Ten, not ten.

Last year, Britain stopped airing TV programmes via analogue signals. In the final few months leading up to the switchover to digital TV, there was a sort of genteel scramble to either replace or adapt televisions. It didn't help that many people (us included) thought for a while that we would have to buy completely new TV sets. This was something that incensed us. We don't have much in the way of money, but compared to a pensioner who has to decide whether to spend a day's money on heating or food, it's a small fortune.

In the end, all we had to do was adapt our analogue TV, push the signal through the DVD recorder and away we went. Of course, we had to pay to get someone in to show us that. Nothing we could do got us a reliable signal.

Once it was all sorted, we sat and scrolled through the channels to see what delights lay in wait.
...
...
...
...
...
Well.
What a load of crap.
I knew there was a reason I preferred reading and listening to music.
OK, so we only have Freeview, but we're not going to fork out for stuff we're not going to watch, are we? Especially as a lot of what appears to be on offer are repeats.
To me, one of the oddest channels is Challenge TV; showing repeats of game shows from days gone by. If you are of a certain age and lived in Britain at the time, then you will no doubt recall some of the weirdest notions for game show formats. Bullseye was a cross between darts and a pub quiz, and 3-2-1 asked people to make the most tangential leaps of logic to solve clues and win prizes.

There are other game shows on the channel, too. One of them pits adults against children, the premise being that adults are often less intelligent (or have less knowledge, at least) than their offspring.

When Julie saw the programme title in the listings, she seemed to take it as a very specialised challenge.

Oh deary me...

Bonus post - wot WAS the wotnot?

You may recall a post from a couple of weeks ago...

As I said at the time, "Context is everything". I'd written the Gem down but completely forgotten what the hell we were doing at the time to warrant such a situation.
Since I obviously hadn't a clue, I asked you for some help. Some of you commented on the Gem itself, others on my Facebook page. Also, some of you are either on medication or are in desperate need of some. You see, while one or two of the comments were disappointingly close to the truth,* there were also several that were bordering on inspired lunacy - or even in danger of becoming Gems in their own right.
HolzOnkel, commenting on the Gem itself wins a no-prize and a pat on the back for coming up with the most self-referential possibility - all based upon the tags/labels you'll find on the right of the page.

"Hold on - i need to put my dodgy logic on, or my loopy language will get self-aware."

Also worthy of a no-prize is Scribe, who definitely was trying to create a Gem (and wasn't doing too bad a job of it, to be honest...).

"I need to put my glasses on or my eyes will get dislocated."

Meanwhile, over on Facebook,  Michelle wins a no-prize for persistence and determination to add to the wackiness by posting a number of possibilities. She started slowly...

"I need to put my tea cozy on or my tea will get cold?"

But soon warmed up...

"I need to put my velociraptor on or my egg will get eaten?"

And finally achieved greatness with the frankly suggestive

"I need to put my lingerie or my husband will get none?"

My response to THAT one was "I dunno about that - he might think he's in for some if you DON'T wear it..."

*As I said, the truth behind the wotnots was predictably mundane - "I need to put my shoes on or my feet will get wet." Sharron and Michelle both thought that (or a close variation thereof), while back on the Gem page, Pinkshrimp was of the opinion Julie had been referring to gloves on her hands.
Hm.
I think I preferred hearing a series of 'wotnot's to the truth.
And you know what? I reckon you do too.