arrow_circle_left arrow_circle_up arrow_circle_right
AVMA Take 2
help
Yes, it's another round of that classic guessing game - Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, Abstract [or any combination thereof]. This effort - '03/'04 should address any queries, but then again, may just serve to confuse and baffle which some might say is the point of the game. Patience, integrity and a decent search engine may be useful ....
arrow_circle_up
"dog eat dog"
Maybe the other connection is a dog as well.
[cfm] Not "That dog won't hunt".
[Raak] Not "dog eat dog"; the other animal connection is not the dog, Canis lupus familiaris. Nevertheless, some dogged audience members do sit up and take notice.
Proverbs 26:11?
[Raak] No, not Biblically proverbial.
A wolf in sheep's clothing?
Does the word "dog" appear on the card?
Does it involve the idea of hunting?
A dog's dinner?
The dog's bollocks?
Well someone had to say it ...
[Phil] Not a wolf in sheep's clothing... (yet a few audience members give faint nods of appreciation)
[CdM} The word "dog" does indeed appear on the card.
[ImNotJohn] No, the words on the card do not involve the idea of hunting, yet there is a tangential connection.
[Raak] Not a dog's dinner.
[Chalky] No bollocks involved.
dog and pony show?
Time for a recap, perhaps - The answer is a well-known phrase that contains the word "dog'; does not refer to cannibalistic dogs; there is at least one other mammalian animal connection, non-human, which is not the domesticated dog Canis lupus familiaris or rabbits, or any Felidae; the phrase is non-Biblical; perhaps tangentially connected to hunting, and that the phrase "wolf in sheep's clothing" evoked a couple of faint nods of appreciation, as though tracking in the right direction.
[cfm]Not a dog and pony show.
A dog in the manger?
[Raak] Not a dog in the manger. (Remember, the phrase has another mammalian non-human animal connection in addition to "dog").
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog?
Related to Sheepdogs/shepherding?
[ImNotJohn] Not related to sheepdogs/shepherding.
[cfm] The pangram, "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" it is! A baton long enough to pole vault over the said lazy dog is duly handed off to cfm.
*lands, none too gracefully*
So let's try this:
MINERAL WITH ABSTRACT AND HUMAN CONNECTIONS
A diamond in the rough?
[irach] No hole in one, sorry. :-)
Hmmmm. None too gracefully indeed. Let's make that abstract with animal connections, which we now know are human. :-)
The Anarcho-syndicalist Society's crazy golf runners-up cup?
[cfm] Can you just clarify - is it still Mineral (with A & A) or is it just Abstract with Animal.
Begins with P?
I had to ask it this time, as it's one of those questions that works regardless of the confusion being cleared up.
Is the human connection animal?
A single individual?
Meaning, the mineral thing, rather than its connections.
[INJ] ASS cup? Nope. But Abstract and Animal, yes.
[Tuj] Next time, I Promise.
[CdM] *laughs*
[Raak] Yes. One individual.
Mineral = metal?
Owned by a specific person?
Is it extremely valuable?
[Software] To the best of my knowledge, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
[Tuj] Multiple owners. *Audience raises a collective eyebrow*
[Raak] Valuable, yes. Extremely? Depends on how much you have in your checking account, I suppose. But it ain't cheap.
I'm still not clear on your answer to INJ. This is MINERAL with ABSTRACT and ANIMAL connections; is that right?
An item of jewellery?
[CdM] So sorry. That is correct. Mineral with abstract and animal connections.
[Raak] To the best of my knowledge, no. *A few murmurs from the audience* *
Some sort of regalia?
Are computer/'phone screens pertinent to the answer?
Smaller than a toaster?
[Raak] No, nothing royal about it
[Dujon] [No, not at all.
[CdM] i am guessing yes, once in a rare while. But not usually.
I need another clarification. Raak asked if the mineral thing was a single individual, which I took to mean he was asking if it was unique, with only one instance in the world. You replied Yes. Am I misunderstanding your answer to Raak's question?
Invented in the last 200 years?
I would love to see video footage of the audience's response to my previous.
Related to arms or militaria?
[CdM] Sorry for the confusion. No, the mineral thing is not a single item. The animal connection is to a single individual. And thank you for clarifying.
[Tuj] Yes, invented in the last 200 years.
[INJ] No, not related to militaria.
Is the "single individual" the inventor of the item?
[Jim] Yes, the single individual invented the words on the card.
A communication device?
[Raak] No, not a communication device.
Is the inventor still alive?
Is the name of the inventor on the card?
[jim] No, the inventor is dead.
[INJ] Yes, the inventor's name is on the card.
Related to medicine?
Associated with a particular country?
[Raak] No, nothing medicinal. Though it might make you feel good to encounter it. :-)
[Tuj] Yes -- but not strongly so. I would guess that many people know the thing on the card but don't make that association.
Do you think that the typical morniverser owns one of these?
A household article?
[CdM] No, the average morniverser probably does not have one stashed out back.
[Raak]Yes, often but not always.
Functional as opposed to decorative?
[CdM] No, not functional as opposed to decorative.
You may wish to rephrase your question(s).
Is the first of these reputed to have been made for Tsar Alexander III?
[Dujon] No. We're not making omelettes. :-) Fun guess, though.
A timepiece of some sort?
[INJ] Yes, sometimes. I know of at least one instance.
Tiffany glass/window?
[irach] Yes! The words on the card are indeed Tiffany glass. *very carefully hands off a fabulous opalescent baton (signed!) to irach Don't drop it. :-)
Ooofff! It's tough lugging that glass baton all the way from 57th and Fifth Avenue after a heavy breakfast at Tiffany's ... so let me pause and consider the next puzzle... ah, yes...ABSTRACT with a MINERAL connection.
A Tiffany design?
[Raak] Not a Tiffany design.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord