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