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
[Scroungers] No, but a few more claps
[Spivs] No
[Barflies] No
Black marketeers?
[black marketeers] No - spivs basically are black marketeers, aren't they?
Oiks
Does this word begin with the letter G?
The underclass?
[Oiks] Yes, another smattering
['G-'] Nope
[Underclass] No
Do these people have the vote (if of age)?
Are they mostly male?
Beggars?
Zombies?
Dwarfs?
[Voters, Male] Yes and yes
[Beggars, Zombies, Dwarves] No
Eunuchs?
Do they usually have a fixed abode?
[Eunuchs?!] No. That's a real left-field guess. As cold as clones.
[Of fixed abode] Yes, usually.
Kings?
Are they recognisable at sight?
[Kings] No
[On sight] No. It's a bit like burglars. They might be supposed to wear a black and white stripey top and a mask, and carry a big sack with SWAG written on it, but uniform standards are dreadfully lax these days.
Incels?
[Incels] No, not that lame. [Audience consider clapping, then decide not]
Lottery winners? Does religion come into it?
People who don’t pay their library fines?
[Lottery] no
[Religion] no
[Non-payment] No, as if they'd ever read a book
Is this to do with them being unedicated?
Or uneducated?
[Non-edicated] Yes. A bit stereotypical, but yes.
Another summary. They are: human, linked to crime in a general way, some (more than five) alive today and some not, disreputable, generally male, uneducated, usually of fixed abode, unlikely to read a book, eligible to vote, oiks, a one-word answer in the singular, linked by a psychological characteristic, more numerous after 1900.

They are not (as a defining characteristic): flat-earthers, musical, honest politicians, a sports team, all having the same name, competition winners, Prime Ministers, US Presidents, members of a profession, connected to TV or radio, to do with hats, inhabitants of a small remote place, members of a group one must apply to, linked to a country, linked by a physical characteristic, age-related, sport-related, fans of something, royalty, the Illuminati, Centenarians, astronauts, related to hair, stunt-men, on death row, on parole, the Krays, organised crime, transport-related, kleptomaniacs, cannibals, related to fraud, related to treason, victims of crime, trespassers, to do with war, anti-vaxxers, beginning with P, beginning with G, hackers, Julian Assange, clones, wearers of a uniform, identity thieves, toffs, chavs (applause), welfare scroungers (applause), spivs, barflies, black marketeers, oiks, the underclass, beggars, zombies, dwarves, eunuchs, kings, ghosts, queue jumpers, creators of anything, recognisable at sight, lottery winners, related to religion, derelict about library fines.

Bouncers?
Excellent summary, worth a clap
Yes! However I see 'oiks' in both the am and the isn't sections. They're oikish individuals. But 'oik' is not the AOTC.
[Bouncers] No. But that's also worth a clap. And I suppose some of them might be bouncers.
The unemployed?
A pejorative term?
[Unemployed] Generally yes. Not always officially employed, that's for sure.
[Prejorative] Yes, I suppose. Milder even than oik though.
If there is a term for the Trotters out of Only Fools and Horses, would that be close?
'Cos I'm sure there is one but I can't put my finger on it.
['Entrepreneurs', of course] And no. [Audience titters].
Class-based?
Wide boys?
(Although "according to the Oxford English Dictionary it is synonymous with spiv".)
Charlatans?
Troll?
[Classy] Yes. But not classy.
[Wide] No.
[Charlatanny] No.
[Trolley] No. [A small ripple]
Yob?
[Yob] No. But getting warm at last
Hooligans (a.k.a. hoolies, hooks, or hoods)?
[Hooligans] No. Maybe a smidge warmer?
Oafs?
The only other words I can think of are all rather sweary - so it's probably best I withdraw from the chase ;^)
Would members of this class deny their membership of it?
[Oafs] No. A bit colder with oafs.
[Sweary] No, it's not sweary. After all, this is a family show. :-)
[Denial] Yes, I think most would. Some probably revel in it, but even then self-awareness is not high on the list for these types.
Is some sort of bigotry involved?
Conected wth the military?
Working class?
Do they go around in gangs?
Any connection to public schools?
[Bigots] No, not particularly
[Military] No, not especially
[Working class] Yes, for a very broad definition of 'working'
[Gangs] No, not 'gangs'
[Public schools] No. Well, almost never.
Often under the influence of some drug or other?
The riff-raff?
The Hoi-Poloi?
[druggies] No.
[riff-raff] No. That's one of the closest guesses yet though. [Audience sniggers]
[hoi-poloi] No.
Pikies?
Migrant workers?
Muggers?
[pikies] No
[migrants] no
[muggers] no, but a stronger ripple for that one
Does it begin with R,S or T?
[R,S,T] Yes. :-)
Reprobates?
Travelling folk?
[Reprobates] Yes.
[Travellers] No.
Recidivists?
Teenage herberts?
Drop-outs? Hippies?
[Recidiv] No. Well, a few might be
[Herberts] No.
[Dropouts] No. Again, a few might be.
[Hippies] Pah! No.
Blackmailers?
Forget blackmailers, that doesn't pass the no-apparent crime test.
Ruffian?
Urchins?
[Rrrrruff!] Yes! Boolbar wins. Audience sensation - oh wait, most of them have died of old age. I did say plural, but honestly, I'll assume that was just a typo.
Wait - checking back, no I didn't, I chose a singular generic specimen. Boolbar wins double points for being righter than the wally who set this one.
Oh blimey! I'd better quickly think of something. How about ANIMAL (with a vague link to vegetable and mineral for some parts of the world and for that matter vegetable and abstract as well, but let's ignore all that and stick with the basic ANIMAL or we'll be here all day year.)
Is it found on a coat of arms anywhere?
[Arms] Yes, I've swiftly found one on Google.
Popularly thought to represent a country?
Living in the sea?
Four-legged?
This should be quick...
[Country] I would suspect a lot people would think of this animal if one country was mentioned.
[Sea] Mainly.
[Four] No.
dolphin?
Does it have a shell?
The Galápagos tortoise?
A capillary-challenged eagle?
A whale?
Just Say No.
[Dolphin] No
[Shell] No
[That Tortoise] No
[That Eagle] No
[Whale] No
Is it a bird?
Could you lift one of these?
[Birdy] Yes!
[Lifty] Personally I could lift most of them, but I'd draw the line at the larger ones.
A grouse?
A penguin?
[Grouse] The bird rather than a grumbly person? No.
[Penguin] Yes! That's the one. I said it would be quick.

Do p-p-pick up this baton made out of chocolate covered biscuit and I can go and have a nice nap.

We apologise for the temporary interruption to transmission. Normal service has now been resumed.

I need to pay more attention!

This is ABSTRACT, although under another interpretation it is MINERAL
Hidden textconceivably with some non-mineral elements, but these would be negligible
A mountain (mythical or real)?
Mountain? No. *a tiny smattering of applause from the most generous members of the audience*
A geological concept?
A precious metal?
Geological? No.
Precious metal? No.
Is it an effect of animal work?
A figurative phrase or saying?
Effect of animal work? Yes.
Figurative phrase? No.
Made by mammal(s)?
A route or path of some kind?
Made by mammals? Yes.
Route or path? No.
I should perhaps clarify that my answer to Superman's question took "animal" in the AVMA sense of the term.
Made by people?
Reading between the line of CdM's clarification.
A butter mountain?
Made by people? Yes
Butter mountain? No.
An object of veneration?
A sculpture?
Object of veneration? No (except maybe in a narrow and almost certainly misleading sense... so forget I said anything).
Sculpture? No.
An award?
An artefact of modern civilisation?
Does it begin with P?
The Anthropocene?
Now it starts to get interesting…
Award? No.
Artefact of modern civilisation. *applause* In the abstract sense, the best answer is No (though a case can be made for Yes; it’s a question of perspective). In the mineral sense, most definitely Yes.
Begin with P? No—at least not any more.
Anthropocene? No.
The scrap-heap of history?
The Statue of Liberty?
Is it rubbish?
A painting of Mount Fuji?
Scrap-heap of history? No.
Statue of Liberty? No.
Rubbish? No.
A painting of Mount Fuji? No.
Did it have a western name which is no longer used?
Ayers Rock/Uluru, for example.
The Piltdown Man?
Obsolete western nomenclature? No.
Piltdown Man? No.
Forget about the mountain. The audience were too enthusiastic.
Is there just one of it?
Another interesting question.
Unique? Yes is clearly the best answer. In the mineral sense, definitely. In the abstract sense, also Yes—except, from a certain perspective, No.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord