New Scaratings

Either Showdown or Brainbuster, 22 April 2014: The question asked what kind of institutions would "deaccession." Both "art museum" and "library" were choices, and both would be correct. I would suggest removing "library" if you want to keep "art museum" as the preferred answer.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

We had a problem with that one as well. One instructor and an English major were a bit bothered with the choices, but I told them it isn't unusual to have more than one correct answer.

_________________
Middle age is when a broad mind and a slim waist exchange places.

One of the World War I category questions on Showdown 6/3 asked what the Schlieffen Plan was. Buzztime's answer was that it was a two-front strategy. Actually, the Schlieffen Plan was designed to avoid France's string of defensive fortresses known as the Maginot Line. Germany would invade France by going around the line and through neutral Belgium. This was decidedly a one-front strategy.
XT

That one bothered us, too. None of the other answers was remotely in the ballpark, so we bled a few points before landing there. That question needs to be scrapped or have a much different answer.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

They're right.

Keep enough troops on the east to keep Russia away.
Load it up in the west to defeat France quickly.
Then send an apology to Belgium, and the troops to the east to finish off Russia.

The Schlieffen Plan was most assuredly a two-front strategic contingency first implemented in WWI. It was basically: hammer the French into submission ASAP and then go east against the Russians. Between the French counter-offensive and the Russian response time, it couldn't be executed properly.

The Schlieffen plan called for an extended front sweeping through the low countries years before the Maginot Line even began construction. The French started on Maginot in the 30s.

I suspect the similarity of tactical execution has led to some conflation here, xtrain.

A question in Six today required us to match the home appliance to the amount of kilowatt-hours it uses. Of course, kilowatt-hours is a unit of energy, as watts is energy per time, multiplied by time to give energy. The amount of kilowatt-hours used by an appliance would depend on how long you use it for, so it makes no sense to try to rank things on how much energy they consume, not per unit time, but total.

And during that same game they asked us to match the literary crimefighter with his or her station in life. James Bond was matched with "M16 agent". Funny, I thought he used a handgun. Looks like somebody mistook the capital I for a one.

And then there was the hockey question in which all three answers were equally wrong.

In regard to the Schlieffen plan, this is what it says on Wikipedia, which matches my recollection of my European history class:

The Schlieffen Plan (German: Schlieffen-Plan, pronounced [ʃliːfən plaːn]) was one of the German General Staff's early-20th-century war-plans. It was adopted as Deployment Plan Aufmarsch I in 1905 and modeled an isolated Franco-German war in which Russia would not attack Germany, but Italy and Austria-Hungary might help attack France. As it was assumed that France would be on the defensive in such a war, since her forces would be outnumbered, Aufmarsch I stated that Germany would have to go on the offensive if she wanted to end the war (on favourable terms). Aufmarsch I thus deployed Germany's entire army on the German-Belgian border in anticipation of an offensive into France through Belgium and trusted that Italian and Austro-Hungarian troops would defend Alsace-Lorraine. While the plan did not anticipate swift or immediate victory and had no set timetable, it did envisage forcing the smaller French Army into a Decisive Battle in which much of it would be destroyed, increasing the German Army's superiority for further operations which would eventually see the total defeat of France.|

A smidge farther down on that Wiki article, xt:

"German Deployment Plans, 1905–1914

Aufmarsch I - isolated Franco-German war, perhaps with Germany's allies helping her out (Italians attack on Franco-Italian border and both Italy and Austria-Hungary send forces to Germany). France will be on the defensive because she will be grossly outnumbered, so to bring about a (favorable) end to the war Germany (and her allies) will have to attack her. Operational Plan after the deployment of the entire German Army in the west is to launch an offensive through Belgium-Luxembourg with most of the German Army and rely on the Austro-Hungarian and Italian forces to hold the fortresses along the (pre-war) Franco-German border. Aufmarsch I West looks less and less likely to be used as strength of Franco-Russian alliance is made clear and Britain aligns herself with France, making Italy unwilling to support Germany. It is scrapped as it becomes clear that an isolated Franco-German war is an impossibility, and that Germany's allies won't help her even if it did happen somehow.

Aufmarsch II West - War between Franco-Russian Entente and Germany, with Britain maybe assisting the Entente and Germany's allies (Austria-Hungary, Italy so long as Britain doesn't join France) maybe helping her. 80% of German Army in west, 20% in east. France and Russia will attack because they have the larger force, so Germany will be on the defensive in at least the first operation/campaign of the war and execute a counter-offensive against the French offensive when it comes - but instead of pursuing retreating French force, 1/4 of German force in west (20% of total German force) will transfer to east to launch counter-offensive against Russian offensive. Aufmarsch II West becomes the main German deployment plan as Germany's strategic situation worsens in the immediate pre-war years. Aufmarsch II West is implemented in August 1914 but using the overall strategy of Aufmarsch I, as noted by Holmes."

BT probably would have been better served by rephrasing the question and simply asking whose plan was used by the Germans in WWI which would have alleviated this sort of scenario. Of course, knowing those kids, they likely would have included Von Moltke as a distractor and we'd be having this discussion for a completely different reason.

You're right, but Aufmarsch 2 was no longer the Schlieffen Plan. It was the Von Moltke Plan.

'There was an exquisite Buzztime foulup in the 2PM ESTCountdown.

The question was. essentially, "What did the Gettysburg Address refer to?"

