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 ....
[Phil] C19th, NO [Raak] All that jazz? NO, for [Irouléguy] YES!!. The very words on the card. I must admit I didn't read the Wikipedia entry on Leibniz before setting the clue, so didn't realise in time that the idea had such a close relationship with science and theology in its initial incarnation, having first heard of it via Voltaire's Dr Pangloss.
Thanks, Phil - and well done Projoy - that must be a record! I can't claim any great web-trawling skills, it just came to me. I think I did the play in French A level *cough* years ago, but I didn't know of the connections with Leibniz.
Well, our next should be a short one, so here goes - it's ABSTRACT, VEGETABLE and MINERAL with ANIMAL connections.
[Ig] Not sure what took so long on that one, altho there did seem to be a bit of a lack of deductive questions in the middle stages. [Phil] Well, there you go, and I was convinced, Candide aside, that it was an everyday expression...
[Projoy] At least I've learn a new word ('theodicy'). Tangentially; I'm a bit concerned about where the "all" comes from in a translation of the French "le meilleur des mondes possibles", but I don't think it changes the meaning enough for me to lose sleep over, and I'm sure it's been discussed to death over the last 293 years already. That was a criticism of whoever translated it, not you, btw.
Projoy - Is it fictional? No I thought it was an everyday expression too, but I just twigged it from your answer to 'Utopia' and the European connection.
Phil - Is the animal connection human? Yes I thought 'theodicy' was Homer's follow-up...
Projoy - A defined municipal area? *collective "oooh" from the audience, mixed with the occasional muttered "cleverclogs" A most precise definition of the class of things to which this particular belongs.
Projoy - Does it incorporate any islands? No CdM - Does it incorporate any mainland? ;) It's on the mainland of Scotland ImNotJohn - Does it fall entirely within another defined municipal area? No
Projoy - Perth and Kinross? No ImNotJohn - Ross and Cromarty? No Raak - But and Ben? No I Say, Porter! - [Raak] Flobble obble obble! Weeeeed! Thank you, but I've given up
People should look again at the various meanings of 'municipal', and at CdM's last question.
ImNotJohn - Callander? Nae, Doctor Projoy - So is this thing not "a settlement which has the status and powers of a unit of local government." (Wikipedia)? Yes, it is - most of the previous answers didn't fit that definition, hence my reminder.
If it is a municipal area, and it is a current municipal area, and if it is not incorporated wholly in any other municipal area, is it, in fact a unitary authority of Scotland?
Projoy] Is it a parliamentary constituency (for either parliament)? No - though I'll throw in as a clue that the names of the two constituencies (one in each parliament) that this is located in consist of the same three words, but not in the same order. nights] Is it a London Borough? Barking & Dagenham up the wrong tree - it's in Scotland
Projoy - Presumably this thing also crosses a unitary authority boundary? No
Time for a recap? This is a place in Scotland, a defined municipal area, wholly on the Scottish mainland, not falling within another defined municipal area, which is a current administrative division. It is larger than some towns (a question which reaped applause). It has historical significance, and the word 'and' in its name. It could also be defined as "a settlement which has the status and powers of a unit of local government." It is not a constituency (for either parliament), nor is it a unitary authority, and it falls wholly within a unitary authority. Most of the specific wrong guesses have been neither settlements nor municipal areas (though the Highlands got applause despite being neither). It is not Callander, Culloden or Stirling.
Are we working on different definitions of 'municipal'? My dictionary gives "of or pertaining to a town, city or burgh", and I'm using it as a synonym for 'urban' here. Apologies if different definitions have caused confusion.
I feel that "falling wholly within a unitary authority" contradicts "not falling within another defined municipal area" (taking "municipal" to refer very specifically to local government, as per Wikipedia), but the clarification helps!
PS. I'm not sure what else in Scotland has "the status and powers of a unit of local government" other than unitary authorities (except the very small community councils), but I guess we can argue about it after the answer is revealed. :)
Projoy - The Balmoral Estate? No I feel that "falling wholly within a unitary authority" contradicts "not falling within another defined municipal area" (taking "municipal" to refer very specifically to local government, as per Wikipedia), but the clarification helps! Sorry for the confusion- the dictionary I was using equated municipal with urban, but looking around Wikipedia that seems to be less than universal (though Wikipedia also has contradictory definitions of what exactly this place's status is).
Projoy - Aberdeen? No (but *applause* for part of your PS) On further inspection, the answer to "a settlement which has the status and powers of a unit of local government" should have been "settlement" YES "status" UMM "powers" NOT REALLY, NO, UNLESS YOU COUNT ORGANISING BANDSTAND CONCERTS AND A FLORAL COMPETITION.
CdM] St Andrews Yes - a hole in one! Well lurked, sir. Let me hand over this mashie-shaped baton while I prepare to debate the precise nature of Scottish local government after the 1973 settlement.
Heh. Well, I guess it does have a Community Council (According to Wikipedia and the BBC, tho, the two parliamentary constituencies are exactly identically named - however, the two sources disagree about the exact syntax of the name!). Ah well...
Who are you calling a lurker? I asked five questions, until I got stuck on (a) the same problem that confused Projoy and (b) the differing constituency names. My guess of the Highlands was intended as a joke; at that time I was just assuming the answer was of the A and B variety. Anyway This is Mainly Mineral and Vegetable.
Geographical feature? No is the best answer. Unique? Yes. (You could also make a case that this is ABSTRACT, by the way, but I think that is less helpful.)
The vegetable component - is that the building's contents?
Projoy] Sorry about the constituency names - I got that from the Wiki page on St Andrews itself. The parliaments' official pages do have the same name. I really should know better than to trust Wiki... CdM] Good questions they were too - sorry about the lurker crack. The applause for the Highlands was meant to acknowledge that your joke was on target.
Botanical gardens? No. (See non-living vegetable matter) North America? Yes. (See in the USA, above) Group of buildings mainly with simple purpose? Yes. *applause* Willy Wonka? No.
Metropolis? No. Mostly wood? Yes. *applause with that subtle timbre that indicates relief* Vegetable intended for consumption? No, at least for the standard narrow meaning of 'consumption' (see 'wood', above) Wall Street? No. The White House? No. *tiny smattering of applause*
In DC? Yes. Was I aware of my typo? No. The group of buildings mainly has a single purpose, and I suppose you could say that purpose is pretty simple as well.
Kim - Is it a human construct? Yes Chalky - Quick cuppa? No Phil - A recording? No Projoy - Anything to do with death? *applause* Yes, though not directly.
Projoy - A religious idea? Religiously derived, yes Dujon - An addiction? No Tuj - Is it fictional? *animated discussion among audience* Part of it (hopefully) is fictional. - Eh? You do have some funny ideas.*applause*
I should say that the mineral bit of the definition is slightly tongue-in-cheek, and a dead end as an avenue of enquiry.
Projoy - Tithing? No Rosie - Is it an old idea, now largely ignored? It is an old idea (though I can't find any dating for it). The best answer for "largely ignored" is that it's not applicable. Kim - Does it pertain to a specific religion? No
Amplifying the answer to Kim's previous question: the religious reference in the answer is common to many religions, but this would have originated as a reference to one particular religion.
Projoy - From a Middle Eastern originated religion? Yes Tuj - To do with some kind of underworld? *scattered applause* in some religions, yes (though not the originating one). Rosie - Re-incarnation? No
Projoy - A snowball in Hell's Chance? *loud applause - the audience sit bolt upright awaiting the next move* Sooo close - but not the exact words on the card
[Ig] specific animal? YES, altho check your assumptions [Kim] A dessert? YEEEES, but see answer re: dish. In fact in retrospect, NO would be a better answer to the dish question.
Are we using the standard definition of cooking: 'preparing food by a process which includes the application of heat to it' - or the bachelor definition 'any part of meal preparation, including looking up the phone number of the local pizza delivery'?
[INJ] Cheese? NO (this is sweet, not savoury, as per Chalky's question) Is it 'cooked' by the standard definition of cooking? YES, but be careful with your assumptions. It was a very broadly phrased question. [Kim] Yoghurt? NO
[Kim] Milkshake? NO [Chalky] Milk Chocolate? *tumultuous applause* The Answer does indeed contain milk chocolate (but The Answer does not contain the words "milk chocolate")
[Rosie] Angel Delight? NO (don't forget I only said Yeeees to "dessert", not "YES!") [Q] Pudding on the Ritz? NO [Chalky] Walnut Whip? NO *strongly supportive applause* [Dujon] After Dinner Mint? NO
[Phil] British? NO! *audience gasps, several ladies faint* [irach] eminems? NO *and yet, a faint stirring in the audience as if they sensed a connection with The Answer, yet it is too obscure to express in more than a sigh*
[Chalky] Hershey's Pops? NO (I fear you did not heed my "beware" on your manufacturer question!) Hint to avoid boredom: ask more deductive questions and stop making wild guesses :-P
[irach] Seasonal? NO [Chalky] Mars manufactured? NO, which as you so rightly say leaves Hershey revealed as the manufacturer. But again, I say beware. :)
*sighs* Oh well, as wikipedia says "possibly one of Hershey's best-known products due to long-running massive advertising campaigns". Another never-heard-of one for me. Still, I shan't give up!
What in the world is a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup? Having read Phil's Wikipedia extract I am just as in the dark as would be a chocolate coated peanut. Yes I could, but no I won't, go a-Googling.
Phew! Thanks PJ for a challenging, yet somehow obvious, little puzzle [ie; not obviously Hershey, not a bar, not crunchy]. Having put SO much effort into it, I feel pleased to have finally nailed it :-)
[Projoy] A novel from before 1950? NO [CdM] Do some or all of the words on the card appear in the title of the novel? NO . But despite the negative answer the * audience applauses* because it was a significant question. [Kim} Picture in the Attic? NO [Raak] Has the character appeared in film? YES [Irouléguy] Is/was the novelist English? NO
[Irouléguy] Porthos? NO [I'mNotJohn] The Man In The Iron Mask? NO [irach] All 3 Musketeers? NO [Graham III] The Count of MOnte Cristo? NO .. but .. * mega-cheering from audience* because ...
[Raak] Edmond Dantès? HAS GOT THE ANSWER ON THE CARD!
[Phil] Not carved. [Dujon]The audience murmurs at one of those words. Taking that as four questions: no, possibly, possibly, and no. (I had to look up Wikipedia to find out what a carpenter was, more precisely than someone who works in some way with wood.) [I] Not very specific.
[INJ] It could be long and thin, but not esentially so. [Chalky] You can put something on it. *sounds of demurral from the audience, whereupon the chairman produces one and demonstrates putting something on it. "Aha", say the audience.*
[Hi CdM - seems like we're posting at the same time. Have to confess, I'm fascinated by this particular puzzle, but have to go out in half an hour so will miss any activity this afternoon].
[CdM] They could be made of other things, but I've never come across them made of anything but wood. [Chalky] Not a wooden arras. [Phil] Yes, European.
C'mon Raak. Does this audience have a pulse? Or does it merely murmur at the question of carpenter v cabinet maker and then 15 hours later summon up the energy to demur at the notion that something 'could be put on top' of this thing? Hey, I know you're a cool dude an' all that, but please - can we have a bit of encouragement, or even a clue? :-)
made of wood undistressed possibly created by a cabinet maker or artist (audience murmurs) complete in itself turned wood found in some homes smaller than a telephone box possibly long and thin but not essentially so able to have put something on it has a primary specific function can be larger than a toaster used in conjunction with various other objects have moving parts does have mineral fasteners to hold it together, but these are not screws or glues require handling as part of its function (CARE - see also the 'not' section) very likely to have been around prior to 1900 AD possible that this could be made of material other than wood, but the Chairman has not seen such European
It is not or does not:
edible alive specific (one-off) article carving or sculpture (though audience reacts) the Calvary cross resemble its original form an outdoor object retain bark carved (though might have a part to play in its creation) specific to a country or culture contain anything ornamental or decorative symbolic used in a game a toaster a rolling pin a wooden alarm clock normally purchased in a department store (though one might) found in a hardware store a hatstand something that most people would have, though the Chairman is blessed a piece of furniture a frame a tool (despite it performing a function) a kitchen utensil a mug tree a prothesis wholly circular a board a musical instrument of any sort used in sport requires not handling it as part of its function (CARE - see also the 'is' section) have a handle a wooden arras
NOTE: Ruddy 'eck that's long. Please forgive me if I've missed something. Raak, you might run your eye over it in case I've misinterpreted anything. Ta.
[Phil] *applause* You have precisely guessed the words on the card! It is indeed a wooden posable model thingy for artists to use to get human forms right!
[INJ] In production? YES [GIII] English/British? Hmmmm...British-built, but not owned (any more) *Audience gasps at how much information the usually-tight-lipped Phil is giving away*
[Raak] single, specific car? NO, presuming you mean something like "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" or "John Major's Nova", otherwise see Chalky's penultimate question. [INJ] Luxury/high performance? YES on both counts *a little more applause*
[Phil] Graham III's last question was if it was a soft-top/convertible. Corvettes do have that option, they are luxury and high performance, at which they are only beaten out by the Dodge Viper (flames to come from that, I'm sure). Even then, a 'Vette is still preferred.
The issue comes in that I forgot the British point 3 questions ago. See new guess above.
[RW] DB9? Fraid not, even though a friend of mine has one...the lucky (rich) swine. Btw, if you look closely, you'll see that I said "third last question" :-)
I admit, I missed that and can be blind at times. Forgive me, all. The logic behind the above question: [Phil] said that it wasn't the DB9, then that it wasn't a Bentley or a Rolls, but he never specifically said it wasn't an AM. So, it isn't as dumb a question as it might seem... I hope...
[GIII] BMW? NO [Chalky] MG-Rover? NO [INJ] Jaguar? YES, dagnammit, YES! *rapturous applause dies off rapidly as audience remembers that the model is required too*
Is it anything to do with North African drum rhythms?
[GIII] Sorry, I missed those... The Europeans have had records of the American continents, though, since the 11th century, thanks to the Vikings, and have been visited since about the 6th century, thanks to the Celts. American Indian music is noteworthy.
[CdM] Particular piece? YES [CdM] To say yes to it being American would have been misleading. The Americas have existed for a very long time, however in common parlance 'America' means nothing but the USA. [Red Wolf] Drumming? NO [Projoy] YES, though see CdM's question above. [Rosie] See answer to CdM.
[Projoy] No [Rosie] No [Raak] No [Chalky] No and No, [CdM] YES! [all] Apologies for the delay caused by a work and Christmas combo. I would suggest a line of questioning along the lines of who might have written it. Then Wikipedia will be of massive help...
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
(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.)
(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.
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 ......
[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 :-)
[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.
[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.
[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
[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
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.
[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.
[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 +.
[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*
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).
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.
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
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'.
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
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!
[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 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.
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.
*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.
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?
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? 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.
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*
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?
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.
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*
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*
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?
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? 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.
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.
* 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 ;-)
[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