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
Cookery columns? No.
A prize of some sort? No.
A press conference?
A press conference? No.
Does the connection involve a particular area of expertise (such as economics, sport, fashion)?
City columnist?
Is this exclusively in the area of newspaper journalism?
Has it been around more than two hundred years?
Tony Blair's 'feral beast'?
Making some progress
Involve particular area of expertise? No (that is, not beyond what is already implied by the fact that you know that there is a connection to journalism). *some applause for the question*
City columnist? No.
Exclusively newspaper journalism? No. *applause*
More than 200 years? No (but I will give you a hint and tell you that I did have to check).
Blair the wild things are? No.
As one clarification, I want to stress that I have said that the animal connection involves people "broadly" engaged in journalism, but a pedant (not that there are any around here) might claim that the activity is not journalism per se.
Letters to the Editor?
Ignore that question - your comment "engaged in the common activity of paid journalism" just nudged the penny.
An interview?
Yours sincerely, Disgusted of Katoomba? No.
An interview? No.
The parliamentary lobby?
Obituaries?
Parliamentary Lobby? No.
Obituaries? No.
The Groucho Club?
Groucho Club? No. *the audience is asleep*

I think you need more questions.
I hope I haven't misled with the "not journalism per se". Journalism is definitely involved.
I'm about to travel to France and so may be away from the internets for 24 hours or so.
Is it a system?
Does it involve writing for a specific section of a newspaper?
Leaders/Editorials?
A system? Not sure what you mean, but I am pretty sure the answer is No.
Specific section? No.
Editorials? No.
diarising
... am disinclined to suggest 'blogging' as that is an exclusively internetty experience
Reporting?
Diarising? No.
Reporting? No. *substantial applause from their audience, although their enthusiasm should not be overrated, stemming as it does partly from relief that they finally have an excuse to do something other than sit there mutely*
Remember the answer on the card is not the activity itself.
Is the answer an adjective describing a person who may be journalistically inclined?
Current affairs?
Are the mineral and vegetable connections just ink and paper respectively?
Adjectivally descriptive answer? No. The answer is not an adjective, and does not describe someone journalistically inclined.
Electric adultery? No.
Mineral and vegetable = ink and paper? Basically, yes. You could add computers, buildings, and so on, but I don't think these connections tell you anything you don't already know.
so-called "Fleet Street"?
Fast Track? No.
Sub-editors?
Subeditors? No.
International/'foreign' coverage?
Reviews of some kind?
Small earthquake in Chile? No. *smattering of applause*
Reviews? No.
Travel writing?
Travel writing? No. You all need to think bigger. Also, there has only been one guess that has even approximated the kind of entity that is on the card.
The Murdoch Media Juggernaut?
News?
Rupert the Bear? No. *audience applause that, by means of subtly shifting cadences, conveys the message that they are applauding not so much for the name Murdoch as for the fact that there have now been two guesses that approximate the entity on the card*
News? OK, you don't need to think quite that big. Nevertheless *applause, tinged with relief that we may finally be getting somewhere*
Is it a specific organisation?
Specific organisation? Yes. *applause*
Reuters?
The Rothermere press?
Reuters? No. *sustained applause*
Rothermere Press? No. *sustained silence*
A specific news agency?
A specific news agency? Yes.
AP?
AHN?
Really, what else could it have been?
A P is indeed what is on the card. This just in from our correspondent: a baton has been delivered to East Anglia.
A N I M A L
H U M A N?
[CdM] Not human.
Mammalian?
[Projoy] Yes, mammalian.
A specific species?
Topical?
[Projoy] To be very nitpickingly precise, not a specific species.
[Rosie] Not topical.
Feline?
[[I] Not a cat.
A specific, individual animal?
[CdM] Not an individual.
Does it live in the water?
[I] Not alive.
[I] Not in water.
An extinct creature?
[CdM] Not extinct.
Animal byproduct?
[Inkspot] Yes, an animal product.
Food for humans?
[Rosie] Yum? Bleah.
A stuffed animal (taxidermist wise)?
Is it from the male and female?
[Dujon] (applause)Taxidermy is involved.
[Inkspot] Could be from either.
Is the answer of the form "an <animal><part of animal>" (e.g., a moose head)?
[CdM] *applause*! That is included in the answer.
A stuffed moose head?
An elephant's foot umbrella stand?
[Projoy] Not a moose.
[CdM] *wild cheering* The very words on the card! One Victorian sword-stick passed on.
eeeek! Sorry. My internets access is intermittent right now. Let me set an easy one.
MINERAL with ANIMAL connections
*audience laughter, with a second wave of laughter as the first one is dying down*
Is the mineral man-made?
Is the mineral physically connected to the animal?
Something to do with sex?
A parrot-handle umbrella?
A cast-iron elephant's foot umbrella stand?
Man-made? Could be. *audience laughter*
Physically connected to the animal? Well, yes. But then again, no. *audience laughter*
To do with sex? Well, er, it could be, though it is probably fair to say, not normally. *audience laughter* Not that I am passing any judgment on what is normal, you understand. *audience laughter*
Parrot-handle umbrella? No.
Cast-iron efus? No.
Is it bigger than a shoe box?
Bigger than a shoebox? The question is not really meaningful.
I mean, *chastity* belt?
Very strange, I posted with a misprint, hence the correction, which seems to have overwritten the original.
Probably just clicked Preview by mistake.
Chestity belt? Charity belt? Elastity belt? No.
Is this a substance, or substances, as opposed to an object?
Substance? Yes. *applause*
My God, it's not a turd, is it?
Looks like ... smells like ... tastes like ... thank god I didn't step in it...? No, but *sustained audience applause and laughter*
You're not taking the piss, are you?
Bogies?
And I don't mean those four-wheel assemblages you find under railway carriages.
Does it begin with...?
Urine is the word on the card. One Andres Serrano representation of a baton returned to Raak.
Let me try to raise the tone with this M I N E R A L and A B S T R A C T.
Ancient Greek sculpture?
A work of art?
Bigger than a toaster?
[Raak] Shurely your winning question last round should have been "Does it begin with pee"
[I] The audience applauds, but only for your good taste. Not ancient Greek sculpture.
[R] In a sense, yes.
[ISP] Bigger than a toaster.
On reflection, I think the ABSTRACT is inaccurate, and this should be classified simply as MINERAL.
A natural geographical feature?
[Inkspot] Not natural.
A building?
A bridge?
[Rosie] Yes! A building.
[I] Not a bridge.
In Europe?
[Néa] In Europe.
Built after 1900?
[I] Not built after 1900.
In Britain?
[I] Yes, in Britain.
Open to the public?
[Rosie] Partly open to the public.
Prehistoric?
[Néa] Not prehistoric.
A religious place?
In narrow sense, excludes banks, sports grounds,....
The Houses of Parliament?
[Inkspot] Not a religious place.
[Irouléguy] Not the H of P.
In England?
[Néa] In England.
St Pancras Station?
Would this edifice be a tourist attraction?
[Rosie] Not St. Pancras.
[Dujon] Quite possibly, I'm not sure.
Is it a residence?
In southern England?
Using the 'south of a line drawn between the Wash and the Severn' definition.
[Inkspot] Not a residence.
[Irouléguy] In southern England.
By the seaside?
[ISP] Not by the seaside.
In London?
Built before 1800?
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord