[R] Not underground
Is it an element?
[B] No, it isn’t an element.
A hospital?
[R] Not a hospital
Is it a 'station' of some kind?
[SM] If it was then it isn’t anymore
Unique?
[CdM] By far the less deceptive answer is yes
Is it below the Earth's crust?
[T] Above the Earth's crust. Unless viewed from its antipodal point, of course, but let's not worry about that kind of pedantry.
Is it outside the UK?
[SM] Yes! Not in the UK.
Also, was probably a bit hedged with the station question. It was (part of) a ‘station’ of some kind.
Also, was probably a bit hedged with the station question. It was (part of) a ‘station’ of some kind.
Is it in Antarctica?
[R] It’s not in Antarctica.
Chernobyl?
Is it numbered?
[R/SM] yes to both! So…
Is it reactor no.4 at Chernobyl?
[SM] Indeed it is. So let’s carefully wrap that back up, with hope for a happy new year.
Ooh what's this? Such a fascinating ANIMAL.
Double points for getting it in Latin. Credit to Anna for the great idea.
A land animal?
Not a land animal.
Extinct?
Carduelis carduelis?
Does it begin with a proboscis?
[G] No
[T] No
[P] I don't think so.
[T] No
[P] I don't think so.
Is the Latin a tautonym?
A creature of the waters?
[B]No.
[R]Yes.
[R]Yes.
A whale?
No, but getting warmer.
Anguilla anguilla?
Carcharodon carcharias?
Tursiops truncatus?
Banjos banjos banjos?
Which I think ought to be written "Banjos! Banjos! Banjos!"
[a.a.] No
[c.c.] No
[t.t.] No
[b.b.b.] No
You need to go deeper
[c.c.] No
[t.t.] No
[b.b.b.] No
You need to go deeper
A shark? (i.e. Sharcus sharcus)
Banjos! Banjos! Banjos! Banjos! ?
Bass?
A blobfish?
[Sharks, banjos, bass and blobfish] All no, I'm afraid.
Is this a vertebrate?
[vertebrate] No. audience applause
Does it have a central nervous system?
[nerves] Yes.
Is it sessile?
[sessility] No, it's free-ranging
A cnidarian?
Not cnidarian
Is it theoretically immortal?
Is it a squid?
[immortal?] No.
[Squid] Yes! Some of nature's fascinatingest animals, and this is a fascinating squid
[Squid] Yes! Some of nature's fascinatingest animals, and this is a fascinating squid
Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni?
[Colossal Squid] No, but obviously homing in nicely.
Lepidoteuthis grimaldi?
No. There's about 300 species of squid, so only another 298 to go!
A cuttlefish?
No, definitely a squid.
Does it begin with P?
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?
[Psquid] No.
[Benthic] Yes, as a broad category
Fascinatingness vs Lepidoteuthis grimaldi - in deference to Prince Albert of Monaco I'll accept a draw
[Benthic] Yes, as a broad category
Fascinatingness vs Lepidoteuthis grimaldi - in deference to Prince Albert of Monaco I'll accept a draw
Humboldt squid?
[Humboldt] No. Humboldts seem to be reasonably ordinary, by squid standards.
I'm solid on narwhal, but squids are a bit of a blank with me. The kraken?
[kraken up] No.
The colossal squid?
[colossal] No, we had that already. Albeit in Latin
Is it that sick squid I owe you?
Terry Pratchett's "curious squid"?
Spirula spirula?
[Chalky, RtG, R] No, it's a real-world actual squid
If this is now a squid game, we risk our lives. Bathyteuthis abyssicola?
A species as opposed to a specimen?
[Bathyteuthis abyssicola] No. Neither warm nor cold, that guess.
[A species] Yes!
[A species] Yes!
The striped pyjama squid?
[s.p.s.] No, but what a dapper animal.
I just learned of the existencd of the Antarctic neosquid, no doubt after having ingested a red pill. Is that it?
[Antarctic neosquid] No. That's sort of the opposite of the one I'm after
Opposite to the icy Antarctic, you say. Could it be Vampyroteuthis infernalis, the vampire squid from hell?
[Vampyroteuthis infernalis] Good guess, but you picked the wrong opposite. There are several possibilities.
Also, vampyroteuthis is not a squid. According to Monterey Aquarium, at least.
Tusoteuthis?
The purpleback flying squid (Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis)?
Flying squid. Two words that seem to go together as well as "bunch" and "water".
Found in Monterey Aquarium?
[Tusoteuthis] No. [Flying] No. [Monterey] No.
Squids aren't my forte, but it seems clear that those who name them lack nothing in creativity!
Gonatus fabricii? (Not to be confused with the late Timbergling avicii.)
[Bismarck] Agreed, but I think equal credit ought to go to the squids themselves.
[Gonatus fabricii] No
[Gonatus fabricii] No
Australiteuthis aldrichi?
Wait, we’ve had the colossal squid, but have we had the giant squid – Architeuthis dux?
(autocorrect suggested “colossal squirrel”, and I shall lose some sleep over that mental image.)
[a.aldrichi] No. It's so teeny tiny!
[giant squid] No, but getting warmer, I think.
[giant squid] No, but getting warmer, I think.
Giant Aquatic Squirrel?
[aquatic squirrels of unusual size] I don't believe they exist
Is it over one metre in size?
[>1m] Oh yes.
The internationally-flavoured Dana octopus squid, Taningia danae? Bioluminescent photophores fitted as standard.
[Taningia danae] No. Wow, but no.
How about this fella?
(the one on the right.)
[photographic evidence] Nu-uh
Is it of the family Cranchiidae?
[Cranch family] No.
Does the genus end in "-teuthis"?
[teuthises] Nope. audience applauds encouragingly
Is it a species of glass squid?
[glass squid] No, they're Cranchiidae
Oops. Okay well while I'm here, are they found in the Pacific Ocean?
[Pacific] Yes!
I am learning so much about squid. I hope some of it sticks with me.
That's great but now I've forgotten what I was getting at with that question.
Family Ommastrephidae?
[Ommastrephidae] No, not ommastrephidae
Is it a glass squid?
Bzzt! Repetition!
What about the frankly terrifying Magnapinnidae family?
[Magnapinnidae] Yep. That's the bunny
A winner?
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.
So I shall hereby pass on this very, very long, writhing, sucker-covered, er, baton.
Is it a goldfinch?
No but it’s just as ABSTRACT.
As abstract as a goldfinch? Hm. Does it have a known unladen airspeed velocity?
Does it begin with P?
[velocity] no it’s more abstract than that
[p] no
[p] no
Relativity?
Was it known to Plato?
A giant aquatic squirrel?
An emotion?
[emotion] no (slightest ripple of interest)
Is it astronomical?
[astronomical] no
Morniverse-related?
[morniverse] no, but there was another tiny ripple there
Guesswork?
[guesswork] meta but no
Is it a riddle?
[riddle] no.
I’ll add that it is a thing that exists and has properties, rather than a concept. It has ANIMAL/MINERAL connections but is neither.
I’ll add that it is a thing that exists and has properties, rather than a concept. It has ANIMAL/MINERAL connections but is neither.
The odour of animal faeces?
Putting it politely
[dungsmell] a fair guess but no.
Half a step in the right direction though.
A sensation?
[sensation] of sorts
FEEEELINNGGS, WHOA WHOA WHOA FEEEELLLINNGGS ?
[FEEEELINNGS] the song? or the concept of feeling?
[Resists switching to Boney M, but its a struggle]
As in, emotions.
Sorry, rather than, a specific emotion, which I had already
[feelings at large] nope
Is one of the senses involved?
[senses] yes
Is there more than one word on the card?
Fashion?
[more than one word] yes
[fashion] no
[fashion] no
Was it invented/first created in a particular known year?
[known year] yes
The Hallelujah Chorus (1741)?
[messiah] no, but a step in the right direction
Is it a piece of music?
[music] it isn’t music
Is it dance?
[dance] no, getting colder
Is this specific date before 1900?
[<1900] no
Related to the movie/TV industry?
[movie/TV industry] yes!
A particular production of said industry?
[production] no, product, yes
A TV series?
[series] no, getting colder
A genre of movie?
Technicolor?
[genre] no!
[technicolor] no!
[technicolor] no!
The name of a particular camera technique?
[camera technique] no, no cameras involved
Is it in a particular language?
[language] it is in no particular language
The Wilhelm scream?
Is it related to figurative art?
[Wilhelm scream] Yes! It is the Wilhelm scream! (crowd goes wild in a way I’m reasonably sure isn’t a stock sound effect.)
Whoops
Aaaaaaaaggghhhhh!
Let's go ANIMAL
Let's go ANIMAL
Okay well let’s just check it’s not the crocodile which prompted the aforementioned scream?
Human?
i.e. not Liz Truss
Crocodile? No.
Human? YES!
Human? YES!
President Polk? Peter Parker? Prince Philip?
Philip Pullman? Pablo Picasso? Priscilla Presley?
Pele?
:P
PPx3? No.
PPx3? No.
P? No.
PPx3? No.
P? No.
Ptolemy? Psychology? Psittacosis? Pterodactyl?
Is it a thing that doesn't begin with P ?
More to the point, is it a human that doesn’t begin with P?
Oh no, the pile-on was quite apt
Px4? No.
Not P? No.
Non-P person? No.
Not P? No.
Non-P person? No.
Is it a human typically referred to by two names, neither one of which doesn’t begin with P?
Is or was this person a president?
Is it more than one human?
P.P.? No.
Pres? No.
People? No.
Pres? No.
People? No.
Is the AOTC a person's name?
Is the AOTC “A person”?
No need to get so semantic
Named person? YES!
"A person"? Not those words, no.
"A person"? Not those words, no.
Currently newsworthy?
Royalty?
Was this person known for picking pecks of pickled peppers?
Current? No (to my knowledge, of course)
Crowned? No (of any close descent)
Capsica? No (do I need to caveat this "to my knowledge"?!)
Crowned? No (of any close descent)
Capsica? No (do I need to caveat this "to my knowledge"?!)
Currently alive?
A scientist?
Alive? No.
Scientist? No. *a couple of audience members make noises*
Scientist? No. *a couple of audience members make noises*
Fictional?
A literary figure?
Ptolemy?
Psmith?
Fictional? No.
Literary? YES! (As in, wrote some stuff)
Ptolemy? No.
Psmith? No.
Literary? YES! (As in, wrote some stuff)
Ptolemy? No.
Psmith? No.
Political?
P G Wodehouse?
Goethe?
Political? YES! (But not, AFAIK, a politician)
PGW? No.
JWG? No.
PGW? No.
JWG? No.
British?
Does this person’s last name begin with P?
Plato?
Wrote something before 1900?
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.
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.
*emerges, blinking, into the light*
ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL, VEGETABLE and MINERAL connections.
Does it end with a p?
The universe?
The probability of the Conservatives winning the next election?
Does it begin with C?
Cup, cap, crap, claptrap, clamp, chomp, crisp? No, at both extremities.
Universe? No.
Five more years? No.
Universe? No.
Five more years? No.
Created by humans?
Is it an -ism?
A work of fiction?
Human creation? Yes.
-ism? Yes. *applause*
Work of fiction? No. *scattered laughter*
-ism? Yes. *applause*
Work of fiction? No. *scattered laughter*
A social phenomenon?
Was it invented/coined in the last 50 years?
Social phenomenon? No.
Since 3/3/1974? No.
Since 3/3/1974? No.
An artistic or literary movement?
Art/lit? No.
Anarcho-syndicalism?
I'd regret if we didn't ask
A work of writing?
A recipe?
Channeling the ghost of INJ
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.
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.
To do with religion?
Religious? Interesting question. I’m going to go with: No—but it is potentially religion-adjacent, for a broad definition of religion.
Is it named after a person?
Is it btheism?
Nominative? No.
Btheism? No.
Btheism? No.
Idealism?
We just had Plato, so it's worth a guess
Does it begin with anti-?
Something spiritual?
A crackpot theory, according to a majority?
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. :)
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?
Artificial Intelligence?
I'd have loved this to be Dianetics, but it doesn't end in ISM. Is it anything to do with geography or geology?
Is it related to art?
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.
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.
Does astronomy come in to it?
Creationism?
Astronomical? No.
Creationism? No.
Creationism? No.
Is it the name of a (supposed) being?
Overhead, without any fuss
One of the nine billion names of god? No.
Recap
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.
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.
To do with economics?
Aliens?
Does it contain the name of a being, e.g. Marxism?
Politics?
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.
Economics? No.
Aliens? No.
Contain the name of a being? No. (Well, technically yes, but that’s essentially coincidental).
Politics? No.
Hypnotism?
Hypnotism? No. On the Marx-Magnet scale, the AOTC is to the right of hypnotism.
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.
Is it adhered to by less than 20% of people globally?
Governmental?
Is it associated with a particular group of people?
...who'd be identifiable beyond just being "AOTC-ists", that is
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.
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.
Spiritualism?
Presumably not, since you wouldn't have described it as spiritual...
Dowsing?
Spiritualism? No.
Dowsing? No.
Dowsing? No.
Has it anything to do with the human body?
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.)
Solipsism?
Solipsism? No—but the audience awakes from its torpor and there is *some applause, mixed with a little laughter* .
-ism scale
On my Marx-Magnet scale©, I'd probably put the various isms that have been suggested in the following order, with Idealism/Solipsism/AOTC being fairly close to each other. All three are invented by humans but could in some sense be fact.
Marxism ... Veganism ... Hypnotism ... Spiritualism ... Creationism/Btheism ... Idealism/Solipsism/AOTC ... ... Magnetism
Marxism ... Veganism ... Hypnotism ... Spiritualism ... Creationism/Btheism ... Idealism/Solipsism/AOTC ... ... Magnetism
Is it an idea about the nature of the entire universe?
Is this to do with logic?
Does it relate to death or matters after?
Idea about the nature of the entire universe? Yes! *sustained applause*
To do with logic? No.
Relate to death? The best answer is No, though an indirect argument could be made for Yes.
To do with logic? No.
Relate to death? The best answer is No, though an indirect argument could be made for Yes.
Would this be taught in university philosophy courses?
Plato's cave?
Has anyone said Existentialism yet?
Does it entail a belief in predestination?
University Philosophy? I'm not an expert in university philosophy curricula, but I'll speculate as follows: the AOTC would show up somewhere in the curriculum but is unlikely to make an appearance in an Introduction to Philosophy subject. The AOTC has an entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Britannica.
Plato's cave? No.
Has anyone said Existentialism yet? No.
Is Existentialism the AOTC? No. (I'd put that more in the vicinity of Spiritualism on the M-m scale.)
Does it entail a belief in predestination? You just had to ask that, didn't you? No.
Plato's cave? No.
Has anyone said Existentialism yet? No.
Is Existentialism the AOTC? No. (I'd put that more in the vicinity of Spiritualism on the M-m scale.)
Does it entail a belief in predestination? You just had to ask that, didn't you? No.
You're enjoying this aren't you CdM ;^)
Does an old Greek come into this as a major proponent of the AOTC?
The simulation hypothesis?
Enjoying this? Yes and No. Whenever an AVMA takes this long, I worry that either I have made it too hard or that I have inadvertently misled people with a less than perfect answer.
Old Greek? The idea of the AOTC can in some sense be traced back to the very earliest days of recorded philosophy, which of course includes quite a few old Greeks. That said, I don't think the AOTC is associated with a particular OG who was a "major proponent". (It's not like, say, stoicism, where—if you know about the topic—you'd immediately link it to Epictetus.)
Simulation hypothesis? No.
Old Greek? The idea of the AOTC can in some sense be traced back to the very earliest days of recorded philosophy, which of course includes quite a few old Greeks. That said, I don't think the AOTC is associated with a particular OG who was a "major proponent". (It's not like, say, stoicism, where—if you know about the topic—you'd immediately link it to Epictetus.)
Simulation hypothesis? No.
Vitalism?
Deism?
Vitalism? No.*applause of the kind that indicates that even though the answer is in some sense completely wrong, it is also absolutely the right kind of guess*
Deism? No.
Hidden text
Remember that the audience have been watching this game for decades and have absolutely figured out the nuances of applause.Deism? No.
Metempsychosis?
O, rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words.
Metempsychosis? No.
