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] Metallic? - NO [GL] Manufactured? YES (in the broadest sense) [Tuj] Unique? - YES is probably the most helpful answer *some muttering in the audience*
[Rosie] The big reservoy? - NO [Tuj] Spatial visibility? - Well, space is a big place - did you have any particular bit of it in mind? How big a pair of binoculars have you got with you? Anyway, the sensible and useful answer is NO
[Dujon] Naturally manufactured? - I think I see what you mean and the answer is NO. I probably should have said 'In a broad sense' for manufactured, just as a clue that you shouldn't interpret it too narrowly. This is the product of a human process.
[Raak] Individual object? - NO (this explains the hesitation over Unique). Strictly speaking it's a group, but the words on the card card refer to the whole group.
[Rosie] China etc? No, not in any obvious way and if at all, then probably only after the fact. Certainly thinking along lines suggested by China and terracotta armies isn't likely to help. My comment was only because I thought that was what Dujon was thinking of.
[Raak] Moai? - NO [Tuj] American? - NO [Dujon] There you are, you could have had a go [irach] Mediaorientalist? - NO (but tying this down geographically is a good approach)
BTW - with an arm up my back I'd plump for 'taller than a bus' but you'll understand why I answered as I did when you get the answer, or very shortly before.
(Although I now see you answered the earlier fuel-extraction question with a general negative comment about mining, so I suspect my guess is not right.)
[Tuj] Inhabited? - NO [CdM] Big 'ole? - NO *audience applauds both questions* Re mining/drilling - if it had been a diamond mine, even if open-cast, I wouldn't have replied as I did, but you have got the right idea as to the bus answer, so don't read too much into it - and don't forget Rosie's early question.
So, if I am inferring correctly from the answers, we are looking for something underground or below ground level, but not linked to mining, not inhabited, created by humans more than a century ago and not containing water. Man-made caves? Tunnels? Tombs?
[Dujon] Abyssinian? - YES! *loud and prolonged applause* Why didn't you just have a guess at it? [CdM] Fairly accurate, but Dujon has leap-frogged you.
(INJ) Could you and CdM conduct your nerdy little game in private and give the rest of us a chance? It seems pointless and time-wasting to ask questions when one has no chance whatever of guessing the answer, and this is not for the first time, either.
[INJ] Exceedingly cool. [Rosie] Really? I had no idea you felt that way. In future you should make sure we all know if you are unhappy about how the game is played. MINERAL
Terrestrial? No. [Rosie] Your recurring temper tantrums really are getting a little tiresome. Perhaps it's time for you to take your ball and go home again for a couple of weeks. I don't think you've done that yet this month.
This mountain does have a claim to fame, by the way, so it is certainly possible to approach the questioning by routes other than the purely geographic.
[Raak] The animal in qustion is not exactly symbolic or iconic, except in one limited way. [Tuj] Does not begin with "P". [cfm] YES, a well-known phrase. [jim] Yes, the phrase contains the name of the animal. [GLogin] No, not a fictional part of a real animal.
[CdM] Not the title of anything, as far as I am aware. [cfm] The animal in question is not a mammal. [GLogin] Not the bee's (or any other arthropod's) knees.
[cfm] Yes, the animal is a reptile. [Tuj] A reptile, therefore not a fish. [CdM] ibid.The fish is no reptile. [Raak] Does not fly. [Chalky] Not a metaphor.
(I had stated that this phrase was not the title of anything, as far as i was aware. Googling it now shows that it also happens to be the title of an obscure something, but the words on the card are much more well known to the public when used as the phrase itself).
YES, it is the phrase "See you later, alligator". In lieu of a conventional baton, a long stick, to keep the 'gator at bay while saying fond goodbyes to it, is duly handed over to cfm.
[Tuj] NO, not this time. [G] YES, there is wood involved. [CdM] NO, not unique. And my apologies, players: as I reviewed the composition of the word on the card in my mind's eye, I realized there is sometimes a minor ANIMAL component as well.
Is the Animal component more minor than the Vegetable and Mineral-iness, which in themselves aren't as major as the obviously strong Abstractiness of this thingy?
Alternatively - is this game quite difficult to play 'from the chair'? Just say yes.
[CdM] Complicated question. How do you define signifcant? Here is what I think will be a helpful answer. Plastic/resin elements may be involved. Plastics/resins may have both vegetable and mineral components. [Chalky] NO. Not a well-known phrase or saying. [irach] NO. The animal component is not leather.
[Chalky] YES, is my best guess, men own more of these. But I have no statistics and Google isn't helping. The personal question comment was a joke, you know. :-) [jim] YES. It is portable. [Fakename] Fake off.
[irach] YES. Sometimes. But not in the sports sense of word recreational and it may also be used, in a professional context. [Gusset Login] YES. Sometimes. But it's never completely immobile.
[INJ] The audience probably should have made a bigger fuss over your last question...but they were really sleepy that night. :-) [irach] YES. Bingo. *hands irach a rosewood baton with mother-of-pearl inlay*
(Strumming the newly acquired baton while contemplating the next puzzle should be, still wondering what the 'abstract" element in a guitar is)...ah, here goes, the next one is ABSTRACT
[Tuj] Tangentially, yes, related to a "geographical" location. [Raak] Not connected to the arts. [Software] In the abstract world, if bigger is better, it is better known than any virtual toaster. {INJ} Drat, not this time around.
[GLogin] Not particularly topical. It would not come up in normal everyday conversations, except perhaps in very select limited circles. [CdM] Perhaps not, in retrospect.
[ImNotJohn] It is a much more specifically pinpoint-able locale than a place defined by its relationships to other things; yet it is abstract in that it is in fact not a "real" locale. Therefore my earlier answer "Yes" and no about it being located in Europe.
[ImNotJohn] Yes, it does appear in a work of fiction. It is not Reichenbach Falls, but quite a few in the audience clap and nod appreciatively at its mention.
YES, 221b Baker Street it is. See, 'twas elementary, my dear Watsons. It's through sleuthing with proper questioning, not by sheer luck one homes in to the right answer. A calabash pipe, in place of a baton, is handed over to Raak.
[irach] Yes, metal. What can you make with wood, leather, and metal? Actually, technically I think the animal part is not "leather", but it is skin processed in some way.
Baci? Yum! *unwraps and eats* That was not a lucky guess; I just have a long memory :-) All right, this next one is probably best thought of as ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections, although you might be able to make a case for ANIMAL with ABSTRACT and VEGETABLE connections
Phrase or saying? No, or at least only if you adopt a very broad definition of that term. A work of art? I realise now that I should really say that, as well as being abstract, this has abstract connections. The answer, as I am interpreting it, is not a work of art. The abstract connections include a work of art, although that is unlikely to be helpful. Title of a movie/work of fiction? Both, as it happens, although that is also unlikely to be helpful. *some applause, but for the question rather than for the answer* Recipe? No.
Appears in a work of fiction? Undoubtedly in many. The principal abstract connection is also certainly referred to in works of fiction, though I know no specific examples. Animal in question human? Yes.
As so often seems to happen, I'm finding it hard to give answers that don't mislead, so let me attempt to clarify. The words on the card have a fairly generic sense, and I am taking that as the main definition. However, the words on the card are more notable in reference to a particular abstract connection. Googling reveals that the words on the card have been used as a title for a book, a movie, and a painting, but none of these is the significant abstract connection.
Paper Moon? No. Vegetable = paper? Yes Papyrus? No. Paper Chase? No. Two clues, because I am feeling generous. First, the words on the card describe something less abstract than your guesses. Remember I said that this could also be described as Animal with Abstract/Vegetable connections. Second, the string of letters "paper" does appear on the card, but strictly speaking the word "paper" does not.
[Chalky] Drinkable? - NO [Software] Glacier? - NO but *considerable audience applause* [Tuj] - In a specific continent? - NO [GL] Snowflake? - Nice idea, but NO
Well - without beating about the bush - CdM is right. It's the iceberg struck by the Titanic. The point that people were missing and that I hoped to catch you on was that it no longer exists. Take this baton before it melts.
Aeronautic? No. (A few audience members, who chuckled quietly at the notion of this being aquatic, find this question even more amusing.) More than 50 years old? Yes (although there are modern versions).
On rails? No. Rickshaw? No. Animal powered? Yes (though not the more modern versions) Phaeton? No. *smattering of applause* (but only a smattering; don't get too carried away)
A Pantechnicon (or more precisely, a Pantechnicon van, which is what the original horse-drawn vehicles of the Pantechnicon company were called) is the correct answer. Would you like us to store this baton for you, or should we deliver it?
Well, this is getting a bit embarrassing. But, since I had already thought of pantechnicon when I asked my penultimate question, I don't feel sufficiently awkward about setting another one. So, the next one is MINERAL, with some Abstract connections
[Raak] Only one? - NO [Phil] Metallic? - YES [Dujon] The last resting place...? - NO (one of these days the pin in the encyclopedia method is going to work, but not today) [Tuj] Pfirst? - Why, YES
[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.
[INJ] History has not yet spoken, but I expect the actual object will not be of historical significance. [jim] In England at the moment. [CdM] No wrought iron. [INJ] No glass or crystals.
*riotous cheering as Software crosses the finishing line* To be precise, the "London 2012 Olympic Torch", but I doubt that anyone cares where the 2011 torch is now (see last but one answer to INJ). Have this gold medal embossed with the Tube map and stand on the podium, please, while the band plays the ISIHAC theme.
Just to clarify the 'unique' question - there will in fact be over 8000 olympic torches used in the torch relay - each bearer will have their own (which they can then buy). On the other hand, there is only one in the stadium. Mind you, I only found all that out today.
[Raak] Yes - philosophically there's only one. However, to be mischievous, there's a picture on that page with 4 torches being held up. I also believe that on the route at any one time there will be 5 torches - one being carried and 4 in the support vehicles in case of malfunction, theft, vandalism, etc. I think, however, that saying YES to the 'Unique?' question was probably the right answer, or the least confusing one, since at any one time only the torch being carried by a bearer is the Olympic Torch. [Software] Come on in and stop this discussion - it's not really going anywhere;-)
Thanks Softers - but I did not know it was either 'Unique' or 'Human' when I asked the question ... ... while I'm here, may I humble suggest that you reference the question itself when replying. I'm having to do a double look to see which 'yes' or 'no' applies to which question and I have little enough time to come in here and play as it is. Thanks.
[cfm] living homo sap - NO (BTW, your moniker reminds me of a long defunct IT company) [Duj] sporty - NO [INJ] arty farty - Best answer is probably YES [Raak] nosh - NO [Chalky] two wordy -YES (your wish is my command)
Sorry for the delay, for some reason yesterday's answers disappeared into the ether
[GL] Recent deceased - YES [Chalks] - Classical - NO audience stirs [irach] Segovia - NO (see above) [INJ] is on the money - YES! The late great Bert of the "learn in a day" fame. Even I tried that but never got past strumming. [Chalks] - yes, thank you.
[CdM] A human construct that has no anarchosyndicalist connections? - NO (though I suppose that depends on your definition of 'a human construct') Obfuscating
[Raak] Physical/Symbolic - OK, the simple answer to your question is NO, but actually I probably need to clarify what I meant when setting this. You can regard the words on the card as being purely physical with an animal element plus a mineral element (and I think that's the best way to approach it). However, within the constraints of the game I could quite reasonably say that this is an abstract thing, though still related to exactly the same animal and mineral elements - in either case if you get them, you have the answer. Hope that helps.
[Chalky] Saying? - NO [Raak] Exceeds Wales? - YESish. - One of the elements of the answer is bigger than Wales - the answer itself is hard to put a size to.