You Won't See This in the Goo Game
by Scott Hardie on March 17, 2007
Jeopardy! history was made yesterday: (link)
Five Replies to You Won't See This in the Goo Game
Aaron Shurtleff | March 19, 2007
Do you mean we won't see a three-way tie in the GOO game, or we won't see any of the people involved as the answer in the GOO game? ;)
That's weird! Usually someone wagers so that they will definately win if they get the question. It almost seems like a set-up...but that's just my cynical side a-talkin'!
Kris Weberg | March 19, 2007
I figure that he meant no one in the Goo Game is taking home $16,000.
Erik Bates | March 19, 2007
[hidden by author request]
Scott Hardie | March 20, 2007
All of the above.
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Milwaukee's Best
Today I learned a valuable lesson: Don't quote that line from Wayne's World about "mill-you-wock-AY" to a native of that city. It's like asking them to bring you a cheese wheel when they visit: You deserve a kick in the balls for it. I learned this while planning my visit to the city this weekend for beer, brats, Packers, and oh yeah, Matthew Preston. Go »Things I Learned About Disc Golf Today
- There are different kinds of Frisbees, like heavy ones for putting and thin ones for long drives. - There's no sweeter sound than the jangle of those chains when your disc drops in. - Yelling "fore!" Go »Scott's Pet Peeve #2519
Why do some microwaves have a convenient quick-start option if you press 1 or 2 or 3, so that they instantly start cooking with 1:00 or 2:00 or 3:00 on the clock... but DON'T have this same functionality programmed into 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, which do nothing when pressed alone? How does an engineer possess both the vision to provide the former and the lack of imagination that results in the latter? Go »Throw Out Your Caller ID
I'm all for scientific research into the paranormal, since it will benefit humankind whether the results are affirmative or negative – but apparently it's awfully hard to keep such research scientific. For instance, I never fail to be amused by ghost hunters who claim to have proven a haunting because electromagnetic readings are higher in the area, a phenomenon that has no demonstrated correlation with hauntings. And let's not even get into the ones who claim to have proven a haunting because a "psychic" said they sensed ghosts nearby. Go »Crash
Some days are so bad, you feel like you've been the only driver in a demolition derby without a car. Go »
Erik Bates | March 17, 2007
[hidden by author request]