LL Season 94

[This Is Kirk!]

I pulled out a sneaky 6(4)-6(5) tie yesterday mainly because my opponent strangely gave me three points for Brittany Griner (he got zero from me for that one).

It seems that a number of people (somewhat) intentionally got that one wrong, due to indignation about the question content. Nose, say goodbye to face.

Yeah, that's a very strange take to me.

[GaryG]

I pulled out a sneaky 6(4)-6(5) tie yesterday mainly because my opponent strangely gave me three points for Brittany Griner (he got zero from me for that one).

It seems that a number of people (somewhat) intentionally got that one wrong, due to indignation about the question content. Nose, say goodbye to face.

Who said they intentionally got it wrong? No one on the LL Message board is claiming that. Is there some other venue I'm missing?

[This Is Kirk!]

I pulled out a sneaky 6(4)-6(5) tie yesterday mainly because my opponent strangely gave me three points for Brittany Griner (he got zero from me for that one).

It seems that a number of people (somewhat) intentionally got that one wrong, due to indignation about the question content. Nose, say goodbye to face.

Who said they intentionally got it wrong? No one on the LL Message board is claiming that. Is there some other venue I'm missing?

I haven't seen anyone claim that, but at least one person claims to have been led astray because they assumed it couldn't be about Brittney Griner since her Russian legal problems weren't mentioned (and that not mentioning those problems somehow made the question tone deaf). To me it was a classic LL question. Thorsten intentionally omitted some information so that the answer wasn't handed to us on a silver platter.

[Sherm]

Always happy to do my part even if it meant nothing overall: https://www.learnedleague.com/oneday/cl ... &Serengeti

I can tell you I would have done a whole lot more of my part had I chosen one of the Traveling Wilburys, rather than writing "Wilbury" and making it a money question. I looked at the questions Saturday, but didn't answer until Monday. I knew that one cold, and I guess I really didn't read what they were asking for.

[Sherm]

Usually 5 correct is good for a win in D rundle, but not yesterday.

I had heard the story about Griner being imprisoned in Russia, but I was never going to remember her name.

I am 6th in TCA in my rundle and have the best defensive percentage, but have the second most CAA and am only 3 spots above the relegation zone.

I haven't been doing this very long, but I started 0-3-1 in my C rundle. It had a lot to do with my opponents hitting on 21 of the first 24 questions. My tie was 9(6). I see that in the A rundle, but in the C.

Since then, I've answered fewer questions right most every day from those first four matches, and over that last 11 matches I'm 6-0-5, and have worked my way up to 5th, but I'm two points out of first. I've finished 4th in my first two seasons. The LearnedLeague Gods do not want me in the B rundle. I'm due to have some guys start answering 5 and 6 right against me again for about 4 days in a row.

[Bamaman]

I pulled out a sneaky 6(4)-6(5) tie yesterday mainly because my opponent strangely gave me three points for Brittany Griner (he got zero from me for that one).

It seems that a number of people (somewhat) intentionally got that one wrong, due to indignation about the question content. Nose, say goodbye to face.

Who said they intentionally got it wrong? No one on the LL Message board is claiming that. Is there some other venue I'm missing?

I haven't seen anyone claim that, but at least one person claims to have been led astray because they assumed it couldn't be about Brittney Griner since her Russian legal problems weren't mentioned (and that not mentioning those problems somehow made the question tone deaf). To me it was a classic LL question. Thorsten intentionally omitted some information so that the answer wasn't handed to us on a silver platter.

I didn't get all the hand wringing over it either. A subtle hint was that it mentioned her 2021 accomplishments but said nothing about 2022.

Her story is current events and fair game for LL. I don't see how using her in a question is disrespectful unless you are one of those people who is looking to be offended by something.

[mahatma]

I pulled out a sneaky 6(4)-6(5) tie yesterday mainly because my opponent strangely gave me three points for Brittany Griner (he got zero from me for that one).

It seems that a number of people (somewhat) intentionally got that one wrong, due to indignation about the question content. Nose, say goodbye to face.

Who said they intentionally got it wrong? No one on the LL Message board is claiming that. Is there some other venue I'm missing?

I’m paraphrasing, but it was something along the lines of ‘I put Breanna Stewart because I refused to believe the Commish would write this question about Brittney Griner.’

[alietr]

I pulled out a sneaky 6(4)-6(5) tie yesterday mainly because my opponent strangely gave me three points for Brittany Griner (he got zero from me for that one).

It seems that a number of people (somewhat) intentionally got that one wrong, due to indignation about the question content. Nose, say goodbye to face.

