In England?
The blasted oak on the withered heath where the hags dance?
[Secret] No
[English] Yes
[Dance venue] No
[English] Yes
[Dance venue] No
Does it have an individual name?
Is it a tree?
[Individual name?] In the context I think you're asking, no.
[A tree] No.
[A tree] No.
In London?!
Is it outdoors?
[London] No.
[Outdoors] Yes.
[Outdoors] Yes.
Is it many trees?
[A f- many trees] Yes! Audience applause
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.
A winner
[Sherwood Forest] You divined the ooos correctly. It's Sherwood Forest.
Winner's comments
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:
MINERAL.
Is it Christmas-related?
Is it found on planet Earth?
Was it, until recently, not on planet Earth?
[T] Not Christmas-related.
[B] Yes, earthly.
[R] This has never left earth.
[B] Yes, earthly.
[R] This has never left earth.
Is it unique OR does it begin with P?
Does it begin with P OR is it unique?
Delete as applicable
[C, T] No.
Man=made?
That is, man-made?
Is it smaller than a toaster OR is it bigger than a telephone box?
Has it existed for more than 100 years?
Is it typically powered by electricity?
Does its name end in 'ite'?
That'll eliminate a lot.
[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".
[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".
Does its name rhyme with 'ite', or 'ites'?
[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.
I have been informed that the Boolean operator referred to above is the UM operator, where any input can give any output.
Christmas lights?
My cat liked 'em.
[R] Not Christmas lights.
Can I buy it in a big Tesco?
Some sort of light or lights?
[G] No, not found in Tesco.
[R] Applause from the audience. Yes.
[R] Applause from the audience. Yes.
(signal-boosting Boolbar) Has it existed for more than 100 years?
[R'n'B] Missed that, the answer is Yes, accompanied by scattered applause.
Street lights?
[R] Much applause, though the answer is No.
Traffic lights?
Showing various colours?
[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!
[R] Also yes, but now no longer relevant.
So, goldfinch, take this multicoloured bayon, and, obeying the filter signals, turn right to greater things!
Oh heck, just what I wanted for Christmas. And what’s this? *rustling of wrapping paper* oh! It’s MINERAL
First things first, is it actually feasible to wrap?
[SM] Very much depends, but suffice to say that kind of undertaking would require significantly more than paper and sticky tape.
Is it an astronomical object?
[B] No
Is it radioactive?
A geographical feature?
[Rosie] *very appreciative crowd* Yes
[Raak] in that you’d put it on a map, yes
[Raak] in that you’d put it on a map, yes
Sellafield, formerly Windscale?
The natural nuclear reactor discovered in Oklo?
[R/R] *hubbub dies down* No and no.
Is it underground?
[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?
...timeless...
[B] NO.
[C1] YES is the useful answer. A strict and slightly tedious reading of your question could yield the answer NO.
[C2] NO. (but good to know I got your logic question correct!)
[R] YES, it seems, but probably not significantly for a very long time.
[C1] YES is the useful answer. A strict and slightly tedious reading of your question could yield the answer NO.
[C2] NO. (but good to know I got your logic question correct!)
[R] YES, it seems, but probably not significantly for a very long time.
Revelation?
Would the man on the Clapham omnibus have heard of this?
...commuter...
[Ro] NO.
[Ra] YES is my contention, though I'm not optimally placed to judge.
[Ra] YES is my contention, though I'm not optimally placed to judge.
Is the AOTC a single word?
[Tuj] Don’t rule out the possibility that we both got it wrong.
It is related to religion?
Is it a force?
...a singleton, godless...
[CdM] YES. I trust you far more than that!
[R] NO.
[B] NO.
[R] NO.
[B] NO.
Is it studied by scientists?
...a surety...
[CdM] While the answer might arguably be YES, I think it's more useful to say NO (because they know it darn well already).
Is it mathematical?
...deafening...
[R] YES. The crowd goes wild!
π?
...it's completed...
[CdM] YES! This circular, two-dimensional baton is now yours.
ABSTRACT
e?
Unknowing?
Knowledge?
R] N
B] N
R] N
B] N
R] N
I can type whatever I want here now!
Was it mentioned in the previous round?
T] N
Does it have to do with art?
R] N
Is there a book about it?
R] N? / Y mybe?
(CdM) Why are you writing in Welsh? I thought that was my privilege.
To do with science?
R] :)
R] N
R] N
minimalism?
S] N *a*
The void?
Initials?
Abbreviations?
R] N
T] N
B] N *s a*
T] N
B] N *s a*
Are you performing the answer?
Prosigns ?
R] Y
B] N
B] N
Anything to do with Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions?
B] N!
Data compression?
Related to a specific means of communication?
txtspk?
Shorthand?
R] N *a*
T] N gq!!
S] N *a*
R] N *a*
T] N gq!!
S] N *a*
R] N *a*
telegrammese?
R] N
(Hnt: Thnk mr gnrl/abstrct)
(Hnt: Thnk mr gnrl/abstrct)
Initials?
An emotion?
Minimalism?
Is the AOTC case-sensitive? :-)
Something to do with the grammar or construction of language?
B] N
R] N
R] N
s] n
g] N
This AVMA seemed like an interesting idea when I thought of it, but in hindsight probably was a mistake. :) And my commitment to exemplifying the AOTC with my answers has left me unable to communicate any nuance in my responses. You are all being too specific; the AOTC is a general (and very simple concept) that is a feature of many of the guesses you have collectively made.
R] N
R] N
s] n
g] N
This AVMA seemed like an interesting idea when I thought of it, but in hindsight probably was a mistake. :) And my commitment to exemplifying the AOTC with my answers has left me unable to communicate any nuance in my responses. You are all being too specific; the AOTC is a general (and very simple concept) that is a feature of many of the guesses you have collectively made.
Simplicity?
R] N *substantial applause*
Elegance ("the beauty of simplicity")?
Symmetry?
Raak] No, but there may sometimes be a connection.
Rosie] No.
Rosie] No.
Less is more?
R] Close enough! The AOTC is “parsimony”, but I decided early on I’d accept anything in the ballpark of synonymy. Have a very small baton.
Th nxt s ... er, the next is ANIMAL with ABSTRACT connections.
Mythical creature?
Fictional?
Is it a chordate?
Is it a hedgehog that thinks it's the King?
[bl] Not a mythical creature.
[B] Not fictional.
[SM] The animals that could be involved are all chordates.
[T] Not a hedgehog that thinks it's the King. Neither, for that matter, it is an elephant that thinks it's President Putin, nor a platypus that thinks it's Napoleon.
[B] Not fictional.
[SM] The animals that could be involved are all chordates.
[T] Not a hedgehog that thinks it's the King. Neither, for that matter, it is an elephant that thinks it's President Putin, nor a platypus that thinks it's Napoleon.
Are these chordates extinct?
[RtG] Not extinct.
Human?
Do they have a readily defined habitat?
[Tuj] Human.
[SM] Given the previous answer, yes — this planet.
[SM] Given the previous answer, yes — this planet.
Unique?
[CdM] Not unique.
Does the abstract connection define a group of individuals?
[CdM] Not a group.
One particular human?
Does the AOTC include any Crescenters?
[bl] No particular human.
[T] The AOTC includes pretty much all humans.
[T] The AOTC includes pretty much all humans.
Is the AOTC defined by who it excludes rather than includes?
Is this a human characteristic?
[T] That could be considered a political matter these days.
[R] Yes, that's a reasonable description. The few who do not have it might kick up a storm about the AOTC being ableist, hence previous answer.
[R] Yes, that's a reasonable description. The few who do not have it might kick up a storm about the AOTC being ableist, hence previous answer.
Is the AOTC linked to one of the senses?
[CdM] The thing itself is linked to one of the senses, but that link plays no part in the AOTC.
A person with two legs?
[R] Legs not involved.
Is the AOTC a single word (articles aside)?
[T] Not a single word.
I think the ABSTRACT connection has been neglected.
Is the abstract connection something that philosophers have a particular interest in?
[CdM] Not philosophical.
Is the abstract connection health-related?
[CdM] Not health-related.
Are you aware of any Crescenters who *aren't* part of the AOTC?
[Tuj] No-one is literally part of the AOTC. Audience murmurs in amused suspense.
The chair would like to remind the panel that the ANIMAL category need not mean that the answer is an animal, or a set of animals.
Is the AOTC a set of parts of (human) animals?
[CdM] (The audience is relieved of their suspense.) The AOTC is a part of an animal.
Uniquely human?
(I think we need to clarify this)
[CdM] The ANIMAL aspect, no. The ABSTRACT connection, yes.
Is the abstract connection a metaphor?
[Everyone] Feel free to join in. :)
(Applause from the handful of people still in the room.) [CdM] It is a metaphor.
Too many cooks?
Does it involve one or more organs?
[SM] Not too many cooks.
[Tuj] It does involve one or more organs.
[Tuj] It does involve one or more organs.
A brick shit-house?
Is the AOTC election-related?
[R] Not a brick shit-house.
[CdM] Not election-related.
[CdM] Not election-related.
Something to do with ears?
[Tuj] Not ears.
Are the organs in question internal?
(The audience is alert to see how the chair handles this tricky question.) [CdM] Yes.
Something to do with tongues?
[Tuj] (applause) It is to do with tongues.
Tongue in cheek?
[CdM] Not tongue in cheek.
Bilingualism?
Dwyieithrwydd for those not blessed with this facility.
Holding your tongue?
Sorry for not participating, the cat had got my tongue. Is that it?
Circling in for the kill...
[CdM] Not holding your tongue.
[B] The cat does not have hold of it.
[B] The cat does not have hold of it.
Is the answer on the tip of my tongue?
Parler en langues?
[B] No, because...
[CdM] Yes, "the tip of the tongue" is the AOTC. Have this, er, whatchamacallit, thing sort of thing.
[CdM] Yes, "the tip of the tongue" is the AOTC. Have this, er, whatchamacallit, thing sort of thing.
OK. Next we have a MINERAL with an ABSTRACT connection
Water?
A pearl of great price?
Water? No. (Not sure what the abstract connection would be there)
Pricey pearl? No.
Pricey pearl? No.
Is it a song?
Song? No. Not even the abstract connection.
Man-made?
A gemstone mineral?
Human-made? No.
Gemstone? No.
Gemstone? No.
Is it a gas?
Gas? No.
Does the Abstract connection have to do with a work of fiction?
Abstract connection to work of fiction? Yes. *applause*
Is the abstract connection a direction?
One Direction? No.
The Philosopher's Stone?
Philosopher’s stone? No.
A ring?
Is the fiction it's connected to sci-fi?
I'm totally thinking of the beryllium spheres from Galaxy Quest
Is it valuable?
A ring? No.
Sci-fi? No.
Valuable? Yes is probably the best answer, but I’ll warn you that it may be misleading.
Sci-fi? No.
Valuable? Yes is probably the best answer, but I’ll warn you that it may be misleading.
Is it unique?
Unique? Yes.
Does it exist now?
Currently existing? Yes.
Is it in a fixed location?
Is it a monument?
Fixed location? Yes.
Monument? No.
Monument? No.
Is it in a museum?
Is the abstract link to mythology?
In a museum? No.
Mythology? No.
As I'm feeling generous, here are a few hints.
1. You'll probably need to come at this from both angles. That is, you need to identify what kind of thing the MINERAL thing is, and you will also need to figure out the ABSTRACT connection.
2. Most, probably all, of you won't actually know the specific wording of the AOTC. But an equivalent identifying phrase is acceptable (and, once you've figured that out, the AOTC would be a quick google away).
3. Despite (2), most, probably all, of you know the ABSTRACT connection and most—though probably not all— have in some sense encountered the MINERAL AOTC.
Mythology? No.
As I'm feeling generous, here are a few hints.
1. You'll probably need to come at this from both angles. That is, you need to identify what kind of thing the MINERAL thing is, and you will also need to figure out the ABSTRACT connection.
2. Most, probably all, of you won't actually know the specific wording of the AOTC. But an equivalent identifying phrase is acceptable (and, once you've figured that out, the AOTC would be a quick google away).
3. Despite (2), most, probably all, of you know the ABSTRACT connection and most—though probably not all— have in some sense encountered the MINERAL AOTC.
Is it a statue?
Statue? No.
Is it in the human body?
In human body? No. (Unique, remember)
Is it made of stone?
Is it a religious item?
Made of stone? Yes (though that’s perhaps an odd way to put it, given you’ve established that it’s not human-made).
Religious? No.
Religious? No.
A cairn?
Cairn? No.
Is it smaller than a double-decker bus?
Is it on Earth?
A geographical feature?
… and the audience awakens …
Smaller than double-decker bus? No.
On Earth? Yes.
Geographical feature? Yes.
On Earth? Yes.
Geographical feature? Yes.
There are lots of geographical features associated with fiction, spanning the spectrum from Rockall to the Marianas trench. Does it span more than one country?
Of cultural significance to a particular nation or group of people?
> 1 country? No.
Cultural significance? Yes.
Cultural significance? Yes.
Of cultural significance to a particular nation or group of people?
Cockup - forget that
Uluru?
Uluru? No. For free, I'll tell you that the cultural significance is probably not going to be particularly helpful to you.
Is it on a coast?
Is the work of fiction that forms the abstract connection less than 150 years old?
In Britain?
Coastal? No.
Fictional work post 1874? Yes.
In Britain? No.
Fictional work post 1874? Yes.
In Britain? No.
It is highest part above 5000 feet?
> 2500 pairs of feet? Yes.
Mount Everest?
Mount Everest? No.
A named mountain?
Named mountain? Yes.
Is it in Australia?
Mount Ararat?
In Australia? No.
Mount Ararat? No.
Mount Ararat? No.
In the Alps?
In the Alps? No.
This might be a good point to suggest you re-read my earlier hints. I suppose you could eventually get to the answer via geographic elimination, but that will be boring and might take a while. You won’t get there by guessing the names of mountains that you know; I doubt if any of you know this mountain by name. So I’d suggest following the abstract connection, which I promise you is not obscure.
This might be a good point to suggest you re-read my earlier hints. I suppose you could eventually get to the answer via geographic elimination, but that will be boring and might take a while. You won’t get there by guessing the names of mountains that you know; I doubt if any of you know this mountain by name. So I’d suggest following the abstract connection, which I promise you is not obscure.
Is it a feature of a mountain such as the side, a cave on it, or that bit that fell off the one in Alaska
The Kunlun Mountains (home to Shangri-La)?
Feature? No. The AOTC is the name of the entire mountain. The mountain does in some broad sense have a relevant “feature” but it is one that many mountains possess.
Kunlun Mountains? No.
Kunlun Mountains? No.
Is the work of fiction a movie?
A movie? Yes. *applause, and also a little muttering *
Return to Witch Mountain?
RtWM? No.
Are the audience muttering because the movie was based on a work of fiction in another medium?
The excitement mounts (as it were)
Movie based on another work of fiction in another medium? Yes.
Is it on an island?
I'm quite glad it wasn't RtWM.
On an island? Yes.
Is the AOTC something like [Mountain name] where they shot the film [film name]?
Clarification: an example would be "Aoraki, which stood in for the Lonely Mountain in the film version of The Hobbit"
Is it north of the equator?
Form of AOTC? The AOTC is [Mountain Name]. But the judges would accept an answer in a similar form to "The mountain which stood in for the Lonely Mountain in the film version of the Hobbit"
Aoraki, which stood in for the Lonely Mountain in the film version of the Hobbit? No. *applause*
North of the equator? No.
Aoraki, which stood in for the Lonely Mountain in the film version of the Hobbit? No. *applause*
North of the equator? No.
Was the movie released in the last four years?
Released in last four years? No.
Mount Ngauruhoe/Mount Doom?
Let's get this out of the way: was the original author JRR Tolkein?
test
Weird. I can apparently apropos, but not stand
JRRT? Yes, because the AOTC is indeed Mount Ngauruhoe, the volcano that was used to represent Mount Doom in the LotR films. Mount Ngauruhoe is a mere 25 km away as the Nazgûl flies (can you have just one Nazgûl?) from where I have been hanging out for the past few weeks. It's a spectacular mountain.
This AVMA was taking so long that I seriously considered just throwing the baton away when we were hiking near the mountain a week or so ago. But I'm glad I didn't, because now I can hand the baton over to Rack. Which I'm totally going to do. Only maybe just not yet.
This AVMA was taking so long that I seriously considered just throwing the baton away when we were hiking near the mountain a week or so ago. But I'm glad I didn't, because now I can hand the baton over to Rack. Which I'm totally going to do. Only maybe just not yet.
Hidden text
Ah. Apparently mc5 did not like the diacritic on the a in the name of the mountain. My apologies to the Maori.s/Rack/Raak, obvs. But he still can’t have the baton.
Where's Gollum when you need him? Anyway, the next is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL connections.
Hang on, I forgot what I set already. (There is no antimemetics division.)
(thinks)
Ok, the next is MINERAL.
(thinks)
Ok, the next is MINERAL.
Test
1212, oh dear, more numberspam. Sorry.
Is it a stone etched with the AOTC?
Quick, before it changes again!
[Tuj] Your observation has collapsed the wave function. It is not a stone etched with the AOTC (AOTS?).
Is it larger than the Great Pyramid of Giza?
Is it unique?
[SM] (After some research.) It is not larger than the Great Pyramid.
[CdM] It is unique.
[CdM] It is unique.
