[SM] It is not, but that's on me for not having any previous knowledge of a landform called Lord Hereford's Knob. [b] It...certainly protrudes from it, but no, more localised than that.
[blamelewis] Aye! It is indeed Arthur’s Seat. Take these bagpipes and a sturdy pair of hiking boots, and either play to the wind or chuck them off the top, I guess.
[Tuj] Not aware of any of them going by Arthur. [Raak] Not an individual. [Projoy] 25 more guesses. [Simons] Possibly, but it's not a regular part of the human diet. Also lots of people would be quite cross.
[RTG] No! [g] No! or, by a certain reading of that sentence, Yes! *the audience mutter amongst themselves about different meanings of the word 'act'* [R] No!
[B] No! [R] I think No! is the clearest answer here, though there's certainly an interpretation of that question which could yield a Yes!.*the audience, clearly a pleasantly diverse group of thinkers, politely interlocute about the meanings the words "assembly" and "together" can have*
[R] No! [P1] No! *a large proportion of the audience goes ooh!* [SM] No! Either I've forgotten it, or that's before my time... [P2] No! *a smaller number of oohs from the audience, but also some eye-rolling ;)*
[C] No! *a few audience members over-excitedly swoon* [SM] No! [P] No! So the answer would be... "not the answer"? I think what I've set is much more straightforward than that, but time will tell :D
Just passing through on my way to save something or other, and understanding the absolute necessity of the internet to satisfy this question, how about the list of all words used in this game as AOTCs?
[S] No! [P] Yes! Because... [SM] YES! *balloons and streamers shower down from the ceiling onto the audience as Simons is handed the very AOTC that's been being hunted, in one of its many (but typically mineral) forms*
I would love this to be the National Forest, which was on those brown signs as you went up the A38 north of Birmingham and could be seen as miles and miles of hedges and fields. But given the reaction to my Major Oak bid just before, I'll go for Sherwood Forest.
This was of course impossible without the help of some merry Morningtonians whom I would like to thank, and some unfeasibly good archery. So I accept this baton in the shape of an arrow and let us go on to what may be a quick round before Christmas. This one is:
[R] Yes, man-made. [C] Depends which dimensions you are talking about, both are true, and both false. Which Boolean operator that is, I don't know. [T] It's electrically powered. [S] Audience murmurs as the board displays "No".
[S] Applause as it is revealed that one of the words on the card does indeed rhyme with "ite" or "ites". I have been informed that the Boolean operator referred to above is the UM operator, where any input can give any output.
[G] Yes! Audience goes wild for goldfinch. [R] Also yes, but now no longer relevant. So, goldfinch, take this multicoloured bayon, and, obeying the filter signals, turn right to greater things!
I failed to see what could possibly be more fascinating than the Grimaldi scaled squid, named after Prince Albert of Monaco, who was a fan and of whom it formed much of the after-dinner conversation. Lettuce carry on. Is it benthic?
I reckon you should give that to goldfinch. All the Magnapinnidae unknown from specimens which are well under a meter long, under the famous photograph doesn't doesn't have a species name attached to it yet.
Actually yes, I think that would be fair. On Wikipedia, I've just found that 'Magnapinnidae' jumps directly to the particular species in question. So I shall hereby pass on this very, very long, writhing, sucker-covered, er, baton.
Plato? YES!! CdM has it! And what he now has is possession of the Platonic ideal of a baton. Those early shots in the dark really looked like they might hit.
Anarcho-syndicalism? No. A work of writing? No. Recipe? No.
A clarification: I believe my "yes" answer to "Created by humans?" is the least misleading but I suppose proponents of this -ism might dispute my answer.
Idealism? No. Anti-? No. Spiritual? Another interesting question. The best answer is No, though I'd caution that "spiritual" admits of multiple definitions. The AOTC is spiritual-adjacent, however Crackpot? If you presented the AOTC to random people on the street, most would agree with that descriptor. If you asked those with more specialised knowledge, some would certainly still agree; the majority would disagree with the AOTC without (I think) necessarily being so pejorative. I hope that helps. :)
Veganism? No. AI? No. (*a few glances exchanged in the audience, but no actual applause*) Dianetics? No. Geography? No. Geology? In some sense maybe Yes, but that's unlikely to be helpful. Related to Art? No.
We know that this is an ISM and refers to to something that was invented by humans, and that's about as far as we've got. We do know that it doesn't begin or end with p, c, or anti. It has nothing to do with geography, geology, art, literature, or astronomy. It's not veganism, idealism, creationism, or dianetics, nor is it named after a person. There is a possible tenuous link to religion/spirituality, although all the guesses so far have not led anywhere. Normal people will think that the AOTC is crazy, those with more specialised knowledge will think that it doesn't work, although it still has its supporters.
Recap. Mostly correct, although you only know that it doesn’t begin with C or end with P. I struggled with my answer to “invented by humans?”, so I’ll attempt a clarification. If we think of, say, a continuum of isms from Marxism (clearly invented by humans) to magnetism (clearly not), I think this is a bit closer to Marxism. But it is something that humans have thought of that could conceivably be fact—and if it were fact, it would be more like magnetism. Economics? No. Aliens? No. Contain the name of a being? No. (Well, technically yes, but that’s essentially coincidental). Politics? No.
One more clarification. B’s recap stated “those with more specialised knowledge will think that [the AOTC] doesn’t work”. I’d say,rather, that they’d think it isn’t true.
1.6 billion? I think that the adjacent spiritual/religious concept quite probably has more than that number of adherents. The AOTC is a more technical notion (and term), which would be unfamiliar to (most of?) those adherents. I think. The adjacent spiritual/religion-adjacent concept might be a helpful route to the answer. Governmental? No. Associated with a particular group? For the AOTC itself, I'd say No. But the adjacent spiritual/religion-adjacent concept is certainly associated with various identified groups.
Corporeal? The best and least misleading answer is No. (There is a pedantic sense in which the answer is Yes, because “anything to do with” is pretty broad and vague.)