richard III, but I looked it up and the cast list showed another brother in the family besides RIII and Edward IV. I assume they'd have taken that as well?
If someone really wanted to say The Duke of Clarence, I don't see why not...
I can see someone very familiar with the play blurting that out either to show off or else just from having played the role. The problem is Alex probably only has Richard III on his card and it would be rejected and someone else might get the rebound. They would have to give you credit later, but still someone else would have earned money they shouldn't have.
Why "shouldn't have"? If both Clarence and Richard are correct answers, then they should both get credit if that situation arises, right? (I always imagine that the other person's money comes from the writer's paycheque who was responsible for not pinning down the question to one answer. )
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
I said shouldn't have because the alternate answer should have been taken to begin with. Eddie's lesser known brother is something one could easily look up in a 30 second trip to Wikipedia. But I can see a writer just knowing about Richard III without bothering to think that he might have had another brother who might have been in the play.