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