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