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
Fictional? NO, the words on the card are not fictional. However, in another sense the answer is YES AND NO.
When you talk about "another sense", is it the same "other sense" for each question?
Is the animal connection one particular species?
Is the answer a well-known or 'set' phrase?
Is it connected with a sport or game?
Is it a filament of our imagination?
figment obviously. Pardon me.
Is another sense always the same sense? YES.
One particular species? NO.
Is the answer a well-known phrase? NO.
Is the answer a 'set' phrase? YES. *laughter*
Connected with a sport or game? NO. (But in another sense YES AND NO.)
A figment of our imagination? I think the best answer is NO.

Sorry about the absence. I was hellishly busy for the last two days. Normal service should be resumed shortly.
Connected with mathematics?
Connected with mathematics? Fundamentally I would say NO, although you are (I think) drawing the right conclusion from the earlier laughter. In another sense, of course, the answer is YES AND NO.
Is this a form of reproduction?
A form of communication?
Reproduction? NO. (or YES and NO)
Communication? NO. (or YES and NO)
Six of one and half a dozen of the other?
6 and 6? NO. (and in another sense, NO.)
Is it anything to do with sorting?
To do with sorting? To be honest, I am not exactly sure what you mean. It is not to do with sorting in the sense of, say, computer code, but it is to do with sorting in some sense, I suppose. Of course, in another sense the answer is YES AND NO.
Is the answer self-referential?
Schroedinger's cat?
Does the word "everything" appear on the card?
Is it a matter of opinion?
Self-referential? NO. *applause*
Superpussition? NO.
'Everything' on the card. *applause* As I have worded the card, NO. But it would be badly misleading to give that answer, so I will tell you that the phrase "all things" does appear on the card.
Matter of opinion. 100% of those polled say NO.
The phrase "Man is the measure of all things"?
No, it's not a well-known phrase, and it's not a matter of opinion...

How about Are there more than four words on the card?
More than four words? YES.
All things come to those who wait?
Patience is its own reward? NO. (Not a well-known phrase, remember)
(Incidentally, I'm rather surprised to find that 'superpussition' only has two googlehits. It's more original than I thought.)
Looking back, I saw that I answered "connected with a sport or a game?" as NO (as well as YES AND NO). While that is still probably the least misleading answer, it occurs to me that the answer does have some connection to a game.
The end of all things?
All things fall into one or more of the categories: Abstract, Animal, Vegetable or Mineral
End of all things? NO.
Everything AVMA? NO. *a tiny smattering of applause*
This game, of all things?
This game? NO.
The universe?
What's left after you take away life and everything? NO.
More than six words on the card?
Is it All Things That Fall Into This Category as per the famous Chinese Encyclopaedia?
Mm. Or "Those That Fall Into the Present Classification". Altho, perhaps unsurprisingly, Borges may have made it up.
More than six words? YES.
All things that fall into this category? NO. Not self-referential, remember. But you are on the right track and so, to speed things along, I will tell you that the first six words on the card are "The set of all things that".
The set of all things that have not been played in this game?
Are you still sane?
The set of all things that can be classified?
The set of all things that may be classified under the headings Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, Abstract?
Except that would be self-referential again.
The set of all things that do not exist?
[Raak] I suspect you had it with your previous question.
Tsoatt !played? NO.
Am I still sane? ARTICHOKE.
Tsoatt can be classified? NO. (see self-referential=NO)
Tsoatt can be classified as AVMA? NO. (see this comment)
Tsoatt aren't? NO.

Perhaps it's time to start asking some questions again?
Is this set finite? i.e. could you, at least in theory, count the items in it?
Are there any chihuahuas in this set?
Finite? I know enough mathematics to know I need to be careful around infinities, but I am pretty confident that this set is neither finite nor countably infinite.
Chihuahuas? *applause for the question* There almost certainly are chihuahuas in this set. However, a much more helpful observation is that a chihuahua is not in this set.
<fastshow>What are the schools like in your area?</fastshow>
Do all the chihuahuas in the set exist, or have they existed?
Chihuahuas in the set (Shurely "badgers in the sett")
Is this chihuahuas nonsense related to the famous Beyond the Fringe monologue:
... I opened the door accordingly and went in, and there was Moore seated by the fire with a basket upon his knees. ‘Moore’, I said, ‘do you have any apples in that basket?’ ‘No’, he replied, and smiled seraphically, as was his wont. I decided to try a different logical tack. ‘Moore’, I said, ‘do you then have some apples in that basket?’ ‘No’, he replied, leaving me in a logical cleft stick from which I had but one way out. ‘Moore’, I said, ‘do you then have apples in that basket?’ ‘Yes’, he replied. And from that day forth, we remained the very closest of friends.
All things that on earth do dwell?
*thinks he needs to google fastshow*
Have all chihuahuas in set existed? NO.
Badgers? For free, I will tell you that a badger is also not in the set or the sett.
All earth-dwellers? NO.
Is it connected with color?
Why avoid the obvious?
Tsoat plural?
Connected to color? I can think of several connections to color. However, color is not in this set.
Tsoatt are plural? NO. However, plurals are in this set.
TSOATT - is the next word 'can'?
Can? NO. Also, cans are not in this set.
Do the contents of the set change over time?
Are any non-plurals in this set?
I'm having fun here
Contents change over time? I suppose they do, yes, but I don't think that is very helpful. The contents of the set are not in the set, by the way.
Any non-plurals in the set? YES. Non-plurals are not in the set, though.
The set of all things beginning with P?
The set of all things that have not been mentioned in this game
We have a winner!
The set of all things that begin with P is indeed the answer. Raak is now in possession of a passed baton

This reminded of me of the time I chose 'Human Construct' as an AVMA subject -- then, as now, everyone oddly failed to ask the standard question, making the quest much more difficult than I expected.
The next one is MINERAL.
Metal?
[CdM] Doooh! Brilliant.
Ceramic?
stone?
Man-made?
[Projoy] Not metal.
[Phil] Not ceramic.
[INJ] Not stone.
[Rosie] Can be man made.
A substance?
[Phil] Not a substance. (Substance is involved, but the answer is not some substance.)
Plastic?
[Projoy] Not plastic.
Glass?
reflective?
[Néa] Not glass.
[Projoy] Yes, reflective.
liquid?
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord