The 2009 broadsheet letter writing challenge

I regret to announce that Joel W. Courtney stormed to victory in last year’s competition, squeezing out Nicholas Broadbent by 120 points, with Sue Brian running a close third.

Here are the rules for the third annual broadsheet letter writing challenge:

1. Items published in a broadsheet newspaper receive one point per word.
2. If you have two items published in the same paper on the same day, you receive a 2x multiplier. Three items receives a 3x multiplier and so on.
3. You receive 0.5 points per word in any response to your item (your name must be specifically mentioned).
4. You cannot enter if your name is Sandra K. Eckersley from Marrickville.
5. To claim points, you need to blockquote your published contribution into the comments section of this page. You should also stick it on your fridge door as proof that you didn’t just make the whole thing up.
6. New rule (“diminishing returns”): your second item published in the same section of a paper will only receive 90% of the points, then 80% for the third, and 70% for the fourth and subsequent articles. Diversify, people!

Leaderboard

Joel Courtney, Haberfield: 77 points
Phillip Brian, Newtown: 74 points

7 Comments

• 

  By Foster , January 8, 2009 @ 3:52 am

  Are the results declared null and void in absence of any entrants who are not Joel W Courtney? it seems to be an annual occurrence.

  Although I do love the extensive use of the rhetorical question!
• 

  By Joel , January 9, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

  Ha! I win for once

  I didn’t win the ‘07 challenge iirc.
• 

  By stu , February 25, 2009 @ 9:55 am

  For Phil:

  “I propose that the difference between sacks and bags has nothing to do with size,” suggests Phillip Brian of Newtown (Column 8, yesterday). “A sack is slung over or hoisted onto your shoulder, whereas a bag is carried arms-downward. Please send my regards to all ladies sporting expensive designer hand-sacks.”

  50 points!
• 

  By Joel , March 1, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

  From 21 January:

  Super blooper
  Nano Burke (Letters, January 21) seems to believe that the 9 per cent superannuation contribution by employers is a donation. In fact it is part of an employee’s salary. If the government did not mandate superannuation, that 9 per cent would form part of the take-home salary, not retirement savings.
  Joel Courtney, Haberfield

  47 points
• 

  By Joel , May 27, 2009 @ 9:11 am

  Marcus Coleman (Letters, May 26) would be providing a sound argument but for one fatal flaw: SCEGGS, unlike the judiciary or the Independent Commission Against Corruption, is a private institution.

  Joel Courtney Haberfield

  +30 to moi
• 

  By stu , October 15, 2009 @ 9:06 am

  For Phil:

  So Leslie Kemeny dismisses the established – and economically viable – renewable energy sector as ”pseudo-science” while spruiking the environmental friendliness of nuclear energy. Now I have seen everything.
• 

  By Joel , January 20, 2010 @ 9:04 am

  I win!

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment