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
Specific to British culture?
Converging on . . . . .
[Rosie] British Culture? NO
From before 1500CE?
Specific to a western European culture?
[Projoy] <1500? NO
[Irouléguy] W. Europe? YES
Anything to do with religion?
[Irouléguy] To do with religion? *sharp intake of breath from some audience members* After some thought, officially, NO.
Anarcho-syndicalism?
Atlast!
From before 1800?
[INJ] Anarcho-wotsit? Well, blow me down - NO
[Projoy] <1800? NO *audience anxiously awaits Projoy's next era query*
A celebration?
From before 1850?
May as well mine this seam out.
[Rosie] celebration? NO
[Projoy] <1850? NO *audience drums its collective fingers*
A Mediterranean country's culture?
[INJ] Med Country? NO
[Projoy] Just to make sure we're on the same wavelength, it did not come into being (inasmuch as an abstract entity can) in any of the timespans you've suggested.
From Germany?
[Irouléguy] From Germany? NO *Audience dozes quietly*
So it did come into being between 1850-1900?
Belgian or Dutch?
[Projoy] Originating 'twixt 1850 and 1900? YES (21st century was the only alternative left, I think)
[IS,P!] Belgian/Dutch? NO
A sport?
Irish?
Specific to a Nordic Culture?
[Rosie] A sport? My first thought was "yes", but it's actually "NO" *sudden re-awakening of audience followed by huge applause despite the "no"*
[Irouléguy] Irish? YES *yet more applause*
[Projoy] Nordic? see above.
A political idea?
Scrub that, not easily mistaken for a sport (except by politics junkies like me). A game?
[Projoy] A game? NO. Although, to clarify a little, games and sport are involved. *appreciative nods and applause from the audience*
To do with children in particular?
St Patrick's Day?
The Gaelic Athletic association?
Scrub previous - it's a celebration.
A particular event or date?
or the Celtic Revival (aka Irish Renaissance)?
Now we're getting somewhere...
[Projoy] Children in particular? NO
[Rosie] The GAA? Not the answer on the card, but you're getting warm *enthusiastic applause as the audience awaits the dénouement with eager anticipation*
[Irouléguy] a date, event or the celtic revival? NONE of those
The GAA rules?
[Irouléguy] The GAA Rules? NO, but they are associated with the answer on the card. *hushed anticipation*
The All-Ireland Championships?
The Rules of Gaelic Football?
[Irouléguy] The All-Ireland Championships? Two words missing from what's on the card (and if you get the second of them I'll be satisfied). *mutters of "harsh, but fair" from the Irish members of the audience*
[Rosie] See Irouléguy's question.
The All-Ireland Gaelic Football Championships?
or the All-Ireland Senior Football Championships, even?
Google is indeed our friend
[Irouléguy] ARGH! No, not quite - SO close, yet I can't give it to you on either post.
The All-Ireland Junior Football Championships?
[Projoy] A-I JFC? NO, you changed the wrong word - sorry.
The All-Ireland Senior Hurling Champuionships?
Gotta be, so it has.
[Rosie] Hoorah! Yes, indeed, 'tis the hurling. Here, take this camán and sliotar, and be off with you :-)
(Phil) Er, what do I do with them? Don't answer that.

Right, earwig-o with ABSTRACT and MINERAL or ABSTRACT..

Nothing whatsoever to do with steam engines.

Is it to do with the weather?
A ton of bricks?
Related to 'the arts'?
(Projoy) Yes, it's weather-related.
(Raak) Not a ton of bricks.
(Dujon) Nothing to do with the arts.
Is the mineral water?
A measurement?
(Raak) Water? Most of it is.
(Phil) No, not a measurement.
Noah's Flood?
Connected with climate change?
(Raak) Notable historic widespread intense precipitation event? No.
(Projoy) Nothing to do with climate change, manmade or otherwise.
Perhaps something to do with short term weather forecasting?
(Dujon) Not seaweed, hair, thunder-bottles, Positive Vorticity Advection or any other attempt at divination.
Fictional?
A particular form of precipitation?
(Raak) No, it's real (both meanings)
(Irouléguy) Not a hydrometeor, as they call it in the learned journals.
Is it a type of weather?
By the way, you would hit the sliotar with the camán.
Is the water, ice?
(Phil) Not strictly a type of weather, but in effect yes. (Irish implements) Ah, it's becoming a little clearer. Neither would fit where the sun don't shine, then.
(Inkspot) Ice? Most certainly not. *a few chuckles from the audience*
Normally linked with a particular part of the world?
Scotch Mist?
Scotch Mist?
oops - forgot the protocol.
Indian Summer?
(Irg) YES *audience applause*
(Phil) Not reduced visibility due to half a bottle of GlenPissartist
(ISP) Not an Indian Summer.
A monsoon?
A hurricane?
(Raak) Not the monsoon.
(Irg) A hurricane? Not a bit of it. *cruel laughter by knowledgable audience*

This is not a technical term but possibly used to be.

A named wind?
(Dujon) Not a named wind. *further audience chuckles*
The doldrums?
The El Niño/Southern Oscillation effect?
A tsunami?
(Irg) Not ENSO (It's a technical term)
(Raak) Not a tsunami.
but:
We have winner! It's the totally becalmed CdM. Well done, sir. (Local knowledge?). Over to you.
I think we ought to draw a line under this and move on, as they say.
I certainly drifted into a lurker's victory there.
This is ABSTRACT with very strong ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE connections, mainly MINERAL but also ANIMAL and VEGETABLE, and ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL AND ABSTRACT. Also perhaps ABSTRACT.
Life, The Universe and Everything?
Indeed! *marks baton "Return to Sender"*
Ooh. Is that the first genuine hole in one in this game?
(CdM) Sorry about that. Sometimes it's worth a pop from the halfway line. :-)

Now, this time it's MINERAL

Rain?
(Irg) - Not rain. *some thoughtful chuckles from audience*
Naturally occurring?
[Rosie] No apology necessary! An excellent piece of guessing. When I set it I thought there was some chance that it would just click for someone.
[Projoy] What, my "apostrophe" wasn't a genuine hole in one? :-)
Condensation of some description?
(CdM) Naturally occurring? Unfortunately not.
The lavish definitions seemed to indicate only one thing. :-)
(Dujon) Not a form of condensation.

Switiching off at 3.45 BST, 2.45 GMT.

Made of plastic?
(Inkspot) Er, not plastic. *huge peals of laughter from audience*

Clarification: This (or these) can occur naturally, but it is rare, and the words on the card are always thought of as not a part of nature.

Solid, when at home?
(Projoy) Yes, it's solid.
Is it sold?
(Projoy) You can't buy one of these. *audience split their sides. Paramedics called.*
Man made?
An artificial body part?
(Inkspot) Manmade? YES.
(Raak) Not an artificial body part.
Larger than a double-decker bus?
(Irg) YES, larger than a double-decker bus, though not equally in all directions.
Made of stone?
(Projoy) Made of stone? YES, but only partly. *audience now becoming animated*
Is there a metal part?
(Phil) Metal? There may be a very small proportion, but essentially NO.
Made of concrete?
(Inkspot) Concrete? YES, but only partly.
A monument?
Are these specific to a particular culture or country?
A pyramid?
(Phil) Not a monument.
(Irg) Not specific to any culture or country though often popularly associated with one particular country.
(Projoy) Not a pyramid. More utilitarian.
A building?
(Phil) NO, not a building.
This "particular country" - is it in Europe?
Are there 10 or more in the world?
(Projoy) NO, not in Europe.
(Phil) Many, many more, but it is difficult or inappropriate to enumerate them precisely.
Is the country in Africa?
Is the name of the country (or a derivative thereof) part of the answer?
(Projoy) Not in Africa.
(Irg) No, the answer contains no reference to any country.

REMINDER "The country" is nothing more than the instinctive answer most people would give to the question "Where would you find (words on the card)?" (Words on the card) can be found in many countries.

Is the country in the Americas?
(Projoy) In the Americas? YES.
Are they as high as a double-decker bus?
South America?
(Phil) High as a double-decker? I'm sure some are even higher but some aren't.
(Projoy) Not South America.
Is there eny writing on them?
s/eny/any
A bridge?
No, not a bridge - how about a freeway?
(Phil) No, there isn't eny. :-)
(Projoy) Not a freeway, (or a bridge). *audience murmurings indicate some panel members may be showing detectable atomic motion.*
Should I pay much heed to the audience's laughter earlier?
Is it something vehicles can use?
(Phil) YES. Shurely one always should. They aren't a collection of wannabe Machiavellis as far as I know. (Projoy) Used by vehicles? YES (in some cases), a literal but unhelpful truth.
Is water involved?
Does this 'thing' enclose or partly enclose an open space?
(Phil) Water involved? Very much so, Des. (© M Lawrenson.)*audience now hyperventilating*
(Dujon) Enclose an open space? YES, in a sense, but beware.
Is ice involved?
(Projoy) Ice? You're getting colder.
Is steam involved?
(Phil) Nothing to do with steam, believe it or not.:-)
A levee?
A LEVEE it is! Well done, Phil. I'm afraid that makes it your shout.
Wow! That was a bit of a shot in the dark, but it was also the result of considered deduction of all previous answers. To be honest, I'm quite chuffed with getting that. I very nearly put "dam", but that would not be popularly associated with N America.

Right, your next AVMA is

ANIMAL or ABSTRACT

Yankee?
[irach] Yankee? NO
Is it art?
[IS,P!] is it art? Hmmmm....the Animal sense is not, the abstract sense is. *a little applause and a few whispers in the audience*
[sounds like porn...] Is it deceased (e.g. pickled)
Is it something as straight-forward as a picture of an animal...?
Depiction of a human?
[IS,P!] Nothing is deceased (and filth is not involved).
[UK] Picture of an animal? NO *a couple of audience members briefly sait forward part-way through the question*
[Rosie] Depiction of a human? "NO" & "Sort of" are the two unhelpful answers
A clarification: The words on the card can be construed in two different ways. One is animal, the other is abstract.
Is the abstract meaning a figurative reference to some quality of an animal or human?
[Rosie] figurative reference to some quality? NO
Is the animal human?
Back to basics.
[Rosie] The animal from which I have elicited an "Animal" sense of the answer is indeed human. *a little cautious applause*
A specific human?
[Irouléguy] A specific human? YES - specific, but not fixed.
A position or title (e.g., Queen of Melanesia)?
[CdM] Position/title? NO
Is this person the same person for everyone?
I.e. not "my mother-in-law".
[Rosie] Is this person the same person for everyone? NO *considerable applause*
One's "better half"?
[Rosie] Better half? NO *a little chuckling*
Is the person some kind of inspiration?
Breathe in.
[Rosie] An inspiration? For the animal sense of the answer, NO. For the abstract sense, YES *appreciative applause*
A fairy godmother?
[Rosie] FG? NO
Always of one sex?
[CdM] Always one sex? NO
A little summarisation and clarification
There are two different senses or potential meanings arising from the words on the card. My answers have been very carefully worded, but I think an incorrect assumption may have been made. In particular, be careful what you infer from: The animal from which I have elicited an "Animal" sense of the answer is indeed human. See also my answer to IS,P!'s first question as well. I think that may have been overlooked.
Is the "art" that of drawing or painting?
[Rosie] Drawing or painting? NO, but there is a connection to painting that might be misleading.
An artist's model, perhaps?
Artist's model? No.
A muse?
A Muse? No.
I suspect you're all heading in the wrong direction, based on an incorrect assumption of what my careful use of the word "Animal" means.
The Hand of God?
Hand of God? NO
Does the Animal refer to a part of the human body?
{Rosie] A part of the human body? YES *the last remaining audience member fetches the rest from the bar, and they all applaud excitedly*
The heart?
Mm, only because they're all pissed.
[Rosie] Heart? NO
Is the body part involved in perception?
It seems to be just you and me. Where is everybody? Do they know something?
[Rosie] Involved in perception? NO (unless you include the sense of touch).
I think they're all too busy testing their nerdiness on MCiOS ;-)
A limb?
[Phil] I'm madbusy atm.
Does the animal part of this puzzle refer to name of a person?
Sorry if that sounds odd, but I'm trying to work out the logic of some of the earlier questions and answers.
Hang on, hang on. Don't answer that one, Phil, if you don't mind. Rephrasing my query - does the card include the name of a person?
[Projoy] Limb? NO *sharp intake of breath, and some applause*
[Dujon] A person's name on the card? NO
In that case, a guess: a hot head (or a hothead if you prefer)?
[Dujon] hothead? NO
Rosie's question of 30th August is worth paying attention to.
Is the answer a phrase or
Is the answer a phrase or saying?
Hit the wrong key earlier.
Is it an appendage?
[Rosie] A phrase or saying? NO, not really.
[Projoy] Appendage? According the dictionaries I've consulted, that's the same as a limb, in biological terms, so: NO
Your father's moustache?
Not yours but ones.
[ROsie] "Your father's moustache"? NO, but getting towards the right lines. *some applause*
A joint?
I haven't been ignoring this game; I've just been woefully short of inspiration.
[CdM] Joint? NO, not in any sense of the word.
the moving finger?
[CdM] The moving finger? NO
Is the art representational art?
[Irouléguy] Representational art? Ummmm....not really relevant as far as I can tell, as it's not drawing or painting.
Do "the words on the card" include a relative?
[Rosie] A relative? NO
Anyone for a summary?
The words on the card, which are not a phrase or saying, and do not include a relative or the name of a person, can be taken in two ways:
The first is "Animal" in its nature, and is a part of the human body, although the human is not the same person for everyone, or even the same sex. The body part is not a limb, appendage or joint. It is reasonable to assume from the audience's lack of reaction that it is not a moustache, finger or hand.
The second is "Abstract" in nature, is art, is not painting or drawing. As such it is not "representational art", but could be said to be inspirational. There is, however, a connection to painting or drawing that is not implicitly mentioned on the card.
cont.
The body part is also not a heart, and not involved in perception, other than the fact that it has nerve ending, and therefore has the sense of touch. There are also plenty of incorrect guesses that I've brushed over in order to concentrate on what's important.
Bugger
I meant "explicitly", not "implicitly".
Is music involved?
[INJ] Music involved? NO
Does this involve the dermis (corium)?
Does a smile come into it?
[Dujon] Dermis? Only in that the body part is coated in it
[Rosie] A smile? NO
Does the art involve dance?
My Left Foot?
Although I'm not sure that it's neither a limb nor an appendage.
[Irouléguy] Dance? NO
Oops
[INJ] "My Left Foot" are indeed the words on the card! Congrats, and thank God someone got it in the end. I looked up appendage and limb and, in biological terms, they are both attached directly to the body; so, reluctantly, I had to say no.
Somewhat easier I hope
Try this one: Mineral and Vegetable
[INJ] Salt and pepper?
[Raak] Crueties - NO
Edible?
[Rosie] Edible? - I think I could justify both YES and PARTLY
A drink?
See - I said this would be easier
[Inks] Drinkie-poos? - YES (applause - there would be more, but many of the audience have not yet retaken their seats after the last marathon and those that have are still arguing about 'appendage')
An alcoholic drink?
Hidden textAppedage, n. Biology. A part or organ, such as an arm, leg, tail, or fin, that is joined to the axis or trunk of a body
[Phil] The devil's brew? - YES
It depends on your dictionary - but you did make it clear when you rejected it that you'd taken it as a synonym for 'limb', so that's fair enough.
A cocktail?
[Kim] Cocktail? - YES
A Mojito?
[Iroul] Get your mojito working? - NO
Main ingredient vodka?
[Inkspot] Vodka-based? - NO
Rum based?
Tequila sunrise?
Would it be informative to pursue the "mineral" component, or is it something ordinary like "ice"?
[Inks] A rum do? - NO
[CdM] Tequila Mockingbird? - NO
[CdM] NO and YES (It's not a Margarita)
Long Island Tea?
Getting quite thirsty now
[Iroul] Long Island Tea - NO (and as a bonus, it's also not a Hairy Navel)
Is it fizzy?
Does it contain more than three ingredients, not including ice?
Does it contain more than one spirit?
Homing in
[Phil] plink-plink fizz? - YES
[CdM] more than three ingredients? - NO
[Iroul] more than one spirit? - NO
Gin and tonic?
Now to be pedantic
[Inks] Jinnan Tonnyx? - YES, those words are on the card. However there are in fact 9 words on the card including the indefinite article, so I want a little more - though I won't insist on the exact wording. (catcalls from the audience)
Gordon's Gin and Schweppes tonic with ice and lemon?
No point in being silly about it
[Phil] Well the actual answer (containing the indefinite article, remember) was A large gin and tonic with ice and lemon - It was just what was in my mind at the time!
I'll let you and Inkspot fight over who deserves that one.
Oh God No! I'm still drained rfom the last one....
I have a surfeit of both gin and tonic at my disposal, so I'll stand back and let Inkspot pick up the baton.
Gingerly picks up the baton
Thank you Phil for your generosity in giving up the chair, very kind of you sir.

Itsa MINERAL and ABSTRACT

A geographical feature?
Is the mineral metal?
[Irouléguy] A geographical feature - No
[ImNotJohn] - mineral metal - No
Is the mineral stone?
[ImNotJohn] - Is the mineral stone? No
Is the abstract bit a human concept/construction/invention..?
Is the mineral water?
An object with a figurative significance?
(Phil) Is the mineral water what? Er, sorry.
[Irouléguy] Is the abstract bit a human concept/construction/invention - Yes
[Phil] Is the mineral water - No
[Rosie]An object with a figurative significance - Sorry about this but I don't know, could you give me and example of what one is. I would prefer to hold up my hands and admit to being a idiot, rather than mislead you
(Inkspot) Yes, it is a bit elliptical. What I meant was an object used as a metaphor, eg target, ball-park, field-marshal's baton, roadmap, hurdle, dustbin, crown etc.
(Rosie)After all that - No
A manufactured object?
[Rosie] A manufactured object - YES
A latter-day gadget, i.e. not around in 1950?
Any jokes about my age will be used as landfill.
Is it made of plastic?
Rosie - A latter-day gadget, i.e. not around in 1950 - No (which means it was around in the 1950s)
CdM - Is it made of plastic - YES
Anything to do with communication?
Not much plastic around in the '50's. Bakelite maybe.
[Rosie] Anything to do with communication - No
A household object?
[Rosie] A household object......No mmmmmmm but found in the house - Yes
Anything to do with electricity?
[Rosie] Anything to do with electricity - No audience slump back into their seats
A utensil?
[Rosie] If you use bakelite does the cake have fewer calories?
A container?
(ISP) Nice, that. But bakelite, alas, is three syllables.
[I Say, Porter!] A utensil - No [Rosie] A container - No
The whatever was made originally in the very, very, very late 40s in plastic by a descriptive name, but later it adopted its present plastic formulation and present whatjamacallit.
To do with music?
[Phil] - To do with music - No
An object small enough to be carried around?
Bakelite
[Rosie] Ah! Bakelite must refer to Colin as opposed to Tom
[Rosie] An object small enough to be carried around - YES, so light a child can [I Say, Porter!]- Bakelite - No
A frisbee?
A hula-hoop?
[CdM] A frisbee? No [Rosie] A hula-hoop? No
the children in the audience start paying attention
A toy?
This include mobile phones.
[Rosie] A toy - Found in a toy shop YES
Lego?
We have a WINNER, well done Phil Lego it is, and special thanks to Rosie.
A google for "invented in 1949" and "toy" revealed the solution (although it was interesting to see what else was invented that year).
Next, I'll go for Vegetable
Wood?
[Raak] Wood? NO
Edible?
[Raak] Edible? Hmmmm.....after some checking, YES.
The fruit of some tree or plant?
Or its root, stem or flower?
[Rosie] fruit ? NO
[Kim] Root, stem or flower? The most commonly consumed part of the plant falls into one of those categories.
Related to medicine?
Leaves?
Having eaten and shot, of course.
[Dujon] Medicinal? A correct answer is YES, but that's not what the answer is known for.
[Rosie] Leaves? NO
Is this used for something other than eating and medicine?
Is it easy to grow this vegetable in this country?
[Raak] Used for something other than eating and medicine? YES *some applause*
[Rosie] grown in this country? YES *a little more applause*
Is it used for textiles?
[Raak] textiles? NO
Is this an extract of the root/stem/flower rather than the item itself (if that makes sense)?
[Dujon] Yes, it makes sense, but NO, the root/stem/flower itself is used (sometimes dried and slightly processed), not an extract.
Ah well, in that case I'll nominate a liquorice stick - not the black extract one, the real chew-a-root variety. Yum.
Vanilla?
[Dujon] Liquorice? NO
[Raak] Vanilla? NO
Used as a flavouring?
[Raak] Flavouring? YES, but not exclusively.
Hops?
popeor
Beer
[Raak] Hops? Oh yes, Lordy, YES! A matter close to my heart :-) and hearty congrats, sir.
The next is MINERAL.
Is it a mass produced item?
[Inkspot] Yes, mass-produced.
Does it occur naturally?
[Ki] Does not occur naturally. If it did, it wouldn't have to be mass produced.
Money?
[I] Not money.
Mineral mostly (or entirely) metal?
[Rosie] Yes, mostly metal.
Bigger than a telephone box?
I can think of things that occur naturally and are also mass produced. Diamonds, for example.
A tool or implement?
Does it run on electric power?
[CdM] I would say that Rakk answered the question on 'mass produced' correctly, as it means the production of large numbers or quantities standardised items, I do not see how this could apply to diamonds.
[CdM] Not bigger that a telephone box.
[Rosie] Tool? Only very broadly speaking.
[Inkspot] Can be electric.
Bigger than a toaster?
Perhaps "mass-processed" would have been more accurate. Metals occur naturally but most have to be processed in order to have any use.
[Kim] Smaller than a toaster.
Would it normally be used inside the home?
Kikm I agree that minerals can individually be processed, however telephones, fridges, cars etc are not mass processed they are mass produced.
[Inkspot] Normally used in the home.
Would most players of this game own one?
[Inkspot] I'd say that this company and this company are pretty clearly mass-producing diamonds.
[CdM] I expect most players would own one (or more).
Those companies aren't digging them out of the ground.
A toothbrush?
[Raak] No. They are producing them. En masse. Which is my point. If the answer on the card was "Diamonds", then the correct response to both "Occurring naturally?" and "Mass-produced?" would be "Yes".

How about chicken eggs as another example? Unless you take a very narrow view of mass-production, I think they would qualify. Or what about fresh water from a desalination plant?
A knife?
I read Raak's answer as meaning that this particular thing doesn't occur naturally, rather than arguing that the two categories are mutually exclusive.
Whisk?
still wondering at CdM's "mostly metal" toothbrush...
A razor?
[IS,P] Good point. I was actually meaning to ask razor before, but then somehow talked myself into toothbrush, along the way forgetting why I had dismissed that idea earlier.
A watch or clock?
[CdM] Ok.
[I] Not a knife.
[ISP] Not a whisk.
]CdM] Not a razor.
[Rosie] *riotous applause* Yes, a watch or clock.
BTW, I have not checked to see whether this is a repetition of an earlier object. If so, perhaps the time has come...
A wrist-watch?
An alarm-clock
though mine seems to be mostly plastic.
The time has come...? Noooooooooo!
[Rosie] A wrist-watch could serve as one, but...
[Irouléguy] An alarm-clock it is.
And I see that not only has that been set before, but it was set by me before. Hm...
[Raak] Set before? Hmmm, wonder why it didn't go off. Better buy a new one.
Mine didn't go off this morning, either - though that was because I didn't set it :)
Okay, our next is ABSTRACT WITH ANIMAL connections.
The Labour Party?
Totally topical.
A fictional cgaracter?
doh! fat fingers!
g/h
Rosie] Brown is the new blue? Wholly wrong (also not the answer)
Inkers] Cgarlie in the Cgocolate Factory? No
A creative activity?
Rosie] Making something? No, but this could lead to a creative activity.
Are the animal connections human?
CdM - Person to person? Yes, essentially (other animals could be involved, and it could be argued that other animals do this, but this wouldn't be a useful line to explore.)
To do with communication?
ImNotJohn - To do with communication? In a broad sense, yes, but that's not how most people would classify this.
I Say, Porter! - Mime? *shakes head, frowns*
Is this an organisation of creative people?
Rosie - Is this an organisation of creative people? No
Is it a communicative medium?
Does it involve a specific subset of people?
Kim - Is it a communicative medium? Not entirely sure what you mean by that (and a quick Google doesn't help me). I think the answer is the same as to INJ's previous question.
ImNotJohn - Does it involve a specific subset of people? A specific instance of this would involve a specific subset of people, but in general, no.

Being completely pedantic, this can also be done with/to an inanimate object, so the definition should strictly be ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and possibly VEGETABLE and/or MINERAL connections, but this is another red herring.
Anything to do with sex?
Nudge, nudge.
Rosie - Anything to do with sex? *applause* Yes (though the answer (and the thing itself) are quite SFW).
Mostly to do with sex?
Phil - Mostly to do with sex? I don't see how you could quantify it, but there are a lot of sexual connotations, yes.
A dance?
I don't recognise "SFW". *shrugs* So f------ what.
[Rosie] Suitable for work
Flirting?
(Phil) Ah! Thanks. Now, what is this thing called work?.
Would a specific instance typically involve just two people?
[Rosie] Do you do a lot of flirting with inanimate objects, then? :-) (Excluding the trombone, of course.)
(CdM) Yes - the sax section. Woo! subversive.
Rosie - A dance, or flirting? No to both (though you might well do this while engaged in either).
Sorry about the jargon - I've seen people use 'NSFW' in Another Place, so I thought it would be understood (though I used it as 'Safe for Work')
CdM - Would a specific instance typically involve just two people? *applause* Yes
Eye contact?
Rosie - 'Oo you lookin' at? No
Does this involve physical contact?
'E 'it I, so I 'it 'e.
Rosie] A touching enquiry? *loud applause* Yes
A massage?
Phil - A massage? No
Hugging?
Rosie - Hugging? Closer, but no
Kissing?
Phil] Kissing? YES - X marks the spot! Over to Phil
In that case, your next problem to solve is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL connections
Shagging?
Worth a squirt.
[Rosie] I presume you mean chasing and catching fly balls in baseball practice? Anyway, whatever you meant: Shagging? NO!
Is the animal connection human?
An action?
(Phil) Of course. Precisely that. :-)
[INJ] Human? YES
[Rosie] An action? NO
Culturally specific?
[INJ] Relating to a certain group of people? YES
Only found in a particular part of the world?
[Irouléguy] One part of the world? NO
Is the group of people related by profession?
[INJ] related by profession? NO
Is there a religious connection?
Any artistic connection?
[Irouléguy] Religious connection? YES *tumultuous applause*
[INJ] Artistic? NO
Is the answer a religion/religious group/sect?
[CdM] Religion/religious group/sect? YES *more applause*
Is it gender specific?
[Inkspot] Gender specific? NO
Scientology?
[CdM] Scientology? NO
Christian?
[Rosie] Christian? YES, but not quite the word on the card *deafening applause, followed by a few disdainful grumbles*
Christianity?
[CdM] Christianity is the word on the card - congrats!
Wot, me again?
I think that the disdainful grumblers have a point, but in any case I'll accept the baton (which was manufactured from actual genuine pieces of the crown of thorns), and offer something

ABSTRACT and MINERAL/VEGETABLE (I think), with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections.
Something to do with the environment?
Not grumbling, for once.
Environmental? No. Not hereditary either.
Something to do with food?
Foody? The vegetable connection has something to do with food.
Begins with P?
A method of cooking?
Is it art?
Begins with P? It does, as a matter of fact, although I hadn't noticed until you asked.
Method of cooking? No.
Art? *audience laughter* Well, it depends on how broadly you define 'art', but I think the best answer is No.
Is the "p" followed by another consonant?
This is getting out of hand
Is the P followed by another consonant? Yes, several.


Oh, you mean immediately. No.
Is it a one word answer?
In a word? No.
Is the mineral/vegetable plastic?
Is the mineral/vegetable manufactured?
Plastic? In part (I think).
Manufactured? Yes.
(The "I think" is not any kind of trick answer; it simply reflects that I am having to take an educated guess at one aspect of the answer.)
Is it a two word answer?
Two words? No. I'll tell you for free (because I think it will be no help at all :-) ) that I vacillated between two different ways of expressing the thing on the card, one of which is six words long and does not begin with P, and on of which is shorter and does. I went for the latter.
All right, I'll be generous
It is three words including the definite article.
Passing the buck?
The deer don't stop here? No. *a scrap of applause that quickly dies away, followed by laughter, scattered applause, and much chattering*
Are both the Abstract and the Mineral/Vegetable descriptions of the same thing ?
Feeling a bit thick. Shut up at the back there.
Abstract and Mineral/Vegetable descriptions of the same thing? Yes. (Good question.)
Is the abstract meaning figurative? (E.g. the cat's whiskers)
Figurative? No. *more scattered applause, though*
Game-related?
Game related? No. *amused discussion in the audience*
Part of an animal?
Part of an animal? No.
Is this specific to a particular culture or country?
Culturally and geographically specific? Yes. I would associate it primarily (and perhaps exclusively) with one country.
Is that country the UK?
UK-based? Yes.
A dish (i.e an edible preparation)
Edible preparation? No.
Is the animal human?
This one's a bugger, innit?
Human? No.
Is the animal one particular species?
Animal = one particular species? Yes.
Is the animal emblematic?
Does this date from before 1500?
Emblematic? No. *some audience laughter*
Pre 1500? No.

A summary: This is ABSTRACT and MINERAL/VEGETABLE, with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections. The answer is three words, including a definite article, and begins with P immediately followed by a vowel. The abstract and mineral/vegetable are different descriptions of the same thing. The mineral/vegetable description is in part plastic (I think) and is manufactured. The abstract meaning is not figurative. The animal connection refers to one particular non-human species, and is not emblematic. The vegetable connection is connected to food but neither it, nor the overall answer, is a dish.

The answer is primarily or perhaps exclusively associated with the UK and dates from sometime after 1500. It is not art (except under a very broad definition), nor a method of cooking. It is not environmental, nor is it game-related.

Three questions provoked odd reactions from the audience, viz: "Passing the buck?", "Is it game-related?", and "Is the abstract meaning figurative? (E.g. the cat's whiskers)". The suggestions that it was art and that it was emblematic also provoked amusement.
The Pink Panther?
Pink Panther? No *considerable audience applause, nonetheless*
A fictional beast?
Going from the particular to the general.
Fictional beast? Yes. *applause*
Originally from a novel?
Once a novelty? No.
Twentieth century?
Twentieth Century? Yes.
A fearsome creature?
Originally from TV?
A fearsome creature? *audience laughter* No, not fearsome.
Once a novelTV? Yes. *applause*
Is the first word a name
Is there a question mark missing?
Parsley the Lion?
Parsley the Lion? Yes! *hands over garnished baton*
[CdM] Was your first thought "A very friendly lion called Parsley"?
[CdM] Oh well done, didn't see that coming.
Well, that was a surprisingly successfull de-lurk. Here's a plain old ABSTRACT
42?
The letter P?
Human construct?
[Raak] 42? NO
[Tuj] The letter P? NOPE (nor does it begin therewith)
[Rosie] A human construct? YES
Does it have to do with language?
[Raak] Hot tongue action? NO (except inasmuch as all answers in this game do)
Is it a philosophy?
Science-related?
[IS,P] That was indeed what I first planned to put on the card! I was amused by Irouléguy's early guess of "Passing the buck" because, even though it was completely wrong, it had the right opening syllable (at least in some accents), the right structure, and an animal as the last word.
Anything to do with sport?
CdM] Completely wrong but structurally similar - story of my life, really...
To do with the emotions?
[Phil] Osophy? NO is the best answer. * some applause *
[CdM] Sciencey-ness? NO, not really...
[Ig] Sport? NO
[Raak] Emotions? I GUESS SO.
Something to do with mental health?
Stoicism?
[Rosie] Mental health? NO, not specifically
[Raak] Stoicism? NO * scattered but uncertain applause *
In retrospect, maybe the is-it-a-philosophy guess should have had * sustained and enthusiastic applause*
Connected to a belief system?
[CdM] A belief system? YES is the least misleading answer *applause*
It isn't anarcho-syndicalism, is it?
Is this an attitude?
By that I mean such things as homophobia, racism, nationalism, patriotism and their like.
[Tuj] Anarcho-whatsit? NO *a few Anarcho-syndicalists in the audience take audible issue with this statement*
[Dujon] An attitude? NOT PER SE, but *some applause*
Is this specific to a culture or country?
[Ig] culture or country specific? There are defensible YES and NO answers. I think NO is probably more helpful.
Is there a specific person associated with it?
[Raak] Specific person associated? YES *applause*
Is it a one word answer?
Is this an -ism?
[Tuj] One word? NO
[Chalky] ism? NO
A cult of some kind?
[CdM] Reaching for one's Cult .44? NO
Is it a named law?
Is there a person's name in the answer?
[Raak] A named law? NO
[Phil] Nominated? NO
A religion?
[Phil] Religion? NO
Is it a theory of something?
[Raak] A theory? NOT AS SUCH, but for free I will mention it is theoretical. *applause*
An ideal?
[Phil] An ideal? YES! *some laughter and applause*
Is the associated person still alive?
"Slow food"?
[Phil] living person? NO - (it's actually associated with two people)
[Ig] Slow food? NO
Marx & Engels?
Are they Gilbert and Sullivan?
[Ig] Commies? NO
[Indian Pooh-Bah] GODDAMIT NO, I hate G&S.
Svengali and Trilby?
Has this anything to do with gay rights?
[Raak] Hypnotist and Hat? NO
[Chalky] Gay rights related? NO is the most helpful answer (altho it could have to do with it - but so could many other things).
Are the two people fictional?
[Phil] Fictional people? YES and NO
A fictional character, and the creator of that character?
[Raak] Fictional character? YES. Creator? NO.
To do with education?
Doest
Does the fictional character origina
Does the fictional character originate from the last century?
Sorry - work keeps getting in the way
[Phil] Education? TANGENTIALLY, but the most helpful answer is NO.
[Ig] C20th character? NO
RECAP
This thing is an ABSTRACT human construct. It is connected to philosophy but is not a philsophy per se. It is theoretical, but not a theory per se. It is connected with an attitude but is not an attitude per se. It is connected to a belief system, but is not a belief system per se. It is associated with two people, one of whom is fictional. The fictional character does not originate in the C20th. I originally said flatly that it was not connected to Science or Religion, but on further research, I find it is connected to both, tho not in a particularly famous way. Although it might be connected to many things (anarcho-syndicalists, for instance, might consider it connected to anarcho-syndicalism and gay rights campaigners might consider it connected to gay rights), it is not especially connected to mental health, sport or cults, is not an -ism, named after anyone or a law.
Oh, and it is an ideal.
Ooh, you've all gone quiet.
Does that mean I win? I'm off to Rome on Saturday, so hopefully someone will ask a breakthru question before then.
A field of study?
[Ig] Field of study? NO
To do with "rights", as opposed to specifics, such as "gay rights"?
[Phil] Rights? NOT IN PARTICULAR
Is the fictional character British?
[Phil] British? NO
Is the fictional character European?
Is the real person an actor? Playing the part of the non-fictional person?
[Ig] Character European? YES! *applause*
[Phil] Actor? NO (but think about it the other way around...)
I'm thinking, but nothing's happening :-(
Hamlet's soliloquy?
[Phil] Happiness is...? NO, but you're getting warmer.
Is the fictional person acfually mentioned in a work of fiction (as opposed to just being an imaginary person)?
Is the fictional character from Shakespeare?
[Phil] Person from a work of fiction? YES! *applause*
[Tuj] Bardish? NO
So, to clarify what I think I understand: the two associated people are (i) the author of a fictional work and (ii) a character in that work. However, the answer itself is neither the author, nor the character. Is that correct?
[CdM] The author? NO! *audience gasps*. A character? YES. The answer is neither? CORRECT.
I suppose you could associate it with the author, come to think of it, but I'm not sure that many people do. But I may be wrong in that, so if it helps you to consider that it's associated with three people, then plz do so...
Fiction from pre 1000AD/CE?
[Phil] Pre-1000CE? NO
Man and Superman
[INJ] Clark Kent and alter ego? NO
Pre 20th century fictional character?
[Phil] Pre-C20th, YES *applause*
Is anyone ready for a clue?
I think I'm about ready, as my train of thought seems to be stuck for eternity at Clapham.
a clue
By far the most significant fact about The Answer so far revealed is that it is "an ideal".
Oh drat - that's the fact that's confusing all my other thoughts. Better sleep on this one then.
Brave New World?
[CdM] Miranda Huxley? NO
PS. [Phil] Bear in mind that there is more than one meaning for the word "ideal"...
A Platonic ideal?
[Raak] Perfectly Plato? NO
Hmm....Is/was the real person a writer?
My Greek O-level already reminded me of that :-)
OOPS!!! That was me, not Projoy, sorry!
[Projoy, er Phil] A writer? YES
Is it associated with a psychological condition?
doo-de-doo, third week of this clue
[INJ] Psychological condition? NO

Another recap: This ABSTRACT - which could be called "an ideal" - is associated with two people: a European (non-British) fictional character from the period 1000-1900CE and a real person (from the same period), who was a writer. It could also be associated with the author (also from the same period) who created the fictional character, who is not the same person as the real-person-writer, and is not Shakespeare, Gilbert, Sullivan, Marx nor Engels. There is a strong philosophy connection, altho it is not "a philosophy" per se, nor "an attitude" nor "a belief system", but is connected to these ideas. There are also science and religion connections. It is not a law, stoicism, eponymous, a platonic ideal, to do with sport, anarcho-syndicalism, a psychological condition, a cult, a method of cooking, a field of study, Man and Superman, "Brave New World" nor to do with education. It could be argued that it is country/culture specific, but also that it isn't (I think no is the most helpful answer).

Anarcho-syndicalists would associate The Answer with Anarcho-syndicalism. Gay rights campaigners would associate it with gay rights.
Man and Superman?
[Chalky] M&S? NO, see my reply to INJ. Not Nietzsche, Shaw or Siegel and Shuster.
Anything to do with utopia?
[Raak] Utopia? VERY NEARLY!! *tumultuous applause*
The Lost World?
[INJ] Lost world? NO *some applause*
Nirvana?
[Phil] Nirvana? NO *audience muttering about Europe*
Communism?
Bit of a wild stab in the dark, this one.
[nights] Communism? NO, though a Communist would disagree.
Is this anything to do with fascism or ethnic purity?
Is the answer the title /author of a book?
sorry if this has already been askeded
Eutopia?
Were the ideas of this author reflected in the work of Bunyon's Pilgrim's Progress, though the latter was far more 'religious'?
[Chalky] Fascism/Ethnic Purity? NO (altho Fascists and ethnic puritans would disagree)
[Chalky] Title/author? NO
[Phil] Eutopia? NO, but that is arguably a closer guess than "Utopia" *a huge oooooh of approval from the audience*
[Dujon] Were the ideas...? I haven't read/studied Bunyan, but going by Wikipedia's description of PP, I would be inclined to say NO.
"The best of all possible worlds"?
Metaphysico-theologico-cosmolonigology?
Is the fiction 19th century?
[Phil] C19th, NO
[Raak] All that jazz? NO, for
[Irouléguy] YES!!. The very words on the card. I must admit I didn't read the Wikipedia entry on Leibniz before setting the clue, so didn't realise in time that the idea had such a close relationship with science and theology in its initial incarnation, having first heard of it via Voltaire's Dr Pangloss.
Congrats, Irouléguy. I'd never have got that, as I'd never heard of it, alas, and my web-trawling didn't lead me anywhere near it :-(
Thanks, Phil - and well done Projoy - that must be a record! I can't claim any great web-trawling skills, it just came to me. I think I did the play in French A level *cough* years ago, but I didn't know of the connections with Leibniz.

Well, our next should be a short one, so here goes - it's ABSTRACT, VEGETABLE and MINERAL with ANIMAL connections.
Is it fictional?
[Ig] Not sure what took so long on that one, altho there did seem to be a bit of a lack of deductive questions in the middle stages. [Phil] Well, there you go, and I was convinced, Candide aside, that it was an everyday expression...
Is the animal connection human?
[Projoy] At least I've learn a new word ('theodicy'). Tangentially; I'm a bit concerned about where the "all" comes from in a translation of the French "le meilleur des mondes possibles", but I don't think it changes the meaning enough for me to lose sleep over, and I'm sure it's been discussed to death over the last 293 years already. That was a criticism of whoever translated it, not you, btw.
The seed that fell on stony ground?
Projoy - Is it fictional? No
I thought it was an everyday expression too, but I just twigged it from your answer to 'Utopia' and the European connection.

Phil - Is the animal connection human? Yes
I thought 'theodicy' was Homer's follow-up...

Raak - The seed that fell on stony ground? No
Raak] If that was a prediction rather than a guess, then you may be right.
Is the vegetable wood?
Projoy - Is the vegetable wood? Yes, but there are other vegetables/vegetable products also involved.
Is any of it edible?
Raak - Filling your face? What it's made of isn't edible, but there are edibles in it.
Is paper involved?
Raak - Is paper involved? There's paper in it.
Is it a place?
Chalky - Is it a place? *the audience awakes cheering* Yes.
Fictional?
[Raak] Fictional? NO. See Ig's answer to me, above. :)
Is it larger than a town?
The Natural History Museum?
Projoy - Is it larger than a town? *applause* Than some towns, yes...
Team-hosting - I like it!
I Say, Porter! - The Natural History Museum? No
An island?
Is it a country?
Is it man-made?
Apologies for my long absence - back at the keyboard now.
Projoy - An island? No
Tuj - Is it a country? No
Raak - Is it man-made? Yes
A building?
Does it still exist?
Projoy - A building? No
Raak - Does it still exist? Yes
A defined municipal area?
Projoy - A defined municipal area? *collective "oooh" from the audience, mixed with the occasional muttered "cleverclogs" A most precise definition of the class of things to which this particular belongs.
In England?
A green belt?
Projoy - In England? No
Raak - A green belt? No

Coincidentally
In the UK?
Does it begin with P?
Projoy - In the UK? Yes
Tuj - Does it begin with P? No
A single specific named area?
ImNotJohn - A single specific named area? Yes

In case it wasn't clear, the answer to Projoy's "defined municipal area" was an emphatic "yes".
Is it a place where things are sold?
Scotland?
Raak - Is it a place where things are sold? Things are sold in this place.
Projoy - Scotland? OCH AYE
The Gorbals?
ImNotJohn - The Gorbals? No
The Toy Parliament?
A current administrative division?
+ <i>
Raak - Wholly rude about Holyrood? No
Projoy - A current administrative division? Yes
+ </i>
Does it incorporate any islands?
Does it incorporate any mainland?
Does it fall entirely within another defined municipal area?
Projoy - Does it incorporate any islands? No
CdM - Does it incorporate any mainland? ;) It's on the mainland of Scotland
ImNotJohn - Does it fall entirely within another defined municipal area? No
Is "shire" anywhere in the name of it?
Does it have historical significance?
Projoy - Tolkein connections? No
CdM - Does it have historical significance? *applause* Yes
Culloden?
CdM - Culled? No
Stirling?
Does it have the word "and" anywhere in its name?
Phil - On the money? No
Projoy - Does it have the word "and" anywhere in its name? *applause* Yes
The Highlands?
(Couldn't resist)
Dumfries and Galloway?
CdM - The Highlands? *applause* No
(Couldn't resist) That's a little harsh - 1314, 1715, 1745?
Projoy - Dumfries and Galloway? No

CdM is both conceptually and geographically closer
Perth and Kinross?
Ross and Cromarty?
(Although that does contain a few islands)
But and Ben?
[Raak] Flobble obble obble! Weeeeed!
I take it that's a nobbleobble.
Projoy - Perth and Kinross? No
ImNotJohn - Ross and Cromarty? No
Raak - But and Ben? No
I Say, Porter! - [Raak] Flobble obble obble! Weeeeed! Thank you, but I've given up

People should look again at the various meanings of 'municipal', and at CdM's last question.
Callander?
Aye Janet.
So is this thing not "a settlement which has the status and powers of a unit of local government." (Wikipedia)?
ImNotJohn - Callander? Nae, Doctor
Projoy - So is this thing not "a settlement which has the status and powers of a unit of local government." (Wikipedia)? Yes, it is - most of the previous answers didn't fit that definition, hence my reminder.
Is it uninhabited?
Yes, it is not, or yes, it actually is? :-)
If it is a municipal area, and it is a current municipal area, and if it is not incorporated wholly in any other municipal area, is it, in fact a unitary authority of Scotland?
Raak - Is it uninhabited? No
Projoy - Yes, it is not, or yes, it actually is? :-) Yes, it actually is

*deep breath* It is a current municipal area, not incorporated wholly in any other municipal area, but it is not a unitary authority.
Is it a parliamentary constituency (for either parliament)?
Is it a London Borough?
Projoy] Is it a parliamentary constituency (for either parliament)? No - though I'll throw in as a clue that the names of the two constituencies (one in each parliament) that this is located in consist of the same three words, but not in the same order.
nights] Is it a London Borough? Barking & Dagenham up the wrong tree - it's in Scotland

And so to bed.
Presumably this thing also crosses a unitary authority boundary?
Projoy - Presumably this thing also crosses a unitary authority boundary? No

Time for a recap? This is a place in Scotland, a defined municipal area, wholly on the Scottish mainland, not falling within another defined municipal area, which is a current administrative division. It is larger than some towns (a question which reaped applause). It has historical significance, and the word 'and' in its name. It could also be defined as "a settlement which has the status and powers of a unit of local government." It is not a constituency (for either parliament), nor is it a unitary authority, and it falls wholly within a unitary authority. Most of the specific wrong guesses have been neither settlements nor municipal areas (though the Highlands got applause despite being neither). It is not Callander, Culloden or Stirling.

Are we working on different definitions of 'municipal'? My dictionary gives "of or pertaining to a town, city or burgh", and I'm using it as a synonym for 'urban' here. Apologies if different definitions have caused confusion.
The Balmoral Estate?
I feel that "falling wholly within a unitary authority" contradicts "not falling within another defined municipal area" (taking "municipal" to refer very specifically to local government, as per Wikipedia), but the clarification helps!
Aberdeen?
PS. I'm not sure what else in Scotland has "the status and powers of a unit of local government" other than unitary authorities (except the very small community councils), but I guess we can argue about it after the answer is revealed. :)
St Andrews?
Projoy - The Balmoral Estate? No
I feel that "falling wholly within a unitary authority" contradicts "not falling within another defined municipal area" (taking "municipal" to refer very specifically to local government, as per Wikipedia), but the clarification helps!
Sorry for the confusion- the dictionary I was using equated municipal with urban, but looking around Wikipedia that seems to be less than universal (though Wikipedia also has contradictory definitions of what exactly this place's status is).

Projoy - Aberdeen? No (but *applause* for part of your PS) On further inspection, the answer to "a settlement which has the status and powers of a unit of local government" should have been "settlement" YES "status" UMM "powers" NOT REALLY, NO, UNLESS YOU COUNT ORGANISING BANDSTAND CONCERTS AND A FLORAL COMPETITION.

CdM] St Andrews Yes - a hole in one! Well lurked, sir. Let me hand over this mashie-shaped baton while I prepare to debate the precise nature of Scottish local government after the 1973 settlement.
Heh. Well, I guess it does have a Community Council (According to Wikipedia and the BBC, tho, the two parliamentary constituencies are exactly identically named - however, the two sources disagree about the exact syntax of the name!). Ah well...
Who are you calling a lurker? I asked five questions, until I got stuck on (a) the same problem that confused Projoy and (b) the differing constituency names. My guess of the Highlands was intended as a joke; at that time I was just assuming the answer was of the A and B variety. Anyway
This is Mainly Mineral and Vegetable.
A geographical feature?
Is it unique?
Geographical feature? No is the best answer.
Unique? Yes.
(You could also make a case that this is ABSTRACT, by the way, but I think that is less helpful.)
Is it a piece of countryside?
Is it man-made?
Does it begin with P?
Countryside? No.
Man-made? Yes.
Begins with P? The answer to that question begins with N.
One or more buildings?
One or more buildings? Yes, the mainly mineral part refers to one or more buildings. *applause*
(More precisely, the mainly mineral part mainly refers to one or more buildings. Mainly.)
Does it (physically) exist?
Physical existence? Yes.
The vegetable component - is that the building's contents?
Projoy] Sorry about the constituency names - I got that from the Wiki page on St Andrews itself. The parliaments' official pages do have the same name. I really should know better than to trust Wiki...
CdM] Good questions they were too - sorry about the lurker crack. The applause for the Highlands was meant to acknowledge that your joke was on target.
Was it established in the last 100 years?
I think this one will fall fast
Vegetable component = building's or buildings' contents? Yes. *applause*
Established in last 100 years? No.
Is this edifice and contents a museum?
Is it a university?
Spitalfields market?
Kew Gardens?
In the UK?
Museum? No. * a smattering of applause, none the less*
A university? No.
Spitalfields? No.
Q? No, 007.
Inuk? No.
Open to the general public? (with or without a fee)
Houses of Parliament?
It its purpose to display the vegetable matter?
s/It/Is
Is it in Europe?
Open to Public? Yes.
HoP? No.
Purposeful veggie display? No. *some applause accompanied by some whispered debate*
In Europe? No.
Is the vegetable matter inside it by design?
Vegetable matter by design? Yes.
Is it in the U.S.A?
Does your definition of 'Europe' exclude the U.K.?
Inus? Yes.
Does my definition of 'Europe' exclude the U.K.? Of course it doesn't! Does your definition of 'Australasia' exclude Australia? :-)
A park or public garden?
Park or Public Garden? No. This may be a time to, as INJ often exhorts, examine your assumptions.
Do the buildings have roofs?
Is the vegetable matter alive?
Do the buildings have roofs? Yes. *laughter*
Living vegetables? No.
A church or other religious building?
Godhouse? No. *some chattering and laughter in the audience from people who know Néa*
Is it Botanical gardens?
In North America?
Is this a group of buildings mainly with a single purpose?
(I suppose that's really two questions)
Hershey's Chocolate Factory?
Nobody listens to CdM
Botanical gardens? No. (See non-living vegetable matter)
North America? Yes. (See in the USA, above)
Group of buildings mainly with simple purpose? Yes. *applause*
Willy Wonka? No.
Is the answer the name of a distinct metropolitan area?
Is the vegetable mostly wood?
Is the vegetable matter intended to be consumed in some form?
Wall Street?
The White House?
Metropolis? No.
Mostly wood? Yes. *applause with that subtle timbre that indicates relief*
Vegetable intended for consumption? No, at least for the standard narrow meaning of 'consumption' (see 'wood', above)
Wall Street? No.
The White House? No. *tiny smattering of applause*
A government building?
The Bridges of Madison County?
Government building? Yes.
Bridges of Madison County? No.
The Supreme Court?
Supreme Court? No.
Is it in New York?
In New York? No.
In DC?
Did you know you'd changed INJ's "single purpose" to "simple purpose" in your answer?
In DC? Yes.
Was I aware of my typo? No. The group of buildings mainly has a single purpose, and I suppose you could say that purpose is pretty simple as well.
Camp david?
The Library of Congress?
Camp David? No.
Library of Congress? YES! One baton duly recorded and put into storage. Projoy can have this stick instead.
OK. VEGETABLE (+ some MINERAL), or ABSTRACT
The Woodentops?
I feel thick after not knowing anything about 2 of the last 3 answers :-(
Vegetable in its natural state, eg a forest, meadow etc?
[Phil] The most stupid, boring programme ever made? NO
[Rosie] Natural state? NO
Is it unique?
Printed paper conveying ideas?
[Quendalon] Unique? The best answer from my research is NO.
[Raak] Printed paper conveying ideas? YES
An Abstract?
A book?
Does it have a single author?
[Rosie] An abstract? NO, not in that sense.
[Raak] A book? YES! *applause*
[Quen] One author? YES.
(NB. just for simplicity, I'm going to take my facts for this round from Wikipedia)
Fiction?
[Raak] Fiction? NO (some laughter)
Is this a biography of some kind?
A reference book?
[Duj] Biography? NO
[Phil] Reference? I would say YEEES.
Magna Carta?
A record of the proceedings of some body?
[Rosie] Poor Hungarian Peasant Girl? NO
[Raak] Proceedings of a body? NO *much audience laughter*
Encyclopaedia Morningtonia?
Available on Amazon?
Originally written in English?
Religious in nature?
[Kim] E.M.? N.O.
[Raak] Amazonian? YES
[INJ] English orginally? NO
[Q] Religious? YES
Originally written in a south Asian language?
To do with Islam?
Christian?
[Ig] South Asian? YES
[irach] Mecca-noid? NO
[Phil] Crucials? NO
The Mahabharata?
What a great Channel 4 series that was.
The Lotus Sutra?
[Phil] Mahabarata? NO *applause*
[Raak] Lotus Sutra? NO *sustained applause*
Does the answer have the form "The [X] Sutra"?
The Kama Sutra?
Lurking shamelessly
He who lurketh laugheth lenthily
[Ig] A hole in one! As it were. It is The Kama Sutra. * hands over slightly suggestive-looking baton*
Stolen from under Raak's nose, for which apologies. Our next is ABSTRACT with MINERAL and ANIMAL connections.
Shagging?
Going with the flow. Not too sure about the connections, though.
Rosie - Shagging? *sardonic laughter* No

The KS does illustrate most possible permutations of connections...
Is it a human construct?
Standard opening.
Does it begin with a 'T'?
A recording?
[Projoy] I'd just like to say how much I'm enjoying re-reading your "YEEES" answer to my "reference book" question.
Anything to do with death?
Kim - Is it a human construct? Yes
Chalky - Quick cuppa? No
Phil - A recording? No
Projoy - Anything to do with death? *applause* Yes, though not directly.
A religious idea?
An addiction?
Is it fictional?
[Chalky] Eh? You do have some funny ideas.
Projoy - A religious idea? Religiously derived, yes
Dujon - An addiction? No
Tuj - Is it fictional? *animated discussion among audience* Part of it (hopefully) is fictional.
- Eh? You do have some funny ideas.*applause*

I should say that the mineral bit of the definition is slightly tongue-in-cheek, and a dead end as an avenue of enquiry.
Tithing?
Is it an old idea, now largely ignored?
Does it pertain to a specific religion
?
Projoy - Tithing? No
Rosie - Is it an old idea, now largely ignored? It is an old idea (though I can't find any dating for it). The best answer for "largely ignored" is that it's not applicable.
Kim - Does it pertain to a specific religion? No
The Golden Rule?
Raak - Whoever has the gold, makes the rules? No

Amplifying the answer to Kim's previous question: the religious reference in the answer is common to many religions, but this would have originated as a reference to one particular religion.
To do with the afterlife?
Projoy - To do with the afterlife? Yes
From a Middle Eastern originated religion?
To do with some kind of underworld?
Re-incarnation?
Projoy - From a Middle Eastern originated religion? Yes
Tuj - To do with some kind of underworld? *scattered applause* in some religions, yes (though not the originating one).
Rosie - Re-incarnation? No
Purgatory?
Croydon on a Saturday afternoon.
Limbo?
A Christian idea?
Rosie - Purgatory? No
Phil - Dancing? No
Projoy - A Christian idea?*applause* Yes (though not exclusively - as above)
Hell?
Rosie - Hell? *applause* Damned right! 'Hell' is one of the five words in the answer
A snowball in Hell/?
A snowball in Hell's Chance?
... I meant. Altho I don't suppose there's any likelihood that's the answer.
Projoy - A snowball in Hell's Chance? *loud applause - the audience sit bolt upright awaiting the next move* Sooo close - but not the exact words on the card
A cat in hell's chance?
The day hell freezes over?
A cold day in hell?
And the next move it is - "a cat in hell's chance" being the exact words on the card. One kitten now passed over to Projoy.
ANIMAL, VEGETABLE and MINERAL
Is it, or does it contain, an entire ecosystem?
Animal human?
[Quen] Entire ecosystem? NO
[Rosie] Animal human? NO
Culinary in nature?
[Quen] Culinary? YES.
A dish, served hot? (both)
Is the mineral component substantial (i.e., more than a pinch of salt)?
[Rosie] A dish? YEEES. Served hot? NO
[CdM] Mineral substantial? NO
Food for humans?
[Raak] Human beans? YES
Is it traditionally a starter?
[Phil] A starter? NO
Made from a specific animal?
It is traditionally a dessert?
[Ig] specific animal? YES, altho check your assumptions
[Kim] A dessert? YEEEES, but see answer re: dish. In fact in retrospect, NO would be a better answer to the dish question.
Lemon curd?
[Q] Citric Spread? NO
Whipped cream?
[GIII] No, thank you.
A sauce?
Lassi?
[Q] Saucy? NO
[Raak] Come Home? NO
Is it revenge?
[Kim] Revenge? NO (remember that the answer to "is it a dish?" has been revised to NO...)
Is it liquid?
Does it contain an animal 'product'?
Would it be eaten at a specific time of year?
[Raak] Liquid? NO
[Chalky] Animal product? YES
[Tuj] Specific time of year? NO
Does it contain alcohol?
Does it taste sweet rather than savoury?
Contains Dairy Produce?
[Q] Booze? NO
[Chalky] Sweet? YES
[INJ] Dairy? YES
Does its preparation require cooking?
[Q] I would say YES, but that's a broadly worded question.
Is it a dressing?
[Rosie] Dressing? NO
Is milk the animal product?
[Chalky] Got milk? YES!
Rice pudding?
[Rpsie] Lovely rice pudding for dinner again? NO (remember that the answer to "is it a dish?" has been revised to NO...)
Cheese?
Are we using the standard definition of cooking: 'preparing food by a process which includes the application of heat to it' - or the bachelor definition 'any part of meal preparation, including looking up the phone number of the local pizza delivery'?
Yoghurt?
[INJ] Cheese? NO (this is sweet, not savoury, as per Chalky's question)
Is it 'cooked' by the standard definition of cooking? YES, but be careful with your assumptions. It was a very broadly phrased question.
[Kim] Yoghurt? NO
*recalls that there is such a thing as sweet cheese and apologises to INJ*
Custard?
[Custard] Graham III? NO
Milkshake?
Milk Chocolate?
[Kim] Milkshake? NO
[Chalky] Milk Chocolate? *tumultuous applause* The Answer does indeed contain milk chocolate (but The Answer does not contain the words "milk chocolate")
Angel Delight (milk choccy version)
Hoping it doesn't count as a dish.
Is it a pudding of any sort?
Walnut Whip? [teehee]
An after dinner mint?
[Rosie] Angel Delight? NO (don't forget I only said Yeeees to "dessert", not "YES!")
[Q] Pudding on the Ritz? NO
[Chalky] Walnut Whip? NO *strongly supportive applause*
[Dujon] After Dinner Mint? NO
Is it ever eaten on its own, not as a part of a meal?
Mocha?
Is it an item of confectionery?
[Rosie] Eaten on its own? CERTAINLY
[irach] Mocha? NO
[Phil] Confectionery? YES! *applause*
(and I've just looked up dessert in Wiktionary, and realised that this basically isn't one, so sorry about that)
Does the answer involve a brand name?
[Raak] Brand name? YES! *applause*
Creme Egg (yum)
[Phil] Creme Egg? NO *exactly the same amount of applause as for Walnut Whip*
A Mars bar?
[Raak] Mars Bar? NO
A bar of chocolate as opposed to a box of sweets?
A Cadbury's Flake?
Does it begin with P?
Is it crunchy?
Made by Cadbury's?
[Rosie] Bar? NO
[Ig] Flake? NO
[Tuj] Begins with P? NO *smattering of applause*
[Chalky] Crunchy? NOT REALLY
[Phil] Cadbury? NO
A Hershey Bar?
May they rot in hell for inventing such an insult to chocolate.
Oh bumbags, it's not a chocolate bar - scratch my last question please :-)
Made by Nestlé?
[Phil] Hershey Bar? NO *some applause, all the same*
[Phil] Formula pushers? NO
A Tim Tam?
[Chalky] Coffee straw? NO
It's got to be Nestlé Power Bar? Shurely
If not that brand - is it a Nestlé product?
MilKy Bar?
A British confectionery?
[Chalky] It's not Nestlé
M&Ms?
Thanks Phil. Missed your question.
[irach] M & M's - are they not 'crunchy'?
[Phil] British? NO! *audience gasps, several ladies faint*
[irach] eminems? NO *and yet, a faint stirring in the audience as if they sensed a connection with The Answer, yet it is too obscure to express in more than a sigh*
MMM...Maltesers?
[Ig] The lighter way...? NO
Is this product made by Mars, Cadbury, Nestle or Hershey?
Think we need to eliminate
Is it a European manufacturer?
Hershey's Kisses?
[Chalky] Is it one of those manufacturers? Strictly, YES, but beware.
[Chalky] European? NO
[irach] Hershey's Kisses? NO *some applause*
(please also note that previous questions have ruled out Cadbury and Nestlé)
Rolo?
strike that. It's a Nestlé product.
Almond Joy?
Hershey's Bites?
[Chalky] The joy of the almond? NO
[Chalky] Hershey's bites? NO
Hershey's pops?
I'm getting bored now
[Chalky] Hershey's Pops? NO (I fear you did not heed my "beware" on your manufacturer question!)
Hint to avoid boredom: ask more deductive questions and stop making wild guesses :-P
A seasonal confection?
An M&M/Mars product? Like Minstrels, say?
Wild guesses? I was riding on the applause meted out to Hershy-ness answers.
[irach] Seasonal? NO
[Chalky] Mars manufactured? NO, which as you so rightly say leaves Hershey revealed as the manufacturer. But again, I say beware. :)
Is the brand name in the answer "Hershey" (or "Hershey's")?
Does this involve chocolate chips?
Is it solid (i.e. does not flow, wobble, or ooze, even if cut open)?
[Phil] Is "Hershey" in the answer? NO *more audience gasps*
[irach] Chips with everything? NO
[Raak] Solid? YES
Reese's Peanut Butter Cups
[Chalky] YAY! It is indeed A Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. One baton filled with peanut goop handed over.
*sighs* Oh well, as wikipedia says "possibly one of Hershey's best-known products due to long-running massive advertising campaigns". Another never-heard-of one for me. Still, I shan't give up!
(Phil) Me neither.
Ey?
What in the world is a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup? Having read Phil's Wikipedia extract I am just as in the dark as would be a chocolate coated peanut. Yes I could, but no I won't, go a-Googling.
*went a-googling*
Phew! Thanks PJ for a challenging, yet somehow obvious, little puzzle [ie; not obviously Hershey, not a bar, not crunchy]. Having put SO much effort into it, I feel pleased to have finally nailed it :-)

