arrow_circle_left arrow_circle_up arrow_circle_right
Animal-Vegetable-Mineral-Abstract: The Pants Memorial Game
help
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.
arrow_circle_up
Dew point
Wild stab.
plump - Nope
The boiling point of water?
Golden Shower?
Coat!
Boolbar!!
Boolbar - The attendent will show you the way; Chalky - YES!!!!!!
DING DING DING!!!! Congratulations Miss Chalky!!! You have correctly guessed the boiling point of water. The floor is now yours m'lady.
(Raak)Oh so close!
It was going to be the sublimation point of iodine but then I realised that would probably have got me expelled from these boards ;)
O wow!
I'll admit that although I climbed on the shoulders of the estimable Raak for the final thrust - I did work hard on that one [witness - nauseating number of questions] so I don't feel too abashed.
Give us a mo ...
'the sublimation point of iodine'
LotUS] be glad you did not opt for Boolbars suggestion.
OK - New One - *A N I M A L*
Bring on the questions . . .
Is it a living creature?
we'll start nice and simple
Is the whole thing an animal?
though I do fancy a leg of lamb this Sunday.
Is ia an Aardvaark?
I've got this Wildlife dictionary on my lap, you see.....
Human?
(LotUs) Iodine doesn't have a sublimation point (at atmospheric pressure). Melts at 114°C and boils at 184°C. And I hope you've specified a pressure for the boiling point of water. At the top of Everest water boils at 70°C at which temperature it takes several days (by extrapolation) to boil an egg and tea is crap. Sorry to be such an arse-aching pedant but I've got a reputation to keep up. -:)
An air breather?
(Rosie) yes, I am aware of Boyle's Law, STP and such stuff (I did study Chemistry at uni), that's why I gave the clue as abstract because the answer was more 'the concept of the boiling point of water' rather than an actual figure (which would be an accepted standard against an arbitrary scale). Which is also part of why expected wrangling to take place.
LotUS - NO. Inkspot - whole thing YES - but an animal [as opposed to a human] NO. Kim - NO! Rosie - YES. Bob - Not any more, obviously.
Wrangling is good.
John Wayne?
are they recently deceased (last 20 years)?
Is it Otzi the Bog Man?
A mummy?
addendum
That is, not one's mother, you uderstand.
Is it fictitious?
BobtheDog - No. LotUS - No. Raak - if I didn't know better I would say you're being a silly-billy :-) Software - No and No. Darren - No.
sorrysorrysorry Raak - please forgive me for poaching your water.
Darren - if it WERE fictitious, wouldn't that make it abstract?
Was this human British?
 
Female?
DrQ - No. BobtheDog - No.
American?
probably my last q 'til tomorrow - d'oh
LotUS - erm ... broadly speaking YES.
Montezuma?
Singular as opposed to a grouping?
Chief Sitting Bull?
Born on the continent now known as North America?
Raak - No. Inkspot - YES. LotUS - No. Ibid - YES.
An American President?
Bob - No
Canadian?
 
An entertainer?
Lived during the 20th century?
Was it a native American?
Oh, by the way, I wouldn't call a fictitious person or animal necessarily abstract.
Albert Johnson, the Mad Trapper of Rat River?
Malcom X?
Thinking that he may be born in America but perhaps considers themselves to be maybe Hispanic or Jewish or black / American
DrQ - by parentage YES. Bob - not really known as such, but IMHO he WAS entertaining as a person. Tuj - YES. Darren - see DrQ. Raak - I'm SO sorry - how can I make it up to you . .
Now - I've had 4 [and a sneaky half] very very very large glasses of vinoplonko since I was here before - I've jus got home - DO tell me if I'm performing inappropriately - coz i's a sherious business this chairing a game thingystuff . . . and I would HATE to let you all down - *sobs* Oh god! You are ALL my beshtest friends and . . .
Inkspot - No [which you can now see because I shimulposted . .]
a politician?
Your performance is just fine.. ;)
snorgle - No.
Thank you dearest schnorgy worgy
Were they intentionally entertaining?
you're welcome.. ;)
snorgs - he was *intentionally* something else which is yet to be guessed - but as I said before - IMO he WAS entertaining, but perhaps not to all
Were other people involved in doing this IYHO entertaining thing?
hmmm
snorgle - I dare say
ahem
William Shatner?
This is moving faster than usual..
snorgs - he isn't dead, is he?
Certainly is.
Was it sexual?
It would explain his acting skills. I just had to read all that to work out that he is dead. So, a dead 20th century man of canadian extraction (ouch!) who did something that might be considered entertaining.
Involved in sport?
[snorgle] Where'd that last question come from?
Maybe I should go to bed. I meant was what he did sexual (as it amused Chalky).
[snorgle] Unless he was a eunuch, I'd say so. :)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Tired, so no longer making sense.. g'night! (Just as well I previewed that, it was toooo long!)
A musician, of any kind?
Up late, as usual.
Pierre Trudeau?
Snorgle - No. DrQ - No. Rosie - No.
snorgle's summary above is OK - but don't be misled by the 'entertaining' part - I refer to my comments to BtD further back.
Raak - I think we eliminated 'politician' earlier , so No
Was he black?
We're getting there!
Breadmaster - No.
A scientist?
Or an artist? (of the non-entertaining kind)
Darren - No. Artist [as in painter?] No.
A sportsman?
Raak - " I refer the honourable member to my previous reply ..."
**brief recap**
So a dead, somewhat entertaining gentleman of Canadian parentage who wasn't a sportsman, scientist, artist, or politican. He lived in the 20th Century but died more than 20 years ago.
Lenny Bruce?
"I'm sorry if I'm not very funny tonight, but I'm not a comedian, I'm Lenny Bruce."
DrQ - No.
Recap fine, but forget the 'entertaining' part of it - that was more of an 'aside'.
It's why I suggested Lenny Bruce.
Was he the bloke who wrote the Kinsey Report, i.e. Kinsey?
Was he a published writer at all?
Rosie - No. Darren - YES!
At last - a breakthrough. Bring on the literati . . .
Ernest Hemingway?
Uh-oh...
I would check if he had Canadian parentage, but then that'd kinda take the fun out of it a bit. Plus, I think I'd make a mad chair.
Of course, I did mean bad chair. And no I wasn't talking about carpentry.
Is he best known as a writer of fiction?
Is he on this list?
Tuj - No. Inkspot - Yes ... but. Raak - ahem.
Inkspot - His work is considered somewhere between fiction and non-fiction.
Raak - He was American, but of Canadian extraction, so he may or may not be on your list.
Was he a columnist for a newspaper?
The output of some political sketch writers blurr the line between fact and fiction.
Inkspot - No ... but
...I'm sure he wrote magazine articles from time to time as a sideline.
Mark Twain?
Who's got a scanner? TWAIN = Thing Without An Interesting Name, so I'm told. :-)
Was he best known as an essayist?
That is, as opposed to a novelist. Knowing what you have on your bookshelves I leave the poetry until later.... :-)
Edgar Allen Poe?
His parents were travelling actors, but I dunno if they were Canadian...
Jack Kerouac?
He had French-Canadian parents.
Died in the first half of last century?
Rosie - No. Dujon - not really. Bob the dog - No.
.... but ... wait for it ... *drum roll*
Darren - YES! YES YES YES!!
Well done, me old mate - here's the man ... if anyone's interested.
Underlining Darren's victoreeeee

Crikey
*General applouse for Darren*
And some applause too, even...
This new one will be ABSTRACT, although arguably there are animal, vegetable and mineral connections..
Thanks all!
An organisation?
Chalky sounds very excitable these days. I wonder what's going on.
Fictional?
Incidentally, if the subject were, say, Frodo, would that count as abstract as well as animal? I would assume that "fictional" and "abstract" mean quite different things, but it looks to me like there might be a bit of fuzziness between them in the context of this game.
Not Frodo, is it?
Worth a try.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
Rosie - no. Breadmaster - yes and no. Tuj - no. Raak - no.
Breadmaster's answer is vague because it depends how you interpret it.
(a) God?
of any religion..
Is there or could there be more than one?
is it a huan concept?
Is it written down in some form?
Is it an event?
Magic?
Is it something whose existence is controversial, so that some people believe it is real but others believe it is only fictional?
Controversy already. Excellent!
snorgle - no. Raak - yes and no. Software - yes. Bob - yes. Inkspot - could be considered as one, I suppose. Boolbar - no. Breadmaster - hehehehehe, no.
Again, Raak's answer depends on how I interpret his question.
I assumed Software means "human."
The American Constitution?
Yes it was ,BTW.
Is it more than 100 years old?
Does it have a colour?
The Bible?
The Koran?
I think Raak's right.
Software - no. Inkspot - no. Boolbar - not a specific one, no. Raak - no. Breadmaster - no.
Raak and Breadmaster - you're way off!
And don't get misled by the "in written form" thing. It *has* been in written form, but that's not its main form.
Is it a subject of study?
Huxley - well, someone probably has studied it in academic terms at some time or another, but as a general rule, no.
Is it instructional in any way?
Is it a film?
Chalky - no. Big Dave - YES.
Big Dave has made the first major breakthrough.
released in the last two years?
Bob the dog - no.
Is it in colour? (as opposed to black and white)
Frankenstein?
Does it star anyone who has been a governor of California?
 
