The chairperson selects an object/idea/whatever and announces whether it's animal, vegetable, mineral, and/or abstract. The others have to ask questions to figure out what it is. Whomever guesses the object correctly is given the chair for the next round; repeat ad nauseam.
Boolbar - good question but No. Kayl - bit late but Yes. Bob the dog - Of all the musicals in all the West End - ya had to go an' pick the RIGHT ONE!
Well guessed Sir! [with admirable back-up from Boolbar, Raak and Darren]. As I'm not around much until Monday night - I'm rather pleased that one went so quickly. The CHAIR is yours ....
Riff - no. Raak - It can be expressed in sound. [Rosie] I have chosen something that is abstract but can be represented in a physical, tangible way using a range of media, many of which are commonly found around the average house.
Kayl - no. Darren - it does. Tuj - not a y/n question - but I'm thinking of a single abstract thing. Breadmaster - not on its own. Rosie - no. snorgle - no.
Can be expressed in a variety of physical ways, including sound; involves writing but not calligraphy, words or musical notation; is not on its own a message; no batteries required. Thinkthinkthink...
Kayl - 1) YES, 2) YES. Raak - 1) It does involve writing but it is not calligraphy (I think this is slightly different from your interpretation of my answer - 'calligraphy' is not the answer, however, this thing can be expressed using calligraphy. 'Words' is a little more complex - it is involved in words but is not a word if you see what I mean... Raak - 2) no. Riff - not really. Inkspot - not positive or negative. LotUS - 1) no. 2) no.(Keep jumping in!)
Riff - no. Bearing in mind that everyone should now have an equal chance - from now on I should ration guesses to one at a time - no multiple guesses (e.g. Is it A, C, D, E?) and no posting twice without allowing another player to have a turn. And I'll take first answers only. There is a clue in my first posting of this game...
[Riff] I guess that's a no. (To take coals to Newcastle, erstwhile centre of the former British coalmining industry, is like selling refridgerators to Eskimos.)
[Bob] No. [rab] No. [Raak] Ah, I see. 'No' is correct. [Raak] Oog. Nnno... and then again, yes. Put it this way: it's a noun that's frequently verbed. That's probably a real giveaway, right there. [Bigsmith] No. [Software] Well, no, but some might argue.
Sorry, temperamental computer here. I'm afraid the noun/verb did rather give it away. Ok new one: Mineral/Vegetable is probably the best way of describing it.
[Btd]YES. Damn, too easy. [Boolbar] No. [Chalky] Size doesn't really come into it. [Raak] No. [Inkspot] To a certain extent, but I wouldn't follow that fish. [snorgle] No, but what a fantastic idea. [Bnob] I first came across it in Belgium as it happens, but no, it's not essentially Belgian.
[rab]Yes, but I'd continue along this line of questioning if I were you. [Pchalky] No. [snorgle]Sounds lovely, but no. [Inkspot]It can be. [Breadmaster]No.
Moving off at a tangent and trying to tie up in my mind, Boolbar - Is the mineral part the glass container of the liquid? (no), and Ibid - Is it normally served in a bottle?(yes)
[Raak]No. [Bob]Yes, but as a characteristic of the final answer. [Riff]No.[Zoo Keep]No on both counts. [Inkspot]No. [snorgle]No. [Breadmaster]No. [Talky]No.
Is it normally consumed from the recepticle it has been bought in?
I've been trying to join together some of the yes answers with the maybes but to no avail put together they have completley thrown me; is a milk derivitive like yogurt(in a sense), that is a drink, can be served hot, normally served in a bottle, milk is a characteristic of the final answer, can be sold in cans.
Oh dear. Having returned after 3 hours, I was rather hoping this one would be wrapped up by now. It is rather reminiscent of the PantsMC game - y'know the sort of thing - no replies for aeons; conflicting clues, etc etc. Some people [no names] used to get a bit tetchy. Great fun.
[Inkspot]No. [Inkspot]Yes. Sorry, I see the confusion. It is a drink, a form of milk, I'm just saying you wouldn't want to drink it. [Chalky]No. [Raak]No.
[Kayl] Beestings is the watery milk that is first produced after a cow has had a calf, a fact which I only know because it was the first or last entry in one of the pages of Chambers Dictionary (Mid-Century Edition, 1953) in our house when I was growing up, and therefore was repeated in the header of the page.
Not that I was desperate to win that particular round because I have been in the chair quite recently - but my guess of 'Sour Cream' received an unequivocal thumbs down with nary a hint that I might be on the right lines. But I'm not bitter :-) We had 'milk' in a Pants game [sorry to keep banging on about Pantics] and it was definitely an ANIMAL. The bacteria that cause it to go 'off' are arguably animal aswell.
I was wondering whether the product of an animal should be defined as animal, and I decided no on the grounds that anything man-made would therefore by extension also be animal.
Absolutely - hence why it would be inconsistent to describe milk as animal because it's made of minerals but produced by a cow, but a CD mineral cos it's made of plastic and produced by a human.
Now your tending towards syllogism :-) We're arguing on two fronts here - firstly 'What is milk'? which we disagree on; secondly 'anything man-made should be classified by its material composition' which we agree on. I don't see the logical step from one to the other. Perhaps I'm a bit tired.
[Chalky] If milk, an animal by-product, is 'animal', what about dung? By your argument it's 'animal', but surely it's 'vegetable', since that's what the cow ate. Or possibly 'mineral', if you figure it's been broken down that far.
Yes, I hear [see] what you're saying, Riff. We had an extensive discussion when this game began, much along the lines of this little spat, ie. how far should we break things down. I can't remember whether it was on the first page of this game or in the Banter Game and I can't be arsed to search back 'cause it's way past my bedtime. But just as a parting shot, and because I'm feeling mischievous - further to your cowdung theory - would you differentiate between the solid waste products of a meat-eating human and a vegetarian?
Bloody Hell! It's hard enough when you are in the seat to attempt to answer questions in a manner which does not mislead without having each move analysed when the game is over. Whilst I must admit the discussion has been most entertaining, Kayl, you have my sympathy. Regardless, carry on the discussion - assuming that Boolbar doesn't produce the gavel; as I said 'tis amusing to follow the arguments of logic. ... ;-)
Mainly, I would hope that none of us would choose "the contents of a vegetarian's colon" for a topic. But, yes, I would probably call the vegetarian's waste 'vegetable' and the meat-eater's 'animal and vegetable' (since the meat-eater presumably doesn't live solely on meat... although, another animal -- a cheetah, say...)
I really shouldn't have brought this up, should I?
[Riff] Rotter! "The content of a vegetarian's colon" was exactly the topic I was going to choose if I got into the chair. I would have set it as abstract since its animal, vegetable or mineral content could not be ascertained without removing it from the colon in question.
Blimey! I thought that was a question leading towards the correct answer, not the answer itself. OK, I'll try and pick something simple that shouldn't lead to confusion (ha!) and get someone else in the chair. VEGETABLE
[Chalky] Spat is not the word I would have used, friendly banter seems more appropriate somehow. Do we agree though that the classification is purely on composition, and method of production doesn't come into it?
[rab] Agreed - I should have prefaced the word 'spat' with the adjective 'friendly'. It was pure mischief on my part and I really should have remember that such posturing doesn't necessarily transfer well on to the screen. [Material composition - yes, which is why I still think milk should have in part an 'animal' classification :-)]