20 Questions - Game 73

[JECE]

"Pretending".

Sure.

Just wait 'til the young'un comes back from finals or whatever young'uns do. You'll see!

[Kakarroto]

a) Jamie, you missed my free guess in your summary, just to be sure it would be good to include it in the next one

b) I don't think that list is good, damo. It might be a current list, but many, many prominent names aren't included in it and I think Jamie would not choose one of those. Maybe Brock Lesnar. A better question would be 'is this person or has this person ever been part of the WWE', at least in my opinion. But it might be too late to change it.

[Jamiet99uk]

Does he appear on this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_personnel

?

No he does not.

[Jamiet99uk]

Apologies to Kak:

Not: Mike Tyson
Not: Hulk Hogan
Not: The Rock
Not: Jonathan Paul Koppenhaver

[Jamiet99uk]

ONE QUESTION LEFT

I will give a clue: You are definitely on the right lines.

[supi13]

Will you give us an extra question to compensate for the 1900-1909 confusion? It's pretty obvious what the intention was, even IF the questioner wasn't technically correct.

(Btw, please don't count this as one of the 20 questions, haha.)

[supi13]

ONE QUESTION LEFT

I will give a clue: You are definitely on the right lines.

I think this is meant to suggest that the person in question does a lot of climbing and jumping off those ropes that encircle the ring :p

[Jamiet99uk]

Will you give us an extra question to compensate for the 1900-1909 confusion? It's pretty obvious what the intention was, even IF the questioner wasn't technically correct.

(Btw, please don't count this as one of the 20 questions, haha.)

I don't feel I should have to, because I did not create that confusion, and I took steps to point out your (collective) error when I realised you had made it. However, I'll see how generous I'm feeling, after Question 20 is asked.

[Bonatogether]

Will you give us an extra question to compensate for the 1900-1909 confusion? It's pretty obvious what the intention was, even IF the questioner wasn't technically correct.

(Btw, please don't count this as one of the 20 questions, haha.)

I don't feel I should have to, because I did not create that confusion, and I took steps to point out your (collective) error when I realised you had made it. However, I'll see how generous I'm feeling, after Question 20 is asked.

i feel like this is a little cheap. if i went to most people i know and started talking about someone who lived in the 1900s, they'd understand i was referring to the set of four-digit years that start with 19

[Bonatogether]

although the question is a little moot, as the set of people who it could be who were born after 1999 is vanishingly small

[damo666]

Zzzzz

[Jamiet99uk]

Will you give us an extra question to compensate for the 1900-1909 confusion? It's pretty obvious what the intention was, even IF the questioner wasn't technically correct.

(Btw, please don't count this as one of the 20 questions, haha.)

I don't feel I should have to, because I did not create that confusion, and I took steps to point out your (collective) error when I realised you had made it. However, I'll see how generous I'm feeling, after Question 20 is asked.

i feel like this is a little cheap. if i went to most people i know and started talking about someone who lived in the 1900s, they'd understand i was referring to the set of four-digit years that start with 19

If I said "the 1930's" what would you think I meant? A 100-year period starting in 1930 and ending on 31st December 2029?

[Octavious]

In fairness the 1900s is typically understood to mean the 100 years, and if I was intending to mean just the 10 I'd specify the next decade.

Of course I am a firm believer that the game should be played sneakily where possible, and so for creating confusion and spreading disinformation without being remotely dishonest I warmly congratulate you

[JECE]

I don't feel I should have to, because I did not create that confusion, and I took steps to point out your (collective) error when I realised you had made it. However, I'll see how generous I'm feeling, after Question 20 is asked.

i feel like this is a little cheap. if i went to most people i know and started talking about someone who lived in the 1900s, they'd understand i was referring to the set of four-digit years that start with 19

If I said "the 1930's" what would you think I meant? A 100-year period starting in 1930 and ending on 31st December 2029?

Don't be obtuse. 1930 is not divisible by 100.

The young'un has spoken. You were mistaken, "cheap", even. Own up!

[JECE]

In fairness the 1900s is typically understood to mean the 100 years, and if I was intending to mean just the 10 I'd specify the next decade.

Of course I am a firm believer that the game should be played sneakily where possible, and so for creating confusion and spreading disinformation without being remotely dishonest I warmly congratulate you

Thanks for confirming that this isn't a quirk of British English, ha ha.

[Bonatogether]

I don't feel I should have to, because I did not create that confusion, and I took steps to point out your (collective) error when I realised you had made it. However, I'll see how generous I'm feeling, after Question 20 is asked.

i feel like this is a little cheap. if i went to most people i know and started talking about someone who lived in the 1900s, they'd understand i was referring to the set of four-digit years that start with 19

If I said "the 1930's" what would you think I meant? A 100-year period starting in 1930 and ending on 31st December 2029?

that's not the common meaning of the 1930s

[Jamiet99uk]

Look, are you people going to have your 20th question, or not?

[Jamiet99uk]

Questionmaster Note:

In view of your apparent confusion about the difference between a decade and a century, I will generously permit a 21st question.

Y'a'wll ain't gettin' any moar clues though.

[Doug7878]

Free guess:
George Foreman

[dargorygel]

Free Guess: Gorgeous George