Boolbar - yes. Raak - no. DrQ - no.
Documentary?
 
gil - no.
was it made in America?
Is it funny?
Is it of the horror genre?
Bob - yes. Raak - yes (of course, different people have different opinions). Tuj - yes.
Is it Scream?
Though I equally laughed at The Blair Witch Project.
Evil Dead 2
Funniest horror movie I ever saw.
Sorry, that was a question... Evil Dead 2?
Inkspot - no. Bob - no.
Is is "Eraserhead"?
Kim - no.
I'd suggest you try narrowing it down a bit further!
Released before 1980?
 
DrQ - yes.
By the way, Kim, if I remember correctly, "Eraserhead" is in black and white, not colour.
Does it involve vegetables in a leading role?
Was it released after 1970?
"Plan 9 From Outer Space"
 
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?
Sci-fi?
Is it intended as a comedy?
I now give DrQ the kiss of death by saying I think he's right.
Ibid - no. Inkspot - yes. DrQ - no. Chalky - no. Kayl - no. Breadmaster - to a point.
BM's kiss worked, it seems. By the way, DrQ, you don't need to put   in Stance any more, that problem seems to have been fixed.
Rocky Horror Picture Show?
Is it horror?
Did it win an Oscar?
Inkspot - no but you're on the right lines. Raak - see Tuj above. Boolbar - no.
Boolbar - ...but it was nominated for one.
The Mummy?
The kiss never fails.
Breadmaster - no.
Young Frankenstein?
Ibid - no.
The Exorcist?
Carrie?
The Little Shop of Horrors?
ah ... just realised it can't be, because you said No to Ibid's question about vegetables in a leading role. What the hell - I'll post this anyway.
The Amityville Horror?
The only Oscar nominated horror (for musical score) from the 70's that we haven't already mentioned that I can recall.
LSoH
Chalky... it was also made in the 80s.
Huxley - no. Chalky - no. Ibid - no.
Wol - no. (sorry for missing you first time round!)
Inkspot was pretty close with Rocky Horror.
Singalongasoundofmusic?
Shirley Thompson vs. The Aliens?
Raak - no. Huxley - no.
Summer of Secrets?
( I am assuming I'm only allowed to ask one question at a time )
Huxley - no.
Feel free to ask as many as you feel like, as long as you don't end up flooding the room with a million films!
Shock Treatment?
darren] I'll do my best not to, but I'm on a roll here!
Huxley - no.
You're still along the right lines though.
Is it really an oscar nominated horror comedy from the 1970s?
Since I can't think of any I haven't already mentioned, I'm puzzled.
Ibid - yes, it really is.
And all those characteristics are in the IMDB entry for this film. It can't be *that* hard to get!
Did Brian de Palma have anything to do with it?
'cos I can't remember the name of the film...
Fade to Black?
Huxley - no. Ibid - YES.
Ibid, I think you've got it, you just need the title!
Phantom of the Paradise?
Surely not
Phantom of the Paradise?
Simul'ed - but I'm not retracting, as Hux has just done!
That was an abbreviated "surely it's not Phantom of the Paradise is it?" thankyouverymuch.
Sisters?
(just in case)
[Hux] OK - I'll fight you for it ;-) Or, you have Sisters and I'll have PotP ...
You keep your grubby simul' posting hands off my guesses.
Huxley and Wol - CORRECT!
Yes, it was Phantom of the Paradise. So, Huxley is in the chair for the next round (sorry Wol, Huxley did post first!).
Gosh - that was quite exciting
Well done Huxley on the photo-finish. Better luck next time, Wol - and a worthy third place to Ibid the pacemaker.
Nice setup there Ibid! As soon as you mentioned De Palma, the movie just lept out of my long-term memory... a quick check on IMDB confirmed the facts.
I too will go with ABSTRACT
And, unfortunately, I am heading on home and will have not have time to check in tonight... I will answer guesses first thing in the morning.
Is there more than one of them?
Ah well, I was refusing to look it up on IMDB as a matter of principle. But I just couldn't remember the title.
Is it numerical?
Does it involve religion?
 
