NYT Spelling Bee 11-19-20 final

Hello from Day 1 of the current Los Angeles curfew! I almost missed writing this Spelling Bee post for reasons that you’ll read about in this upcoming Tuesday’s woodworking blog post. I like that I have a special Tuesday series. I write it Monday or something and set it to post at 10am Tuesday.

But you’re here to read about the Spelling Bee, so I’m going to stick to that.

I found today’s pangram as the second word. Big change from yesterday when I felt I’d never find it. You know, until I did find it. But it got close.

The word NEGGING was not in word list.

It’s so meta!

I literally got out of bed to go to my computer to take this screenshot and post it minutes into the Spelling Bee’s release. It got pretty good response, so that says a lot of good things about the people out there.

Yesterday I only missed two words. I should have gotten melon, especially because Geoff Mellon is recently a father to yet another kid (mazal tov to him), but also because it’s a word I know.

On the other hand, I never would have gotten
NEWELL: The central supporting pillar of a spiral or winding staircase.

Today started easy but then got to dragging. Fought through to the end and satisfied with the result.

Final score: 26 words for 136 points.
Genius minimum: 122 points.
First word: EXPUNGE
Pangram: EXPUNGING
Breakthrough word: UNPEGGING

Oh snap! Update! I realized ENNUI is a thing.
Final final score: 27 words for 141 points.

Second update! If ENNUI then INNIE!
Final final final score: 28 words for 146 points.

Missed opportunities: NEGGING, NEXI (plural of nexus?)

This entry was posted in NYT Spelling Bee, Other Games and tagged , , , , on by .

About raabidfun

I'm a guy living the #raabidfun lifestyle. I figured I would create a blog about crossword puzzles I do. The idea is to do the NYT crossword and the WSJ crossword daily as much as I can. That includes when I don't finish and have clearly failed. They can be difficult. Also I am not an attorney, and any legal analysis in this blog reflects my interpretation, which means it can be flawed and should not be relied upon for use in legal matters (especially against me).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s