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.
Sorry to interrupt AVMA for a moment, but since [Software]'s definitely reading this: gigni de nihilo ... over on MCiOS is a reverse game. The idea is that if you read the game backwards, it'll all make sense. This means that new moves have to be consistent with what's already been said "in the future". So, for example, fairly early in the game you'll find Blob saying "[Néa] To answer you question - not recently I'm afraid, the last time was on the East London Line between Shadwell & Wapping." and then later on Néa asking "Incidentally, did anybody here ever pull the emergency brake while drunk?", setting up Blob's answer. As far as I can tell, you've been playing it forwards all along -- hence all the comments about you developing precognition and so on, which are an attempt to make your comments make sense in the context of the reverse flow.
Software re: The Reverse Crescent Game in MCiOS. Yup - because you seemed to 'pick' on me nearly every time you posted something, you completely f*cked up my gameplan. I left loads of messages for you - so did Darren - and others dropped hints. Eventually I gave up and dropped out of the game :-(
Chalks: My humblest appologies :-o , I was completely off the scent on that one :-/ , sorry to spoil your fun, I'll stick to the things I know best in future.
Chalks: No, this is not the generation game :O). Raak: Unlikely - but, hey, whatever turns you on ;-) Chalks: No, it is Mineral with Animal connections, remember.
Also based on the assumption that disposables are made of metal and plastic to shave the human animal and they often come in the "electrical" variety - and blokes tend to use them daily or almost as often, with girls slightly less often needing a boyfriend at this time of night declared
Chalks: Because nobody has asked the right questions. all: Yes, I'm getting bored too. You probably have several of these about the office/college/school.
I know what's bugging me about this one - the 'animal' connection .... what does 'connection' actually mean? Is there a bit of animal in it? or is used by an animal [in this case human]? If it's the latter, isn't it rather superfluous and misleading to add the animal bit?
GL: No. Bren: No, but you are now on the right tack. Chalks: In this case the human connection is that this object would be unable to perform any function without human assistance.
[S'ware] The 'Animal' part was superfluous and misleading. Many examples of this type of equipment have been posted as the 'object' in the past - simply as Mineral. You replied to my earlier question [and I quote] "Because nobody has asked the right questions." I completely disagree.
[Brenda] No - but it was worth a shot [Raak] Yes - an individual dead human (see above) [Tuj] No [Ink] Yes [Snodster] No - I'm fairly certain she wasn't
[Inkspot] She isn't. She wasn't famous for being an author. [Raak] No, but you're think on the right lines. [Kim] See the answer I gave when Brendan asked that.
OK, let's have a MINERAL/VEGETABLE (with ABSTRACT overtones). If it becomes obvious that this classification is confusing people, I'll give some pointers ...
[all] in part, but probably not a large part (NB: I am considering "made of wood" to mean dead wood in some way arranged by humans; ie in my definition a tree is not "made of wood" -- which I admit is eccentric) [Software] probably in places, but it's not a major component [Raak] No, but keep plugging at why it has abstract overtones [Inkspot] No.
[Gusset] No. ['spot] No. [Breadmaster] No. [all] No. When I say it's not just a forest, I mean there's other stuff too, not that it's a special sort or specific example of a forest. The trees are definitely a major component of the mystery item, but perhaps not the one people immediately think of.
[BM] There's no proof that it ever existed apart from a book written by someone who never went within a hundred miles of the area it was rumoured to be. But I take your point
I know Sherwood was mentioned earlier but Notts Forest are a fictional entity, ie they are alledged to be footballers - but nice people all the same who always invite me to their end of season party in January each year.
[Gusset] No. [snorgle] Alas, too real. [all]Erm. The work in question is commonly found in books but it is not a book per se. Does that make sense? [Breadmaster] No. [Inkspot] No (bearing in mind the above caveats about the phrase "the book"). [Snodgrass] LOL. No.
I mean, of course, the location of Kubla Khan's pleasure dome, and not the improbably awful film starring Olivia Newton John and Gene Kelly. On roller skates. In pink. With the Electric Light Orchestra.
[Gusset] No. [Breadmaster] DING! DING! DING! Yes! It was indeed those twice five miles of fertile ground, with walls and towers girdled round, forests ancient as the hills, gardens bright with sinuous rills, etc. etc. Congratulations. The floor is yours.
[Inkspot] No. [Tuj] No. [Raak] No, that's very much ANIMAL. I should warn you all that I'm not at work today and tomorrow and my internet access is currently a little erratic, so many apologies if there are gaps between my answers... I shall do my best though!
(Brendan: All footballers get covered in mud, Vegetables grow in the soil (ok not all so sue me!), therefore all footballers............. eat vegetables and you are what you eat. And Forest are neither Super nor Natural before you ask - C'mon you R's)