Is it unique to humans?
Could I pay money to buy some?
Can it be seen?
Does it have organoleptic properties (ie is it perceived by the senses)?
Going more broadly than Inkspot. [Hux] ... and I put my back out stretching for the line like that!
Does it involve emotion?
A very vague move but I'll stick with it.
Ibid - no. Kayl - no. DrQ - no. Darren - no. Tuj - possibly, yes. Inkspot - yes. Wol - yes. Noodle - yes.
[Tuj] the answer to yours is genuinely "Possibly yes". [Wol] ... me too, my neck hurts as well.
Love?
Bob - no.
Would it be considered one of the 'arts'?
Chalky - No.
Now of course wishing had gone for more specific move...
Is it generally considered a positive thing?
Ibid - no.
Is it a colour? [black?]
Is it an action?
Wol] Sorry, simulposted.
There is not more than one of them.
It is not numerical.
It does not involve religion.
It is not unique to humans.
You could possibly pay money to buy some.
It can be seen.
It can be perceived by the senses.
It does involve emotion.
It is not love.
It would not be considered one of the 'arts'.
Is it not generally considered to be a positive thing.
Is it one of the seven deadly sins?
Wol - 'fraid not. Ibid - nope.
[Bob]so far, so good.
Could it exist without animals or humans?
Does it tend to ilicit an emotional response?
Is it pain?
Inkspot - no. Kim - yes. Ibid - no.
Childbirth?
Mortality?
Raak - no and no.
[all] We're headed slowly in the right direction.
Does it cause physical damage?
Is it a disease?
Is it generally a positive thing?
Is it sex?
One track mind.
Ibid - not as a rule, Raak - it's not considered as one, Darren - no, Bob - no.
Getting warmer!! :)
Impotence?
Is it artificial (as opposed to natural)?
Rabies?
Chalky - no, Wol - no, Boolbar - no.
A short lifespan?
Is it exclusive to humans?
Death?
Along with Death of Rats!
Kayl]see Darren
Raak - no, Kayl - no, Inkspot - no.
Obesity?
I'm getting stuck here.
Ibid - no.
[ibid] You're close but not quite there.
[all]You may want to ponder on the fact that, oddly, Noodles superlatively vague question was about as close as anyone has come so far.
Does it involve one specific emotion?
Inkspot] Indeed.
Kayl - no
Is it dieting?
unhappiness?
Is it a celebtration?
Is it *an* emotion?
self-consciousness? (awkwardness, that sort of thing, not the 'awareness' track)
Is it crying?
Love?
Is it depression?
Is it something to do with physical appearance?
Anorexia Nervosa?
<serious >Having had a daughter go through it - it is not funny.</serious>
An aside
From comments I have seen in another place, this does not seem to be a problem with some of our posters! ... Tee hee!
Inkspot - no, Ibid - no, Bob - no, Tuj - no, Chalky - no, Dujon - no.
My last clue, regarding Noodles Vague Question, will require a little lateral thinking.
[Dujon]One of my sister in-laws has been going through it all of her life. she recovered for a short while a couple of years ago but we have noticed that she started back down that path again a few months ago.
Obesity?
Software - no.
RECAP
There is not more than one of them.
It is not numerical.
It does not involve religion.
It is not unique to humans.
You could possibly pay money to buy some.
It can be seen.
It can be perceived by the senses.
It does involve emotion.
It is not love.
It would not be considered one of the 'arts'.
Is it not generally considered to be a positive thing.
It isn't a colour.
It isn't one of the seven deadly sins.
It couldn't exist without animals or humans.
It elicits an emotional response.
It isn't pain.
It isn't childbirth.
It isn't mortality.
It doesn't, as a rule, cause physical damage.
It is not considered a disease.
It is not a positive thing.
It isn't sex.
It isn't impotence.
It isn't artificial.
It isn't rabies.
It isn't a short lifespan.
It isn't exclusive to humans.
It isn't death.
It isn't obesity [but 'close' said Hux].
It doesn't involve one specific emotion.
It isn't a celebration.
It isn't 'an' emotion.
It isn't crying.
It isn't love.
It isn't depression.
It isn't anorexia nervosa.

OK there seem to be some missing answers, if I've read it right:
Is it an action? [Bob]
Is it dieting? [Darren]
Is it unhappiness? [Chalky]
Is it self-consciousness? [LotUS]
Is it something to do with physical appearance? [Darren]
Phew!

Is it something that can affect anyone/anything?
I'm intrigued by the fact that it's not exclusive to humans.
Bravo Chalky.
Chalky - yes, It could affect anyone, but NOT anything.
First, the missing answers (apologies to all):
It is not an action
it is not dieting
it is not unhappiness
it is not self-conciousness and it is not something to do with physiscal appearance.
I am surprised at how long this one is going on... I thought it would be a case of "four questions and we're done".
A clue...
[Raak] You might want to break out the thesaurus for one of your earlier questions that was close but forced a rather vague answer from me.
Would it be considered a 'disorder'?
Albinism?
Chalky - not a disorder, no. Raak - no.
Is it associated with a loss of some sort?
Stabbing in the dark, slightly confused.
Infertility?
Inkspot - no. Chalky - no.
Let me recap the important questions (in descending order of relevance)... as it seems that all are confused...


(1) It is not considered a good thing.
(2) It can be perceieved by the senses
(3) It could not exist without animals or humans
(4) It is not a "disease"
(5) It is not a "disorder"
(6) It isn't unique to humans

and... If you think sideways, Noodle was so so so so so close with his vague question...
As for (4) and (5) you might want to consider a thesaurus.
Homesickness?
NOT homesickness
I am retracting my last question ... because homesickness is associated with a loss
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord