Raak]The sting of bees? No.

Ah, just looked it up. No.

[Chalky]No.
[Boolbar] YES! YES! YES!

Well done Boolbar, that was quite painful. I was actually thinking of Sour Milk. Have a line:

---

You see, I would have answered no to this question.

Sorry about that, I guess you have to set a definition of 'drink'.

[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.

Butter? Lamb Chop? Surely anything 'man-made' should be classified by its material composition?

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] I hope you're not bringing it up, or you'd be suffering from major digestive malfunction!