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 ....
[Phil] Grammatical? NO The AOTC has 3 words none of which are the definite or indefinite article. Hint: When the question was set it was in the future, now it is in the past.
Rosie's question "Does it need to be cooked?" continues to weigh on my mind. No Anglophone would say that they cook the Answer on the Card, but cooking of some sort or other is involved in the process of turning naturally occurring ingredients into the AOTC.
I've just reviewed my answers and noticed that when Chalky asked "Is it an animal product", I said "YES". I should specify that only the animal part is an animal product, the vegetable part isn't. Hope that helps ! :-)
[Phil] Fret ye not - that's what I meant. In summary: The AOTC is 'Animal Product' plus a 'Vegetable' (but not a vegetable to be found in a greengrocer) somehow linked together. Edible/Potable. Doesn't need to be cooked. Milk is involved. I'll now ask a question, if I may ...
[Software] Napoleon wasn't short, apparently, he was just portrayed as short for propaganda purposes. A bit of googling, and my suspicions are confirmed. He was about 5'7" (1.70m), over 2 inches taller than average for France at the time, and just about exactly average for the UK. Reference here
This is supposed to be a nice easy quick one - random guesses of allegedly vertically-challenged individuals will lead nowhere .. and I'm already bored
[Dujon] A well known male without a fig leaf? As written, the answer has to be 'partly'. As intended, the answer would be very much NO. Take your pick.
To clarify my answer to Dujon, the AOTC involves the image of a man who is not wearing a fig leaf but does not involve naked men in any way that I know of.
I have to give credit to the film "Night at the Museum 2" for raising my awareness of the Lincoln Monument, and more recently the 50th anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech, without which I would never have guessed that. Anyway, onwards and upwards....our next AVMA is
[Software] Human? NO (yes to fictional animal, no to fictional person, hence not a person. You are correct that nobody asked that question directly though) [GL] Dog? YES *more applause* [Dujon] Male creator? YES
Ooops, not sure what happened there, but I thought I'd add a summary, just to help out, as I thought this would be simple. Not that there's much to summarize. This is a fictional dog; created by a man; has appeared in multiple media (from the list: book, film, tv, radio, Grand Opera), but first appeared in print; has a slight link to The Simpsons (which is unlikely to be useful). The AOTC was not created by A.A.Milne; is not a Disney character; is neither Greyfriars Bobby nor Lassie; was not introduced in a children's story.
[Software] Snoopy? YES! My childhood hero. I still drink out of a Snoopy mug at work, which even has a Snoopy stand to sit on. Such is my fondness for the special beagle, that when I tried this AVMA on family members, and as soon as I said "fictional dog", they guessed it. The assumption, of course, was that "print" referred to books. Also, The Simpsons makes several nods in the direction of Peanuts and Snoopy - e.g. "Hungry, Hungry Homer" which was on C4 last week finds Homer asleep on top of the kennel, and Bart says "Good grief!" more here. Here, Software, take this flying helmet, goggles and scarf set - may it serve you well!
Sorry Software - too complicated - only kidding. But whilst we're about it, PLEASE answer the questions in a straightforward manner ... takes bloody ages to work out what you're trying to reply to usually! ;-)
[Raak] A building? - NO (not as such) [Phil] Margarine? - NO can tell talk from mutter [GL] A planet - NO * some discussion and shuffling among the andience * [Rosie] Man made? - YES
(CdM) It would take a conspiracy theorist of a high order to connect this with either of your suggestions. (Phil) Strictly no, but possibly in a figurative sense.