Clarification: While "vitalism" (at least as I understand it) is indeed in some sense completely wrong, it is nonetheless oddly close to the AOTC. Raak is definitely thinking along the right lines. Also, the "O, rocks!" quote is not a clue of any kind.
Life, the universe, and everything?
Life, the Universe, and Everything? No. But the AOTC is definitely related to LtUaE. :)
Human exceptionalism?
Buddhism ?
Human exceptionalism? No. *audience laughter*
Buddhism? No. The AOTC, as already noted, is not religious but is a concept that is spiritual/religion-adjacent. The adjacent spiritual/religious idea is present in Buddhism.
Buddhism? No. The AOTC, as already noted, is not religious but is a concept that is spiritual/religion-adjacent. The adjacent spiritual/religious idea is present in Buddhism.
Emptiness?
Emptiness? No.
Reincarnationism?
(I always thought vitalism was a sort of margarine)
Reincarnationism? I always thought that was a sort of milk. No.
Does it involve the concept of an immortal soul?
Immortal soul? No.
Panpsychism?
Panpsychism? Yes!! It is indeed the belief that there is (some sort of) consciousness present in everything. Here, have this sentient baton.
Ooohh goody!
That was not an easy one to find! I only got it because of the subject being recently treated on the "In Our Time" podcast. So thanks to Melvyn Bragg and his guests.
The next round is now starting, hold on to the straps. The sentient baton suggests ABSTRACT.
The next round is now starting, hold on to the straps. The sentient baton suggests ABSTRACT.
Small print
There are links to Animal and Vegetable, and on the Marx-Magnet scale© CdM it's towards magnetism, although it isn't an -ISM.
Does it begin with P?
P-precedent? No, but don't let that put you off.
Fictional?
Made up? Not fictional.
Something in fundamental physics?
A human interest?
Present only on Earth?
Fun physics? No.
Fun life? No, although humans have and have had a great interest in the AOTC. It's not an occupation, either.
Earthbound? So far as anyone knows, only on Earth.
Fun life? No, although humans have and have had a great interest in the AOTC. It's not an occupation, either.
Earthbound? So far as anyone knows, only on Earth.
Life?
Is the AOTC a single word?
Life? Certainly connected, the audience applauds vigorously.
Single word? Also yes.
Single word? Also yes.
Death?
Is it an -ology?
Death ? Like life, it is necessary for this concept. Audience are aware and expectant.
Ologious? No.
Ologious? No.
Procreation?
Procreation? No. Audience still bate their breath.
Sex?
Drugs? Rocknroll?
What my body needs? No to all three. Audience quiescent.
Evolution?
Evolution? No.
To do with food?
Food? No. Audience lethargic.
Were humans aware of this prior to 1900?
Pre-Edwardian? Yes.
An observable phenomenon?
Economic?
Was Aristotle aware of this?
Observable? There are observations of this occurring.
Economic? No.
Aristotelian? Didn't know him personally, but the concept was almost certainly around then.
Economic? No.
Aristotelian? Didn't know him personally, but the concept was almost certainly around then.
To do with health/sickness/medicine?
NHS? In a way, yes, but only in a way. Some audience approval.
A feeling or mood?
Lifespan?
Birth?
Sentiments? No.
Lifespan? No. Audience wakes up, though.
Lifestart? No, but the audience murmurs approval and emits some applause.
Lifespan? No. Audience wakes up, though.
Lifestart? No, but the audience murmurs approval and emits some applause.
A biological process?
Rebirth?
Biology? Arguments start among the audience. Life and death and so forth are all biological, but this is not usually considered to be a biological process.
Rebirth? No, but the audience really like it. Appreciation is shown.
Rebirth? No, but the audience really like it. Appreciation is shown.
Birthdays?
Birthdays? No. Audience calm.
Reincarnation?
Reincarnation? No, but big applause and cheering from the crowd.
Karma?
Nirvana?
Getting bad things? No.
Getting good things? No.
Getting good things? No.
Adoption?
Eternal recurrence?
Emergence as something different from human? (whatever that's called).
Near-death experience?
Adoption? No.
Eternal recurrence? No.
Alien hatching? No.
Near-death experience? No.
Eternal recurrence? No.
Alien hatching? No.
Near-death experience? No.
Transmogrification?
Transmogrification? No, but there is some debate in the audience.
Metamorphosis?
Enlightenment?
The Renaissance?
In hindsight I suspect we were a bit slow on the uptake
It's not metamorphosis, enlightenment is nice but completely off beam, "renaissance" is a good try but "the Renaissance" is totally wrong. The audience are collecting tomatoes to throw.
Resurrection?
Cryonics?
Rejuvenation?
Not cryonics, not rejuvenation, but definitely Resurrection! (We started this around Easter, so it seemed appropriate.) Congratulations to CdM, who gets to take this stone baton and roll it away. Don't forget to like, subscribe, or leave a review.
Hidden text
I do feel a more honest answer to _Fictional?_ would have been: _Opinions vary_ :)Here is a straightforward VEGETABLE with an ANIMAL connection.
An Easter egg?
(Chocolate is a vegetable, right?)
Easter egg? No.
A misshapen potato that looks like someone's head?
Potato head? No. *considerable laughter and significant applause*
Chips (without fish)?
Chips? No.
Is it a plant that looks like an animal?
Is it unique?
Plant that looks like an animal? No. But again, *applause*
Unique? Yes.
Unique? Yes.
A wooden scupture?
*sculpture
Part of a plant that looks like part of an animal?
Venus Flytrap?
Wooden sculpture? No. No.
Part of a plant that looks like part of an animal? No.
Venus flytrap? No.
Part of a plant that looks like part of an animal? No.
Venus flytrap? No.
In a fixed location?
Fixed location? Interesting question. If I wanted to be tricky, I'd give a straightforward and honest answer of No. But a more helpful answer is: Yes, when understood in the context of the AOTC.
It is vegetable but does it resemble something that is not?
Vegetable that resembles non-vegetable? Resemble is a tricky word. I’d say more No than Yes as the word is typically used, but—stretching the meaning of resemble to its broader senses—you could plausibly say Yes.
As a ps to my answer to Tuj, the absence of a fixed location in general is certainly useful information as well.
As a ps to my answer to Tuj, the absence of a fixed location in general is certainly useful information as well.
Is it a mask?
Mask? No.
Is the AOTC one word?
One word? No. The AOTC as written is four words including the definite article, but I will accept any suitable identifying phrase.
Is it alive?
Is it associated with a particular season?
Is it legible?
Is it alive? No. But be careful about your assumptions.
Associated with a particular season? No. * a certain tension in the air intimates that the audience almost wants to applaud but knows it shouldn’t*
Legible? No.
Associated with a particular season? No. * a certain tension in the air intimates that the audience almost wants to applaud but knows it shouldn’t*
Legible? No.
Does it exist today?
Does it exist today? No.
Is it fictional?
Fictional? No.
Is there more than one at any one time?
>1? No. (You already know it is unique.)
Is it connected to a celebration?
Would an archaeologist know about this in connection with their profession?
Is the vegetable part edible?
But was it art?
Connected to a celebration? *considerable audience laughter*. I think I have to say No, though some might argue the point.
Relevant to archaeology? No.
Vegetable part edible? Yes. (And remember the whole thing is vegetable, not just part of it.)
Was it art? *more laughter* Not in the conventional sense, No.
After your good start I am surprised this is taking so long. As a hint, you could always explore the animal connection further.
Relevant to archaeology? No.
Vegetable part edible? Yes. (And remember the whole thing is vegetable, not just part of it.)
Was it art? *more laughter* Not in the conventional sense, No.
After your good start I am surprised this is taking so long. As a hint, you could always explore the animal connection further.
Is this found in à restaurant?
Did this exist at some point since 1900?
Quorn?
Found à restaurant? No.
Since 1900? Yes.
Quorn? No.
Hidden text
[Should be au - Ed.]Since 1900? Yes.
Quorn? No.
Does the AOTC include a superlative?
Superlative-inclusive? No. *loud and sustained laughter*
Was it eaten by somebody famous?
Celebrity-consumed? No. (At least not as far as I know!)
Is the animal reference human?
Does the AOTC have the form "The X of Y"?
Human animal? Yes.
The X of Y? No.
The X of Y? No.
A vegetarian meat substitute?
Fake ewes? No. Though, in some kinda sorta weirdly literal sense, kinda sorta yes. But really, No.
Is the animal reference a particular human?
Is 'the' the 2nd word?
Particular human? Yes.
The the second? No.
The the second? No.
Is it a flower named after someone?
Flower named after someone? No.
If it wasn't for "the" in third place, I'd have said the King Edward potato. Is it named after a person?
Is one of the words 'of'?
Named after a person? Strictly speaking, No. But Yes would actually be a more helpful answer.
“The” is not in third place. I said it wasn’t “The X of Y”. For free, I’ll tell you “The King Edward potato” exactly corresponds to the AOTC, though I’ll mention again that other descriptions would be perfectly acceptable.
The King Edward potato? No. I’ll also remind you that the AOTC is unique
“of”-inclusive? No.
“The” is not in third place. I said it wasn’t “The X of Y”. For free, I’ll tell you “The King Edward potato” exactly corresponds to the AOTC, though I’ll mention again that other descriptions would be perfectly acceptable.
The King Edward potato? No. I’ll also remind you that the AOTC is unique
“of”-inclusive? No.
Sorry—I meant the form of the expression. “The KE potato” matches the form of the AOTC.
Is the vegetable a vegetable (culinarily speaking)?
The Liz Truss lettuce?
Vegetable = vegetable? Yes.
The Liz Truss lettuce? Yes! Have this unconventionally shaped baton. It’s slightly brown on the edges, but still perfectly usable.
The Liz Truss lettuce? Yes! Have this unconventionally shaped baton. It’s slightly brown on the edges, but still perfectly usable.
Thank you, though this baton is somewhat rotten on the inside. No similarity to any person, living or half-dead, is to be inferred. So let's relaunch with MINERAL with some VEGETABLE connotations.
An onion dome?
Is it made of metal?
Not an onion dome.
Yes, it is made of metal.
Yes, it is made of metal.
A mechanical device?
Is it unique?
Is it art?
Is it a building?
It is a mechanical device.
It is unique.
It has a certain charm, but it is not classed as Art.
It is not a building, though it was built.
It is unique.
It has a certain charm, but it is not classed as Art.
It is not a building, though it was built.
Is its purpose entertainment?
Is it located in the United Kingdom?
Built for transportation purposes?
Regarded as old-fashioned?
Is it a train?
Its purpose is not entertainment.
It is located in the UK.
It was built for transportation purposes.
I'm not sure if it's regarded as old-fashioned.
It's not a train.
It is located in the UK.
It was built for transportation purposes.
I'm not sure if it's regarded as old-fashioned.
It's not a train.
Is it a bridge?
A road?
It is a bridge.
It is an A-road.
It is an A-road.
The Iron Bridge at Coalbrookdale?
Is it in London?
It is not the Iron Bridge in Coalbrookdale.
It is not in London.
It is not in London.
Does it cross the river Forth?
Is it on the A5?
Does the bridge’s name supply the vegetable connotation?
The Prince of Wales (M4) Bridge?
The Menai Bridge (projected to be kept from rust by boiling it in wine)
It does not cross the river Forth.
It is not on the A5.
The name does supply a vegetable connotation. But it's such a punnish and abstruse one, that to be honest I can't recommend this line of investigation.
It is not the Prince of Wales' bridge on the M4.
It is not the Menai bridge.
If you don't want a hint, read no further.
It is not on the A5.
The name does supply a vegetable connotation. But it's such a punnish and abstruse one, that to be honest I can't recommend this line of investigation.
It is not the Prince of Wales' bridge on the M4.
It is not the Menai bridge.
If you don't want a hint, read no further.
Hidden text
Remember that this is a mechanical device.Does it reconfigure such that sometimes it may be crossed and sometimes not?
Is it a suspension bridge?
It is not a suspension bridge. Reconfiguration has me stumped. I think the best answer is No, but only because the standard functioning configuration defines its usage under all circumstances. But Yes might also be possible.
The Tees Transporter Bridge?
Winner
Right answer! A nice piece of engineering not far from me. Also an example of "The A-Road, Interrupted". Sadly it's out of service at the moment and could well never get back into operation.
So congrats to Tuj, to whom the baton is being delivered via a gondola.
So congrats to Tuj, to whom the baton is being delivered via a gondola.
My frustration at never having heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge is amply compensated by having now heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge.
[Raak] I love that feeling. I wonder if anyone's ever coined a name for it?
Anyway, it's ABSTRACT time.
Anyway, it's ABSTRACT time.
Is it the feeling of never having heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge then being amply compensated by having now heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge?
Just a stab in the dark...
Is it linked to an astronomical object outside our planet?
Hidden text
Raak - I don't know the name of that feeling. But surely it is the one on which Trivial Pursuit is based.Now, I know I might frustrate...
[SM] NO. If I'd set that and there wasn't a guess straight away, that could have taken years!
[RTG] NO. Although, to be strictly honest, YES it can be linked.
[RTG] NO. Although, to be strictly honest, YES it can be linked.
Hidden text
That feeling seems to me like something that might have been named by Liff, but it's possible my thoughts are being influenced by my main source of the feeling being my job QCing British geographic data!Does it involve the sense of vision?
Is it a human construct that either does or does not begin with P?
...so fiddly...
[R] NO. Well, no more than your average abstract does. Or maybe slightly more. I need to ask a blind person!
[CdM] NO. I *think* this one is inarguable!
[CdM] NO. I *think* this one is inarguable!
Is it an -ology?
...ology...
[C] NO.
Was it the subject of philosophical debate?
A dream?
...the clues continue...
[B] NO appears to be the answer from what I can find, though it probably has been somewhere somewhen.
[R] NO.
[R] NO.
This should also be inarguable
If you were standing in front of Raak and Chalky, one of whom always tells the truth and the other of whom always lies, and both know the AOTC, and all of you know the foregoing but you do not know which one is the truth teller, and you were to ask Raak "if you asked Chalky if the AOTC begins with the letter P, is it the case that she wouldn't not say 'No'?", is it the case that he wouldn't not say yes?
...logically...
[CdM] YES. (I hope I've figured that out correctly!)
Are you, Tuj, telling the truth?
I'm ready to make a guess. Is it 'making things harder than they need to be'?
...dreckly...
[C] YES. Unless I've made a mistake! Are you? :P
[SM] NO!
Hidden text
If I had chosen the AOTC to be something related to lying all the time, and gave the opposite answer to every question... that would have been very brave indeed![SM] NO!
Hidden text
Honestly, NO!Is ot associated with a country?
Is it a text?
...stateless and of low verbiage...
[B] NO.
[R] NO. (an audience member starts saying "Well..." and is shushed)
[R] NO. (an audience member starts saying "Well..." and is shushed)
Is it an emotion?
Is it artistic?
...feel artful, no...
[B] NO.
[R] NO.
[R] NO.
Is it something that humans experience?
...'swrong word...
[R] NO. You can be aware of it, I can't describe it as something that can be experienced.
Is it an adage?
An abbreviation?
...not not valuable...
[C] NO.
[RTG] NO, the AOTC is not an abbreviation. But in one sense, the answer to this is ALWAYS.
[RTG] NO, the AOTC is not an abbreviation. But in one sense, the answer to this is ALWAYS.
A standard?
...not so defined...
[B] NO — but the audience break out into a hearty applause. That word doesn't *quite* fit the AOTC.
A superstition?
A custom?
...disagreed...
[SM] NO.
[R] NO.
[R] NO.
Would a dog be aware of it?
...doggy 0...
[CdM] NO. But who can really know the mind of dog?
Is a particular individual credited with its discovery?
Is it behavioural?
...no...
[CdM] NO. (Or if there was they're long lost to history)
[RTG] NO.
[RTG] NO.
'Twas ever thus?
Is it a length?
...enduring...
[C] Interpreting that as asking whether this thing has always existed: YES.
[B] NO. But the audience, who applauded the previous question, make appreciative noises.
[B] NO. But the audience, who applauded the previous question, make appreciative noises.
Is it a time?
Is it the same on every spot on the surface of the earth?
Periodicity?
Have philosophers written about this?