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 ....
[Tuj] What an unexpected question! P? - NO [Raak] Real World? - I'll say a tentative NO to that one [INJ] More than one publication? - YES [UK] Book? "a set of pages that have been fastened together inside a cover to be read or written in" - YES [Irg] Female? NO
[Projoy] Except for Sydney Newman, who was Canadian. But Korky's point was exactly that the roots of Dr Who are non-British. But, of course, the sixty thousand dollar question is "who cares?"
[Projoy] I was talking nonsense earlier - rereading, Korky's point seems to indicate that Who had British roots, which is of course a load of dalek-poo.
[PJ] Paper with something written on it? Yes [and I know I should have added a tiny bit of M I N E R A L to the definition but I thought it might mislead, and also guessed that 'paper' would be arrived at fairly quickly] [Tuj] A specific piece of paper? Don't know what you mean by 'specific' so I can't answer that. [Raak] A single piece of paper? Yes, definitely
A particular piece of paper being something specific like the Magna Carta, I would interpret a single peice of paper as something more general like a calender. just so I don't go too far off track
[Raak] In a museum? No. [for clarification: when I replied 'yes' to a 'single piece of paper' I meant that only one sheet of paper was involved, as opposed to a pamphlet, magazine or book] [Kim] Historical significance? Yes
ah ...simul [Inkspot] A particular piece of paper? Well, it's 'particular' in that it's a suitable subject for AVMA - but if you're asking if it's the one-and-only of its kind - then NO
[IS,P] Very kind of you, my dear sir, but I wouldn't want to steal your thunder. Nor would I want to play a game where I couldn't be a good loser. :-) Please go ahead, and I'll redouble my efforts this time!
Right... catch-up time! [Raak] Woody? YES [Tuj] Toaster or less? NO [INJ] Domestic as a rule? NO [Projoy] The clangy stuff? YES [irach] Full-English equipment? NO [Chalks] I Want One Of Those? QUITE POSSIBLY - MATTER OF PERSONAL TASTE [Inkspot] Rolls off the conveyorbelt? I WOULD HAVE TO SAY... NO
[Inkspot] What's in da box? NO [Projoy] Ingredients? YES (Some may well have an additional ANIMAL component, but don't let this confuse you) [Chalky] Plug it in? NO
Well, I thought we were just about there, but I can't get it. Used in competitive sport, larger than phone box in 2 of 3 dimensions, contains wood, metal, rock (plus other), has moving parts but not wheels, except as optional extra, does not require a power source, not mobile, not mass-manufactured(ish). I think when someone does get it, it will be obviously correct. A fair summary?
[Projoy] lying uneasy? - NO (Loud and prolonged applause - plus a few murmurs from one or two of the audience) I realised afterwards that my way of rephrasing Lib's question might have been confusing, so for clarity: royalty, yes; sovereign, no.
Thought it wouldn't last long. It is Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Silvester Maria Stuart, aka The Young Pretender, aka Charles III of Britain, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie. Uncle Korky's 'British?' question was clarified in such a way as to allow maximum confusion. The true baton is passed over the water to CdM.
Culloden Field, site of the downfall of Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Silv- well, what INJ said up there, is indeed the correct answer. *hands bloody baton to Raak* Incidentally, you will be glad to know that Wikipedia judges the battle of Culloden to have been a "decisive British victory"
[UK] Not fictional. [INJ] The anarcho-syndicalists will have their day...but not today. [ISP] Not art. [Lib] One word on the card. [Projoy] Yes, a human construct.
[Lib] Cannot be touched. There is physical stuff to this thing, but one would not talk of touching the ting itself. [UK] Not a law. [ISP] Not a language. [ISP] "System" is a rather vague word, covering just about anything. Yes, it's a system, and not a belief system.
A pub discussion over the weekend, and the most recent posts in here, have put doubt into my mind about the above answer. I think on reflection I'll change it to Cartoon - NO. Apologies.
[Projoy] Originating on TV? YES indeed only available on TV afaik. Parsley? NO [CdM] Paper Cut? NO [UK] Pugwash, NO, PC McGarry NO, but PROFESSOR YAFFLE is the name on the card, and this piece of broken wood which could be 'fixed' into a winner's baton by the mice from the mouse organ is therefore passed on. I, Say Porter! goes to sleep.
[IS,P] Well, as it so happens, Emily has brought something new into the shop, so let's see if the viewers at home can work out what it is. This is ABSTRACT through and through.
[Projoy] I knew I shouldn't have gone for an abstract, because I'd end up getting confused when the discussion gets philosophical :-) ! As far as I can work out, the best answer I can give is YES.
Before I answer specifics, I feel that the 'free clue' appears to have done more harm than good. Remember - the words on the card are not a specific phrase. I'll try to make it even easier: it's an "example", or a general description of one item from a category. [Irg] NO (specific phrase) [INJ] NO (see explanation above) [Projoy] NO (specific phrase)
[INJ] Type of response? NO [Projoy] Part of conversation? COULD BE [Irg] Metaphor / similie? NO, but *applause* for a question relating to 'categories'... [IS,P] I'm putting my trainers on, and preparing to sprint. If you all want a new topic, I'll tell you what's on the card and run away very quickly.
Thank God! INJ & Raak were close, but Thos, lurking with panache, has seized on the exact words on the card in one post. Dear all - the answer is "A knock-knock joke". Relay baton passed to Thos, whilst I sprint for the hills.
Oh dear. That was rather a lurker victory. Hadn't really imagined that I would chance upon the solution! Perhaps someone else might consider taking on the challenge of setting the next, since I am currently locked in the cupboard under the sink on Mother-of-Mine's instructions and unable to post for a few days.
Right-ho, I'm back in Blighty, so here goes with a new one (and apologies if you've had this before - I only glance in on this game occasionally): This is mineral but you used to be able to get it/this/them in vegetable too...
[Lib] Recreational - only in the loosest sense in that you would indeed use it to bring you some form of pleasure and I can't see a business usage, but I think I would have to say no overall. [ISP] Batteries - no - and completely no to where you seem to be headed :)
[Raak] Protective covering - no [ISP] sporty/gamey - no [Inkspot] Kitchen based - no (although in fairness, you could use or store it there if you wanted - but it would be most unusual) [Raak] Mackintosh - no [Projoy] Wellingtons - no [ISP] Eraser - no.
Just to elaborate a bit on the response as to whether it was a recreational activity, I might have unwittingly misled you with my reply. The object is used as a recreational activity, in that you would utilise it in your spare time and for fun, but it would be unlikely to have a a long term usage, like a hobby, or a passtime, hence my answering with a no. Hope this helps...
[Inkspot] Hollow - hmm, sometimes yes, sometimes no. I think, however, that in the traditional understanding of hollow, you would not say that it was, so once again I'd plump for overall no.
Woof! What a lot of lovely guesses! [Raak] Packets of three - no (but arf!) [Inkspot] Discy, as Stanley Unwin might have it, - no [ISP] Frisbee - no [Projoy] Moving parts or rubber duckiness - no* and no [ISP] Hula Hoop - no [Raak] Wheeled - no.
*BUT clarification (as always): Whilst I say there are no moving parts, one element of the object will move if the item is utilised...
[CdM] Used with other things - not specifically: It can be utilised alone without any problem though you might get more out of it if you involve other items [Inkspot] Sphere - it is not a sphere, [Irouleguy] Associated with a country/culture - no [ISP] Used indoors - usually yes, but it could be used outside, and I am sure has been, [Phil] Weekend use - this little beauty can be used at any time and is, [Chalky] Did it exist prior to 1950? - not according to my sources...
With a Greek Chorus chanting "More Tea, Vicar?" in the background, I am happy to declare that ImNotJohn is entirely on the button with a whoopee cushion. *Applause*. Actually, I thought Chalky was playing games with me (so to speak) when she actually picked the year that they were actually invented! *bows towards INJ and scarpers....*
[IS,P] Cartoon/Animation? - The answer has to be YES (some applause), but that wasn't my original inspiration. BTW I think this is already quite close to a resolution.
Just to clarify my last response. I could strictly have answered NO in that the answer is not a fictional story that etc. as such, but I gave the more helpful and leading answer. As ever, you may need to make sure you aren't making any unjustified assumptions.
Rats! I thought I'd done enough to win it - indeed I was going to add Eeyore after Phil's Wol but thought others should be given a chance to chip in - at least it wasn't a lurker.
Sorry I'm late. All right, this is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL and ABSTRACT connections. I should warn you that I am traveling for most of the next 48 hours, so my connections will be intermittent. Oh, and [IS,P] -- thanks for doing all the heavy lifting on that last one. :-)
[Projoy] YES. The words on the card are a human construct. However in another sense the answer is YES AND NO. [Raak] YES. The words on the card are a thing. However in another sense the answer is NO.
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
*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.
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.
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 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 problem with 'does it begin with a P' is that it is really Lib's question and she hasn't been around for a while, so sometimes we forget to ask it... Meanwhile, in this game ... wonders how Mercury is not 'metal' and also how it 'can be man-made', then wonders about the varying definitions of 'man-made' and gives up.
[Projoy] Not mercury (not a metal, remember?) [ISP] These things can be created deliberately, and (more usually) they can arise by themselves. [ISP] Does not begin with a P.
Mrs INJ's old school is closed because there are several hundred people sleeping in it at the moment, waiting for the water to go down enough to go home.
[Chalky] group of veggies - No [Pj] Grows in the dark? - NO needs dark soil - NO grows underground - NO Have I covered every meaning of the question? As ever, the watchword is check your assumptions.
An edible vegetable, typically eaten cooked, doesn't grow on a tree or bush or underground, cultivated (though not widely in Britain), not a group of veg. So we are looking at vegetable as in "a plant, root, seed, or pod that is used as food"? how about 'rice'.
[IS,P] rice - NO Several mistaken assumptions there. The main one is that it is 'a' vegetable. I may have been unhelpful in trying to be too helpful. So, the answer on the card is not cultivated as such. Try to sort that out and you'll be closer.
[Rosie] leafy? - NO [K(l)] a class of vegetables - NO (although Mrs INJ is far more familiar with classes of vegetables than I am, since she is a teacher.)
Had I been pedantic, instead of trying to be helpful, I could have answered NO to the questions 'Can it be grown in Britain? and 'Is it widely cultivated in Britain?'
[Projoy] can contain alcohol? - depending on your definition of 'contain' (also true for Rosie's question), but YES, it can, although it normally doesn't
[Raak] something you put into something else? - YES [Chalky] Sugar? - YES - The word 'sugar' is on the card but that is not the full answer (sorry if you couldn't hear that above the applause) [IS,P] - NO & NO (obviously)
The next object is MINERAL, with ANIMAL connections. (A ripple of laughter goes through the audience at the answer is revealed on the laser display board.)
[ISP] *the audience awakens from its dogmatic slumber and cheers* Yes, a building. [Dujon] Non-fictional. [CdM] Yes, a unique thing. [Projoy] In one sense, definitely not, in another, I expect not. (Ditto for 200 years.)
[Projoy] How do you work that out? You asked: more than a couple of centuries? ANSWER NO less than a hundred years? ANSWER In one sense, definitely NOT, in another, I expect NOT. (ditto for 200)
I make that = non-existent, despite its non-fictional nature.
Sorry, I misread the 100 years question. This thing is, in one sense definitely less than 100 years old, and in another sense I don't know. Or to be more explicit, as it's been established to be a building, its present use is less than 100 years old, but I don't know when it was constructed.
[CdM] Not a museum. [ISP] Not a station. [ISP] Not an airport. (Close attention to the audience's reactions may suggest a less random direction to explore.)
[ISP] There are indeed five Hilton hotels in Paris, but only one is... [Projoy] ...The Paris Hilton Hotel. One nth-generation videotape passed under the counter to Projoy.
Fictional? No. Describes a relationship? No (if I understand the question correctly) A Good Thing? That is a matter of opinion, but I think most people would be more inclined to answer yes rather than no. Money involved? Yes is I think the best answer. *a little applause*
Connected with social activity? Hmmm. I'm really not sure how to answer that -- it depends what you mean by 'social activity'. I will say that the animal connection involves a number of humans, all of whom are broadly engaged in some kind of activity.
Need to meet? In the case of the thing mentioned on the card people certainly do, but one could imagine the activity being carried out with minimal face-to-face contact. Even in the case of the thing mentioned on the card, some of the people involved probably never meet.
Morniverse? No. Similar community? No, but it is in some ways a community (although that isn't the word one would usually use), in that involves a group of people engaged (as I said before) in some kind of common activity. As INJ would say, examine your assumptions.
Language connection? Sort of, but I think that would be a red herring. Do people get paid for doing this? *some applause* People do get paid for the activity, yes. Note that the answer on the card is not the activity, though. Academic activity? No.
Diary? No. Crossword compilers? No. "Fourth Estate" should perhaps also have had a smattering of applause. Perhaps a brief summary would help. This thing is abstract with animal connections. It is a non-fictional human construct that has not always existed. The animal connection involves a number of humans, all of whom are broadly engaged in the common activity of paid journalism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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*
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.
The British Museum? Pah! Who is this man, he is an insult to me. "It's primary purpose is of course functional". What a load of WILLIES! It's primary purpose is of course sexual. It is a massive assertion of the phallique power of London. These huge columns plunging into Mother Earth!
Time for a summary: A building in London, north of the river, built between 1700 and 1800, part of which is still standing. It is (or was) partly open to the public, overground, and on a street. It is not: a religious place, a bridge, the Houses of Parliament, a prison, a fortification, St Pancras Station, Marble Arch, the British Museum or Highgate Cemetery. Nor does it have any health connection. The question “Do you have to pay to go in” produced laughter from the audience and the response “Quite the reverse”.
[I] (applause!) Yes! These very words appear on the card! But that is not the whole answer. [R] I don't know if any of the Bank of England's officials ever had their residence there. [I] Not exactly. Google may be your friend at this pont.
[Ig] Artistic technique? NOT EXACTLY *small ripple* [Raak] (I do occasionally still do something in a museum, but not often) To do with theatre? NOT BY DEFINITION (but can be)