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 ....
[Raak] Belly? - NO As a help, I can expand on my particular country answer to Tuj. They are/were associated with and produced in one country, but have/had a wider presence.
[jim] Branded? - NO (Well, actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that it has been used as a brand name at some point somewhere, but that won't help you)
[Phil] The first toaster question? - YES, smaller In looking up the answer to jim's question I discovered this had been used as the name of an album, a book and a shop amongst other things but I can't see that helping much.
[cfm] Abstract connection related to country of origin? - Not especially, though there is some link [Raak] Turkish? NO (I don't count that as European, despite Istanbul) [jim] Russian? - NO (I see how your minds are working, but that's not the reason for the (very minor) audience reaction - The country of origin is fully and completely European)
[Phil]Well, it's always easier when you know the answer, but I think we're now at the cryptic crossword clue stage so that when you think of the answer, you know it's right.(simulposted) [jim] You have just proved me right - The words on the card are Pieces of Eight (aka Peso de Ocho, aka Spanish Dollar) Polly, take this baton over to Jim lad.
I'm actually kind of tempted to concede the win to Phil, since "peso" is so nearly there and we practically simul'd it. If you've got a clue lined up, Phil, you can take it if you want, otherwise I've got one I can do.
[INJ] YES, human. [cfm] I have heard it described as a craft, but if you mean handicraft, NO. [CdM] YES, metal. some applause from the audience [Tuj] NO, alas, does not begin with P.
[Raak] It can have, but not in any sense that I think is going to help you. [INJ] In a certain sense yes, but as generally understood NO. [GL] A statue would be mineral with abstract/animal connections, so NO.
[Raak] YES, in that the words on the card denote the answer in a figurative rather than a literal sense, although the expression is not the answer. [INJ] YES, again in a broad sense, connected with communication. [Tuj] It frequently is, but need not be.
[Raak] NO, not speech as such (although it can be involved, but generally isn't). [Tuj] NO, not a specific item. [Software] NO, not an advertising sign.
Is the metal in question as single metallic element found in the Periodic Table of Elements (such as iron or copper or lead), as opposed to a combination or alloy (e.g. brass, bronze, gunmetal)?
[CdM] NO, not an emotion or a state of mind. [Tuj] Certain kinds of it are associated with certain regions, but not exclusively, and I shouldn't say the answer as a whole was associated with a given place.
[Raak] NO, not freemasonry. When I said "large number of small organisations" they wouldn't normally be referred to in those words, I should point out. [CdM] YES, but the business side isn't generally considered the important bit.
[Dujon] NO, not a badge, because ... YES! The words on the card are Heavy Metal. At the end of the game, I fling my baton out into the crowd, where it is caught by irach.
I found it quite difficult answering all the "connected with X" questions without being misleading, since of course it can be connected with just about anything, if somebody writes a song about it. Relationships and (in one form or another) religion are frequent themes. The "small organisations" I referred to above would, of course, normally be called "bands" :)
[Dujon] The word "bite" is not on the card [ImNotJohn] See above, therefore, no. [Software] Not the hair of the dog. It may behoove one to consider my earlier response that one of the animal connections is a dog.
[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.
[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.
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.
[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.
[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.
[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* *
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?
[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.
[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.
[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.
[cfm] Not a title per se, but has been used as a title on occasion. [GLogin] Not fictional object(s). [Dujon] The mineral component is made up of natural elements. ...Upon capitulation, there is also an element/aspect of "Animal", without which the overall abstract element would be incomplete.
[cfm] It is the metal connection word on the card that begins with "P". [ImNotJohn] Not weaponry related. [Tuj] Connected to all people. [Kim] The metallic article itself is often mentioned in numerous works of fiction; yet the words on the cards are not directly related to a work of fiction.
[ImNotJohn] Not the question I was thinking of...nevertheless, the metallic object in question is (considerably) smaller than a toaster. {GLogin] See response above. [cfm} Yes, related to a state of mind or emotion! (The snoozing audience awakes!) [Raak] Not fictional. [imNotJohn] Yes, a human concept.
[irach] No (sheepishly). [Raak] Depends which animal. No, the primary animal element is not alive when it's being the thing on the card. Yes, the animal connection is alive.
Is the human component a specific individual, or a class/group of person? [cfm] There is a little confusion here, because in the very start, in response to the first question you indicated the animal was not human. Did you change the original "words on the card" after capitulation?
[Raak] Yes. There is often a wood component. [irach] The words on the card have not changed. The thing named on the card is not human. The animal connection noted from the beginning is human. Does that clarify? No, not a specific individual nor a specific class or group of humans. However, in the sense that the humans are connected to the thing named on the card, they are involved in the same activity.
[GL] No, not dancing spats. [Dujon] No, there is no other meaning to the words on the card. [Software] No, not drum mallets. Here's what we know for sure -- that the words on the card represent an item made of leather and wood. The animal connection is human. The item(s) are connected with dancing and could even be characterized as dancing shoes. Drums and tambourines drew appreciative reactions from the audience. Do you think it might be helpful to explore some of the abstract connections?
[GL] No, not tap shoes. [irach] Yes--although I am having a little bit of trouble with the word "refer" in your question. The abstract connection(s) call to mind a particular form of dancing, without naming it directly. The words on the card do so, as well.
[irach] No, not that kind of shoe. But shoes for dancing is still a valid general concept. I am not sure if this will be helpful but I think I should add a note that the words on the card name something that may also be constructed from synthetic materials. [INJ] Yes. Originally, the style of performance piece was strongly associated with one country. Then performers in a second country made a very strong contribution and a second strong association was created. [Chalky] No, not a soft shoe shuffle. [Raak] No, not reel shoes.
[Software] No, not Flamenco dancing shoes. I think we covered that earlier. [GL] No, not line dancing per se, though I believe there have been instances of this type of dance which involved lining up for a set of choreographed steps. Here's a recap of what we presently know: the words on the card represent a type of footwear worn all but exclusively by women, while dancing in a particular way that is associated with another particular type of performance that is most closely associated with the United States but which also became associated with another country when performers from that country made a very strong contribution. Drums and tambourines drew favorable responses from the audience, which could suggest that what distinguishes the style of performance or dance is its rhythm or beat. You may also wish to consider that the kind of clothing worn on the foot is not always called a shoe. :-)
[irach] No, not connected to salsa, mambo, cha cha, tango or any other Latin-identified style. (I'm getting the feeling that the words on the card never made it too far outside of the U.S.)
[Raak] Yes. There is a strong African American influence/connection and I expect that influence traces back to Africa. *question engenders exuberant applause*
Is the vegetable (often wood) connection previously referred to part of the footwear, or is it an entirely separate entity related to the words on the card?
[Raak] No, not pattens. I had to look that one up; like the words on the card, they are not so much in fashion these days. Come to think, it might help to keep in mind that dancing, music and fashion all change with the times.
[CdM] Yes. A boot. *audience cheers as if its team has just won the world cup* [INJ] No, not stilts. But yes, I have been expecting the hand of Rosie to come and smite me any moment now. :-)
[INJ] No, not related to Mariachi/zapataedo. [Raak] Yes, I can think of at least one professional cheer leading squad I associate with this footwear. (However, the footwear was originally more connected with the runway than with running backs.) *Texans in the audience nod, approvingly*
Not sure why I keep guessing - I have no desire to be in the chair next time round. Guess I'm intrigued ... and if the solution turns out to be ridiculously obscure ... I can then 'do a Rosie' [sans swearage] :-D
Can't find any reference to these as either dance-specific or made of leather and wood (wikipedia refers to them in purely fashion terms and often/mostly made of plastic - which is what I would have guessed). Can someone point me at a helpful reference. Not annoyed, you understand, I just stopped guessing because I'd explored everything I could given the information available and I'd like to know how I could have got there. Oh, and:
[INJ] Alas, I didn't check wikipedia before I chose the words on the card. My bad--I will remember to do so should I ever be handed the baton again. I relied on my memory of my first pair of go go boots: they where white patent leather and had a stacked wooden heel. I believe I answered the question about dancing shoes early on by saying the the item on the card could be characterized as a dancing shoe without saying it was a dancing shoe directly; I thought I was giving the best answer possible. Later when I realized that it was limiting everyone's thinking, I tried to draw attention to the fashion connection. I was surprised how few questions focused on the style of music connected with the dancing (particularly after some pretty direct hits and/or hints e.g. American-originated, distinguished by its beat, African American influence, etc.) or (until CdM) inquired whether the shoes were currently or historically popular. Anyway--while I am very glad you are not annoyed, INJ--still I am apologetic. This was a round of Painfully Difficult AVMA. Sorry.
