There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a 250,000" cottage
as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order of merit. As
you had to choose 10 items from a list of 12 AND put them in the
correct order, that's hardly a big surprise :o(

Jane
- -

remove PICKLE to reply to me

"Jane Willis"  wrote in message
news:k32761pkn89p6et7tjl54fhu9v68u22qqa@4ax.com...

> There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a 250,000" cottage
> as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order of merit. As
> you had to choose 10 items from a list of 12 AND put them in the
> correct order, that's hardly a big surprise :o(
>
> Jane
> - -
>

Thanks for that Jane - I had about 20 goes but still had a much better
chance of winning the lottery...

Jo

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:06:01 +0100, "Jo Richardson"
 wrote:


>Thanks for that Jane - I had about 20 goes but still had a much better
>chance of winning the lottery...


20 goes? You must have gained about 5lb. And now there's all that
Nutrigrain......

Isn't it about time there was a new comp on bags of salad?

Jane
- -

remove PICKLE to reply to me

"Jane Willis"  wrote in message
news:1m57611n3nbnlnqibvu72nbme6s25ooj66@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:06:01 +0100, "Jo Richardson"
>  wrote:
>
> >Thanks for that Jane - I had about 20 goes but still had a much better
> >chance of winning the lottery...
>
> 20 goes? You must have gained about 5lb. And now there's all that
> Nutrigrain......
>
> Isn't it about time there was a new comp on bags of salad?
>
> Jane
> - -
>


I did eat the half fat stuff but it was a tin at a time...no one else likes
it in my house !

Have you tried the new Nutrigrain bars ? My daughter had one from a  friend
and the honey and raisin one tastes just like other oat /muesli type
bars...none of that sickly smell... She says she's tried a fruity one with
Cranberries in and that was quite nice as well.

Jo

dam that was my banker win of the year......

shaun :)


"Jane Willis"  wrote in message 
news:k32761pkn89p6et7tjl54fhu9v68u22qqa@4ax.com...

> There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a 250,000" cottage
> as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order of merit. As
> you had to choose 10 items from a list of 12 AND put them in the
> correct order, that's hardly a big surprise :o(
>
> Jane
> - -
>
> remove PICKLE to reply to me 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:15:52 +0100, Jane Willis
 wrote:


>There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a 250,000" cottage
>as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order of merit. As
>you had to choose 10 items from a list of 12 AND put them in the
>correct order, that's hardly a big surprise :o(
>
>Jane
>- -
>
>remove PICKLE to reply to me



Hi Jane

Do you know the order they put them in? I would just like to know how
bizarre their choice was.....

spyda

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:54:19 +0100, spyda@jibergurt.com wrote:


>Hi Jane
>
>Do you know the order they put them in? I would just like to know how
>bizarre their choice was.....


1. Rolling countryside
2. walking trails
3 golden beaches
4 the moorland
5 local wildlife
6 fishing villages
7 quality of air
8 local cuisine
9 country parks
10 ideal surfing waves


the two features they did not include were Historic Castles and
Historic 
Cathedrals.

Not wildly bizarre like the Primula one but even so being on a food
product I'd have thought local cuisine would have been near the top -
doesn't everybody go to Devon for cream teas? And the moorland is
surely the biggest attraction of the lot?

Jane
- -

remove PICKLE to reply to me

wrote in message
news:g67961tf7mk6pqgfbmadoin13fnpa9cnfj@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:15:52 +0100, Jane Willis
>  wrote:
>
> >There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a 250,000" cottage
> >as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order of merit.


I find that unfair but I suppose it was "clearly" stated in the small print.

Mike

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:01:37 +0100, "Mike Terry"
 wrote:


>
> wrote in message
>news:g67961tf7mk6pqgfbmadoin13fnpa9cnfj@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:15:52 +0100, Jane Willis
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a 250,000" cottage
>> >as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order of merit.
>
>I find that unfair but I suppose it was "clearly" stated in the small print.
>


It was clearly stated but I still think promotions like this, designed
so that the most likely outcome is not giving anything at all away,
are very unfair and the more of us who complain to the ISP about them
the better!

Your comments should go to complaints@isp.org

Jane

- -

remove PICKLE to reply to me

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:18:48 +0100, Jane Willis wrote:


> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:01:37 +0100, "Mike Terry"
>  wrote:
> 
>>
>> wrote in message
>>news:g67961tf7mk6pqgfbmadoin13fnpa9cnfj@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:15:52 +0100, Jane Willis
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a ?250,000" cottage
>>> >as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order of merit.
>>
>>I find that unfair but I suppose it was "clearly" stated in the small print.
>>
> 
> It was clearly stated but I still think promotions like this, designed
> so that the most likely outcome is not giving anything at all away,
> are very unfair and the more of us who complain to the ISP about them
> the better!


They probably took out insurance against there being a winner. This is, I
understand, quite common with comps such as those "guess the number of
ping-pong balls needed to fill a car"-type charity things they have in
shopping centres.

nog  wrote in
news:vr71igznoy4r$.v8hh7ryl4msh.dlg@40tude.net: 


> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:18:48 +0100, Jane Willis wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:01:37 +0100, "Mike Terry"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:g67961tf7mk6pqgfbmadoin13fnpa9cnfj@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:15:52 +0100, Jane Willis
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >There were no winners of the Ambrosia on-pack "win a ?250,000"
>>>> >cottage as no entrants correctly matched the judges' chosen order
>>>> >of merit. 
>>>
>>>I find that unfair but I suppose it was "clearly" stated in the small
>>>print. 
>>>
>> 
>> It was clearly stated but I still think promotions like this,
>> designed so that the most likely outcome is not giving anything at
>> all away, are very unfair and the more of us who complain to the ISP
>> about them the better!
> 
> They probably took out insurance against there being a winner. This
> is, I understand, quite common with comps such as those "guess the
> number of ping-pong balls needed to fill a car"-type charity things
> they have in shopping centres.


Yes, and I seem to remember a story of a church fete or somesuch that 
didn't take out insuarance on a "roll seven sixes on seven dice and win a 
car" type thing.  Someone did roll them and of course there was no car to 
win...

According to :

>Yes, and I seem to remember a story of a church fete or somesuch that 
>didn't take out insuarance on a "roll seven sixes on seven dice and win a 
>car" type thing.  Someone did roll them and of course there was no car to 
>win...


Heh.  If it was a church fete it /must/ have been divine intervention.
You'd have thought they wouldn't need insurance.
-- 
UK Competitions: http://comps.org/

iamaran wrote:

> nog  wrote in
> news:vr71igznoy4r$.v8hh7ryl4msh.dlg@40tude.net:
>
> Yes, and I seem to remember a story of a church fete or somesuch that
> didn't take out insuarance on a "roll seven sixes on seven dice and
> win a car" type thing.  Someone did roll them and of course there was
> no car to win...


I can't decide which position is the worst, the person responsible for producing the car or the person who won it, then didn't get it.

According to :

>Yes, and I seem to remember a story of a church fete or somesuch that 
>didn't take out insuarance on a "roll seven sixes on seven dice and win a 
>car" type thing.  Someone did roll them and of course there was no car to 
>win...


Sounds a bit Father Ted

--