Who said they intentionally got it wrong? No one on the LL Message board is claiming that. Is there some other venue I'm missing?

I’m paraphrasing, but it was something along the lines of ‘I put Breanna Stewart because I refused to believe the Commish would write this question about Brittney Griner.’

Why wouldn't Thorsten write a question about her? This isn't making any sense to me.

[mahatma]

Why wouldn't Thorsten write a question about her? This isn't making any sense to me.

More that he wouldn't be so horrible as to write a question about her that does not focus on (or maybe just acknowledge) her current imprisonment.

[Volante]

Why wouldn't Thorsten write a question about her? This isn't making any sense to me.

More that he wouldn't be so horrible as to write a question about her that does not focus on (or maybe just acknowledge) her current imprisonment.

I feel like he's done this other times in the past: pick a figure with a MAJOR fact, and instead dig up 3-4 minor to trivial details to build the question around. I have no idea how I'd find examples other than looking through past questions one at a time though which is way too much work.

[Sherm]

I thought AT40 was based on Billboards top songs for the week. Apparently not.

It used to be back in the classic era with Casey Kasem, but now it uses proprietary lists that are compiled by Mediabase, presumably based primarily on radio airplay.

"Superfreaky Girl" just hit the charts at number 32 this week on AT40.

[This Is Kirk!]

Why wouldn't Thorsten write a question about her? This isn't making any sense to me.

More that he wouldn't be so horrible as to write a question about her that does not focus on (or maybe just acknowledge) her current imprisonment.

Right, the person who felt the question was inappropriate believes by not mentioning her Russian legal troubles, the question is demeaning and/or trivializing the situation. I think I'd agree if the omission was an attempt to whitewash the story, but it's clearly not.

[Volante]

Thank you potential rail strike. I almost had both, made it as far as 'energy', which didn't feel quite right but in the ballpark, but almost wouldn't have cut it.

Now if someone above me would kindly lose (while I similarly don't...) I'll be mostly back to where I started this season!

[Woof]

A rare experience for me: a 9(6)-8(4) win My defense has been sorely lacking this season, but still…

[This Is Kirk!]

I blame J! for missing Alien yesterday. I saw the word "singular" and thought "Aha, must be Black Hole!" I knew that tag line seemed wrong, but for some reason I forgot all about Alien.

[MinnesotaMyron]

I blame J! for missing Alien yesterday. I saw the word "singular" and thought "Aha, must be Black Hole!" I knew that tag line seemed wrong, but for some reason I forgot all about Alien.

I figured "singular" was to help lead people away from putting "Aliens", which I had to double-check myself.

[This Is Kirk!]

I blame J! for missing Alien yesterday. I saw the word "singular" and thought "Aha, must be Black Hole!" I knew that tag line seemed wrong, but for some reason I forgot all about Alien.

I figured "singular" was to help lead people away from putting "Aliens", which I had to double-check myself.

Yes, that was the intent. I interpreted it wrong.

[StevenH]

I had a rough start to the week, going 0-3-1, but yesterday I pulled out a 6(4)-5(4) win and got myself out of the relegation zone.

Somehow it took me a few hours to pull out the Parthenon. I don't know why I couldn't remember the name of that famous building that is located on the Acropolis. I was about to guess Erechtheum, but the name of the more famous building came to me right at the last second.

I got lucky on the trapeze question, as "aerial apparatus" made me think of trapeze right away. I knew that there was a bone called the trapezium, so I was confident, but if you had asked me before I saw the question I couldn't have told you what part of the body the trapezium is located in.

My college roommates were obsessed with The Office, but I never got into it. I knew that there was a character named Pam, so I guessed her. No luck there, but at least my opponent gave me a 1 for that question and I made the right call by giving them a 0 for it.

"Smoking gun" was my other miss. I feel like I should have been able to come up with that one.

[econgator]

My college roommates were obsessed with The Office, but I never got into it. I knew that there was a character named Pam, so I guessed her.

Same. I know the names Michael Scott, Dwight Schrute, and Pam. Pretty sure the first two are in sales, so that left one, wrong as it may be.

[Woof]

The smoking gun question gave me fits. At first, diehard Sherlickian that I am, I had the murder scene from a different Sherlock Holmes story (Black Peter) in mind and couldn’t puzzle out a relevant cliche. Eventually, I realized my error and got the correct story in mind, but then realized that there was no murder: the mystery was in the letter that caused its elderly reader to suffer a stroke. After several minutes of consternation, I then remembered the details of the incident aboard the Gloria Scott, as told in a letter that the dead man left for his son, that did involve a homicide, and got to the correct answer. After all that effort, I put a 2 on it for defense, but my opponent got it too.