The potential answers were "July 5, 1776", "January 1, 1863" and several other outliers. Buzztime declared the correct answer to be "January 1, 1863."

Err, did not President Lincoln say "Four score and seven years ago, our Founding Fathers declared that all men were created equal, and..."

While President Lincoln was a great man and is an American icon, I don't think he would have thought 87 years ago was winter of that same year ...

Another excellent matching question in Six last night required us to "Match the rock with its description." The descriptions were "light colored," "dark colored," "glass like," and "fine grained," and the choices were Pumice, Scoria, Basalt, and Obsidian. I'm no rock expert, but that sure seems like a lousy question to me when at least 3 of the 4 rocks had multiple correct answers to chose from.

Playback, 6/28/14, # round. A question asked what was Michael Jackson's first posthumous album. The answer was not his *first* posthumous album. The word first should be removed from the question

Also featured in last night's playback, In Tuned Up round The factoid said Prince penned the Sheena Easton "Sugar Hills"

SUGAR HILLS???? NOT!!!! It's Sugar Walls

_________________
Mitch (MTCHWF/WLFFLY)

Co-Home Bar: Buffalo Wild Wings Edwardsville, IL and Time Out in St Louis, MO

Whatever I wrote apparently didn't take. w\What I meant topost was that the Gettysburg Address was on November 19 1863. The Emancipation proclamation was effective on January 1 1863.

KAYFAB, our Librarian in Residence at the Tailgate, whose gigs have taken him to Buffalo NY, Houston TX, and more obscure points on the American compass, informed the other inmates that the term used by librarians is the slangy, "Weeding." He has never heard of "deaccessioning" in a professional context. Of course the art market is far more volatile and generally more expensive than the printed page: one might infer the relative dignity of the two terms has value on the bottom line.

Sorry this arrives so late in the day.

M-W:

pu·sil·lan·i·mous adjective \-ˈla-nə-məs\
: weak and afraid of danger

Full Definition of PUSILLANIMOUS

: lacking courage and resolution : marked by contemptible timidity
— pu·sil·lan·i·mous·ly adverb
See pusillanimous defined for English-language learners »
See pusillanimous defined for kids »
Examples of PUSILLANIMOUS

<pusillanimous politicians who vote according to whichever way the political wind is blowing>
Origin of PUSILLANIMOUS

Late Latin pusillanimis, from Latin pusillus very small (diminutive of pusus boy) + animus spirit; perhaps akin to Latin puer child — more at puerile, animate
First Known Use: 15th century
Related to PUSILLANIMOUS

Synonyms
chicken, chickenhearted, chicken-livered, craven, dastardly, gutless, lily-livered, milk-livered [archaic], poltroon, cowardly, recreant, spineless, unheroic, yellow




OED

Definition of pusillanimous in English:
pusillanimous
Syllabification: pu·sil·lan·i·mous
Pronunciation: /ˌpyo͞osəˈlanəməs /
ADJECTIVE

Showing a lack of courage or determination; timid.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
Derivatives

pusillanimity
Pronunciation: /-ləˈnimətē/
NOUN
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
pusillanimously
ADVERB
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
Origin

late Middle English: from ecclesiastical Latin pusillanimis (translating Greek olugopsukhos), from pusillus 'very small' + animus 'mind', + -ous.


SO....How in the name of all that is fucking holy did BT define it, in Showdown of all places, as lacking principles? That isn't even a trademark Lexitopia definition number 4 stretch. It's just plain fucking wrong. My principles could include not getting killed. Some of the most vicious hoodlums in history lacked principles by definition, but were also by definition more than willing to physically fight. Principles? Really? Twats. This is what comes from actively seeking out people not interested in trivia and knowledge as staff members. Nobody who'd ever cracked a book beyond Dick and Jane would have made that mistake.

_________________
Please forgive any strange typos or grammar errors. I am typically using voice recognition software to enter text, and sometimes editing works differently from how I expect.

I'm a retired librarian. In my experience, deaccessioning is sometimes used, though weeding is more common.

"SO....How in the name of all that is fucking holy did BT define it, in Showdown of all places, as lacking principles?" - Rhino

That's an eloquent deliquescence, Dave. Why can't I have meltdowns like yours? During the reign of King Bill, maybe 1997, Showdown had a definition question, the subject I've forgotten, but failing to find the definition in Webster's Unabridged, and well aware that there was a homographic French cognate, which sounds racy but none will admit to it, I consulted Cassell's New French, where the Showdown writer had placed his money on a 5th variant, not altogether in keeping with the previous four - rather as if bond-bearers, torchbearers, and Barry Bonds, all suddenly gave way to an infuriated herbivore. Your horn is too sharp for more intimate inspection. Decision for the plaintiff.

I'd like to grab a two-fer here and thank Ranger on the deaccession of excessively subtle questions. Can Ranger recall where and when his library may have required deaccessioning? Wait! Doesn't Ranger live in Wisconsin, where they refer to water fountains as bubblers?

Although I enjoyed tonight's Topix, World Cup Review, at least one mistake was made. The very first question (or one of them at any rate) asked which country Brazil played in the first group stage game. The answer, of course was Croatia. But the factoid stated the final score as 2-1; the actual score was 3-1.

-- RWM

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

We had the same response to this, thanks for remembering to mention this here.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

I'm not a librarian, but I deal with them regularly (including one who occasionally plays with the team). They have assured me that this is a term they use.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."