Is it man-made?
[R] Partly man-made.
Can you walk inside it?
[SM] You can walk inside part of it, but a simple "no" might be a better answer.
Was dynamite involved in its construction?
Is it a dam?
A quarry?
A barrow?
...and four come along at once
[SM] I think it unlikely, but I don't know.
[C,R,B] NeitherHoly, nor Roman, nor an Empire a dam, nor a quarry, nor a barrow.
Calling it partly man-made may have been misleading. A simple "no" might have been a better answer there also.
[C,R,B] Neither
Calling it partly man-made may have been misleading. A simple "no" might have been a better answer there also.
Is the part that you can walk inside a natural cave?
[C] Not a natural cave.
Does it exist on Earth today?
Yes, it exists on Earth today.
Is it a geographic feature?
[CdM] Yes, a geographic feature!
Does it have 'DO NOT REMOVE' (or similar wording, I don't remember the exact) painted on it in large stern letters?
Does it have a religious or mystical function?
[SM] There is one warning sign I imagine is likely to be there, but nothing like "DO NOT REMOVE".
[C] No current religious function.
[C] No current religious function.
Is the warning sign more likely to be something like CAUTION: DO NOT FALL OFF ?
[CdM] Something like, in the sense that it would advise caution. (I have not actually seen the place myself to see just what warnings are posted, and haven't found anything on Google Street View.)
Is it in England?
[B] It is in England!
Is it mainly covered in grass?
[T] Judging from Google Maps, I'd say it is not mainly covered in grass.
Does it turn up in Shakespeare?
Does it involve water in a significant way?
[B] Not in Shakespeare, as far as Google tells me.
[CdM] Yes! There is water involved!
[CdM] Yes! There is water involved!
Is it an island?
St. Michael's Mount?
Lindisfarne?
[T] It is an island, but [CdM] not Lindisfarne, because [R] it is indeed St Michael's Mount. Have this perspex replica of the Great Pyramid with St Michael's Mount inside.
Good heavens. It's me!
This one is strictly speaking ABSTRACT but with strong MINERALconnections.
Sea level?
The weather?
Radio Caroline?
Aluminium futures?
Fictional?
Scientific?
Are the mineral connections liquid?
Sorry for the delay. Distracted by thunderstorms and general torpor.
(CdM) Not sea-level
(Tuj) Despite the above remark, NO
(Bis) NOT Radio Caroline
(SM) NOT Al futures
(Tuj) NOT fictional but maybe uncommon.
(Raak) NOT scientific
(CdM) Mineral connection NOT liquid.
(CdM) Not sea-level
(Tuj) Despite the above remark, NO
(Bis) NOT Radio Caroline
(SM) NOT Al futures
(Tuj) NOT fictional but maybe uncommon.
(Raak) NOT scientific
(CdM) Mineral connection NOT liquid.
Fictional?
Associated with a particular location?
Is it related to civil engineering?
(Raak) Already answered that. See Tuj (above). Still not fictional.
(CdM) NO. Could be anywhere (on earth).
(SM) YES, could be, but not its most common use.
(CdM) NO. Could be anywhere (on earth).
(SM) YES, could be, but not its most common use.
Geology?
Is the mineral connection metal?
(SM) NOT geology
(Raak) Very probably the answer is YES but strictly it doesn't have to be.
(Raak) Very probably the answer is YES but strictly it doesn't have to be.
Does magnetism play a role?
Is it radioactive?
(CdM) Magnetism? NO
(RTG) Radioactive? NO.
(RTG) Radioactive? NO.
Does the Abstractness have to do with mysticism, occultism, woo in general?
Is the mineral connection predominantly a single element?
Is it on the earth?
(Raak) NO, nothing that fancy.
(CdM) A single element? YES, or very nearly so.
(Bismarck) YES, practically all of them.
(CdM) A single element? YES, or very nearly so.
(Bismarck) YES, practically all of them.
Is the mineral connection man-made?
(Raak) YES, man-made.
Are the mineral things especially valuable?
(Raak) Mineral bits valuable? NO, not in the least.
A Pearly King, and the sequins thereof?
Is the AOTC to do with things that attach things to things?
(Bismarck) Your imagination does you proud but you are still close to Absolute Zero. So, alas, computer, right for once, says NO.
(CdM) YES, very much so.
(CdM) YES, very much so.
An artifical superintelligence that converts everything into paperclips?
(Raak) Microsoft shall not rule the world! So, fortunately, NO.
ISO 10642?
(Bismarck) Beth yw hwn?
It's a screw, Rosie.
(Bis) A remarkable deduction. But we need to know more.
A left-handed screw?
(though, on reflection (see what I did there?) I wouldn’t call that abstract)
The sinister CdM is the winner! Surely the thread's arse-about-facedness is abstract even if the contraption itself is just a lump of metal. Take this laevo-baton and run with it.
Again? I'm a bit swamped right now, tbh, and can't give this game the love and tender care it deserves. So I'm going to leave the baton lying right here for whoever wants to pick it up.
How about a collective consciousness round? :-)
Does it begin with P?
That is only valid in Tuj-space.
Is it heavier than a duck?
Does it have one or more sporrans?
It is heavier than a duck
It possesses zero sporrans
Is it alive?
It possesses zero sporrans
Is it alive?
Unique?
It's alive!
It's NOT unique!
Does it appear on a national flag?
It's NOT unique!
Does it appear on a national flag?
[Flag] No, I don't think it does.
Does it live in the ocean?
It does not live in the ocean.
Might it take tea with the vicar?
Is it real?
It is (more precisely they are) unlikely to take tea with the vicar, but the possibility can’t be ruled out entirely.
It is (they are) real.
Are they associated with a particular location?
It is (they are) real.
Are they associated with a particular location?
Not really, people think they are but that's more an urban myth.
Does it or do they have feathers?
They do have feathers! (audience amusement)
Is this associated with some profession?
[Profession] Yes
Are they predominantly female?
Predominantly female? Yes.
Are they Burlesque Dancers?
Are they Burlesque Dancers?
They are not burlesque dancers.
Are they British?
Are they British?
Originally yes, though not always native.
Is it the all the parrots that have been used in the famous Monty Python sketch?
Well yes it is! Though I'd worry about having a mind like that. Here is a baton which was used as a perch in the first version of the sketch, ignore the thing nailed to it. Now pick the next subject and infuse some life into this.
I knew it. Sort of. So the next one is VEGETABLE. Have at it.
Is it carnivorous?
Does it taste good?
[SM] Not carnivorous.
[CdM] Does taste good.
[CdM] Does taste good.
Processed in any way before consumption?
Is this vegetable a fruit?
Is it a berry?
[Ro] It is not processed before consumption, other than cutting it up.
[CdM] It is a fruit.
[SM] It is a berry.
[CdM] It is a fruit.
[SM] It is a berry.
Is it red?
Is it commercially grown in the UK?
[CdM] Probably best to say that it isn't red.
[Raak] Yes, they are farmed in Wisbech and other places.
[Raak] Yes, they are farmed in Wisbech and other places.
Ah! Be it a Fenland fruit?
Gooseberry?
[C] If it's grown in Wisbech, I suppose it is.
Hint: not a native fruit of the swamp.
[RtG] Not a gooseberry.
Hint: not a native fruit of the swamp.
[RtG] Not a gooseberry.
Is it an anagram?
… of “ruble byre”?
[SM] Anagrams certainly exist.
[CdM] No.
[CdM] No.
… of “dryer rebel”?
of "monel"?
[CdM] the "dreelberry" does not exist.
[SM] the AOTC has more than 5 letters.
[SM] the AOTC has more than 5 letters.
… of “colder ruby”?
Hidden text
[B] Maybe not, but the Bavarian lederberry certainly does[CdM] That one doesn't grow in Wisbech.
Does it have a fuzzy exterior?
And I don't mean once it's gone bad
… of “bray longer”?
[SM] No, it is smooth.
[CdM] Vegan tie (anag.)
[CdM] Vegan tie (anag.)
… of “carry Bren”?
begonia j ?
[Both of you] On (anag.).
Grapefruit?
[SM] Not a grapefruit.
Pomegranate? Are they Wisbechian? Seems a bit unlikely
I'm running very low on smooth fruits with enough letters that you just cut up.
Try a different type of question, then. And BTW it's not pomegranates.
Does "berry" form part of the AOTC?
[R] No.
… of “crumb cue”?
[CdM] Not that either.
Would an ordinary person include this in a fruit salad?
[Raak] I can't speak for the Wisbechians, but it's not a normal part of fruit salad.
… of “Avoca do”?
[CdM] Avoca-No.
… of “ban an a”?
[CdM] No-o, No-o-o-o.
... of (some kind of) "lemon"?
I guess SM asked that before, although B's answer didn't technically rule out a particular variety of melon. But all the ones I can think of are eaten in fruit salads or cooked (winter melon, for example). I'm struggling to think of something (always?) eaten raw but not included in a fruit salad...
[CdM] Why, yes, it does include those letters. (Glad someone noticed the clue.)
BTW I ruled out fruit salads because theoretically tomatoes could be used therein. Let's say if you buy fruit salad from a shop you won't find this in it.
BTW I ruled out fruit salads because theoretically tomatoes could be used therein. Let's say if you buy fruit salad from a shop you won't find this in it.
Usually. In my experience.
Is it a type of melon?
[RtG] Yes!
… of “wore mantle”?
(though I’d view that as a common fruit salad ingredient)
[CdM] Oohh you are posh! Yes.
… of “two man reel”?
[CdM] Yes, that too. Restlessness among the Wisbechians/Wisbechites/Wisbechers in the audience.
… of “moral tween”?
[CdM] Ho-hum. Yes. Newt morale is sinking as calculations show several thousands of possible anagrams. And you wouldn't want to be responsible for the discouragement of those cute amphibians, would you?
… of “Water, Mel? No”?
[B, re newts]They’ll get better.
[CdM] Nope. Not elm wear, either.
Someone put this game out of its misery, please.
Vladimir: Well, shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
(Watermelon for Godot)
Estragon: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
(Watermelon for Godot)
Please?
Surely some Real Men Wot the answer? Must we find a Metal Owner to sacrifice a Moral Tween at a black mass? Alert Me Now when someone puzzles it out.
Is it a watermelon?
I think it's called a winner, but it's been such a long time
A fishing boat appeared. Looked up the trawler omen meaning and found that it meant I was indebted for my state of mind, and as a mental ower I had to declare a winner. But newly omèrta had been invoked, and I could only inspire the grass with my lawn emoter to spell out their name, Mo Trelawney. Take this baton and let's have less of this nonsense.God bless all who sail in you.
In an attempt to kick-start the game, a nice simple VEGETABLE and MINERAL, with possible small amounts of ANIMAL
A foodstuff?
Smokey bacon crisps?
Did this/these exist in the year 1800?
Foodstuff? I’m going to go with Yes. *audience members start pulling their dictionaries from their backpacks, briefcases, handbags and messenger bags, and the muttering begins immediately*
Smok(e)y bacon crisps? No.
Exist in 1800? Yes.
Smok(e)y bacon crisps? No.
Exist in 1800? Yes.
Is the mineral water?
Mineral = water? No, though water is involved.
Actually, forget I said that about water being involved. It’s at best misleading, and it’s not helpful.
Is the vegetable a fruit?
Not normally eaten by humans?
Vegetable = fruit? Yes.
Not eaten by humans? Were I to be annoyingly and misleadingly literal, I’d say Yes. The AOTC is not normally eaten by humans. But the reasonable answer is: No, because the vegetable (and animal) component is consumed by humans.
Not eaten by humans? Were I to be annoyingly and misleadingly literal, I’d say Yes. The AOTC is not normally eaten by humans. But the reasonable answer is: No, because the vegetable (and animal) component is consumed by humans.
Dog biscuits?
Dog biscuits? No.
Bran flakes with fruit pieces and milk?
Breakfast? No.
A work by Damien Hirst involving a lot of formaldehyde?
Shark tank? No.
Does the mineral bit refer to the container?
Mineral = Container? Yes. *applause*
Is the misleading water In the Cells of the Eggplant?
What part of "forget I said that about water being involved" was so hard to understand, Raak?
C of E? No.
A jar of cranberry sauce?
Jar of cranberry sauce? No, but a *smattering of applause*
A pack of mince pies?
A pack of mince pies? No. *silence*
Is ye container made of glass?
It may yet be solved in time
Container made of glass? Yes.
Is it a drink?
A jar of Marmite?
A toast?
Is it a preserve?
Drink? Inside the container, Yes.
Marmite? No.
Toast, with or without marmite? No (but a *smattering of applause*
Preserve? No.
Marmite? No.
Toast, with or without marmite? No (but a *smattering of applause*
Preserve? No.
A cocktail?
Cocktail? No.
A bowl of strawberries and cream?
Strawberries and cream? That’s an unusual drink. No.
A smoothie?
Smoothie? No.
Effervescent?
Fizzy? Yes.
Alcoholiuc?
Babycham?
Alcoholic? Yes.
Babycham? *The French delegation in the audience rise en masse and walk out of the auditorium* No.
Babycham? *The French delegation in the audience rise en masse and walk out of the auditorium* No.
A glass of champagne?
Glass of champagne? *prolonged applause* No.
A bottle of champagne?
A bottle of champagne? Yes! Just in time for the new year! I have a baton here. Just hold it for me while I slice the top off it with this sword.
(Hic!) The next is MINERAL.
An empty bottle of champagne?
[CdM] No, I've already turned this one into a table light.
A single element?
[B] Generally not a single element.
Primarily or exclusively metal?
Something earthy?
Does it have a specific shape?
[CdM] All metal.
[R] Earthy like a lump of clay? No. Earthy like a garden fork? No. Earthy like the Willendorf Venus? No.
[RtG] Has a specific shape.
[R] Earthy like a lump of clay? No. Earthy like a garden fork? No. Earthy like the Willendorf Venus? No.
[RtG] Has a specific shape.
Is it smaller than a toaster?
[CdM] Smaller than a toaster.
Unique?
[CdM] Not unique.
A 10mm socket for a socket wrench?
I'm sure I had one once.
[B] Not a 10mm socket. Nor a 5/16” socket. Nor a #12 Torx wrench. Nor a three-quarter Gribley clamp.
BTW Gribley measured everything in eighths, that should have been a six-eighths clamp. Is it a statuette?
[RtG] Not a statuette.
Associated with a particular culture?
[CdM] Not associated with a particular culture.
Functional?
[CdM] Yes, functional.
A coin?
[C] Not a coin.
Would you find it in a cutlery drawer?
[RtG] Not found in a cutlery drawer.
Smaller than a slice of toast?
[CdM] Generally smaller than a slice of toast, I think, and I’m thinking of a big slice cut from a proper loaf, not a dainty crostini nibble.
Would you find it in a toolbox?
[RtG] Not found in a toolbox.
Would most morniversers own one?
Is the metal brass, either largely or wholly?
[CdM] Most Morniversers, quite possibly all but you never know, would not own one.
[Rosie] Not brass.
Is it part of a larger whole? Also, does it begin with P?
[CdM] Not a part of a larger whole. Does not begin with P.
There are two words on the card, one being the indefinite article.
A horseshoe?
[CdM] Good guess, but not a horseshoe.
A tin cup?
[RtG] Not a tin cup.
BTW, while "generally not a single element" was technically correct, most people don't really think of it as an alloy. Consider it to be "mostly a single element".
Is it of significant monetary value?
[CdM] Leaving aside archaeological remains, antiques, and over-priced handmade replicas on Etsy, no significant monetary value.
A piece of jewellery?
[B] Not jewellery.
A hint
The AOTC does not contain a Q.
Anything to do with animals?
[RtG] Its use usually relates to animals.
Are you sure it’s not a horseshoe?
[CdM] (laughter) One could say that it is the very opposite of a horseshoe.
A horsehat?
[bl] No, opposite in a different way.
A cowbell?
[RtG] Not a cowbell.
Hint: These aren’t much used these days, if at all. The British Museum has one that probably dates from Roman Britain.
Hint: These aren’t much used these days, if at all. The British Museum has one that probably dates from Roman Britain.
Is it a bad luck charm?
[CdM] (laughter) Nothing so ineffective as a charm.
An ox goad?
[B] Not an ox goad, but that's the right direction relative to a horseshoe. You just need to go several times as far.
A spur?
[S] Not a spur, but stiull pointing in the right direction relative to a horseshoe. The direction here is releted to function, not geometry.
Is it used on more than one animal?
[RtG] The Wikipedia article on this mentions several types of animals, as well as some types of inanimate object, that it is or was used in relation to.
A bit?
[B] Not a bit.
Hint: This is not part of the equipage of an animal. The response to CdM's last guess bears pondering.
A bear trap?
[CdM] Getting into the ballpark. Not a bear trap.
Is there a religious context?
[RtG] Not religious.
Gotta finish this!
I think that the limit on guesses should be lifted... A snare? A birdcage?
[S] Not a snare (but audience appreciative).
Not a birdcage (audience less so).
Not a birdcage (audience less so).
The answer is two words, including the indefinite article. It does not contain any of Q, X, J, or Z.
The answer is also the name of a plant, named for some slight similarity of shape to the AOTC.
You don't want to step on one of these.
The second word on the card has 7 letters.
A caltrop?
[B] It is indeed a caltrop. And as the Wingèd Footstep of Time descends on the Lego brick of Eternity…