[Raak] Salty bacon crisps? NO :) [irach] Edible? NO [Software] Wearable? NO [cfm] Primarily decorative as opposed to utilitarian? NO - mostly utilitarian [GL] Man made? In the main - YES.
[Raak] Made of leather, wood, and metal fixings? The wording of your question requires a NO answer, even though leather, wood and metal are all components of this. [Tuj] YES - still unique :) [irach] Furniture/home furnishing - NO, not alone [although your question prompts a murmur from the very sleepy audience] [GL] Wood? YES - wood is one of the vegetably bits of this [cfm] Fictional? NO
[Tuj] Entertainment? NO not really ... aw, maybe in some respects but - my reply really won't help. [cfm] Elements effecting/affecting each other? Oh YES - absolutely. [Raak] Moving parts? YES [GL] Bigger than a phone box? YES - massively so.
*is wondering if the word ABSTRACT should have been part of the opening clue*
[CdM] Located in Europe? NO *audience vociferous in their approval of a CdM question* [cfm] Leather only animal element? NO [INJ] LtUaE? Life and Most things might be found within this :) [irach] Lubrication? I expect so - but knowing this isn't particularly useful. [Raak] Factory? The answer on the card is NOT a factory, although factories are part of the answer [as are moving parts and lubrication] ;-)
[Raak] Extracting resources? Not really NO [Tuj] N America? NO *audience applauds this line of questioning* [GL] A country? NO ... but *audience sees no need to hold back ...* [cfm] Human? YES! *... claps, cheers and wild excitement accompany the reply to cfm's question*
[cfm] I think the phrase 're-examine your assumptions' has been used in this game when it's fairly clear that a player is not moving in the right direction. Apologies if, by inaccurate replies, I have misled you. Having said that - I owe you an answer:
[cfm] Many types of items are likely to be produced at the manufacturing facilities which are likely to be a part of the answer. :-)
So, bearing in mind that the item is unique and yet is only _likely_ to encompass a manufacturing facility/factory, does that mean that the composition of thing on the card changes over time? It evolves?
[Raak] A City? A City! YES - yes - it's a city *audience collectively faints with relief* [cfm] Sort of YES to everything you said - and now you know what you're looking for ... name that city :-)
[Raak] Not Pyongyang oop north because ... [CdM]... BUSAN it is! [my eldest has just returned from a wonderful year there teaching primary school age kids]
*hands the shiny clean and impeccably-mannered baton to CdM*
In UK? and Built before 1900? Here is where I need to remind you that I equivocated about defining this as abstract. Neither question really makes sense. (However, I can say that it has its origins in the UK before 1900.) I should also perhaps add that there are certainly connections to books and music. I wouldn't have found them helpful, but some here might, I suppose. This is the kind of thing where Wikipedia has a long list of references in popular culture/examples in modern society.
Type of building? Yes *applause* Museum? No (although there are some connections). Actual physical presence? *audience applause for the question* The answer is debatable. I'm going to go with a qualified Yes. Fictional? No (although there are certainly fictional connections). Specific person or people live there? No, not exactly. Depends what you mean by "specific", I suppose.
Are there several of these? Well, as my earlier answer to cfm suggests, it is debatable whether there is (or was) even one of these. But I will again answer with a qualified Yes.
Religious significance? No. Mythical? No. BC? No. Metaphorical? Interesting question. I think it's more concrete and not as obviously metaphorical as your example. As against that, the Wikipedia article on this does include a section entitled "The P__________ as Metaphor", so the answer is clearly Yes. (I was/am more aware of the literal meaning, but it is possible that others here are more aware of metaphorical senses; I don't know.)
Yes! Following on my pantechnicon when I was last in the chair, this was Jeremy Bentham's revolutionary prison design that allows a single guard to observe all the prisoners. (It's still not clear what the single guard does when he observes all the prisoners rioting, mind you.)
*hands Raak a baton that, rather curiously, can be seen on all sides at once from a single vantage point*
[Software] Not a pillar box. BTW, I've complained in the past that "ABSTRACT" is over-used, and I may have been guilty of that myself here. Pretty much everything has "abstract connections", and I don't think this is especially connected to the abstract. Just a unique object of non-precious metal, somewhere in Europe, with animal connections.