Next up:

A N I M A L / A B S T R A C T

Animal instinct?
A symbolic animal?
[irach] Animal instinct? NO
[Raak] A symbolic animal? NO
Something I'm likely to have heard of?
Is the animal human?
[Phil] Something you're likely to have heard of? YES :-)
[irach] Is the animal human? YES
Fictional?
Male?
Alive (if not fictional)?
[Raak] Fictional? YES
[Projoy] Male? YES
[Phil] as above
Originally from a novel?
A young person?
[Irouléguy] Originally from a novel? YES
[Rosers] A young person? YES is probably the most useful answer.
A novel from before 1950?
Do some or all of the words on the card appear in the title of the novel?
[Reese's] Have none of you ever watched E.T.? (OK, it's not exactly the same product, but it is close.)
[Reese's] They are on sale in the UK now, too. You can get 'em in my local corner shop, and very nice they are too.
Dorian Gray?
Has the character appeared in film?
Is/was the novelist English?
[CdM] I've only seen the re-release in 2000 (or whenever it was), and only because my children insisted. I didn't pay attention though.
[Projoy] A novel from before 1950? NO
[CdM] Do some or all of the words on the card appear in the title of the novel? NO . But despite the negative answer the * audience applauses* because it was a significant question.
[Kim} Picture in the Attic? NO
[Raak] Has the character appeared in film? YES
[Irouléguy] Is/was the novelist English? NO
CORRECTION! [PJ] A novel before 1950? YES YES YES
sorry chaps - schoolgirl typing error
Is/was the author (and indeed his character) French?
A novel before 1900?
Is/was the novelist British?
[Dujon] Is/was the author [and character] French? YES!
[Projoy] A novel before 1900? YES
[Phil] British? NO
Is the author Dumas?
American author?
[Graham III] Dumas? YES *hoorah hoorahs from a very lively audience*
[Projoy] American? Nah
I am now out and about for a couple of hours and will not have access to the 'net tomorrow - so keep 'em coming. We can wrap this up by mid-afternoon.
D'Artagnan?
Oops. Didn't read previous answer re: nationality of author
Porthos?
'The Man in the iron Mask'?
All "Three Musketeers"- like the candy bar?
Edmond Dantès?
The Count of Monte Cristo?
Sorry - got delayed
[Irouléguy] Porthos? NO
[I'mNotJohn] The Man In The Iron Mask? NO
[irach] All 3 Musketeers? NO
[Graham III] The Count of MOnte Cristo? NO .. but .. * mega-cheering from audience* because ...

[Raak] Edmond Dantès? HAS GOT THE ANSWER ON THE CARD!

Chalké passés le baton to Raak.
Free at last! Drat, I've only tunnelled into another cell. This one is VEGETABLE, with ABSTRACT connections.
Is it edible?
Not edible.
Is it wood?
Yes, it's wood.
Is it Norwegian?
[CdM] No reason it couldn't be, but not specifically. (Norwegian?) Not a Christmas tree either.
Is it alive?
Not alive.
Is it a specific (one-off) article?
Is it a carving/sculpture?
[INJ] Not a specific article.
[Phil] *murmuring in the audience* Mm...no. Not a carving or sculpture.
Is it the cross on which Jesus was crucified?
[Raak, Chalky] Whoops, forgot they were the same person...!
Does it resemble its original form (i.e. looks like, or rather like it did when it was alive?)
[G III] Not the Cross.
[Projoy] Does not resemble its original form.
Has the wood been chopped/mash/shredded/generally bashed around to achieve its current state?
[Chalky] The wood is undistressed.
[Projoy, clarification] That is, it is not a tree.
An outdoors object?
Assuming being sawn, planed etc does not cause distress.
[Rosie] Not an outdoors object.
So it has no bark?
[Projoy] No bark. Wood, processed from its original state in the tree, but not in the destructive and ham-handed ways mentioned by Chalky.
Has it been carved?
Would this have been created by a carpenter or cabinet maker?
As opposed to an artist or lumber merchant.
Is this specific to a particular country or culture?
[Phil] Not carved.
[Dujon]The audience murmurs at one of those words. Taking that as four questions: no, possibly, possibly, and no. (I had to look up Wikipedia to find out what a carpenter was, more precisely than someone who works in some way with wood.)
[I] Not very specific.
Is it created in order to contain something?
[Projoy] Does not contain anything.
Is it a part of something?
Has the wood been 'turned'?
[I] Complete in itself.
[Chalky] The wood has been turned.
Ornamental and decorative?
Is there symbolism attached to this turned wooden item?
[Chalky] Not ornamental or decorative.
[Phil] Not symbolic.
[Phil, re "carved'] Actually, carving might have a part to play in its creation.
Found in the home?
Used in a game?
[Phil] It can be found in some homes.
[I] Not used in a game.
Is it smaller than a telephone box [the proper red one]?
[Chalky] Smaller than a telephone box.
Is it essentially long & thin?
Defined as more than 3 times as long in one dimension than in either of the other two.
P.S. Where's Tuj, we don't know this object's initial P-ness?
Can you put something on it?
[INJ] It could be long and thin, but not esentially so.
[Chalky] You can put something on it. *sounds of demurral from the audience, whereupon the chairman produces one and demonstrates putting something on it. "Aha", say the audience.*
Does it have a primary specific function?
Is it larger than a toaster?
[CdM] It has a primary specific function.
[Chalky] It can be larger than a toaster.
A rolling pin?
[Rosie] Not a rolling pin.
A wooden alarm clock?
[CdM] Brrthbbthb? No.
There is actually a smidgen of Mineral in this, but it's primarily Vegetable.
Aah .. NOW you tell us :-)
Does it frame something?
[Chalky] Not a frame.
Is this a tool?
Is it a kitchen utensil?
A mug tree?
[Chalky] It performs a function, but it wouldn't ordinarily be called a tool.
[ " ] Not a kitchen utensil.
[Projoy] Not a mug tree.
Is this a prosthesis?
[Dujon] Not a prosthesis.
Is its cross-section circular for its entire length?
A board of some kind?
[Phil] Not wholly circular.
[Rosie] Not a board.
Is it typically used in conjunction with some other object?
[CdM] Yes. Various other objects.
Could you buy one in a depaertment store?
[Phil] What's with the posh accent?
[Phil] It's not the first place I'd look, but you might find one thaere.
Could you buy one in a haerdwaer store?
Is it a hatstand?
Is the mineral element nails? Or screws? or Glue?
[CdM] Not found in a hardware store.
[G III] Not a hatstand?
[ " ] Could be nails; wouldn't be screws or glue.
Are most of us likely to have one (or more than one)?
Is it a piece of furniture?
[Cdm} That's how it's spelt in Flemish.
[I] Most of us are unlikely to have one. I have one, though.
[R] Not furniture.
Does it have any moving parts?
An abacus?
[Q] It has moving parts.
[CdM] Not an abacus.
Is it a descant, treble, tenor, alto or bass recorder?
Or even a Sopranino?
Is it a type of flute?
{Chalky] Not a wind instrument of any sort.
Is it a musical instrument?
[Phil] Not a musical instrument of any sort.
Is it used in sport?
[Phil] Not used in sport.
Are the nails that could be present used simply to join pieces of wood together, or do they serve some other function?
(The only way in to this problem that I am seeing right now is the odd notion that this could include nails but not screws.)
Does one have to 'hold' this thing in order for it to function?
[CdM] The nails (or other fasteners) hold it together.
[Chalky] Hm...part of its function requires handling it, part requires not handling it.
Does it have a handle?
Have these been around since before 1900?
[CdM] No handle.
[Projoy] I don't know, but I think it's very likely to have been around since before 1900.
Are they or could they ever be made of something other than wood?
A wooden arras?
[Hi CdM - seems like we're posting at the same time. Have to confess, I'm fascinated by this particular puzzle, but have to go out in half an hour so will miss any activity this afternoon].
Is it customarily of European origin?
[CdM] They could be made of other things, but I've never come across them made of anything but wood.
[Chalky] Not a wooden arras.
[Phil] Yes, European.
*going off on one, like she does*
C'mon Raak. Does this audience have a pulse? Or does it merely murmur at the question of carpenter v cabinet maker and then 15 hours later summon up the energy to demur at the notion that something 'could be put on top' of this thing? Hey, I know you're a cool dude an' all that, but please - can we have a bit of encouragement, or even a clue? :-)
Time for a precis I think:

It is or does:

made of wood
undistressed
possibly created by a cabinet maker or artist (audience murmurs)
complete in itself
turned wood
found in some homes
smaller than a telephone box
possibly long and thin but not essentially so
able to have put something on it
has a primary specific function
can be larger than a toaster
used in conjunction with various other objects
have moving parts
does have mineral fasteners to hold it together, but these are not screws or glues
require handling as part of its function (CARE - see also the 'not' section)
very likely to have been around prior to 1900 AD
possible that this could be made of material other than wood, but the Chairman has not seen such
European

It is not or does not:

edible
alive
specific (one-off) article
carving or sculpture (though audience reacts)
the Calvary cross
resemble its original form
an outdoor object
retain bark
carved (though might have a part to play in its creation)
specific to a country or culture
contain anything
ornamental or decorative
symbolic
used in a game
a toaster
a rolling pin
a wooden alarm clock
normally purchased in a department store (though one might)
found in a hardware store
a hatstand
something that most people would have, though the Chairman is blessed
a piece of furniture
a frame
a tool (despite it performing a function)
a kitchen utensil
a mug tree
a prothesis
wholly circular
a board
a musical instrument of any sort
used in sport
requires not handling it as part of its function (CARE - see also the 'is' section)
have a handle
a wooden arras

NOTE: Ruddy 'eck that's long. Please forgive me if I've missed something.
Raak, you might run your eye over it in case I've misinterpreted anything. Ta.
Sorry, CdM
Nor is it an abacus
[Dujon] I think you left out a "not" -- this is something that most people would not have, although I do.
Is its purpose connected with art?
[Projoy] *cheering in the aisles* Yes, connected with art.
An easel?
[Projoy] Not an easel.
An artists palette?
(For Projoys sake, Im leaving it unclear if Im talking about one or multiple artists.)
[CdM] Not a palette.
I took a closer look at mine, and there are a few screws in it.
A wooden posable model thingy for artists to use to get human forms right?
[Phil] *applause* You have precisely guessed the words on the card! It is indeed a wooden posable model thingy for artists to use to get human forms right!
[Raak] Is there an official name for a WPMTfAtUtgHFR?
The simplest description I've found is an artists' manikin.
Here goes another one: ANIMAL, VEGETABLE & MINERAL
A cornet player dressed up (in natural fibres) as a pink fairy?
Is the animal element human?
[Raak] As the costume was polyester, your guess falls by the wayside, I'm afraid. Not a bad effort, but completely off the mark :-)
[Kim] Human? NO
Is the Animal alive?
[Rosie] Live animal? NO
Is it edible?
[GIII] Edible? NO
Does the whole thing occur naturally?
Part of an animal, eg fur?
[Kim] A natural occurrence? NO
[Rosie] Fur-esque? YES *Applause*
An item of clothing?
[Rosie] Confirmation that I was only referring to the animal element when answering your last question.
[Raak] Item of clothing? NO
Is bone involved?
[Raak] Bone involved? Not to my knowledge.
Contains leather?
[Rosie] Contains leather? YES *Some applause*
Can you put things into it?
[Kim] Can things be put into it? YES
A HAND-baaag?
A wallet?
A suitcase?
A leather tankard?
[Rosie] Handbag? NO
[GIII] Wallet? NO
[nights] suitcase? NO
[Raak] Leather tankard? NO
A large object, not normally moved?
[Rosie] Two questions for the price of one! A large object? YES Not normally moved? NO
Is it a piece of luggage?
[Raak] Piece of luggage? NO
Is it a piece of furniture?
An elephant's foot umbrella stand?
[Chalky] Piece of furniture? NO
[INJ] Nellie's brollies? NO
Used for transport?
A pair of clown shoes?
[INJ] Used for transport? YES *Loud applause*
[Raak] clown shoes? NO
Part of a means of transport?
[Rosie] Part of a means of transport? NO
A motor car?
A saddle?
A type of carriage?
A Surrey with a Fringe on Top?
Forgive the simulpost, but that was what I was actually thinking of.
[Chalky] A motor car? YES *More loud applause*
[Raak] Saddle? NO, see above
[INJ] Carriage or song from Oklahoma!? NO, see above
Are we trying to guess the make and model?
A Rolls Royce?
No, damn it. Please ignore the previous and replace with "A Morgan". Ta.
[Chalky] Make & Model? Yes please :-) *more applause*
[Dujon] Moggie? NO
[INJ] Good grief. I had been planning (since before this round began) "Surrey with a Fringe on Top" as my next AVMA subject.
Still in production?
English?
/British?
[INJ] In production? YES
[GIII] English/British? Hmmmm...British-built, but not owned (any more) *Audience gasps at how much information the usually-tight-lipped Phil is giving away*
Mini?
Is this a car that you own?
What me? Nosey?
[GIII] Mini? NO
[Chalky] My car? NO *Laughter from the audience*
Is it a single, specific car?
Luxury/High performance?
Yeah, yeah, I know that's two questions.
[Raak] single, specific car? NO, presuming you mean something like "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" or "John Major's Nova", otherwise see Chalky's penultimate question.
[INJ] Luxury/high performance? YES on both counts *a little more applause*
Soft-top/convertible?
[GIII] Convertible? YES *a bit more applause*
Is it a Chevrolet (yes, the make them) Corvette?
[Red Wolf] Chevvy? NO, see Graham III's third last question.
Is it an Aston Martin DB9?
[Phil] Graham III's last question was if it was a soft-top/convertible. Corvettes do have that option, they are luxury and high performance, at which they are only beaten out by the Dodge Viper (flames to come from that, I'm sure). Even then, a 'Vette is still preferred.

The issue comes in that I forgot the British point 3 questions ago. See new guess above.

[RW] DB9? Fraid not, even though a friend of mine has one...the lucky (rich) swine. Btw, if you look closely, you'll see that I said "third last question" :-)
Bentley Continental GTC?
[GIII] Bentley? NO
Rolls Royce drophead coupe?
[GIII] Not a Roller either - not quite that de luxe
Is it an Aston Martin?
I admit, I missed that and can be blind at times. Forgive me, all. The logic behind the above question: [Phil] said that it wasn't the DB9, then that it wasn't a Bentley or a Rolls, but he never specifically said it wasn't an AM. So, it isn't as dumb a question as it might seem... I hope...
[RW} Nope, it's not any kind of Aston Martin.
Is it a Lotus of some kind?
I'm running out of marques. I am also struggling to find a niche for Lotus in the luxury class of vehicles.
[Dujon] Not a Lotus either. It's a very well known make of car, worldwide.
Bentley?
[Raak] Not a Bentley. Maybe my idea of luxury/high performance is not as high-spec as everyone else's, but the on-the-road price is about £70k
BMW 6-series convertible?
MG - Rover?
Jaguar?
[GIII] BMW? NO
[Chalky] MG-Rover? NO
[INJ] Jaguar? YES, dagnammit, YES! *rapturous applause dies off rapidly as audience remembers that the model is required too*
Jaguar XK 4.2 convertible
Well I bet there's an 'X' in there somewhere
Jaguar XK 4.2L convertible
Just a cheeky pedant's guess ;-)
Jaguar XKR 4.2L supercharged convertible
Although a more serious guess just to make sure all of the bases are covered ;-)
[INJ] Not that one
[GIII] Not that one either
[GIII take 2] YES, that one!
Gosh. That was exciting. well played GIIIIIIII
It was almost as exciting as a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.
Goodness me, well there's a turn-up for the books. Let's try something Abstract.
Altogether now... a Human Construct?
Anarcho-syndicalism?
Come on, let's keep in time.
[Projoy] If by that you mean something dreamt up by a human being, then YES.
[Kim] Unionised chaos? NO
Does it begin with a 'P'?
Well, if Kim is going to steal my lines, I'll just have to take TUJ's
Did the idea originate before 1900?
[INJ] P? Ah, NO [Projoy] pre-1900? YES
Musical?
[Raak] YES! *applause*.
European?
After 1700?
[Kim] No
[Projoy] No
Is it American?
Prepare for a SPAM of 3
Is it British?
Is it Asian?
[Red Wolf 1] The USA didn't exist before 1700.
[Red Wolf 2] See above
[Red Wolf 3] NO.
A scale?
[Rosie] Interesting, but NO.
A particular piece of music?
[GIII] The Americas have been around for 100 million years or so, though.
Is it anything to do with North African drum rhythms?
[GIII] Sorry, I missed those... The Europeans have had records of the American continents, though, since the 11th century, thanks to the Vikings, and have been visited since about the 6th century, thanks to the Celts. American Indian music is noteworthy.
Is it specific to any continent?
A type of singing, chanting or other non-instrumental sound?
[CdM] Particular piece? YES
[CdM] To say yes to it being American would have been misleading. The Americas have existed for a very long time, however in common parlance 'America' means nothing but the USA.
[Red Wolf] Drumming? NO
[Projoy] YES, though see CdM's question above.
[Rosie] See answer to CdM.
But is it, as Rosie asks, an exclusively vocal piece?
[Projoy] It is performed as such now, though it was probably performed with instruments originally.
So, it originated in Africa?
(just to rule out Australasia/Oceania)
Wimoweh?
[Projoy] NO (you might want to look at my comment to CdM)
[Rosie] NO
Is it a Russian piece of music?
Latin American?
[Chalky] Russki? NO [Rosie] Latino? YES! *warm applause from the audience*
From before 1500?
An accompaniment to a dance?
La Folia?
does it begin with a 'w'?
Does it begin with a vowel?
Does it begin with anything?
Sorry, got called away...
[Projoy] No
[Rosie] No
[Raak] No
[Chalky] No and No, [CdM] YES!
[all] Apologies for the delay caused by a work and Christmas combo. I would suggest a line of questioning along the lines of who might have written it. Then Wikipedia will be of massive help...
Does it begin on the first beat of the bar?
[Rosie] In so far as there would have been bars (i.e. it begins on a stressed note), YES.
Is it considered the work of one author?
[Projoy] YES
A piece of sacred music?
[Raak] YES! *applause*
A masterpiece of Mexican polyphony?
[Raak] Masterpiece? Subjective of course, and not on the disc of that name. Mexican Polyphony? YES! *audience applauds, excited discussion*
Juan Gutiérrez de Padilla
(he only has 700 surviving pieces, so it should be easy to narrow it down if it is him)
[Projoy] YES! *applause*
The Missa ego flos campi
(or, in English, the absent selfhood of effeminate Flossie)
A la xácara xacarilla?
(Or in English, "To the Batmobile!")
[Raak] Thwack! Kapow! No, Robin.
Projoy: YES! The exact words on the card! *The audience go wild and bleat with delight*.
Well, that was a stroke. I'm much too ill at the moment to set one and remember it later, so perhaps I could defer to someone else? Raak, maybe?
Get well soon PJ x
Get well soon! Ok, if I'm on, then the next one is MINERAL.
Human-made?
Not human-made.
Unique?
[Projoy] Best of health to you!
Not unique.
A geographical feature?
Not a geographical feature.
A substance?
Not necessarily psychoactive.
Not a substance.
Bigger than a phonebox?
Feeling thick again - never heard of de Padilla or his work :-(
Found in caves?
[Phil] Apologies for that - it was a bit obscure, but I thought it was hunt-downable, even if you hadn't heard of the composer in the first place. He's not well known outside the world of choral music, but worth exploring if you like the genre.
[Phil] Could be larger or smaller than a phonebox.
[Graham] Not found in caves.
The name of a continuous substance - e.g. "rock"?
[GIII/Phil] It was definitely huntdownable, since I'd never heard of him/it either until I googled "Mexican Polyphony". :)
A household object?
[Projoy] Not the name of a substance.
[irach] Not a household object.
Connected with weather?
[Rosie] It could well be connected with the weather.
Is it liquid?
[GIII/Projoy] I'm sure I could've found the answer if I'd tried (which I didn't) - I just felt thick that I'd never heard of him.
A flood?
[Phil] Not liquid, hence...
[Rosie] Not a flood.
Is it normally a gas in the atmosphere?
[RW] Not a gas in the atmosphere.
A gas to be found in outer space?
Snow in some form?
[Projoy] Not a gas to be found anywhere.
[Rosie] Not any form of snow.
Is it solid?
[Phil] YES, solid.
Is this found all over the world?
PJ] Hope you're feeling better
[I] Not found all over the world. Not at all!
A meteorite?
Volcanic origin?
[Phil] *applause* Not a meteorite.
[Rosie] Not volcanic.
Something of non-terrestrial origin?
An asteroid, perhaps?
[Phil] *Cheers and more cheering* Non-terrestrial, yes, and an asteroid.
Is it a single object of uncertain size? (cf phonebox)
[CdM] Not a single object.
Tectites?
[Rosie] Not tectites.
Minor Planets?
[Phil] Is that different from an asteroid?
[Phil] If "minor planets" is a subset of asteroids, it's the wrong subset.
A meteor?
C-type Asteroids?
[Rosie] *excited murmurs* Not a meteor.
[Projoy] Not C-type.
Are they found as trojan asteroids?
Are they found as belt asteroids?
Are they M-type asteroids?
I know, bad form for three questions...
[RW] None of them are trojans.
[RW] I'm not sure if they count as belt asteroids or not.
[RW] Not M-type, although individual examples might or might not be.
The moons of Jupiter?
[Chalky] Not the moons of Jupiter. Asteroids, remember.
Members of a particular asteroid family?
NEAs (Near Earth Asteroids)?
Hilda asteroids?
[I] (pause to google the precise definition of an asteroid family) No. Hence...
[C] Hilda Ogden? No.
[P] *loud applause* Yes, they are all NEAs (but not all NEAs are of this particular type).
An Amor-type object?
Chanson d'Amor
PHAs (Potentially Hazardous Asteroids)?
[Phil] *more applause* They are indeed potentially hazardous, but that is not quite the definition of the class on the card.
Apollo Asteroids?
[Phil] Not the Apollos.
Ahem - an Amor-type object?
Aten-type?
Going to have to dig deeper if it's not one of those three.
[Phil] Doesn't begin with A.
[Phil] [Rosie & Phil]
An extinct comet?
[I] Not an extinct comet.
The earth's moons?
[Phil] Not the earth's moons (I thought we only had one, unless Cruithne and the dust clouds at the Trojan points count).
Damocloids?
Despite the question mark - that really was me :-)
Earth-crossing asteroids?
[Chalky] Haemorrhoids on the point of fatally bursting? No.
[Rosie] (An asteroid crashes into the theatre, vaporising everything for twenty miles in every direction and throwing up enough dust to begin an ice age. A million years later intelligent cockroaches emerge to build a new world.) Bullseye!
Oh drat! Aten + Appollo = Earth-crossers...so near, and yet so far. Still, I've learnt more about asteroids in the last two days, than in the previous 40 years.
(Phil) Good heavens, are you 40?
This one is ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL connections. (Not cockroaches with HNC Building Practice).
[Rosie] Yes - and so is Mrs Phil on Saturday.
Is the animal connection human?
(Duj) Human it is.
Is it, therefore, a human construct?
(Projoy) Not strictly a deliberate construct but an off-the-cuff answer would be YES.
Would the abstract then be something which humans learned rather than invented?
(Dujon) You could certainly say that. *applause*
Mathematics-related?
(CdM) Nothing to do with maths.
Was it discovered by scientists?
(Raak) Not discovered by scientists.
Does this have to do with the skies?
By that I mean anything above terra firma.
(Dujon) Nothing to do with the skies.
Is there a religious connection?
(Quendalon) No religious connection at all.
Is this a state of mind?
(Chalky) Not a state of mind.
Is it connected to language?
(Chalky) *prolonged applause* It certainly is.
Is it A language?
[Just me an' you at the mo, Rosers]
(Chalky) Not A Language *some scattered applause*
Keep 'em coming!
A 'part' of language?
I'm trying Rosie - have even done a pub quiz [which we won - wahay] and come back....[Where IS everyone?]
(Chalky) Yes. *more vigorous applause*. (I wish you'd put a comma after your first two words because it reminds me that I haven't quite got the stamina I had 30 yrs ago.)
Specific to the English language?
A smart-arse reply?
(CdM) Not specific to the English language.
(Irouléguy) Try again. :-)
A grammatical principle?
Onomatopoeia?
(Graham III) Not a grammatical principle.
(Quendalon) Not onomatopoeia.

A different aspect of language needs to be considered.

Poetry?
Is it to do with writing?
Storytelling?
(Bigsmith) Not poetry.
(Red Wolf) Definitely nothing to do with writing.
(Graham III) Not storytelling.
Is it usually spoken (rather than written)?
Are we seeking some form of cant?
An accent?
A dialect?
Is it a style of language (e.g. sarcasm)?
(Iroluléguy) Yes.
(Dujon) Not cant.
(CdM) Yes! *vigorous applause* Not quite the words on the card.
(Tshauki) Not really, but *some applause*
(Phil) Not a style of language.
(Irg) You know who I mean. Dreadful sorry.
Received Pronunciation?
No, wait, it's not specific to English, is it...
A foreign accent?
Does this occur in all languages?
(CdM-1)*audience laughter* No!
(CdM-2) Not foreign.
(Irouléguy) Almost certainly every language has this.
An idiolect?
Slang?
An ecolect?
A regional accent?
Ayup, chuck, someone's gorrit. A REGIONAL ACCENT it is, and CHALKY is the winner!
By 'eck - am reet choofed

Thanks Mr Rosie.
I shall now gleefully plunge into my chairpersonship with a tantalising
A B S T R A C T / M I N E R A L with A N I M A L connections ......

The Lascaux paintings?
Is the way the subject is formatted on the laser scoreboard significant?
[Rosie] Bzzzzzt Repetition!
Huh. I don't know what went wrong there...
[Raak] Cave scribblings? NO
[INJ] Notable display? NO

[CdM - was that meant to be a link to a similar subject for guessing - a couple of years back?]
Is the animal connection human?
[Kim] Human? YES
Something inhabited by humans?
Is it a work of art?
A building?
[Quendalon] Inhabited by peeps? NO
[Raak] A work of art? NO ]
[Rosie] Building? NO
A one-word answer?
[Tuj] One word? YES
Unique?
Would this, Chalky, be a construction variously referred to as a monument/astronomical observatory/religious site?
[Quendalon] One of a kind? NO
[Dujon] Well now, Duj - now I have interpreted the thrust of your question - I feel I can quite categorically reply IN THE NEGATIVE :-)
Graffiti?
Specific to a particular culture?
[Chalky] Yes. Rosie set exactly the same subject a while back. Together with Raak's repetition of "alarm clock", this sets me wondering if the time is coming to put this game to rest awhile.
(Also, pace Rosie's answer, I'm prepared to bet that some of the Papua New Guinea languages do not have regional accents!)
[Rosie] Graffiti? NO but ...*murmers from audience*
[CdM] Culturally specific? NO

Re: this game. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it the only really competitive guessing game over the 3 servers? Also it's a flagship game for MC5, is genuinely mind-expanding and happens to be a personal favourite. So I would hate to see it go. However, if others feel the same, I would naturally, go with the majority. :-)
[Chalky] That was more of a random musing than a vote. I love this game as well, but it is striking that people are forgetting the subjects that they themselves have set in the past.
Poetry?
[Phil] Poetry? NO

[CdM] An indicator that regardless of the trillions of potential choices, l'idée fixe has more power?
An inscription of some kind?
(CdM) re - PNG local accents - I won't argue (for once).
[Rosie] Inscription? NO
Is this a natural phenomenon?
[Rosie] A natural phenomenon? NO
Is it symbolic?
[Rosie] Symbolic? No - not really. In fact - NO
Does it involve words?
[Graham III] Involve words? NO
Does it have to do with sound?
[Red Wolf] To do with sound? NO
is the abstract/mineral something built or constructed?
Is the mineral metal?
Peak Oil?
Anything to do with transport?
Nit necessarily steam trains.
BUGGER! Nit = not.
[Irouléguy] Built or constructed? SORT OF - but, then again, not in the way I think you mean
[Phil] Mineral metal? NO ... it could be but I wouldn't like to mislead you.
[Raak] Peak Oil? NO
[Rosie] Transport? NIET
Is it bigger than a house?
[Raak] Bigger than a house? NO ... not normally, although it could be but I wouldn't like to mislead you :-)
Is it ornamental?
Is it conceptual?
An artistic representation of some kind?
[Raak] Ornamental? NO
[Graham III] Conceptual? Er ... NO
[Irouléguy] Artistic representation of some kind? NO
Could I buy one of these?
Would you see one of these in a town?
Is it a, you know, um, whaddyacallit, humanly constructed thingy?
Would you want one of these?
[Raak] Would you buy one of these? NO
[Rosie] Seen in town? YES
[CdM] Humanly constructeded? OH YES *audience applauses mainly because there's been precious little to get excited about so far in this game*
[Graham III] Would you want one of these? You might ... but you might not
add/ Talking of which, I'm wondering why the audience didn't hum and ha a bit when I answered Irouléguy's last question. They were obviously asleep. Apologs
Billboard advertising?
[Graham III] Billboard advertising? NO
A monument?
[Raak] A monument? NO

Hint: This is definitely ABSTRACT with MINERAL to help it on its way. The human connection means it's 'constructed' and used by humans rather than beasties.
A congeries of mineral objects?
Fictional?
Some kind of open space?
[Quendalon] A congeries [a collection?] NO
[Raak] Fictional? NO
[Rosie] Some kind of open space? NO ... but there is a kind of connection with open space.
Is it a square or a plaza?
I consider them to be the same thing.
Visually appealing?
Can it be discerned by any of the five senses?
Scrap that -- if you can see it in a town, the answer is presumably yes.
[Red Wolf] Is it a square or a plaza? NOT IN THE WAY YOU MEAN ... but you are, quite possibly unwittingly, getting closer to the structure of this thing
[CdM] 5 sensage? I'm replying because the 'in a town' answer could equally have been an 'out-of-town' answer and it would be unfair to mislead you. The answer is, however, YES :-)

Second hint: Just look back at some of the questions you have all asked when presented with an ABSTRACT +.
sorry - missed your question
[Rosie] Visually appealing? It could be , but not really relevant at this stage of the game
Is there any connection to sport?
Does it commonly contain 90-degree angles?
An empty plinth?
Is it entertaining?
[CdM] Sport connection? Ah. Tricky one to answer. Strictly speaking, NO ... but this line of questioning may be productive * audience nearly claps*
[Juxtapose] 90 - degree angles? YES! *audience claps*
[Raak] An empty plinth? NO
[Graham III] Entertaining? YES *audience now getting very vocal*
Are tickets sold for it?
Are we talking about the surface on which a particular activity is performed?
[Raak] Tickets sold? NO not usually :-)
[Bigsmith] Are we talking surface/activity? Guessing the mineral part will probably lead to the answer, so YES
A 147 break?
[CdM] 147 break? NO
A bull ring?
[Graham III] A bull ring? NO

Re: last 2 questions. Remember - tickets are NOT sold for this particular thing.
Hmm, perhaps that doesn't have too much to do with 90 degree angles...
Parkour?
[Graham III] Parkour? NO
Hopscotch?
Hurrah hurrah
Irouléguy chucks his stone into the square and hops to victory. HOPSCOTCH is the very word on the card. Well played!
Very well done Irouléguy. I was barking up totally the wrong tree for most of that.
Thanks, G III. My thanks go to Juxtapose - it was the 90 degree angle question that helped me put it together. Throwing the jack again, we next have an ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections (and a few MINERALS, strictly speaking, but they're not helpful).
Animal human?
Rosie] Animal human? Yes
Is it a human construct that begins with P?
An activity?
CdM - Is it a human construct that begins with P? No (to both)
Rosie - An activity? *hum of discussion in the audience* Ye-es - although there's a case for saying that 'no' is also a valid answer.
Growth?
CdM - Growth? No
Is the vegetable paper?
A process?
Does this involve people meeting each other?
Is it a place?
One installation of a new home PC later - Vista's very funny looking, but I forgive it everything I'm likely to discover for how fast it loads. Questions, questions...

Raak - Is the vegetable paper? Paper isn't the primary vegetable, but it is involved (or not)
Quendalon - A process? For some people, yes
Rosie - Does this involve people meeting each other? It could do (though the opposite could also be true)
Chalky - Is it a place? No
Does it involve correspondence?
Rosie] Does it involve correspondence? It could do, but I think it usually doesn't.
Is it a game?
Raak] Is it a game? No
Related to language?
Quendalon] Related to language? No
A learning process?
Rosie] A learning process? Yes, it is - though it's not the most obvious description of this.
Requires more than one person?
Quendalon] Requires more than one person? No - though it's argued that people doing it together will have a better experience.

Oh, and re-reading the above, there are no sexual connotations - the answer is perfectly SFW.
Is there a musical connection?
Making marks on a surface?
Are computers involved?
Is it a social process (ie, concerned with the development or conduct of social relationships)?
Chalky] Is there a musical connection? No
Quendalon - Making marks on a surface? No
Raak - Are computers involved? No
Kim] Is it a social process (ie, concerned with the development or conduct of social relationships)? *stirrings in the audience* If successful, it will almost certainly change the development and conduct of social relationships. And you could describe it as a social process, for particular definitions of 'social'.
Counselling?
Graham III] Counselling? *more stirrings in the audience* No, though counselling can often help with this.
Divorce?
is this something that happens to people?
Rehabilitation?
An AA meeting?
Juxtapose] Divorce? No - see the answer to Quendalon's last question but one.
Chalky] Is this something that happens to people? *applause* Good question - no, it's something that people do.
Rosie] Rehabilitation? No
Raak - An AA meeting? *applause and a few cheers from the audience* No, but nearer than any previous guess
Teetotalism?
Cigarette addiction?
Are these people trying to come to terms with a problem they have?
Raak] Teetotalism? *shudder* No
Graham III] Cigarette addiction? *cheering from the audience* So close!
Rosie] Are these people trying to come to terms with a problem they have? *more cheering - the audience pick up their bags and coats preparing for the end* YES!
A visit to the Doctor?
Chalky] A visit to the Doctor? *the audience put their bags down* No
Losing weight?
Not to lurk, but...
The answer's giving up smoking.
A lurky guess - Tuj wins! Those are the exact words on the card. One low-tar, filter-tipped baton passed over.
[Tuj] Does it begin with P?
[CdM]

The very words on the card!

*hands over baton*
Ha!
O-kay... This one is ANIMAL.
Is it a humang beeing?
A human being? Not yet. *appreciative amused murmurs from the audience*
[Tuj] I'm now worried about my victory. Were the words on the card "Does it begin with P?" or "Does it begin with P"? If the latter, then fine. But if the former, am I right in thinking your answer should have just been no, since I didn't ask "Does it begin with P??"?
A stem cell?
The next Dalai Lama?
Stem cell? No.
Antereincarnate? No.
An embryo?
An embryo? No. Examine your assumptions.
A humanoid?
Edible?
[CdM] To be honest, you had the question in before I thought of anything, but it amused me so much it merited that =)
A humanoid? No.
Edible? Strictly speaking, yes, but highly unlikely to be eaten!
A primate?
Is it unique?
My signature question.
A mammal?
Fictional?
Hang on...
Does it begin with a P?
A spermatazoon?
A body part or product?
A primate? No (but examine your assumptions)
Is it unique? That depends somewhat on your definition of "it", but I think the least misleading answer is No.
A mammal? No (but examine your assumptions)
Fictional? No.
Begin with P? No. Spermatazoon? No.
Body part or product? No.
Is this a collection of things?
Collection of things? Well, "collection" is not the usual word, and nor is "things", but Yes. *some audience applause*
The genome?
NB - "Not yet" a human being = a teenager.
Well, my wife is due home shortly so I'll back out of here for a few hours. I do ever so hope that she has that glint in her eyes.
Well, my wife is due home shortly so I'll back out of here for a few hours. I do ever so hope that she has that glint in her eyes.? No.
(but an interesting guess, it has to be said)
Is it an egg?
A dismembered corpse?
Shoal of fish?
I take it wasn't anything to do with Rosie's genome?
Is it alive?
Genome? No.
Teenager? No. *laughter* Sorry. I know I already composed those answers, but I must have previewed and failed to post.
Egg? No.
Dismembered corpse? No,
Shoal of fish? No.
Alive? Yes.*applause, as much from relief than anything else*
I say again, you need to examine your assumptions. Some of my answers have involved very careful parsing of the questions.
A troop of monkeys?
Troop of monkeys? No. *smattering of applause, none the less*
Dr. Frankenstein's collection of spare parts?
Just clarifying the answer to Chalky's initial question:
Is this thing normally expected to become a human being?
*Before he can even answer, the audience applauds the decision to return to Chalky's question*
Normally expected to become a human being? The thing described by the words of the cards is definitely* expected to become a human being.

*There are imaginable ways in which this might not happen, but they are highly improbable.
Is the answer humorous?
a chromasome?
or even a chromosome?
The glint in a father's eye?
I suppose that is abstract really, but might at least clarify whether I'm thinking in the right ballpark.
Humorous? Not at all. If anything, the opposite.
Chromuhsome? No.
The glint in Dujon's wife's eye? No. And not even the right ballgame, never mind the right ballpark.
Dare I say: Examine your assumptions?
Posterity?
Posterity? No. *smattering of applause*
The Second Coming?
Descendents?
Second coming? No.
Descendants? No. It was only a smattering of applause!
attempting a summary

ANIMAL
IT IS NOT a stem cell, the next Dalai Lama, an embryo, a humanoid, a primate, unique, a mammal, fictional, a spermatozoon, a body part or product, the genome, a teenager, an egg, a dismembered corpse, a shoal of fish, a troop of monkeys [drew some applause], humorous, a chromosome, glint in a father's eye, posterity [drew a smattering of applause], the second coming, descendants, Dujon backing out of here for a few hours hoping for a wifely eye glint.

IT IS: definitely expected to become a human being, edible [but unlikely to be eaten], a collection of things [but 'collection' and 'things' are not the best words to use], alive [drew relieved applause],
Are there more than 100 of these?
And presumably not Frankenstein's stack of spare parts, asked earlier?
Would you need a microscope to see it?
Are there more than 100 of these? No. *substantial applause*
BRAAAIIIINNNSS? No.
Would you need a microscope? No.
Chalky's summary is accurate but must be, I will remind you, carefully parsed. And perhaps it should also include the answer to her first question: It is not yet a human being.
Do we need to examine the definition of 'human being' in order to make some progress with your little cunundrum?
Does it exist at the present time?
A human clone?
Do we need to examine definition of human being? No. That's not where your confusion lies.
Exist at present time? Yes. *some applause*
Clone? No.
Is it the subject of any political controversy?
Is sex involved?
Would the answer to any of the things this is NOT, in Chalky's list, have been yes, if the question had been posed in the plural?
e.g. more than one mammal.
Subject of political controversy? It has a connection to political controversy but is not to my knowledge the subject of pc.
Sex? No.
Yes if plural? Yes! *substantial and relieved applause*
Siamese twins?
Siamese twins? No.
Is this a tribe?
... and I think it has been fairly obvious for some time that the answer is in the plural - just look at the yesses.
And yet it becomes a human being.
...and isn't a human body part or product. Hmm.
Well, that disqualifies "dismembered corpses"... and you do not need a microscope to see it, which disqualifies stem cells, chromosomes, and a couple others... Is it pre-natal?
A tribe? No.
Prenatal? No.
*(The audience is starting to enjoy this)*
Could you fit it into a telephone box?
That is, the whole group of whatever they are, all in to a single telephone box.
Vanishing twins?
Are these mostly found on one continent?
Are there less than 50 of these?
Phittable in a phonebox? Not yet.
Vanishing twins? No.
Mostly found on one continent? Mostly, yes. *applause*
<50? Yes.
Are they used in scientific research?
Pigs bred for the purpose of human organ transplants?
Do they exist right now?
Is the continent they are mostly found on Asia?
Are there less than 12 of these?
Used in scientific research? No.
Porcine donors? No.
Exist right now? Yes.
Mainly in Asia? No.
<12 No.
The audience, rather belatedly, is thinking that Chalky's third-to-last question might have indicated a promising line of thinking on her part. Or it might not.
Can they talk?
Can they talk? Yes. (It's conceivable that perhaps one or two of them in fact can't, but I have no special reason to think that is true.)
Continent: North America?
North America? No.
Are they human right now?
An example of conjoined twins?
Are they particularly small?
Is this the group of 'nearly humans' but 'not quite yet' that have been in the news lately?
... which is what I was aiming for when I asked about a 'tribe'?
Human right now? Yes. *audience applauds, more out of relief than anything else*
Conjoined twins? No.
Particularly small? No.
Nearly but not quite human? No. *The audience now thinks they were in fact correct not to applaud Chalky's earlier question*
Maybe it is time to look once again at your assumptions. You are all missing something rather obvious.
Does this number of humans-right-now have a collective name?
Are these human-right-now related?
Is this a collection of people who will eventually be just one, the rest having been excluded from the group in some manner, such as by dying or being knocked out of a competition?
Collective name? That's actually a little tricky to answer. I think the best answer is No. However, the five words on the card might be thought of as a collective name for these humans right now.
Are they related? No.
Is this a collection ... competition? YES! *sustained applause*
The participants on Big Brother?
Participants on Big Brother. *audience laughter* No.
The candidates for US President?
Mitt Hussein Rodham McCain? No.
Are the members of this group members because of their own choices/actions?
Members through choice or action? I suppose that some choices influenced their member ship of this group, but the best answer is definitely No.
Is there a definite date, already known, by which time only one will be left?
Definite known date by which time only one will be left? No.
Further to Raak's earlier question, is the point at which there will be only one member of the group remaining determined by the death of the other members of the group?
A tontine?
Is 'survivor' one of the words on the card?
Five words... The members of my [CdM's] family?
Point at which one left determined by death of others? Yes. *applause*
Tontine? No.
Is 'survivor" one of the words? No, but "surviving" is. *applause*
Kind Hearts and Coronets? No.
Speakers of a particular language?
People in line to inherit a throne/kingdom?
Oh - and continent: Europe?
Speakers of a particular language? No.
Kind Hearts and Coronets? No.
Continent = Europe? Yes, although my earlier agreement that they were "mostly to be found on one continent" was in fact slightly inaccurate. A better statement is that the majority are to be found in Europe.
Surviving Veterans of World War I?
Last surviving veteran of WWI?
... just to cover the other possibility :-)
We have a winner! "Surviving World War One Veterans" were the words on the card. Looking back, Chalky's first ("a human being?") question, which I couldn't resist answering as "not yet", led you all to run after a large number of untamed waterfowl. I was surprised to discover that there are still at least 15 (plus maybe another 8 depending on exactly how you count) living WWI vets.

One batonet handed carefully to Chalky.
* who not-so-carefully wallops CdM's backside with it*
... and if I'd have missed out the indefinite article in that question, who knows how you might have replied ;-)
Will post a new one at 0730 GMT
... late on parade
Next up - A B S T R A C T with Animal connections
Are the animal connections human?
[Graham III] Animal connections Human? Not yet ......

Only joking :-) YES
A specific human?
A mythical character?
A fictional character?
[Irouléguy] Specific human? NO
[Kim] Mythical character? NO
[Bigsmith} A fictional character? NO
To do with mathematics?
A human characteristic?
[Raak] To do with mathematics? NO - not really
[Rosers] A human characteristic? NO
Is the animal connection a reference to a human body part or parts?
Is this an activity undertaken by human beings?
[CdM] Referencing human body or body parts? Strictly speaking ... YES [see next reply]
[Graham III] Activity? YES! *applause*
Is it sporting?
[Graham III] Sporting? Some may find it sporting, some may not :-)
Sex?
[irach] Sex? Not sex per se - but some may find it sexy and some may not :-)
Is it a particularly energetic activity?
[Raak] Particularly energetic? NO. Good question.
Is it mostly carried out by one person at a time?
Some form of research?
[Graham III] Mostly by one person at a time? Not sure of the stats - if indeed there are any. Can be one, can be two, can be three, can be four, can be .... am I boring you?
[Dujon] Research? NO
Scrabble?
Is it yoga?
[Graham III] Scrabble? NO
[Kim] Yoga? NO ... but *audience cheers with considerable gusto*
Tai Chi?
Pilates?
Is it essentially play?
sorry for delay - had to do hospital visiting

Wow - an excellent deduction Raak and spot on. Tai Chi it is. I am a huge fan of this 'soft' martial art.

*hands over baton in slow motion stylee*
*grasps swallow's tail, waves hands like birds, repulses monkey, weaves with shuttles, and greets fair lady*

The next is MINERAL, with VEGETABLE connections.

Is it manmade?
Is it used in a culinary capacity?
Is it commonly referred to in the singular?
Is it edible?
[Raak] repulsing monkey is my favourite move :-)
Is it a tool?
Does it begin with P?
Crude oil?
Marmalade? No.
Not culinary.
You can have just one of these.
Not edible.
Tool? It performs a function.
Does not begin with P.
Not crude oil.
Are the vegetable connections wood?
Man-made?
.. assuming Marmalade reply wasn't meant in jest :-)
Wooden connections? Sort of.
Oops, just my eyes going funny. IS man-made.
vegetable = Paper?
Yes, paper. Speaking of which, this thing could fairly be said to have ABSTRACT connections as well.
Is it bigger than a toaster?
Anything to do with a creative activity?
Bigger than a toaster.
Has to do with a creative activity. *sounds of the audience approving*
Is the abstract connection writing?
[Q] Writing? Narrowly understood, no, broadly understood, yes.
is one of the words actually "paper"?
A keyboard?
[J] "Paper" does not appear on the card.
[R] Not a keyboartd.
Chinese scroll-painting?
[I] Not Chinese scroll-painting.
Anything to do with musical notation?
[G3] Nothing to do with musical notation. At least, not specifically.
Rubbings?
[Q] Not rubbings.
Ink?
[Rosie] Not ink. *the audience once more make approving sounds*
Related to holes?
Is there paint (or a coloring medium) involved with its typical use?
[Q] No holes.
[J] Yes, a colouring medium.
Is it unique?
The Blue Pencil?
[Tuj] Not unique.
[Rosie] Not the Blue Pencil.
Is it a paintbrush?
Is it one particular colo(u)r?
[nights] Not a paintbrush.
[CdM] Not a particular colour.
You're all thinking too small.
could you fit it through a door?
[J] You can't fit it through a door. Well, an ordinary door.
Would this be a man-made construction which in turn produces something?
The 'You can have just one of these' comment has me flummoxed though.
[Dujon] Yes, a man-made construction producing something. "One of these" -- well, you can have one, or more than one, so answering Juxtapose's question, it can be referred to in the singular or the plural.
a kiln?
Not a kiln.
A photocopier?
That's probably a bum shot.
Not a photocopier (but the audience have started to look cheerful again).
A printing press?
Bingo! A Printing Press.
Yay! An answer that was a good combination of sufficiently uncommon, yet not randomly obtuse giving me a chance there. For the next one we have:
MINERAL AND VEGETABLE (normally).
Edible?
[Raak] Yummy? NO.
A geographical feature?
Man-made?
Is it unique?
[INJ] Geographical? NO [Rosie] Man-made? YES *light applause from the audience* [Quendalon] Unique? NO
Metal and wood?
Mood/Wetal? YES, these are both normally involved.
is it found on/near streets?
Would this normally (or, at least often) be associated with visual art?
Would this normally (or, at least often) be associated with music?
Is it a tool?
Is it a building?
[Juxtapose] Street dweller? NO
[Dujon] Art? Normally, NO
[Quendalon] Music? NO, not that I've ever heard of.
[Raak] Tool? NO, not within the definition of Chambers.
[Tuj] Building? NO
Does the metal part consist of fastenings holding the wooden parts together?
[Raak] Fasteners? NOT EXCLUSIVELY
In between the size of a toaster and a phone box?
Toast-box? YES!
Is it a piece of furniture?
[Raak] Furniture? NO in the conventional sense.
A box or container of some kind?
Commonly found in one's home?
[Rosie] Box? NO
[Quendalon] Homebased? YES *applause*.
Does it have any moving parts?
Sorry, I forgot that I was the last one to post. How gauche of me! Please forgive the solecism.
Does it have any moving parts?
Problem solved.
Is it normally found in the same location (e.g. usually in the kitchen)
[Q/J] Moving parts? YES
[INJ] One place? NOT USUALLY (as far as I know about people's homes...)
Would this normally (or, at least often) . . . curse you, Quendalon. ;-)
Does this have hinges?
Commonly found not in one's home?
Would most owners normally own just one of these?
A door?
*suspects Raak has nailed it*
More wood than metal?
(Irg) All my doors have screws. :-)
[Irouléguy] I doubt it's a door, as we've been told it's not found on or near streets.
[Dujon] You're too kind. :)
Grandfather clock?
[Dujon] Hinged? NOT IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE
[CdM] Out of house and home? YES, though you may not come across it usually.
[Iguy] Just one? YES
[Raak] Door? NO
[Rosie] Woody? DEPENDS ON YOUR MEASURE AND THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. Mine has more wood by volume if that's any help.
[Quendalon] Clock? NOPE.
Is it collapsible?
[Juxtapose] Collapsible? YES *audience excited now*
[GIII] Delectable italicise text, that *approves*=)
A folding ladder / stepladder?
Is the unconventional hinge similar to, say, a piano accordian or bellows?
A Workmate?
[Tuj] Why thank you :-)
[Quendalon] Ladder? NOPE
[Dujon] according? NO
[Raak] Workmate? NO.
A piano?
A panelled screen?
Associated with play?
A deck chair?
Ironing board?
[Rosie 1] NO
[Chalky] NO
[Quendalon] Only if you're very weird
[Rosie 2] NO
[Juxtapose] YES! The very words on the card! *audience goes wild and jumps up and down*. Here, have the baton:
Aa! It's my first time, so be gentle.
Alright, here we go with ABSTRACT, involving multiple ANIMALish themes.
Multiple animals meaning many different species?
[Irouléguy] Many different species? NO.
Is this a 'saying' which references animals?
A characteristic of animals?
[Chalky] a saying? NO, but quite a clever guess.
[Rosie] A characteristic? A case for both sides here, but saying NO will be less misleading.
Are the animals referred to in the plural?
Are the animals human?
[Rosie] plural? Situationally dependent.
[ImNotJohn] human? YES, there is at least one human involved.
is this a tale or a fable or a story-type thingy?
Is this a form of 'art'?
I'm confused by some of the answers here. We have multiple animals, at least one human, but not many different species. So, in the interest of clarifying this:
Do the animalish themes ever involve a non-human animal?
[Chalky] fairy-tale? NO.
[Dujon] Art? NO.
[CdM] Non-human? YES.
Sorry for the confusion. There are human(s) and non-humans involved, but not "many".
Is this the name of a place?
'Old MacDonald had a farm'?
One man and his dog?
Is this fictional?
[J] Nonono, no need for apology; I was just clarifying.
What! 14 hours and NO replies? *grumblegrumblegrumble*
[Chalky]Place name? NO.
[Irouléguy] Old Mac? NO.
[Graham III] Man + dog? NO.
[CdM] Fictional? NO.
[Chalky] 14 hours and no replies? YES.
Connected to entertainment of some kind?
[CdM] Connected to entertainment? NO.
Is there more than one non-human species involved?
Is this the name of a group or society?
A true life story?
Is it connected to farming or animal husbandry generally?
Begins with a P?
What! 16 hours and NO replies?
[Irouléguy] More than one non-human species involved? KIND OF.
[Chalky] Group or society? NO.
[Chalky] A true life story? OFTEN.
[Kim] Farming or animal husbandry? NO. A case might me made for YES by someone trying to throw you off track.
[Tuj] One of the words begins with a P.
Do these true-life stories occur all over the world, or are they geographically specific?
Medical connections? [illness, disease - that type of thing]
Are the animals specifically pets or similar companion animals?
Connected with birth?
Are these animals alive?
What! 17 hou- oh, never mind.
*chuckles*
Is this an emotion?
Is this a BAD thing?
Is this a human construct?
[CdM] All over the world? YES. *audience members start nudging eachother awake*
[Chalky] Medical connections? YES! *excited noises*
[ImNotJohn] pets? NO.
[Quendalon] Connected with birth? NO.
[Chalky] Alive? YES.
[Chalky] emotion? NO.
[Chalky] Bad? Some might say no. I say YES.
[Chalky] Human construct? NO. Now let somebody else ask some.
Animal testing? (of cosmetics, or pharmaceuticals, or, I dunno, airbags or something)
[CdM] Animal testing? NO.
What! 12 hours and no question from Chalky?
Are the non-human animals fish?
Connected with agriculture / animal husbandry?
An anthropomorphization?
[Irouléguy] fish? NO.
[ImNotJohn] agri-husbandry? NO. (see Kim's question above)
[Quendalon] Antrhopomorphization? NO.
Fictional or fiction-related?
[Tuj] Fictitious? NO.
Summary time, and the living is easy
Fish are jumping...

We have an ABSTRACT involving multiple ANIMALish themes.

It is not: a saying (though the guess was described as 'clever'), fictional, art, a place-name, Old MacDonald had a farm, One man and his dog, connected to entertainment, a group or society, geographically specific (this question got applause), pets, connected with birth, an emotion, a human construct, animal testing, connected with agriculture or animal husbandry, an anthropomorphisation, or fictional. And the non-human animals are not fish, but they are alive. They belong to more than one species, but not to 'many' species.

It is: involving at least one human, something that happens all over the world, and with medical connections.

It might be: a true life story, and a bad thing. There may be more than one non-human animal involved (situationally dependent).

The answer includes: a word beginning with 'P'.
Are the non-human animals mostly one species?
Is it a title of something (book/film/etc)?
[Irouléguy] mostly one species? YES.
[Tuj] Title of media? NO.

[Re: Recap] "situationally dependent" was the answer to the following question: "Are the animals referred to in the plural?" The question "More than one non-human species involved?" had the answer "KIND OF", which I stand by.
Does it involve words?
Is it unique?
Is the non-human species visible to the naked eye?
Is it animal testing?
Kim - Is it animal testing? I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the summary above.
[Quendalon] "Does it involve words?" I'm not really sure how to give a yes or no answer to that which would be helpful. It is not word/language-based.
[Tuj] Is it unique? NO.
[Irouléguy] Is the non-human species visible to the naked eye? NO!
A bacterium/virus/etc responsible for a particular disease/medical condition?
[Irouléguy] A bacterium/virus/etc responsible for a particular disease/medical condition? YES.
Is the answer the disease/medical condition?
Feeling greedy - is the animal specifically a virus (as opposed to a bacterium or other thingy)?
[Irouléguy] Is the answer the disease/medical condition? YES.
[Irouléguy] is the animal specifically a virus? YES. *audience begins to gather coats and hats*
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis?
Poliomylitis?
The common cold?
Does the disease affect one part of the body specifically?
Just for the sake of satisfying my own pedantry, I feel duty-bound to point out that generally viruses are not considered by most scientists as animals, for example because they are not living things, cannot self-replicate, and don't have a membrane separating themselves from the outside world. But that's probably a debate for another time. And yes I know that Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is (a) not a virus, and (b) only theoretical, but it's an amusing word.
[Graham III] Pneumonoultrafragilisticexpialidocious? NO.
[Somebody Else] Poliomylitis? NO.
[Quendalon] The common cold? NO.
[Graham III] Does the disease affect one part of the body specifically? Hmm. As in 'athelete's foot'? NO.
[Pedantry] I know there is some debate, but I did say "animal-ish" not simply "animal", and secondly if I had answered yes or no based on viruses being animals I think it would have been more misleading. I like to consider myself not an evil man.
Bird flu?
Is the disease commonly fatal?
Influenza? The common, non-avian kind?
[Quendalon] Bird flu? NO.
[Irouléguy] Commonly fatal? NO.
[irach] Influenza? NO.
Sexual contact as primary vector of infection?
Is the disease usually known by a colloquial name rather than a formal one?
[Quendalon] STD? NO.
[Irouléguy] A colloquial name? YES. *applause*
Black Death Bubonic Plague?
or any of the Bubonic Plagues?
The dreaded lurgy?
Chicken pox?
[Somebody Else] Assorted plagues bubonic? NO!
[Raak] The dreaded lurgy? NO!
[Quendalon] Chicken pox? SPOT ON! *audience goes wild* Thus the 'multiple animal-ish themes'. Please accept this sterilized and sanitized baton. Well done.
Thank you! It's been a while since I've held the baton. So, let's try:

MINERAL, with ANIMAL connections.
"Tigereye" gemstone?
Man-made?
[irach] Tiger's eye? NO.
[Rosie] Man-made? YES.
Are the animal connections human?
A mousetrap?
A mantrap?
[Rosie] No vegetable as in wood?
[Raak] Animal = human? NO.
[Rosie] Mousetrap? NO.
[Tuj] Mantrap? NO.
Birdcage? La Cages aux Folles?
Is the mineral/one of the minerals glass?
Is it a model of an animal?
Is it a fossil?
[irach] Cage (aux Folles or otherwise)? NO.
[Juxtapose] Is glass involved? OFTEN, after a fashion.
[Raak] Is it a model of an animal? Strictly speaking, NO. *interested murmurs from the audience*
[Kinrah] Fossil? NO.
A representation of an animal or animals?
[Raak] Representation of an animal(s)? NO.
A medical device?
Are the animal connections just one species?
Is it a glass etching of an animal?
Would this be an article manufactured for use on/with/for an animal (e.g. dog collar, cow bell, harness)?
[Rosie] Medical device? NO.
[Irouléguy] Just one species? Tricky, but I think the fairest answer would be NO.
[Kinrah] Glass etching? NO.
[Dujon] For use on/with/for an animal? NO.
Made of metal?
Does a typical Morniverser own one?
[Raak] Is metal involved? YES.
[Rosie] Property of a typical Morningverser? NO. *sardonic laughter from the audience*
Anything to do with farming?
[Rosie] Connected with farming? NO. (One could make a case for YES, but that would undoubtedly be misleading.)
Is the animal part a product of an animal, such as fur or skin?
[Chalky] Contains actual animal parts? NO.

To clarify, there are no organic animal components to speak of; if there were, it would have been MINERAL / ANIMAL. And in the interests of full disclosure, there are occasionally VEGETABLE elements, though pursuing that line of questioning is unlikely to be productive.
A building?
[CdM] A building? NO.
A shotgun?
Y'know, one o' vem Japnese mo'ors.
[Rosie] Shotgun? NO, neither single- or double-barreled.
a geographical feature?
[Chalky] Geography? NO.

On further consideration, [Chalky]'s previous question was incorrectly answered due to an overly narrow reading of it. So, to revisit:

[Chalky] Is the animal connection to a product of an animal? YES.
Leather?
Is it a container?
[Chalky] Leather? NO.
[Raak] Container? YES, although this may be misleading.
A milk bottle?
Would one usually find this in a home?
[Graham III] Milk bottle? NO.
[Chalky] Usually found in a home? NO.
Does this restrict hte movement on animals in any way?
"Of", not "on".
"The", not "hte". I dunno.
[Rosie] Restrict movement of animals? NO.
Time for a recap:

We have a MINERAL with ANIMAL connections.

It is NOT: "Tigereye" gemstone, human animal-ish, a mousetrap, a mantrap, a birdcage, a model or representation of an animal, a fossil, a medical device, owned by a typical Morningverser, connected with farming, made from an animal product, a building, a shotgun, a geographical feature, leather, a milk bottle, found in a typical home, used to restrain animals.

It IS: Man-made, made using metal as a component, connected with an animal product, a container.

It is SOMETIMES: made using glass as a component.

A contestant aroused audience interest when asking if it was a model of an animal.
A contestant aroused audience mockery when asking if a typical Morningverser owned one.
Is the 'Animal Connection' a result of its name (colloquial or otherwise)?
Glasses case?
A cow creamer?
Bigger than a telephone box with a toaster on top?
[Dujon] Animal connection originates from name? NO.
[Software] Glasses case? NO.
[Graham III] Cow creamer? NO.

Clarification/hint: The fact that the subject is a container isn't central to its identity.
[CdM] Bigger than a telephone box? NO.
Does it use a source of power?
[Raak] Uses power? NO.
Does it have artistic pretensions?
[Graham III] Artistic pretentions? YES. *applause*
Is it by Damien Hurst?
[Raak] Damien Hurst? NO.
Does a typical one cost in excess of two thousand pounds sterling ?
[CdM] Typically valued at over £2000? YES.
Faberge egg?
*KA-CHING!*
[irach] YES! (The words on the card are "an authentic Faberge Egg", but that's more than close enough.) Passing over an ovoid, richly bejeweled clockwork baton...
[irach] Are you there? It may be time for someone else to take over here...
All right then, a nice quick ABSTRACT in the meantime.
A human construct?
Begins with a "P"?
I'd just like to point out that this is the first time I have asked this question.
Humanly constructed? Yes.
P-begun? No.
Is it unique?
Is it fictional?
Unique? Yes is the best answer, although there is a case to be made for No.
Fictional? Yes. *applause*
Is the answer a work of fiction?
an apocryphal story?
Connected with politics?
still doesn't understand the concept of "A human concept"...
scratch -cept read -struct
A one word answer?
Work of fiction? Yes *applause*
Apocryphal? No.
Connected with politics? *amused laughter from audience* Some would say yes. Others (perhaps more?) would say no. One reasonable answer is "I don't know". Another is "if you like".
One word answer? No.

[IS,P!] At least as a working definition I take 'human construct' to mean something that requires the human brain for its existence. Most abstract things seem to be human constructs, but not all are. I would say that 'pain', for example, is not a human construct. There are thorny issues when we get into the old debate about whether mathematical issues are created or discovered. Is the following a human construct: on a Euclidean plane, any right-angled triangle has the property that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides? I'm not sure.
Religious?
(CdM) The property of plane right-angled triangles that you mention exists regardless of whether humans are aware of it or not. Maybe a better example would have been imaginary numbers which have no physical meaning until humans invented them and ascribed a meaning to them (a frequency, for example) but are a supremely useful mathematical tool.
Written in the last 100 years?
Religious? *more audience laughter*. It is not a religious work, but if you are asking if it has religious connections, I point you to the answer to "connected with politics", above.
Written in last 100 years? Yes.

[Rosie] Well, but there is also something odd about saying the Pythagorean theorem is not a human construct. As I say, the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered has troubled philosophers of science for a long time, and I don't think it's as straightforward as you suggest, even in this case. Is the number "2" a human construct? But I'm getting out of my depth here, so I'll let the real mathematicians weigh in if they like.
Written in the last 50 years?
(Originally) written in English?
A novel?
Rosie] Isn't the concept of a 'right-angle' a human construct?
Last 50 years? No.
Originally written in English? *audience gasps and starts disputing amongst themselves animatedly* The best answer is clearly no, but a case could be made for yes.
A novel? No.
A poem?
(Primarily) intended for children?
Jabberwocky?
Just a wild stab in the dark...
Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled?
Speaking of wild stabs...
Seedy M? Where are you?
[Chalky] No, I don't think it's that. :-)
Poem? No.
Kid-intended? *audience laughter*. No.
Jabberwocky? *audience snickersnackering* No.
Scots wha hae? *audience chants "Jon-ny Wil-kin-son, Jon-ny Wil-kin-son* No.
Where am I? Sleeping. I live on the other side of the world from most of you lot, remember.
Is it a work based on another work?
Work based on another work? Another surprisingly difficult question. The best answer is No (corresponding to the best answer to "originally written in English?"), but a case could me made for Yes (corresponding to the case that could be made for "not originally written in English").
Anything to do with pseudoscience?
The Lord of the Rings?
Pseudoscience? Not in any way that I am aware of.
Lord of the Rings? No. (I'm pretty confident that was originally written in English. :-) )
Chalky? Where are you?
[CdM] I thought Tolkien translated it from the Red Book of Westmarch.
Is there written evidence of this?
[CdM] Sorry - I kinda thought I had the time difference worked out. [and, selfishly, fail to acknowledge that you may have 'other things to do' at the end of a working day].
Written evidence? I'm not sure what you mean. You already know that this is a work of fiction written between 50 and 100 years ago, and that a case could be made for it having been originally written in English.

As to where I was, it is true that your poem question came in before 10pm Singapore time, so on any given day there is a good chance I would be online then -- but not last night, as it happened.
A play?
The play's the thing? Yes. *applause*
Written by just one author?
One author? Yes.
Was it originally written, if not in English, then in Irish?
Originally written in Irish? No. *curiously, there is still a smattering of applause*
Irish author?
Is it performed much these days?
any moment now...
Irish author? Yes. *applause*
Performed much? Yes.
Samuel Beckett?
Beckett? Yes. *no sound from the audience because they have all left already*
This might be a good time to remind you of the circumstances in which I set the clue. :-)
Well yes, I did think of going straight there. I'll leave the last rites for someone else.
[ImNotJohn] Shall we go then?
Waiting for Godot [En attendant Godot]
That was tricky.

[CdM] Righty-ho. This may look nit-picky when it springs to life on screen but I promise, no criticism is intended - I'm thinking it's all down to my lack of understanding of the ABSTRACT word when used in this game. [which is why I asked the question "is there written evidence of this?" meaning "is this a tangible/material thing?"]
If anyone is interested enough to join in the discussion, I'd welcome other views.
As for a new puzzle, perhaps irach will return soon to take up the baton .
[Chalky] No, fair point, I should have probably added (with Vegetable Connections) to get at the physical incarnation that the play can take. I'm still not sure I exactly understand what you mean by written evidence, though. :-) Anything like a work of fiction is to my mind ABSTRACT, because it conceivably could exist without any direct physical incarnation (i.e., it could be stored as a bunch of ones and zeros, or simply by the neural firings of someone who has memorized it).

By the way, the words on the card were "Waiting for Godot", which I was taking to be the English version, which is why the questions about its previous incarnation in French were tricky: when Beckett wrote waiting for Godot, he didn't simply translate En Attendant Godot, but also made changes. Anyway, I'm done here.


He does not move.
yeah I know :-) You leap in to do a person a favour and some bozo wanders by and starts questioning everything. Still - I s'pose if no-one questioned anything in these forums, it would be a pretty dull place.

And no move from me. Irach??
missing persons
Still no irach? Shall I start a new one?
Sure, you did just win one. Take the baton.
[Quend] well - it wasn't really a 'win' as it had been signposted for some time. However, as I am home-based for a few days I'll happily take the chair.

A N I M A L
A fictional beast?
Human?
[IS,P!] a fictional beast? NO
[Software] human? YES
Alive?
Unique?
[Rosie] Alive? NO
[Quendalon] Unique? YES
British?
[Raak] British? YES *applause*
Died in the last fifty years?
I hope everything is ok with irach; it's not like him(?) to be gone this long.
[CdM] Died in last fifty years? NO
I think it's a 'he' and hopefully he's just on vacation.
Is any structure named after this person?
irach posted twice on Monday. I reckon he's forgotten about this game.
Boudicca?
Let the wild guessing begin!
Male?
Royalty?
Connected with the arts?
Bigger than a toaster? (trad.)
[Rosie] Is any structure named after this person? Excellent question! and YES - you might say that, in a manner of speaking, sort of. *audience already geared up for an early finish*
[CdM] Boudicca the wild? NO
[Kinrah] Male? YES
[INJ] Connected with the arts? YES *more applause*
[Phil] Bigger than a toaster? I'm sure he was :-)
sorry [Raak] Royalty? NO
Henry Tate?
[Raak] Henry Tate? NO
Connected with the Theatre?
[Kim] Connected with the theatre? NO - not specifically
Is the person known primarily as a creator of art?
Sir Arthur British-Museum?
Oh all right
A writer?
*straining to be heard above the cheering audience*
[CdM] Primarily a creator of art? YES
[INJ] A writer? YES to a lesser extent
Is the "structure" mentioned by Rosie a building?
[Kim] The structure mentioned by Rosie is NOT a building as such
Is it a bridge?
William Morris?
Is the "structure" outdoors?
Is the structure a monument?
[Kim] A bridge? Not in the way you may mean
[CdM] William Morris? NO
[Rosie] Is the 'structure' outdoors? It could be.
[Raak] A monument? Not really in the way you may mean. But in another sense 'monument' is rather an apt word.
Is this 'structure' actually a type of structure - i.e. there are many of them?
[INJ] Are there many of them? Ah, you picked up on my clue :-) YES, there are many of them.
*was feeling guilty - having been away from the PC for 5 1/2 hours. Not so now*
Keep 'em coming. I be off to bed now. Will be back at 0730 GMT.
Sir Christopher Wren?
No, can't be. That's rubbish. Get a grip, man.
A household or garden ornament named after "the person"?
Leslie Hore-Belisha?
Although if it is, someone else will have to set the next one. Off to pilg and Eastercon from today.
[Rosie] wren ...er ... Garden/Household Ornament? I don't think so - NO
[Raak] Leslie Hore-Belisha? NO
Does the "structure" come in different sizes?
[Kim] Differently sized? YES
Is the "structure" normally fixed in one place?
Is the 'structure' a 3-dimensional solid?
Taking something on paper or a flat surface to be 2-dimensional (to silence the quibblers)
[Kim] Fixed? Difficult to answer. Strictly speaking [insofar as the answer on the card is concerned] the 'structures' are fixed but under other circumstances might well be free-standing.

[INJ] 3 - dimensional? To be exact [insofar as the answer on the card is concerned] - NO but under other circumstances I would reply YES.

It may be helpful to find out more about the man rather than the 'structures', even though they are inextricably linked.
Does the name of the objects contain the person's name?
Did he die in the 19th century?
[Rosie] Do the 'objects' contain the person's name - YE-E-ES.
[Irouléguy] Die in 19th century? YES
Sneaking in ...
Thomas Bruce, the Seventh Earl of Elgin?
[Hi Software - welcome to this little conundrum] Thos Bruce, 7Th Earl etc? NO
Did this person develop a certain technique/style/method of doing something that is now named after him, so the objects are known as (something like) '<:Name>-ian <Things>'?
Is he a painter?
[CdM] Technique/style/method etc. Hmmm - the way he did it is not necessarily named after him [see answer to Rosie's question] but the content of what he produced most certainly is. The 'objects' in question are definitely known the way you have described.
[Rosie] Painter? A resounding YES!
William Turner?
When you are talking of structures or objects, is it correct that you mean something more this this gentleman's paintings?
Adolf Hitler?
[CdM] Turner? NO
[CdM] I'm SO glad you've asked this question *wry grin* and need to construct a careful reply without giving you the answer :-).
The structures/objects in question certainly define most of this gentleman's paintings. 'Something more'? - I would venture a YES in both an abstract and a material way.

[Quendalon] Adolf Hitler? No - this chap is British
Is there a "school" of painting (e.g. Dadaism) named after him?
[Phil] Is there a school named after him? Not that I know of, or can find evidence of.

Hint: He had a certain style of 'painting' both in the manner of execution and subject matter. This style then became synonymatic.
signing out for Easter
well- I'm sorry no-one seems to want to ask any more questions - because I'm now, due to family committments, 'not around' for a few days.
Is synonymatic a real word?
Turner and his clouds?
... yes I was in the V&A yesterday...
Notices someone else has said Turner
Frig. Constable, then.
Died in the 20th century?
sorry for delay - am rather ill at mo
[IS,P] Synonymatic? Yes
Turner? NO
Constable? NO
[INJ] Died in 20th century? Yes
Ummmm...Do you believe in reincarnation?
He died in the 19th and 20th centuries?
Would this gentleman have 'dabbled' in more than one medium?
Beardsley?
Ah yes, I missed Irg's question - So, we're looking for a poor late Victorian/Edwardian comedian who painted (and wrote a bit)
I'm too ill to carry on with this.

The Answer Is: this chap
Oh, damn. We should have got that. Good one. Hope you're feeling ok...
Red faces all round, I think.
Get better soon, Chalky.
In the absence of a winner, I'll happily take up the baton, as I've got a puzzler that I've been wanting to put forward for ages, if no one objects.
Of Course!
[Chalky]Commiserations - I'll have a whisky on your behalf.
[Kim] Please go ahead. Let me clear the way for you.
Begins with a P?
Anything to do with arachno-syndicalism?
That's a frightening thought
[Rosie] If those spiders get organised we won't stand a chance.
bigger than a toaster?
[INJ] My thoughts exactly. I was already tittering at Rosie's post when yours made me guffaw.
BANG! Oh, you've already started...
This is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL, VEGETABLE and MINERAL connections, so the answers so far are:
[Tuj] No.
[Rosie] No.
[IS,P] Minerally speaking, yes.
A phenomenon?
(INJ) Glad you read it accurately :-)
A piece of fiction?
[Rosie] You're a canny old thing, aren't you?
[Rosie] Boo-booo be doo-boop! N-N-No.
[Tuj] The answer least likely to lead you astray is No.
I have a sense that this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you lot.
Is it a piece of music?
Would this relate directly to religion?
[Raak] No.
[Dujon] Not directly, no.
Related to climate?
Is the animal connection human?
Is the mineral part a structure?
(Tuj) Possibly.
[Quendalon] No.
[INJ] Mostly.
[Rosie] No.
A written work?
A gathering of any kind?
A geographical entity?
[Quendalon] No.
[Rosie] No.
[INJ] Yes. *sustained applause*
A city?
Is it wholly or partially in the northern hemisphere?
Does any Morniverser live there?
Is the Abstract an event associated with this feature?
Southern Hemisphere?
A country?
[Irouleguy] No.
[Quendalon] No.
[Rosie] Almost certainly No and I hope to God not.
[INJ] No.
[Tuj] Yes.
[nights] *applause*. The only adequate answer to this question is Yes and No.
Antarctica?
Though that would lead us into the 'what is abstract?' debate again.
Fictional?
Would explain the 'abstract'?
[INJ] No.
If I were to devote much time to consideration of the "what is abstract?" question, I might conclude that the subject matter of our current discussion is actually ANIMAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL with ABSTRACT connections, or even AMINAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL/ABSTRACT. Fortunately, I'm far too busy to give it much thought.
Río Gallegos, Argentina?
A soulless dump, but with interesting weather.
The Roaring Forties?
[Kim] You didn't answer Bigsmith's last question
The Vatican City
blatantly lurking
Or the Holy See if you prefer
Bugger, ignore that. It would help if I read all of the answers.
[Rosie] No.
[INJ] No.
[Graham III] Duly ignored, as requested.
[Bigsmith] Apologies for missing your earlier question. It's a humdinger. The answer to it is Yes, but I fear that this will create more problems than it solves.
Based on a real country?
The Falklands War?
Is the answer a proper noun?
I've not been credited with a humdinger before - thank you!
Is the answer the name of a fictional work?
Sounds like we could be looking for a fictional account of a real place
Mordor?
[Quendalon] No.
[Rosie] No.
[Bigsmith] No. I've never dinged anyone's hum before, either.
[INJ] No.
[Juxtapose] No.
Is this fictional place in Africa?
[Irouleguy] No. Further trips along this route might (but only might) prove helpful.
Van Daemon's Land?
Above sea level?
In Australasia/Oceania?
Was this once a country but is so no longer?
I think the striking thing is that we are looking for a geographic entity that is not a proper noun, which rules out things like Shangri-La or Atlantis (both of which could also be ruled out on other grounds, I think, but anyway).
Was this place called something else in the past?
Is it defined by a physico-geographical property?
(Chalky) You OK now, gel?
The Lost World?
Chalky] Welcome back!
[Rosie, Iroulé] see chat.
With apologies for absence..
[Rosie] No.
[Quendalon] Y-Y-Yes.
[INJ] Y-Y-Yes.
[CdM] No.
[Chalky] No.
[Rosie] N-N-No. Can you clarify?
[Irouleguy] No.
[Chalky] Welcome back. Hope you are fully recovered.
Polynesia?
(Kim) What I meant was something such as an archipelago.
A coral reef of some description?
[Rosie] No (not Polynesia and not an archipelago).
[Dujon] No.
I am trying to devise some form of clue that won't give the game away. On reviewing what has gone before, I feel that I am being fairly consistent and consistently fair in my responses, but I have to acknowledge that my answer of "No" to INJ's question "Antarctica" is not wholly correct (although "Antarctica" is not the answer on the card). The "What is Abstract?" debate may be worth revisiting in this context.
The ozone hole?
Depicted in sequential art?
The Ross ice shelf?
A migratory path?
[Rosie] No. Animal, vegetable and mineral are all involved.
[Quendalon] Not that I am aware of.
[Irouleguy] No.
[Dujon] No.
An Antarctic base?
[Rosie] No.
Is it on land?
[Quendalon] To the extent that it is Animal, Vegetable and Mineral it is on land (inasmuch as it is not underwater, in the air, in space or anywhere else) but bear in mind that I have said that it is ABSTRACT, with A/V/M connections (or, possibly, A/V/M/A, depending on your point of view).
anything to do with an Antarctic expedition?
[Rosie] No.
Related to Jonathan Swift?
[Quendalon] No.
[Everyone] I'm willing to offer a clue at this point, as I am detecting a slowing of momentum. Takers?
[Kim] Sure. I think we can also use a recap...
The South Pole?
[Rosie] No.
Clue
When is a country not a country? Think about it.
When it's an independent autonomous region of a people's republic?
[Raak] OK. Or...?
A recognised region (e.g. Patagonia)?
[Dujon] Yes! Recognised, or.....?
The unclaimed part of Antarctica?
only in italics
A place marked "Here be dragons"?
[Raak] No. And it's not Wales, either. Listen, is Tibet a country?
Las Islas Malvinas?
The roof of the world?
[Kim] Yes, except when it's an independent autonomous region of a people's democratic republic.
[INJ] No, but you're getting closer.
[Raak] Exactly. It all depends on your point of view.
Is it in South America?
[Raak] No.
South Georgia?
[Rosie] No.
Is it covered by the Antartic Treaty?
...or even the Antarctic Treaty..
Is it on or connected to a specific island or group of islands?
Are you going to answer my question?
(my fault, I know -- the italics thing)
[INJ] Neither.
[Quendalon] Difficult. I'd have to say Yes.
[CdM] Yes. No. Sorry.
Kerguelen?
The British Antarctic Territory?
[Rosie] No.
[Irouleguy] No.
Ilas Malvinas?
[Software] No.
Try asking me some questions about the country itself.
Does the country currently exist?
Is it populated by humans?
[CdM] Yes and no. It depends entirely on your point of view.
[Bigsmith] Yes is probably correct here, but distinctly arguable, if, in fact, it does not exist.
Do the people who populate it currently exist?
Is it an entirely natural feature?
Is it south of 45° S?
I'm getting really pissed off with this, but that's just me.
Is this a dissolved union/federation?
Is at an area of disputed territory that lies in part or wholly in Antarctica?
(I'm thinking particularly Chilean and Argentine claims here, but I'll keep the question more general.)
Actually, I think INJ's question may already have covered this...
Can we have a proper CLUE please Kim :-)
[Rosie] Agree. 18 days and counting is a bit much for this game.
Does it have military significance?
I looked up disputed territories in Oceania & Antarctica and got to over 50! Everything within the Antarctic circle is covered by the Antarctic treaty, plus some more areas as well, it can't be Antarctic as such.
Is this a fair summary of the facts gained so far?
The answer is a fictional entity that may or may not be a country that may or may not currently exist, but not a named place as it is not a proper noun (abstract). It is located in Australasia/Oceana, and the guess that it is a geographical entity drew sustained applause (mineral/vegetable). It is mainly populated by humans - in as much as it is a fictional place (animal). This is the sum product of 18 days' work!
Is it Mu?
El Dorado?
East Timor
Just to get the hatrick you see.
[G3] All proper nouns...
[Bigsmith] I have to acknowlege that I have misled everyone by stating, wrongly, that the answer is not a proper noun. It is. How I came to say that it isn't is beyond me. Truly sorry. *Hides face in embarassment*
[GIII] None of the above three.
[Everyone] I will answer all of the unanswered questions above AND provide a proper clue a little later on today.
Does the fictional part of this derive from one book/author/film/series of films?
[Kim] No worries - everyone else seems to have ignored that answer!
[Bigsmith] It seemed absurd...
[Quendalon] "It" is currently populated by living people.
[Rosie] "It" is not exclusively in the South Pacific and therefore not exclusively South of 45oS. I fully understand and sympathise with your frustration and I think it will be necessary to draw this particular round to an end within the next 48 hours.
[Dujon] "It" is not a dissolved union or federation
[CdM] "It" could be said to be an area of disputed territory that lies partly within Antarctica.
[Chalky] You deserve a better clue than my miserable efforts so far and I shall try to provide a decent clue in a separate post passim.
[INJ] Some of "it" has military significance.
[Bigsmith] A fair summary, which I would like to supplement, if you don't mind.

1. We have recently established that, although it is abstract, it is a proper noun, despite my asserting the contrary, which will probably haunt me forever.
2. The question of whether it exists or not depends entirely on your point of view, which is to say that some people would assert that it exists and others would assert that it does not. Its very existence is a matter of dispute. It is my belief that it does not exist and is therefore abstract.
3. To the extent that it does exist, it purports to be a country, that is to say, those who believe that it does exist refer to it by a name (yes, a proper noun; sorry, again).
4. To the extent that it does exist, it is substantially, but not exclusively in Australisia/Oceania. The question of the whole, or part of Antarctica has some up more than once and is relevant.
5. To the extent that it does exist, its territorial rights are in dispute.
6. To the extent that it does exist, it does not comprise a single landmass, but several.

CLUE
There is a strong biblical connection.
A diaspora?
Sheol?
I don't recall Antarctica being mentioned in the Bible.
Judging by your summary - is this 'place' really really big? Like - huge?
{Bigsmith] Not me! It's been driving me crazy. In fact i almost asked a couple of days ago if Kim was sure. But I'll still forgive him. Maybe.
Is there any part/element of this that we would all agree *does* exist?
In other words, is it the designation of this place that is under existential dispute, or the very place itself?
Is it a 'Lost Civilisation' - like Atlantis?
... and I am aware that CdM mentioned Atlantis some time ago :-)
[Rosie] No.
[Raak] No.
[Chalky] Its Wiki entry does not provide the landmass area in m2, but I would say that it is not "really, really big" (in comparison to, say, Africa).
[CdM] We can all agree that the landmasses that comprise it all really do exist. They are, without doubt, the Animal, Vegetable and Mineral parts of this. What we are testing, I think, is the Abstract element.
[Chalky] No.
Is belief in God (the Bible version) linked to belief in its existence?
[CdM] Yes, I too found the proper noun thing frustrating, glad it is clear now. I think I can bring myself to forgive Kim...just about!
Terra Australis [Incognita]?
The Maori Nation?
Do the landmasses that comprise it all include include Australia, or any part of the Australian continent?
[Bigsmith] Yes.
[Chalky] No.
[Phil] No.
[Irouleguy] No.
By the way...
Is it still possible to attach links here? The answer, when it comes, will best be shown by its Wiki entry.
Zealandia?
[Kim] Yes - you can attach links. I did so when I gave away the last turn.
Am confused by your reply to Irouléguy's recent question and Point 4 in your supplementary summary.
Sorry - scrub my last guess. Silly me. I'll try another one, if I may ....
Does the Abstract element in this refer to something that has been predicted to happen in this area?
Do any of those who believe that it exists believe themselves to currently be resident citizens thereof?
Do the landmasses that comprise it all include include any part of New Zealand?
Chalky] I just asked about the Australian continent - according to the Wikipedia entry, Australasia also includes New Zealand, and sometime also Papua New Guinea and associated islands. I suspect Kim means the South Pacific more generally.
[Chalky] No.
[Quendalon] I cannot find a definitive answer to this, but I think it is very likely that those who claim its existence do not live there and those who inhabit the landmasses would not claim to be citizens of it.
[Irouleguy] In the interests of getting this finished today, I am going to give away the physical location. CLUE: the landmasses that comprise the animal, vegetable and mineral parts of this are various Pacific Ocean islands and certain parts of Antarctica.
Is it connected to some specific Biblical event (e.g., the Flood)?
And is it connected to some particular flavor of Christianity?
[CdM] To be helpful, I will say that it is connected to a biblical legend, but not an event as such.
[CdM] I don't remember mentioning Christianity. If you question were "is it connected to some particular flavor of religion, the answer would be Yes and there would be some *applause*
CLUE: Those who believe that it exists claim that it is an Ecclesiastical Sovereignty.
That makes the result instantly Googleable, I think.
[Raak] Yep, found it. Do you want to do the honors? I wouldn't mind, but I just went a couple of rounds ago and I don't want to hog the spotlight.
The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM)?
I'll take it if Raak doesn't want it :-)
Also .... if I happen to be correct - I am definitely at a PC for the next few days so can reply promptly, which helps the game move along.
*wishes she'd kept Heath Robinson under wraps*
[Chalky] Go on then, I was losing the will to live during this round.
[Raak] I was interested, but I was also way off on the wrong track -- I assumed it was some kind of Young Earth Creationist land bridge.
Whew!
Chalky wins the marathon! I would welcome feedback/discussion on this. Some of those questions were really hard to answer succinctly. *Hands baton to Chalky and runs off to hide"
*takes baton*
Kim] Yup - being 'in the chair' is tougher than it looks. I shall choose carefully and post a little later this evening.
later this evening
M I N E R A L
Oh, come on Chalky, that one's completely unreasonable!
[Kim] So, I was skeptical of that AVMA for the last week or so, particularly when it became clear that the answer was going to be something that I (and I suspect many other people) had never heard of. But, now, having looked up the quite wonderful DoM on the internets, I have changed my mind: I think it was an excellent AVMA subject despite its obscurity. My only quibble (well, other than the proper noun thing) is that I think the Bible hint was kind of misleading, in that it suggested a true religious link as opposed to a made-up-in-order-to-defraud-people religious link.

And you are right that the classification (A/V/M vs A) is very hard. I'm still not sure how I would describe it: my rules of thumb are letting me down here.
(CdM) As you say, the answer was something that very few people will have heard of and we would still be on this wild goose chase but for a very heavy clue from Kim. Frankly, I just can't see the point of this type of subject. It's a complete waste of one's time trying to get closer to an answer that is in effect not there as far as one's own general knowledge is concerned. I feel as if I and others have been made the butt of a rather stupid nerdy practical joke. It's really not what the game should be about.
[CdM] Huh. You might have at least asked a question [if only to give me a reason for being awake at this unearthly BST time].
Is it a human construct that begins with P and is bigger than a toaster?
Oh all right then.
Is it unique?
Tried and true.
[CdM] Human construct, P... , bigger than a toaster? YES, NO, NO
[Quendalon] Unique? YES and NO
Does it require batteries?
[Bigsmith] Batteries? NO
Is it usually to be found in the home?
[Bigsmith] Found in the home? YES - it can be
Could one buy it in a department store?
[Raak] Department Store? YES probably
When you say it's both unique and not, do you mean that there's only one thing called this, but it's mass-produced (ie a 1980 Suzuki GS850-GT)?
Hand-crafted?
[Irouléguy] It IS mass-produced but individually remains unique
[Quendalon] Hand-crafted? NO
Is it a proper noun?
[Kim] A proper noun? NO - but it's a bit prim
Is each one of these prim mass-produced objects unique it itself?
Does each have a unique serial number?
Is it made of pottery/ceramic/clay/glass type stuff?
[Rosie] mass-produced but unique in itself? That's what I said :-)
[Quendalon] Unique serial number? YES
[Software] pottery/ceramic/clay/glass? NO - none of the FOUR you have specified. Dunno about the 'type stuff' - perhaps you can be more precise? :-)
Is it a piece of electronic equipment?
[Raak] A piece of electronic equipment? Good question. Mmmmm .. NO
Does it inform one of the time?
[Kim] Your question made me guffaw and frighten my workmates. You are truly forgiven!
Is it bigger than a £1 coin?
[Bigsmith] Time piece? NO
[Irouléguy] Bigger than a £1 coin? Bigger? How do you mean? Area? Thickness? Width? Height? Bulk? Mass? More famous?:-)
[Irouléguy] Re: the size thing - I've just dashed off a spot of differential calculus and come to the conclusion that it IS and it ISN'T.
Does it have any moving parts?
I keep asking the same questions every time. Is this a sign of consistency or insanity?
Is it a battery?
[Quendalon] Moving parts? NO

[Raak] A battery? NO
Is it primarily made of metal?
Are these objects custom-made?
[CdM] Primarily metal? NO
[Rosie] Custom-made? NO
Primarily ornamental in nature?
[Quendalon] Ornamental? Most definitely NOT
Does it have anything to do with security?
Would this object contain a magnetic stripe?
[Raak] Security? sort of
[Dujon] Magnetic stripe? It's a bit late for me to look it up [mainly because I'm off to bed now], but YES - I think it could have one of those things
will be back at ten a.m. tomorrow
A plastic card (debit, credit, etc)?
Currency?
Is it worth more than £1?
late on parade
[Rosie] A plastic card? YES! *audience cheers but not for the parenthesised bit*
{Quendalon] Currency? NO
[Raak] Worth more than a £1? To some - maybe

Am entertaining the Sunday Lunchers today so may not be here til later this evening.
An Oyster card?
An identity card of some sort?
[Rosie] Actually, I don't think it's either of those [Oyster?] - but please keep asking because you are on the right track ...
[Rosie] ....and, on reflection, it's not an identity card per se but damn close to one
A driver's licence?
[rab] Your new system works well. I just hit the 'enter' key instead of the 'apostrophe' and managed to recover. Thank you.
Does it typically display a photograph of the owner?
[Dujon] I'd imagine that a driver's license is worth more than a pound to most people...
A library card?
A Nectar card?
AA membership card?
[Dujon] Drivers licence? NO
[CdM] Photograph? NO
[Rosie] Library card? NO
[Raak] Nectar card? NO
[Irouléguy] AA membership card? NO

Re: the point I made last night about being damn close to an ID card. Having slept on the matter, as it were, perhaps I should clarify:
It identifies something but not necessarily someone
Oh - previously [Dujon] question. It DOESN'T have a magnetic stripe, ie. it's not for swiping.
A bar code?
[Raak] A bar code? NO
Is it the same size as a credit card?
[rab] Does size matter? *audience applauds the question* It IS and then it ISN'T [see my reply to Irouléguy up the page] As an additional clue - not that it's needed at this stage because we're nearly there - in most countries, we think of it as somewhat smaller than a credit card.
Is it something we would normally expect to use/see on a daily basis?
[Graham III] use/see on daily basis? Use - YES. See - depends on viewpoint - ie. if you were manufacturing it, then yes. But normally NO - not daily, but certainly occasionally.
A SIM card?
Yay!
Raak has the very words on the card.
Well played. IMHO four days including a weekend is about right for this game. Of course, it depends on whether one is available to reply promptly, which I hope I was

*hands smart baton over*
Ok, the next is VEGETABLE and MINERAL, with ABSTRACT connections.
Begins with a P?
Smaller than a toaster?
A geographical feature?
Chalky] Smaller? How do you mean? Area? Thickness? Width? Height? Bulk? Mass? Of lower social status?;-)
[Tuj] Does not begin with P.
[Chalky] Smaller in all of the ways which Irouléguy has enumerated.
I think I've simulposted which may make nonsense of my words. [Editor] Nothing new there then.
[Irouléguy] It's not really your place to say :-)
I'm content with Raak's reply *giggles at lower social status bit. In retrospect, that was funny. *
[Raak] See? That Iroulé bloke has distracted you - how about the geographical thing?
[I] Not a geographical feature. (There's not many of those that are smaller than a toaster!)
[C] I'm serious about the social status! This thing really does rank below the humble toaster.
Is it used to perform some menial task?
Is it manufactured?
Is the vegetable wood?
[B] Not for a menial task.
[r] Yes, manufactured.
[I] Could be wood in part.
Would one find it in the kitchen?
[S] Not related to the kitchen.
Is it typically found in the home?
Does it require a power source?
Larger than a SIM card?
[CdM] Not typically found in the home.
[B] Requires no power source.
[C] Larger than a SIM card.
Would an owner normally have just one of these?
Chalky] I know my place ;)
Is it something of practical utility?
Do people carry these things with them when out?
[I] An owner would have many.
[r] Very practical.
[R] If they have them, they would.
A clarification of my last answer to CdM: a typical home would not have any, but a typical one of these might well be in someone's home.
Is it something one wears?
[rab] One does not wear it.
A golf tee?
Is the mineral bit solid metal?
Is this a projectile?
A walking stick?
Shut up at the back there.
[I] Not a golf tee.
[C] Not solid metal.
[D] Not a projectile.
[R] Not a walking stick.
Is it mostly for use outside the home?
Is its practical utility restricted to one thing only (ie, does it have more than one use)?
Is the vegetable bit wood?
[rab] Yes, mostly used outside the home.
[Kim] Um. It does one thing, but that one thing has many uses.
[Software] See INJ's question earlier.
Connected with travel or motion?
Does it include an implement for getting Scouts out of horses hooves?
[Chalky] Nothing to do with travel or motion.
[Kim] Not a Swiss Army penknife.
Would one normally keep these objects in one's pocket?
[Bigsmith] Yes, one's pocket is a typical place to carry these (although the typical pocket does not contain any).
Is it an object that is only carried on particular occasions?
Is it something one would look through?
Is there a particular kind of person (e.g., age, occupation, specialized interest) who is most likely to carry these objects?
Are these objects more likely to be used by a specific gender?
Is there anything written on it?
A box/book of matches?
[R] Not related to particular occasions.
[r] Not for looking through.
[C] Yes! A particular sort of person would deliberately have these.
[B] Not gender-related.
[Q] Yes, there is stuff written on it (using the word "written" rather generally).
[S] Not a book or box of matches.
Is it used in a game?
[rab] Not used in a game.
Do people use these for work?
Is it a form of 'currency'?
Is any part of it edible, potable and/or smokable?
[I] In a sense, some people do use these for work.
[C] *at last, the audience exercise their applause muscles* It is a form of currency!
[Q] You can't eat or drink it, and one wouldn't want to smoke it.
A five euro note?
Is it "sterling"?
Is it a well-known phrase to describe a type of currency ?
and was this currency used in the past?
sorry .... a bit greedy with 2 questions - but I'm orf to bed now, have an early start, etc etc.
[CdM] Not €5.
[rab] Not sterling.
[Chalky] Not a well-known phrase.
[Chalky] I dare say that this form of currency is as old as currency itself.
Change?
Casino chips?
[Rosie] Not change.
[Chalky] Not casino chips.
Is this paper currency?
Beer token? :o)
Is it a voucher of some kind?
From the U S of A?
[Chalky] *cheering* It is paper currency.
[Software] Not a beer token.
[Kim] Not a voucher.
[Bigsmith] Not specifically from the USA.
An IOU?
A pawn ticket?
The thing you get from the dry-cleaners?
[CdM,Chalky,Kim] None of these are what I would call paper currency.
One of the earliest answers may now prove illuminating.
OK - is it a banknote of some kind?
Am intrigued by the 'wood in part' reply [or was that a reference to paper?] Also, the fact that it ranks below the humble toaster
[Chalky] *applause* It's a banknote of some kind. The wood was indeed a reference to paper. *A ripple of anticipation as Chalky seizes on the significant earlier answer.*
Is the monetary value of this banknote insufficient to conduct the purchase of an average price toaster?
[Bigsmith] From one point of view, it could be, from another, it couldn't be enough to buy a toaster.
A promissary note?
[by way of explanation] some bank notes are promissory notes, some are not.
A forged banknote?
Is its use confined to professionals in the world of finance?
A traveller's cheque?
Is it official currency of any nation at the present time?
[G3,R,K,Q] No, because...
[Chalky] It is a forged banknote.
Hands over a wad of fivers all with the same serial number.
Wahay!
Thanks Raak. We seem to be on the same wavelength :-)
[I thought I knew the solution when you replied half an hour after my 'banknote' question. But I did wait for 3 hours.)
Now - we have this:

A N I M A L with a tinge of ABSTRACTINESS

A Cheshire Cat?
A human being who is bigger than a toaster and smaller than a telephone box?
Cézanne?
Is this animal used as a symbol?
A mascot?
[Rosie] cat from cheshire? NO
[CdM] A human being? YES :-)
[Irouléguy] Cézanne? NON
[Raak] Animal as symbol? N-N-NO
[Software] A mascot? NO
A singloe, specific individual?
[Raak] A specific, singly individual YES
A figurehead in some way?
Alive?
[Phil] A figurehead? Not sure what you mean but I'd say NOT
[Irouléguy] Alive? NO
Someone who has given his/her name to an idea?
[Rosie] Given name to an idea? GOOD QUESTION. YES - in a manner of speaking [that's the abstracty bit]
Robin Hood?
artistic connections?
Died in the 20th century?
[Kim] Robin Hood? NO
[INJ} Artistic connections? NO
[Iroulé] Died in 20th century? YES
Is this person noteworthy in regards to religion?
An academic?
[Quendalon] Religion? NO
[Raak] An academic? Of a kind - YES
Belgian European?
Sigmund Freud?
[CdM] European? Close YES
[Rosie] Freud? NO
Philosopher?
[Graham III] Philosopher? NO
A writer?
[Rosie] Writer? NO
A very dear friend died of cancer this afternoon. Can we convene on Monday ? I'm doubly sad today.
[Chalky] Sorry to hear that.
[Chalky] What Raak said. Such times are always hard. You've got friends who are thinking of you.
Chalky] What Raak and CdM said - imagine a collective hug wending its way to you.
[Chalky] Take all the time you need. We'll just check in from time to time.
[Irouléguy ] You means a wrappy wending?
Thank you all :-)
I must confess I was rather the worse for wine maudlin the early hours of Sunday. Many of his friends decided to go ahead with an already planned get-together Saturday night which was absolutely the right thing to do.
OK - let's be having some more questions ... perhaps beginning with the sex/occupation of this person ...
Is it a transsexual?
[Graham III] Transexual? Not as far as I can tell - although if one dug deeply enough ...
Did this person have a sex occupation?
[CdM] Sex occupation? NO - I've dug deeply and have found no record of any how's-yer-farver professionally, advisorililly, subversively or personally.
Female?
Suppose I ought to ask a sensible question.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord