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
Time? No. *some applause from the audience*
Is this essentially a human experience?
Oh, the humanity!
Essentially human? No
(I should perhaps note that I can certainly come up with animal (including human), vegetable, and probably even mineral connections, but I don't think that information is helpful.)
Growth?
Physical law?
Growth? *rapturous applause* Growth is one of the words on the card.
Physical law? No (though not entirely unconnected).
Exponential growth?
Well that was quick
Exponential growth is the answer. It seemed to follow naturally from Rosie’s log tables. Have this baton. It’s 10% longer than it was yesterday, and 33.1% longer than it was on Friday.
A fresh slate
OK, let's try a clean break for the next one.

This is Animal

Is it human?
N- YES. I was initially going to give a firm no, but then I thought about it some more. YES.
Is there more than one of it at any one time?
Jesus?
[Raak] Not Jesus
[Bismarck] No, they're pretty singular.
Prehistoric?
[Raak] No.
A single living human being?
[CdM] Curiously, given my answer to Bismarck, no.
Can I go and see one of these beings (or their remains) on display in a museum?
[Boolbar] Turns out, yes.
A hunter?
[Software] No.
A waxwork?
A mummified corpse?
An idol?
Part of a human?
[waxworks] No.
[mummy] No.
[idol] No.
[part of a human] ... For consistency with my previous answer, yes. I might owe you a hint, this answer is a bit misleading either way.
Sedlec Ossuary?
Fictional?
[Ossuarial] No. That is such a cool place tho'
[Fictional] Yes.
A monster?
[monster] Yes.
A cyborg?
Several good guesses in a row
[cyborg] No.
Frankenstein's monster?
[Frankenstein's monster] No.
Dominic Cummings?
Samson?
A half-human hybrid?
[Cummings] Ugh. No.
[Samson] No.
[Hybrid] No. No breeding involved.
The Incredible Hulk?
[HULK] NO. MADDER AND MUCH HAIRIER
King Kong?
A were-being?
[King] No.
[were] No. Not when or why, either, BTW.
Incidentally, I'd peg the audience as alert and poised to applaud, but you're not close enough for a clap just yet.
The Abominable Snowman?
Not many fictional humanoid monsters occur to me that one can see in a museum.
[Abonimable anobinamal snow dude] No.
The existence of the museum was a surprise to me too.
Bigfoot?
[Bigfoot] No. In fact, their feet are rarely seen at all,
Is this fictional thing originally from a book?
[Bookish] No.
From a movie?
[Movies] No, not originally.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal?
[Bugblatters] No, less hungry.
The Slightly Peckish Bugblatter Beast of Traal?
Do accounts of this go back to before the 19th century?
[Peckish] Yes, I think 'peckish' pitches things about right.
[19th Century] No, they're a go-getting modern monster, all ready to face the challenges of the new millennium.
Are these from a children's TV show?
[Children's show] YES. [Claps and cheers from the audience]
Cookie Monster?
[COOKIES!] No. Getting close, but no. [More claps BTW]
Is there a Humphrey about?
Always imagined them as hairy beasties, but since they were never seen IIRC, who knows.
[Humphreys] No, they were red and white stripey drinking straws, and they were seen, certainly in the TV ads.
A cross-eyed tomato on a spring?
[Tomato] No, not Zebedee.
The Honey Monster?
A Disney character?
[Honey Monster] No.
[Disney] Yes, of course Disney would have bought them out...
The Swedish Chef?
I'm sticking with the Muppets until further notice.
[Bork? Bork!] No. [Nevertheless, applause returns in force]
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord