[Rosie] No, I think, surely, you would find that the Moon is the same size in the sky no matter whether it's high or low. After all, it only takes a few hours for it to rise or set - it's not going to change in apparent size as it does so. The apparent growth of the Moon when near the horizon is of course some kind of psychological effect.

The reason the Moon has been looking even bigger than usual near the horizon this week is that full moon has coincided (almost) with midsummer. The Moon is full when it is opposite the sun in the sky. The sun is at its highest at midsummer. Therefore, if the Moon is full at midsummer, it will be as close to the horizon as it ever gets whilst being full. Therefore the "Mendex" or Moon Illusion is at its strongest.

When I say that the Moon doesn't change in apparent size while rising or setting, I mean that the area of sky that it covers surely doesn't change. Obviously its apparent size does change because it looks bigger closer to the horizon, but it extends over the same arc of the sky (and indeed of the retina).

The moon should appear to be smaller when on the horizon than when at the zenith. Reason? It is further away when viewed at a tangent to the Earth's surface than from a perpendicular. This slight change is measurable though unlikely to be noticed by a casual observer.
Why we generally perceive a full moon to be larger on its rising as opposed to when it is high in the sky has often been said to be as a result of it being in proximity to our more normally observed everyday horizon (trees, buildings, horizon line) than when it's clear of such. In other words the sense of scale becomes more evident.

(Breadmaster) Dujon has explained what I meant by the "geometrical effect". The moon is measurably about 1.7% larger in apparent diameter when overhead than when on the horizon, other things being equal. We're simply closer to it when it's overhead. The same applies to the sun, strictly speaking, but as the distance of the sun is 23500 earth radii the effect is barely measurable even with instruments.

reference is made to: http://petergreenaway.co.uk/games.htm

Many of the films of Peter Greenaway, at least the feature films that I have seen, have the structure of games. The best example is probably Drowning by Numbers. I have only recently discovered MC and I find the similarity to Hangman's Cricket to be striking. Does anyone know whether Greenaway has played MC?

[Rosie] Sorry to steal your thunder, old son, but Breadmaster's comment had been sitting for quite a few hours without response.
[Effable] Hello. I cannot answer your question but, on the law of averages, my guess would be 'yes'. The reason for that is that I believe I'm the only person on Earth who hasn't played a serious game of M.C..

(Duj) No problem, mate. I've never played MC, either live or on these sites. It is essentially a performance in which the audience and panel enter into a mutual conspiracy about the complexity of the rules. Very few people I know have ever heard of it, which is rather disappointing. You could go up to anyone over the age of about 40 in this country and say "Bal-ham", and the almost instantaneous response would be "Gateway to the South", but say "Mornington Crescent" and you'd get mostly blank looks.