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
[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.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord