krista4
Footballguy
Were you mixing it with Pappy's?
Wasn't it something even worse, like RC Cola or something?

Were you mixing it with Pappy's?
Or Yoo Hoo, maybe? No, I think you're right - it was RC. I can't even remember who did it.Wasn't it something even worse, like RC Cola or something?I can't remember.
1 You Can't Do That 84
2 She's A Woman 107
3 Golden Slumbers Medley 3
4 Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da 50
5 Being For The Benefit 101
6 Magical Mystery Tour 94
7 Paperback Writer 47
8 Getting Better 130
9 Drive My Car 62
10 Taxman 22
11 No Reply 70
12 Good Morning Good Morning 113
13 I Am The Walrus 33
14 Fixing A Hole 98
15 Hello Goodbye 56
16 Run For You Life 122
17 Baby, I'm A Rich Man 156
18 Dizzy Miss Lizzy 157
19 I'm Looking Through You 66
20 Lady Madonna 77
21 I Feel Fine 51
22 I'm Down 97
23 Old Brown Shoe 147
24 Roll Over Beethoven 150
25 Hey Bulldog 30
I haven't kept up so don't know the timeline for everything (ie when people posted their lists). Here's what I submitted. I don't know where I ended up on the anti-chalk rankings, but I only had two songs in the Top 25.
1 You Can't Do That 84
2 She's A Woman 107
3 Golden Slumbers Medley 3
4 Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da 50
5 Being For The Benefit 101
6 Magical Mystery Tour 94
7 Paperback Writer 47
8 Getting Better 130
9 Drive My Car 62
10 Taxman 22
11 No Reply 70
12 Good Morning Good Morning 113
13 I Am The Walrus 33
14 Fixing A Hole 98
15 Hello Goodbye 56
16 Run For You Life 122
17 Baby, I'm A Rich Man 156
18 Dizzy Miss Lizzy 157
19 I'm Looking Through You 66
20 Lady Madonna 77
21 I Feel Fine 51
22 I'm Down 97
23 Old Brown Shoe 147
24 Roll Over Beethoven 150
25 Hey Bulldog 30
no, 89 points. 1 point for #172. 172 points for #1. #84 would get 89 points. All of these combos (Binky confused) always add up to 173.@Getzlaf15 while we're in a bit of a lull ...chalky scoring question
would anarchy get 83 chalk pts for his #1 song "You Can't Do That" since the group ranking was 84?
Just curious where I ended up in the chalk / non-chalk rankings.no, 89 points. 1 point for #172. 172 points for #1. #84 would get 89 points. All of these combos (Binky confused) always add up to 173.
no, 89 points. 1 point for #172. 172 points for #1. #84 would get 89 points. All of these combos (Binky confused) always add up to 173.
The 1-172 chalk was to measure your entire 1-25 list. Where you placed them doesn't matter.yeah, I always followed that - but if the score is supposed to measure the chalkiness" or "non-chalkiness" of our lists - why wouldn't it also matter where those songs were on the individual's rankings? (not just that it was somewhere within the top 25 list)
this is where my confusion was coming in.
Sorry to be very rude here, but I'm wondering why you can't go back a few pages and find it yourself.Just curious where I ended up in the chalk / non-chalk rankings.
Haven't been in the thread for a long time. Didn't see it. Maybe if you pointed me to the right page / spot?Sorry to be very rude here, but I'm wondering why you can't go back a few pages and find it yourself.
The 1-172 chalk was to measure your entire 1-25 list. Where you placed them doesn't matter.
And I have no idea how you would score that.
The 1-25 list I guess is more reflective of what you are looking for.
1. I don't see how that makes any sense. Why should your Top 10's on that spreadsheet get 0, 2, 1 points? Those songs should get the most points. I guess this is where the most/least schtick came from and this all has to be considered schtick at this point.no criticism - it was a follow up to my earlier question
just trying to understand
it's more work, no doubt
btw - you would score it by taking the difference between the raw score (Getz score) and the #rank in the individual's list.
example:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16U8m5SqoV2iQQL0KlVLzbTEG0SBgwNlVihWCx4sByys/edit?usp=sharing
Page 72. You were the least chalkiest.Haven't been in the thread for a long time. Didn't see it. Maybe if you pointed me to the right page / spot?
Thanks for helping those too lazy to scroll back five pages.Page 72. You were the least chalkiest.
1. I don't see how that makes any sense. Why should your Top 10's on that spreadsheet get 0, 2, 1 points? Those songs should get the most points. I guess this is where the most/least schtick came from and this all has to be considered schtick at this point.
2. That would take forever to enter every vote for every song and likely would be riddled with input errors.
Thanks for that explanation. I think.I wasn't arguing for any particular way getz - your way works great - and takes less calculation. Just sounds like we thinking about it in different ways.
I was trying to describe what I was thinking of how "chalkiness" would be calculated - and what prompted my initial question.
I was thinking chalkiness was directly comparing an individual's list to the group's ranking.
The song itself doesn't get points - the points are earned by the difference between the group's ranking and the individual's ranking - so the least chalkiest list would have the most points and the chalkiest would have the least.
So if a song was group ranked #1 and someone had it at #100 - they were 99 spots different than chalk - 99 pts.
If somehow someone had exactly the same rankings as the group rankings - their chalk score would be "0".
The Chalkiest of All Chalksters!!
I really haven’t followed the thread all that closely. I hadn’t really been in it for weeks. I went through multiple pages from the last time I was in the thread and didn’t see it. Then I went to the end and went back two or three pages and didn’t see it.Getzlaf15 said:Thanks for helping those too lazy to scroll back five pages.Like how hard would it be to go to OP, click on #1 song, and scroll down a few posts?
and LOL at that huge post being too hard to find. No way he he tried before.
Once again, I was (Binky: wasn’t) told there would be no math (Binky: phonics)!
Missed most of the end of this thread due to vacation and just catching up.Abbey Road Medley
2022 Ranking: 3
2022 Lists: 43
2022 Points: 816
Ranked Highest by: @simey (1) @DocHolliday (1) @neal cassady (1) @turnjose7 (1) @zamboni (1) @Dwayne Hoover (1) @shuke (1) @Ted Lange as your Bartender (1) @jwb (2) @pecorino (2) @ekbeats (2) @Uruk-Hai (3) @Dr. Octopus (3) @Binky The Doormat (3) @Pip's Invitation (3) @Dinsy Ejotuz (3) @krista4 (3) @Anarchy99 (3) @Westerberg (3)
2019 Ranking/Lists/Pts: 5/20/397
Phonics might be my favorite so farOnce again, I was (Binky: wasn’t) told there would be no math (Binky: phonics)!
Side bar . . . I submitted a trouble ticket and went back and forth with the Sports Guys and Invision tech support teams for several days. Probably a half dozen of them. Ultimately, they figured out a setting to change that was causing page loads to time out. But we all should be good to go moving forward. Thanks to all those that took on the challenge.I'm no longer getting an error message when I go to the main FFA page on my laptop and desktop (this was never a problem on my phone). That had forced me to get to FFA threads by using the search function or by clicking on a notification for a specific thread. It would have made my life a lot easier if this had been working normally when the Beatles and Zeppelin countdowns were active.
Phonics might be my favorite so far![]()
I'm no longer getting an error message when I go to the main FFA page on my laptop and desktop (this was never a problem on my phone). That had forced me to get to FFA threads by using the search function or by clicking on a notification for a specific thread. It would have made my life a lot easier if this had been working normally when the Beatles and Zeppelin countdowns were active.
I congratulated him on not including Ol’ Yowly.
One of my friends posted his top 11 covers of Beatles songs on FB. They were:
“Beatles covers, ranked:
2. Hey Jude, Wilson Pickett (if you've never heard this one, you must. It's just brilliant)
Could have sworn my son’s first words were “goo goo g'joob”. At least that’s what I’m going with.My 4 1/2 yr old grand daughter just asked me to play the "egg man" song.![]()
My son’s were “Turn me on, dead man”Could have sworn my son’s first words were “goo goo g'joob”. At least that’s what I’m going with.
playing name that tune...
Mac's 9 yr old son *whispers into his mother's ear* - I am the walrus
Mac - the walrus is Paul
9 yr old deadpanned - ...Paul is dead
When you're raising them right...and wrong..
@lardonastick list is in... One week to go...
How was it? Seems like an odd choice for a chorus.Pip's Invitation said:I’m at a major cardiology conference, my first business trip in more than 2 years. The opening ceremony ended with a virtual performance of a gay men’s chorus singing “I Will.”
Why start a sentence with "Sorry" when you obviously aren't? At least you correctly recognized your rudeness.Sorry to be very rude here, but I'm wondering why you can't go back a few pages and find it yourself.
At least this time, you didn't pretend to apologize for it. In the time it took you to post the first post here, you could have instead posted the bolded in your second post.Thanks for helping those too lazy to scroll back five pages.Like how hard would it be to go to OP, click on #1 song, and scroll down a few posts?
and LOL at that huge post being too hard to find. No way he he tried before.
Why start a sentence with "Sorry" when you obviously aren't? At least you correctly recognized your rudeness.
At least this time, you didn't pretend to apologize for it. In the time it took you to post the first post here, you could have instead posted the bolded in your second post.
This was a great thread, with the exception of the bizarre negativity about Clapton, particularly Mr. Krista's offensive take on him.
I appreciate the efforts of everyone who made the thread great, particularly the core group producing writeups, handling rankings, and publishing stats about them.
But I have to say, stuff like this takes away from it. I'm sure you don't really care about my opinion, so carry on.
In my experience, starting a sentence by saying you are sorry for what you are about to do or say means you really aren't, otherwise you wouldn't do or say it. As I pointed out, you could have used the same or fewer words and the same or less level of effort to just post a pointer, as you did in your next post.Who are you to say I wasn't sorry?
I hate being rude, and I was sorry I had to call him out in front of all of you.
At that time he had no problem finding Baker Mayfield and Colin Kap threads in the Shark pool.
He also was one of two in this thread at the beginning to ask me to create a song list with links in the op. So he knew more than most here how to find something quickly.
Yep, it's my fault he's being lazy. I'm just not one to enable lazy behavior. So my options left were to ignore it or answer the way I did. Oh well. Put it all.on me.
Thanks, and thanks for all of the effort you put into it. These recent artist-based song ranking threads have been very enjoyable.I appreciate you sending in your list and following along here.
I guess I must have glossed over this, since I'm not sure who you are talking about. Unfortunately, I am super busy at work, so I haven't been able to read all posts completely and caught up with about the last two weeks' worth today. I have focused on writeups of the songs I like the most and the comments on those. Regardless, I agree that sounds like someone who should ideally be run out of the thread.I'm not a fan of Clapton either, but that was not nearly as bad as the one person that kept trying to bait people in here to get into arguments and derailed the thread for almost two days towards the end . He also tried to do this at the beginning of the thread. He attacked Guido both times and I think it led to to him commenting less. I do appreciate the 3 or 4 others the second round that didn't fall for his bait. One person called him out for that. Why didn't anyone else?