mc5 - AVMA Take 2

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

Kyllä!

Finnish? YES! *throws baton at Néa* I never quite worked out all those Finnish cases, but I think "suomen" is the indirect passive fifth person ablative.

[CdM]I think you left out non-neuter

ooooooh

Wow, this is quite a responsibility. *catches baton deftly and drops it on her foot*

[CdM] I believe you'll find that all those cases is a reason that some people do, in fact, view it negatively :-) (I don't!)

ABSTRACT

Anarcho-syndicalism?

It's got to be right some day.

This is not that day

[INJ] No. Some people would probably say that there is a connection, but that's not a very helpful clue.

The long dark night of the soul?

Summer?

Sarcastic anachronisms? (Why not?)

Political?

[Raak] No. *a few people in the audience clap, though*
[Iroulé] No.
[RS] No. (Cos it isn't.)
[Rosie] No.

A Finnish winter?

[Raak] No.

FYI

My Internet access will be patchy the next few days, but I should be able to log in at least once or twice a day.

Does darkness have something to do with it?

Hmmmmmm

[Raak] I would say that darkness is implied but not necessary.

Does it have anything to do with the weather?

The long dark teatime of the soul?

Hello Néa :-) Is this an emotion?

Does the connection between the answer and anarcho-syndicalism have anything to do with Spain?

[Irouléguy] No.
[all] Hmmm. No.
[Chalky] Hello. No. (*applause*)
[Irouléguy] No.

gothdom?

Is it a state of mind?

Is it anything physical?

Is it a human construct?

[Raak] No.
[Chalky] No. *some applause*
[Rosie] Yes but no but yes but no.
[INJ] It is not a construct.

Gloom? Despair? Dyspepsia?

Fannishness?

No, no, no and no. You are not really on the right track at the moment.

Is it some sort of game?

Hoping the points have been set right.

Sleep?

[Rosie] Not a game.
[Raak] No, but now you are most definitely on the right track. *audience claps and cheers*

A dream?

I think he's getting it...

Yes, but that's not specific enough.

A nightmare?

A dream of a better world?

A Midsummer Night's Dream?

Boo!

[Rosie] YES! *hands over baton with a flourish*

ABSTRACT, with MINERAL CONNECTIONS

Should have added ANIMAL CONNECTIONS also.

Anything to do with Harry Potter?

Raak - Absolutely nothing. :-)

Are the animal connections human?

Irouléguy - Yes

Anything to do with King Arthur?

Raak - No, not a thing.

Is the mineral connection metal?

Is the human connection to a non-fictional human

(ImNotJohn) - Both yes.

Camilla's new coat of arms?

Is it a human construct?

(That was original, wasn't it?)

Raak - No.
CdM - Yes. It has to be asked, and you are a couple of inches nearer the Holy Grail. :-)

The Sword of Truth and the Shield of British Fair Play?

Is the non-fictional human alive?

Raak - No
Irouléguy - No

Is the mineral connection a weapon?

Is the mineral connection a precious metal?

[CdM] Wot you doin' aksin my question?

The Holy Grail?

Raak - No, but it can be used as one.
ImNotJohn - No.
all - No.

Lord Byron's bicycle?

Raak - No, but the format of your answer is getting warm.

X's Y for some animate X and inanimate Y?

Davy Jones' Locker?

Pandora's Box?

Midas' Golden Touch?

Raak - That's right
Dazed5 - No
irach - No
RedSnapper - No

Don't forget the meaning is essentially Abstract.

Any political connection?

Dazed5 - No

Newton's three laws of motion?

Is there a musical connection?

Irouléguy - No

Dazed5 - No (Surprised that hasn't been asked earlier).

Is transport involved?

determined to narrow it down

Foucault's pendulum?

Dazed5 - No.
Raak - No. Don't forget the answer has an essentially abstract meaning.

Although the answer could be classed as a little arcane or academic it should be known here, and has 172,000 Google hits worldwide.

[Rosie] So does F's P, a certain novel...

The King's shilling?

Raak - No (Yeah, it means bugger all really. :-) )

Is there a scientific connection?

Is there a religious connection?

Irouléguy - Yes, this could be used in science.
Dazed5 - No.

Did the person live before the 20th century?

Was the person male?

Raak - Yes.
Dazed5 - Yes.

Was he English?

Raak - He was.

So, although this was a real person and a real metal thingy [that could be used as a weapon, or in science] essentially this is an abstract notion? Is it a 2-word answer?

Was the person involved a 19th century Englishman, or did he live (and die) prior to that?

Was the 'weapon' a pen?

Morton's Fork?

Chalky - Yes and yes. The whole thing could be used in science, among other things. The metal thing is part of the abstract idea but as an actual object could be used as a weapon.
irach - Died before 1800.
Dazed5 - No, but some appreciative murmurs from the audience.
ImNotJohn - No.

Chalky - (PS) See my answer to Raak's Lord Byron's bicycle query.

Anything to do with Newton?

Is there a literary connection?

Is the metal thing a hammer?

irach - No. Pre-dates Newton.
Dazed5 - No.
Raak - No.

Predates Stonehenge?

irach - No, not by a long chalk.

Anything to do with Freemasonry?

Any connection to medicine?

Occam's Razor?

Funny you should ask that [Raak] because Occam's Razor attracts exactly 172,000 Google hits worldwide. I reckon you've got it. I've never heard of it mesself :-)

Raak - YES! Well done. A rather obscure one which I thought might just get by, particularly in a place like this. It's meaning is this: If someone says those lights in the sky are UFOs then the application of Occam's Razor makes one ask "couldn't they be aeroplanes, or unusual reflections in the glass, or were you just a bit pissed?", i.e always think of the simple explanation first. Do not elaborate unnecessarily, etc. etc.

Carry on, Raak

VEGETABLE, with ANIMAL and ABSTRACT connections.

Is it edible (or drinkable?)

Is it a constructed object?

Could this be held in your hand?

Is the animal connection a human one?

Edible/drinkable: No.
Constructed: Yes.
Held in the hand: Some could be.
Human connection: Yes.

Is the vegetable wood?

Any religious connection?

Is it purely decorative?

A Water Diviner?

Wood? No.
Religious? Yes.
Purely decorative? Nothing to stop anyone from having one as an ornament.
Water diviner? No.

Correction of my previous answer about being small enough to hold in the hand: as far as I can tell from Google, none of them ever are, when called by the words on the card. The hand-sized ones have a completely different name, so should be excluded.

OK - re. the human connection - does this thing have to be in contact with a human in some way in order to fulfil its function?

Re: religious connection: Eastern religion?

(and I don't mean "originating in the Middle-East")

[Chalky] Not nowadays.
[Néa] No.

A crucifix?

Is the religious connection christian?

Crucifix? No.
Christian? No.

An item of clothing?

Pagan?

Clothing? No.
Pagan? Yes. (applause)

A wicker man?

[Dazed5] Yes!

Here we go with....

MINERAL

Jumping the gun...

Should read MINERAL with the possibility of some VEGETABLE in it also.

A carrot encased in a slab of crystal?

[Nea] That's even better than mine, but sadly, no.

A long shot - coal?

Something to do with fossils?

Is the mineral pure or a mixture?

Rosie. Not coal.
Raak. Nothing to do with fossils.
Irouleguy.Yes, a mixture.
(Apologies to Nea and Irouleguy, I do not know how to do an 'e' with an accent over).

A pearl?

Is the mineral (semi-)precious?

Dazed5 - re. the acute accent - just type [(the ampersand symbol)eacute;] - when you would normally type the 'e' - the semicolon is important.
As for a question ... I expect I'll think of one soon

Another frivolous long shot - Soil?

If I'm right it's my question, otherwise it's Chalky's. Another way to do e-acute is Alt+0233. Look, é.

Does this occur naturally, or is it a human artefact?

A cute accent

INJ. Not a pearl.
INJ(2). Not precious, nor semi-precious, although some older versions may be of considerable value.
Rosie/Chalky. It is not soil (thanks for the pointers).
Irouléguy. Yes, a human artefact.

Is the vegetable part wod?

Or wood?

Raak. Yes it would be, but on the whole, it is quite insignificant.

Is it a toy?

Chalky. It is not a toy.Very slight murmers from the audience.

Is it a weapon?

Made of metal?

Chalky. Not a weapon.
Raak. The relevant bits are metallic, certain bits may probably be wood or even perhaps plastic, but this is not significant.

Is it small enough to hold easily?

A musical instrument?

Is it normally a particular colour or colours?

INJ. No.
Chalky, yes. Major applause from audience.
Iroulegéguy; I don't think so.

A saxophone?

Harmonica?

Rosie, irach. Both no. See INJ question above.

A church organ?

A barrel organ?

A drum kit?

irach. No
Raak. No
Rosie. No

Trinidad steel drums?

Tubular bells?

To produce sound from this musical instrument does one ( a) Bang it (b)Blow on it ? (c)Hit on some keys (d)both b and c (e) Turn a handle (f) Turn on a switch (g) None of the above?

Church bells?

[RedSnapper] While you are waiting for Dazed5 to get back, I can tell you that the answer to your question is "yes".

irach. No
Raak. No
Red Snapper. a)No. b)No. c)No. d)Therefore, no. e)no. f)Not in isolation. g)see f)
irach, No.

Does it require electrical power?

Can it be strummed?

Oversized Karaoke machine?

A mechanical carillon?

A choir of metallic singing robots?

Raak. Yes
irach. No
RedSnapper. No
Raak. No (had to look that one up)
irach, lovely idea but wrong.

Jukebox?

Update

irach, it is not a jukebox.
Whilst doing further research, I have learned that some modern instances of these can be held in the hands, but not the type I was thinking of. Apologies if this has mislead anyone but size is quite irrelevant, or so the females in my life would have me believe.

It's a

I think I know what this is - but I'll leave it for someone else

A Moog synthesiser?

Irouléguy. Not a Moog - Murmers of appreciation from the audience

A Yamaha Synthesizer

irach. It is not a Yamaha synthesizer.

Is it an electronic musical instrument?

Raak. Yes -More excited murmers and much shuffling in seats

Trying not to awaken anyone

I would have thought the musicians in here would have killed this long before now. I will give a further clue if requested.

207,000 Google hits worldwide

Chalky, I get 368,000, but who knows?

Go on, have a guess.

Is it known by its brand name?

Rosie, not a brand name as such, it is named after it's inventor.

The Hammond organ? (171,000 hits)

Irouléguy. It is not a Hammond organ. (Clue: if you find out how it is played you will get there)

A theremin?

BINGO!

Well done CdM, it was a theremin.

Wow, something of a lurker's victory there.

This next one is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

The instant of the Big Bang?

BANG No.

Another fungus?

an emotion?

fungus? No.
emotion? No.

Something Infinite?

Is it connected to the game of MC and/or the Morniverse?

Is it alive?

a vacuum?

<gloat>I hope I'm wrong as I probably won't be logging on more than a couple of times in the next 16 days</gloat>

A sound?

The number zero?

Not a very auspicious start

infinite? No.
connected to MC? No.
alive? No.
a vacuum? No.
A sound? No.
Zero? No.

Is it Animal, Vegetable, Mineral or Abstract?

AVMA? No. Hence my introduction.

The spatio-temporal continuum?

Nothing?

spatio-temporal continuum? No.
Nothing? No.
Might I respectfully suggest that if you just guess without gathering more information this is likely to take you a long time...

Has it ever been alive?

ever alive? No.

Has it ever existed?

Can it be seen?

An elementary particle?

(CdM) Sorry for being a bit thick. :-(

Has it been theorised but not proven?

Could it be better described as real or virtual?

Is there a religious connection?

Is it something one might aspire to?

Why isn't this abstract?

I assumed that all four categories [or any combination thereof] covered everything - are we in danger of becoming über-pedantic?

ever existed? It often exists.
can it be seen? Yes. *applause*
elementary particle? No. *some applause*
!proven? No.
real or virtual? Yes. Oh, all right then, real.
religious connection? Hmmmmm... There were once several religious connections, but nowadays the best answer is No.
aspire to? No. At least, it does not make sense to aspire to the answer on the card, although one might have an aspiration connected to it. Sorry if that sounds cryptic; it is meant to be straightforward.
AVMA Redux? Let me say the following. It is definitely not animal, vegetable, or abstract. If it is anything, it is mineral, but I thought is was misleading to describe it as such. (Apologies in advance if people end up disagreeing!)

The aurora?

The Northern Lights?

A rainbow?

A solar eclipse?

Light?

getting right to the point...

The words on the card were either "aurora borealis" or "northern lights". Thus, although Rosie's answer got massive applause, it did not exclude the possibility of the aurora australis. Thus the judges award victory to Chalky!

taking a bow

Aww shucks - thanks CdM.
Hand on heart, I wasn't influenced by Rosie's guess possibly because I recall this very subject cropping up in the original Pants game a few years ago - I think we labelled it Abstract/Mineral, although I'm sure someone who was there will correct me if I'm wrong ...

And now for something completely tangible ...

A N I M A L

Is this one specific individual?

[Raak] Specific? No. [good question]

Human?

Vertebrate?

Ungulate?

Homo Florensis?

[Rosie] Human - Yes
[Irach] Vertebrate - Yes
[RedSnapper] Ungulate? No
[Raak] Homo Florensis? No, probably not :-)

A group with a common purpose? Eg, The Cabinet, Crystal Palace Football Club. No, scrap that last one.

Is this a species of man?

Meaning Cro-Magnon or its ilk.

Genus Homo?

Are all members of this group of the same gender?

[Chalky] I have to say, I don't see how the aurora would be abstract, since it certainly has a physical existence...

Is this group culturally specific?

[Rosie] Common purpose? They certainly have something in common
[Dujon] species of Man? Yes
[irach] Genus homo? Of course - as previous answer
[CdM] Same gender - No
[Irouléguy] Culturally specific? If I said yes, that might be misleading. Can you be more culturally specific? :-)

[CdM - Abstract as an adjective. Yes, agree in principle. The word should mean something that only exists as a mental concept, but I have noticed is often used in this game to suggest a wider/popular interpretation of the merely physical. I chose not to tag it on to the ANIMAL label in this round, because I felt sure that this 'group of people with something in common' would be established fairly early on.]

Us?

[Raak] Us? As in Us? No.

Is this group linked by a common language, religious or cultural practice?

A musical ensemble?

The ISIHAC teams?

Homo-sapiens?

Person(s) specifically known to carry outd certain particular actions or follow particular professions?

[Irouléguy] Linked? As I've already stated that they have something in common, the answer must be Yes - sort of
[Rosie] Musical ensemble? No
[Gusset Login] ISIHaC teams - No
[all] Homo Sapiens? I think that's been established
[RedSnapper] particular actions or professions? Yes *discernible muttering in audience*

The thing that links these people, is it what they do for a living?

Person(s) of a particular profession?

Persons with a particular hobby or penchant?

A Greek chorus?

Chalky] My question was about how they were linked.

[Raak] making a living? No
[irach] particular profession? No
[Redsnapper] Hobby or Penchant? No and Yes
[Irouléguy] Greek Chorus? No
[it would probably be safer to say that there is no cultural link in the way that you mean]

Are these people fans of something?

Anything to do with sports?

Commuters?

[Raak] Fans of something? Mmmm - I have to say Yes. *polite applause*
[irach] Sports? No
[Dazed] Commuters? No

Does this 'group' number in millions?

[Dazed] Millions? Probably not in the UK

Is this group then specific to the UK?

This thing that they are, one might have to say, fans of, are they practitioners of it?

Do these people go out of the house to indulge their interest?

Would you expect many of the Morniverse's inhabitants to be among these people?

Would many of them gather together in one place to experience this thing for which they have a penchant?

... sorry - been busy

[Dazed] specific to UK? No
[Raak]practitioners? In a manner of speaking, Yes.
[Rosie] Out of house indulgence? No - not necessarily
[Irouléguy] Crescenters? Can't say I know them all well enough, but No *chuckles*
[Kim] Gathering? Some may, some may not.

When somebody gets the right answer, will this site become NSFW?

*laughs out loud*
[CdM] I only practise safe chairwomanship

Would this shared interest be considered risqué in a polite society?

Does it involve any aspect of procreation?

[Dazed] Risqué? No
[irach] Procreation? No

... so that's eliminated any saucy shenanegans :-)
However, both questions are the type of questions that need to be asked.

Are particular types of clothing involved?

[Irouléguy] Clothing? No

Would most people say these people are anoraks?

[Rosie] Anoraks? No

Does this shared interest require any specialist equipment?

Does the shared interest require ambulation of any kind?

Are there roughly equal numbers of both sexes involved?

Does it involve the playing of a game?

[Dazed] specialist equipment? Equipment isn't really the right word, but it certainly requires a certain something to belong to this group
[irach] ambulation? Not really [see Rosie previous question]
[Rosie] equal numbers? I should think so
[Raak] game playing? No

CLUE: The word 'hobby' got a thumbs down, if you read back. This isn't an 'interest' either. It is something that a certain group of people have in common. 'Fan' [as in fanatical] and 'penchant' have both been given a cursory nod ..

Is it connected with either eating or drinking?

[Dazed] Yes! At last :-) * audience wakes up and overcompensates by whooping and hollering *

Wine connoisseurs?

Are they linked by food from a particular part of the world?

[Raak] Wine Connoisseurs? They may well be [but that's not the word on the card]
[Irouléguy] Linked? Food? Part of World? No, No and Thrice No

Alcoholics?

Gourmands of any kind?

Is the "certain something" that is required inherent in the individual?

Vegetarians?

Four very good questions, but only one is correct:

Well done Raak - Alcoholics is the right answer. Over to you ...

I'm off to the Worldcon on Wednesday, but I'm sure you'll get this before then.

MINERAL

Something made by humans?

A natural phenomenon?

[I] Yes.
[K] No.

Uses electricity?

[Rosie] Yes.

Used in the preparation of food?

[nights] No.

Used for recreation?

Normally used in the home?

[irach] Can be.
[Rosie] No.

Is it noisy when in operation?

Can it be used to get from one place to another?

Bigger than one metre cubed?

Ever used in the office?

[irach] No.
[RS] Yes.
[Chalky] No.
[irach] Yes.

Can it be used for communications?

[irach] No.

Is its primary use as a means of transport?

[I] Yes! (applause)

A mode of transportation that's used in the office? (you said above it WAS used in the office). Or primarily to get you to work at the office?

[irach] You asked "Ever used in the office?" so the answer was yes, because I've heard of it happening. But that's an unusual use.

An electric scooter?

An electric wheelchair?

[I] Erm...not entirely sure whether "scooter" would cover this or not.
[R] No.

A Segway?

I was going to post this guess on Friday, but thought that RS's comment would have earned applause if it was right... however, it seems to fit with some of the later Q and A...

[CdM] Yes, a Segway.

OK, an easy one: MINERAL

The new planet 'Xena'?

not that easy

warrior princess? No.

Man-made?

Is it a specific object?

Man-made? No.
Specific object? No.

A type of rock?

A present from Brighton? No.

Is it a solid in its normal state?

Solid in normal state? No. *applause*

Is it bigger than a phone box?

Given that it is not a specific object, the question does not really make sense. However, in the individual instances in which it is normally encountered, it is smaller than a phone box.

Is it mobilel?

A snowman?

mobile? If you mean can it be easily moved, the answer is yes.
snowman? No.

A snowflake?

Is it fluid?

Does "not a specific object" mean "not a named object", so it could be "a mountain" but not "The Matterhorn" even though a mountain could be classed as a specific object?

Is this a type of metal (e.g. mercury)

?

snowflake? No.
fluid? Yes.
clarification of 'not a specific object'? The words on the card are a fairly generic term that refer to a category or class (using those terms loosely) of which there are many different instances, some of which are named. In terms of your example, it is more like the answer being "mountains". Which isn't the answer.
metal? No. silence? No.

A spring?

boingggg? No. *substantial applause from audience, together with stamping of feet and a chant of "Ro-SIE! Ro-SIE! Ro-SIE!"*

Is the answer the container of a fluid?

Water?

container? No, although the 'specific instances' that I referred to above do involve containers.
water? *applause* Water is one of the words on the card. It is not a sufficient answer, however.

Would the water in question be considered potable?

potable? Yes. *some applause*

Bottled water?

God knows what the audience will do if this is right. I'm a quiet sort of bloke really, you know. :-)

Mineral water?

Soda water?

Water-ed down drinks?

and the winner is...

...Irouléguy. MINERAL WATER it is. I just wanted to be sure there were no disputes about the AVMA classification this time.

Wahay! Nice team-work there, everyone. I'm away after Friday lunchtime for the weekend, so another easy one:
MINERAL

Man-made?

Solid?

Man-made? No
Solid? No is the most useful answer, though there could be some discussion about this

Is it a terrestrial object?

Terrestrial? Yes Object? Yes, but see qualification above

The earth's crust?

*the audience cheers, hoots, stamps and lets off fireworks, and several shouts of "RO-sie, RO-sie" are heard from the balcony* No

Atmospheric particles?

The earth's mantle?

Atmospheric particles? No
The earth's mantle *the audience pull shawls round their shoulders, button up cardigans and tighten scarves* No

A tectonic plate?

Let's see what this volatile lot will do with this one.

Molten lava? (It is not solid, but does solidify soon after emergence from the nether regions, so there could be some discusion regarding its physical form.)

Mineral-laden hot springs?

A tectonic plate? *a low approving approving murmur rises from the audience* No
Molten lava? *the audience passes around Damart catalogues as the ushers attempt to turn up the radiators* No
Mineral-laden hot springs *"We could use some of those here", think the audience* No

A continental shelf?

À la Lara Croft, he muses, with a silly grin.

Magma?

Tsunami?

An Earthquake?

A Glacier?

An Iceberg?

A continental shelf? *the audience muses on the fact that there are about 21,500 Google hits for "Lara Croft" and "the answer"* No
Magma? No
Tsunami? *the audience seeks diversion in a spirited discussion of the correct plural of 'tsunami'* No
An earthquake? No
A glacier? No
An iceberg *the audience nods knowingly at the ironic appropriateness of Chalky and irach's moves*

Looking back, I may have mis-directed people with the answer to the solid question. Perhaps a better answer would be "Yes, partly."
Do we want a clue?

Antarctica?

Antarctica? *the audience sits up straight, puts away their papers, Sudoku puzzles and knitting* No, but in some ways the closest answer yet

The ocean?

The North or South Pole ?

The Arctic Ocean?

[irach] that's TWO guesses - very naughty!

Well then, North Pole?

The South Pole?

[Chalky] Nothing wrong with irach's question -- it has a yes-or-no answer, and if the answer were yes, then it would simply be all fingers on the buzzers to guess which one!
Oh, and if I am right, I hereby transfer my win to irach.

The ocean? No
The North or South Pole? *the audience giggle quietly* No
The Arctic Ocean? No

I'm with CdM on irach's question - people do bend the one-question rule (me included), and a single question can anyway turn into a mutiple answer (see "terrestial object" above).

Chalky has now got the geographically closest answer, but in other, more important ways, irach is still closest.

I am going away this afternoon, and work means I'm unlikely to be able to play more than once again before I go. Any volunteers to take over as quizmaster/mistress? Email me at pubsalesatbaafdotorgdotuk .

No e-mails, so...for your safety and convenience, this game will not contain any further replies from me until Monday (maybe) or Tuesday (more likely. Have a good weekend, everyone

Parting thought - the speed of this game is somehow appropriate.

Parting clue - there's a coincidental connection with both Bob Dylan and organised religion.

Glacier?

The North Magnetic Pole?

Well, of course a b&b in St Austell will have a broadband connection - silly of me to assume otherwise

Glacier? No
The North magnetic pole? *the audience breaks into small groups to find any connection between Bob Dylan, organised religion and the north pole, magnetic or otherwise, but fails to reach any conclusions, rejecting the theory of the small group arguing for a metaphysical interpretation of "Quinn the mighty Eskimo".* No

The Greenland Icecap?

Does this have a direct relationship to air movement?

The Greenland icecap? *the audience wonders if their earlier tumultuous reaction to one of Rosie's moves has perhaps been overlooked* No. Direct relationship to air movement? Hmm...perhaps Rosie can shed more light on that once the answer's been revealed. Locally, yes, almost certainly; more generally, don't know.

Anything to do with drifts?

Drifts? (snow or continental?) Either way, no.

Auroro australis?

A volcano?

Aurora australis? No.
A volcano? *considerable applause* No.

fergawdssakeRosie - guess the damn thing!

Well, I'm FIIK, m'dear. The quizmaster has turned it into his own show and the audience are pissed.

The Arctic ice sheet?

Not being clever when it comes to Bob Dylan and religious sects I'm probably well adrift.

The Canadian Archipelago?

The Arctic ice sheet? No
The Canadian archipelago? No.

On present progress, it doesn't look like pure guesswork is going to get there - time for more general questions, perhaps? And another clue?

Is it an oilfield?

Geysers?

An oilfield? No
Geysers? No

Is the liquid water?

Deep-sea volcanic (hydrothermal) vents?

*yawns*

Liquid water? What liquid? There is some liquid present, but it's not really the defining characteristic. And yes, it's water.
Deep-sea volcanic vents? No
*yawns* *some applause* An apt description (of both game and answer)

By the way - what IS the 'earth's crust?'

[Irouléguy] I'm usually pretty hopeless at these geographical minerally ones so I leave them to more worthy participants, which I guess doesn't help much. Trouble is, if these posers are not guessed within 3 days, the game tends to lose its momentum. It is now Day 8 of this one so perhaps a chairman's summary of the positives might help? Then a clue?

It is Iceland?

Is it specifically in either the north or southern hemispere?

Chalky] Fair points all, though I have been trying to steer people away from the more detailed minerally answers (and I was away for most of three days). It's really not obscure - I feel sure that everyone will have heard of it.

Summary - it's terrestial, partly solid, sort of an object. (Those are the answers which I think have caused people to go astray, but it's problematic because of what exactly "it" is. Let's say that "the answer" is defined by solid objects.
There's a strong connection to the earth's crust (which is just the top bit of the earth itself -between 5 and 65km thick), and specific geographical features have got strong applause. It's NOT - man-made, either of the Poles, Antarctica, a tectonic plate, an oilfield, a continental shelf, a volcano, the Canadian archipelago, the Greenland icecap (or any other form of ice).
Clues 1) It's very aptly named; 2) it has a university named after it; 3) over four million people went there last year.

Iceland? No
Is it specifically in either the north or southern hemisphere? Yes, the northern.

Is the name metaphorical? eg "The roof of the world", "The home of the blizzard" etc, etc.

Is its location in Northern Europe?

Is the suffix or word "land" part of its name/identity?

Metaphorical name? No, if anything the reverse
Northern Europe? No
Is the suffix or word "land" part of its name/identity? *cheering, the audience all put their hands to their ears as through participating in charades* No

Is it in Nothh America?

...that should read "North America"

North America? *the orchestra strikes up "My country, 'tis of thee" as the audience jump up and down in anticipation* YES!

A part of the U.S.?

A National Park or part thereof?

The Grand Canyon ? ( It is in North America, there IS a Grand Canyon University, there is a lot of earth's crust to see there, there is some liquid-the Colorado among other forms found there, it sure does fit the bill).

[If the above IS the answer I would argue its classification as purely "Mineral" though, as the flora and fauna are also an integral part of the Grand Canyon as a whole].

*exhausted, the audiience can do nothing but sigh in pleasure* We have a winner - it is THE GRAND CANYON! Purely mineral? Not sure about irach's argument, but I'll think about it.
Anyway, the baton finally gets passed on - take it away, irach!

[Irouleguy] Thanks.! What was the Organized religion connection though? Bob Dylan I think I know.

Here goes. Well, its MINERAL once again.

[irach] hmmmm - hope it's snappier than the last one :-)
[Iroulé] GCanyon - classification, perhaps Mineral with Vegetable [and possibly Animal] connections?

Is it man made?

I have never seen a more self-indulgent and comprehensively misleading set of comments as in the last AVMA. The Grand Canyon has no more to do with the earth's crust than has the Vale of Evesham. It's a surface feature FFS. So why did the audience wet themselves, generally an indication that one has very nearly hit the bull?

[Chalky] Not man made.

Sorry.. [Inkspot] Not man made.

It is a geographical feature?

Call me pedantic, but I would argue that the Grand Canyon is composed entirely of air.

Chalky] Possibly - but then you'd have to apply that to practically every place or geological formation. Would that definition help you to get Everest, for instance?

Rosie] I may have misunderstood what I Googled - I'm no scientist. But this is from the GC National Park's website: The Canyon’s mile-high walls display a largely undisturbed cross section of the Earth’s crust extending back some two billion years.
from http://www.nps.gov/grca/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures14.html
and lots of sites talk about the GC being made by upheavals in the earth's crust, so that was the basis of my reaction. I'm sorry if it was misleading, and you're right about the self-indulgent bit - sorry again.

Kim] Well, that was why I was unsure about the answers to "solid" and "object". But it can't be all air - what about the floor or the sides of the canyon?

move] Is there just one of it?

[Kim} No. Not a geographical feature. [Irouleguy] There are more than one of these.

Is it a weather phenomenon?

(Irouléguy) Talk of the earth's crust made me think the answer was something to do with the material of the earth well below the surface whereas the Grand Canyon (and Cheddar Gorge) were gouged out by running water, i.e. surface erosion. Not to worry. :-)

[Rosie] No.

Is it metal?

[Irouléguy] Yes!

[Chalky] Not metallic per se, though there may sometimes be metal salts or ions embedded within it.

A precious stone?

{Rosie] No.

Is an individual one of these bigger than an elephant?

Chalky] OK2

A component of a man-made object such as Stonehenge?

[Irouleguy] Generally it is considerably larger than an elephant.

[Rosie] No, it's not possible to make any man-made object from it/them using any known contemporary technology.

An asteroid?

Or, more specifically, a meteor (or even more specifically, one or more Perseid meteors)

FWIW, I'll come to Irouléguy's defence here: (i) I think the categorization of the GC as mineral is entirely reasonable, since the flora and fauna are not an essential part of the Canyon; (ii) I think the positive response to the earth's crust was also reasonable (although I agree that the audience went a bit over the top), since a "no" would have been a more misleading answer; (iii) "self-indulgent" is an unfairly harsh term, given that he was just injecting some humor.

(CdM) Agree on (i), not on (ii); (iii) is more a matter of taste. BTW a meteor the size of an elephant would fall to earth and cause a lot of damage and would then be classed as a meteorite. Can't be that, but we'll see.

[Rosie] Not an asteroid or meteorite [CdM] Not a meteor, Perseid or otherwise. (However, the audience sits up in rapt attention, biting its nails in great anticipation of the next guess. Not quite cigar yet, but close).

A comet?

[Rosie] You are absolutely right about the elephant, of course.

[CdM} A Comet ? YES!!! Congratulations! How spatial! What a brilliant win! The tail end of this guessing game was great! Here's to many more, the sky is the limit! The baton is passed, so take it away...

[CdM} A Comet ? YES!!! Congratulations! How spatial! What a brilliant win! The tail end of this guessing game was great! Here's to many more wins, the sky is the limit! The baton is passed, so take it away...

[Irouleguy] Wouldn't that be like saying that a hole in the ground comprises not only the hole but also the ground around the hole? I think the GC is just a big hole.

All right, let's get back into the ethereal world of the ABSTRACT.

(with ANIMAL connections)

The bee's knees?

(or should I move that apostrophe?)

Nope. Nor the cat's pyjamas, or a dog's dinner. However, the audience applauds for the fact that the answer is indeed of the form: Definite article + 2 words.

Is the answer of the form "The + animal's + part of animal"?

No. But since I am feeling generous, I will tell you that the answer is of the form: "The + part of animal + something that is not an animal at all".

The skin of one's teeth? ...and thank you, though even I think I was being self-indulgent.
Kim] Yes. If the GC's just a great big hole, what defines where the hole ends?

The heart's desire?

(CdM) Useful generosity. :-)

The heart of the matter?

The foot of the stairs?

The brains of the operation?

Is the something that is not an animal at all an abstract noun?

[CdM] So what if there's more than one bee?

Or rather, why is it just one bee? I suppose I'm just hoping someone round here happens to know a lot about the phrase...

The Lion's share?

[Tuj] I've always thought it came from a colloquial bastardisation of business - in the sense of "he's the beeesneees" - meaning suited.

Ingnore that post. It's part of an animal. Go back to sleep, Duj.

skin of teeth? No. Some applause from audience, though.
heart's desire? No.
heart of matter, foot of stairs, brains of operation; No, no, no. The + two words, remember.
third word abstract noun? Yes.
lion's share? No.

Is the animal human?

The tooth fairy?

We have a winner! The tooth fairy it is. *places baton under pillow for Rosie to find*

(CdM) It's gone. But I'm richer by 25 pesetas. What joy!

Right, this is MINERAL and ABSTRACT

Does it appear in a particular work of fiction?

Is it man-made?

(Inkspot) - No
(Irouléguy) - No

Does the abstract have something to do with measurement?

(Dujon) Not a thing, I'm afraid. I'm going to bed now - it's 3 a.m. :-(

Cassiopeia?

Is the mineral metal?

(CdM) - No
(ImNotJohn) - No

Is the abstract because it's fictional?

Is it one particular thing?

(Gusset Login) - No, certainly not. Abstract is a valid part-classification but don't concentrate too much on it.
(Irouléguy) No, there are lots of these.

A lodestone?

Is it a human construct?

(Software) - No
(ImNotJohn) No. The abstract nature is not an idea.

The Philosopher's Stone?

(irach) - No.

The Giant's Causeway?

Rock of Ages?

Is it found in a particular place?

Is the mineral solid?

(Kim) - No
(pper) - No
(Tuj) There are lots of them (see above) and there are certainly preferred places.
(Irouléguy) A small amount of it is in some cases, otherwise no.

Ocean currents?

(ImNotJohn) - No

Clouds?

(Irouléguy) - No, but *some applause*

Precipitation?

Can you drink it?

(CdM) - Not the answer, but always involved *more applause*
(Tuj) - You can, and ultimately you do, in some cases.

Rain?

April Showers?

Singing in the Rain?

(irach) - See the answer to CdM's question
(ImNotJohn) - No
(RedSnapper)- No

Tornados?

A meteorological phenomenon?

(Irouléguy) - No - but *some polite applauase*
(Tuj) - Yes *rather more fulsome applause*

The monsoon?

(Raak) - No

Floods?

(irach) - No, but a strong connection.

A spring thaw?

(Dujon) - No, not quite that strong a connection.

Does this involve significant air pressure differences?

A hurricane?

The hydrological cycle?

Is it a one-word answer?

well waddya know - I return after a few days away and here's Rosie - doing a weather one!

(Dujon) - Can do, but that is possibly misleading
(CdM) - No
(Raak) - No
(Chalky) - One word preceded by the indefinite article.

A tsunami?

A thunderstorm?

A cloudburst?

A shower?

(Chalky, ImNotJohn, all) - No, but
*Thunderous applause* for Irouléguy with his bolt from the cumulonmimbus. It it indeed a thunderstorm. Carry on, squire.

Squire tat work this afternoon. A lightning-quick round there - let's hope this one is as quick. I promise to keep the audience sober this time. It is ABSTRACT, involving ANIMAL, VEGETABLE and MINERAL.

arrow_circle_down

Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord