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 ....
[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.
*is wondering why no Vegetable element was part of the original poser - -given that mountain ranges would usually have vegetation about their person - *
[Raak] Living human - NO [Chalky] I did consider it, but thought it wouldn't really be very helpful. A bit like saying a person is animal and mineral because they have mercury amalgam fillings in their teeth.
We have a winner! It is exactly as jim said: Hannibal's crossing of the Alps The abstract side of it being that it is an action or event rather than a thing. Have an ivory baton, sir.
Damn. I thought of that before my previous move, but then dismissed it because I thought we had established the animal element as (fully) human. I should read more carefully.
[Raak] A qualified YES--there is more than one human associated with the answer, but one in particular stands out. [INJ] YES, in a more or less broad sense of "the arts". [Tuj] YES, give or take a definite article, begins with P. [GL] YES, there is a particular fictional human association (although again not unique). [Chalky] YES, in that the human alluded to in my answer to Raak is dead.
[INJ] YES, in that the words on the card form the title of several books; NO, in that none of the books with this title is the answer (although at least one is directly related).
[Chalky] That's quite difficult to say. There are certainly science-fictional elements, but I wouldn't place the answer as a whole within the science fiction genre. I'm sure some would disagree, though.
[Chalky] NO, I cannot categorically deny any connection with Harry Potter. I mean, the HP franchise runs to getting on for a million words[1] and eight movies, it's quite likely that she slipped a reference in there somewhere. But if there is a connection, a) it's pretty tenuous and b) I'm not aware of it. [INJ] NO, in so far as the AOTC can be said to have "an author", not alive. [1]Wild-assed estimate.
[Chalky] With such a broad question I think we have to begin by defining our terms carefully: we need to decide, for one thing, whether our discussion is restricted to organised religions, or whether we are willing to adopt a more all-encompassing definition that includes notions of personal spirituality (as a side issue, we might also ask whether there is a difference between religion and, as you chose to express it, Religion with a capital R); for another, we need to think about whether we mean merely relevant to certain individuals (surely not the meaning we want to adopt, for otherwise the question must be trivially answered in the affirmative), or whether we mean relevant to society, history, the body politic, the social order, or something else; and if any of the latter, then precisely which aspects of society, and what criteria for "relevance" are appropriate? If we take as a starting point the notion that --
[CdM] NO, the principal (real, dead) human connection is not a leader. [Raak] NO, not a title (or at least, not an "official" title e.g. "The Prince", although it does describe a person without being a name).
[Chalky] YES! It is The Prisoner (the original TV series, of course). The "outstanding" real-life human being of course Patrick McGoohan; the principal fictional connection the Prisoner himself. I don't think JK Rowling slipped a Prisoner reference into the Harry Potter series anywhere, but I wouldn't put it past her. One baton with the number 6 engraved on it goes to Chalky.
[Tuj] Associated with a series of locations? NO [ImNotJohn] An historical event? NO [Boolbar] AVM planet earth? NO [Raak] Specific individual thing? It's specific but only in the way that most AOTC are. Do you mean a one-off? If so - NO
[Tuj] Naturally occurring? NO [Software] In the 19th century??? I think NO may be the answer to whatever it is you meant :) [Boolbar] Experience today? YES [ImNotJohn] Visitorable? NO
[Rosie] Involve a crowd? YES - it can do. Good question :) [Tuj] Associated with entertainment? YES - very much so *audience applauds progress made from last two questions*
[Boolbar] Singing involved? NO [ImNotJohn] Country or regional associations? YES - absolutely - particularly in its origin [Raak] Sporting activity? No - well ... NO *wry chuckles from audience*
I would like to adjust one of my replies to ImNotJohn who asked "Visitorable?" and I replied unequivocally in the negative. On reflection, the AOTC, if not exactly visitorable, is certainly - spectatorable. This may help.
[Boolbar] Asia? NO [Rosie] Outdoors? NO - not usually. However .. *audience wakes up with an anticipatory start* [Rosie] Cheese rolling? NO - but closer than some of the guesses so far :-)
[Boolbar] Americas? YES! [ImNotJohn] Pastime? Yes - mainly .. YES [rather a quaint word - pastime. I had to check on the meaning] *Audience ready to shout and scream and generally go wild for the winner*
[ImNotJohn] Boolbar asked that question way back up there ^^^ and I said NO then :) [Boolbar] Balls? NO [Raak] YES - and the rest of the AOTC is .... ? [3 or 4 words]
No-one else will be allowed to nick this one - it's got Raak's name all over it .. *Audience on their feet ready to jump about quite a lot ...*
Well played Raak - t'would've been churlish indeed to allow someone else to slip in there with the precise AOTC Texas Hold Em Poker [currently and universally the most popular form of the game - which handily explains that location reference the audience got a bit mumbly about]
No-one picked up on my CLUE when introducing this one and I quote: "Dipping into my special box of Answers On Cards - this found its way into my hand ..." But then - a clue is only a clue if one knows it's there. *hands over a baton made of 50 x stuck together $1000 chips*
[CdM] Yes! Mars does have a meridian defined, according to which Spirit is in the Eastern Hemisphere, Opportunity in the Western. *passes CdM a spare robot arm*
[Raak] So if I had asked, "Located in the Western hemisphere?", you would have answered yes, and we would have been chasing wild geese for a long time.
Taste for cellulose? No. (If anything, perhaps the opposite, although I may be over-interpreting what I have read.) As usual, there are other ways of approaching this AVMA rather than just guessing at insects.
The "does it have wings?" question really deserves a more detailed answer. This particular insect has a rather complicated life-cycle which includes several different stages; in one of these stages it may have wings.
Clarification/correction: I answered "No" to the question about whether the insect has a vegetable in its name. The technical term for this insect does in fact include a reference to a vegetable item. Non-technical references to this insect can also include a vegetable item, but more usually do not.