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