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 ....
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
[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.
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).
[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
[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.
[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:
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?
[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.
[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.
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).
[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.
[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!
[Irouléguy] Is the answer the disease/medical condition? YES. [Irouléguy] is the animal specifically a virus? YES. *audience begins to gather coats and hats*
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.
[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.
[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.