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
Is the "structure" outdoors?
Is the structure a monument?
[Kim] A bridge? Not in the way you may mean
[CdM] William Morris? NO
[Rosie] Is the 'structure' outdoors? It could be.
[Raak] A monument? Not really in the way you may mean. But in another sense 'monument' is rather an apt word.
Is this 'structure' actually a type of structure - i.e. there are many of them?
[INJ] Are there many of them? Ah, you picked up on my clue :-) YES, there are many of them.
*was feeling guilty - having been away from the PC for 5 1/2 hours. Not so now*
Keep 'em coming. I be off to bed now. Will be back at 0730 GMT.
Sir Christopher Wren?
No, can't be. That's rubbish. Get a grip, man.
A household or garden ornament named after "the person"?
Leslie Hore-Belisha?
Although if it is, someone else will have to set the next one. Off to pilg and Eastercon from today.
[Rosie] wren ...er ... Garden/Household Ornament? I don't think so - NO
[Raak] Leslie Hore-Belisha? NO
Does the "structure" come in different sizes?
[Kim] Differently sized? YES
Is the "structure" normally fixed in one place?
Is the 'structure' a 3-dimensional solid?
Taking something on paper or a flat surface to be 2-dimensional (to silence the quibblers)
[Kim] Fixed? Difficult to answer. Strictly speaking [insofar as the answer on the card is concerned] the 'structures' are fixed but under other circumstances might well be free-standing.

[INJ] 3 - dimensional? To be exact [insofar as the answer on the card is concerned] - NO but under other circumstances I would reply YES.

It may be helpful to find out more about the man rather than the 'structures', even though they are inextricably linked.
Does the name of the objects contain the person's name?
Did he die in the 19th century?
[Rosie] Do the 'objects' contain the person's name - YE-E-ES.
[Irouléguy] Die in 19th century? YES
Sneaking in ...
Thomas Bruce, the Seventh Earl of Elgin?
[Hi Software - welcome to this little conundrum] Thos Bruce, 7Th Earl etc? NO
Did this person develop a certain technique/style/method of doing something that is now named after him, so the objects are known as (something like) '<:Name>-ian <Things>'?
Is he a painter?
[CdM] Technique/style/method etc. Hmmm - the way he did it is not necessarily named after him [see answer to Rosie's question] but the content of what he produced most certainly is. The 'objects' in question are definitely known the way you have described.
[Rosie] Painter? A resounding YES!
William Turner?
When you are talking of structures or objects, is it correct that you mean something more this this gentleman's paintings?
Adolf Hitler?
[CdM] Turner? NO
[CdM] I'm SO glad you've asked this question *wry grin* and need to construct a careful reply without giving you the answer :-).
The structures/objects in question certainly define most of this gentleman's paintings. 'Something more'? - I would venture a YES in both an abstract and a material way.

[Quendalon] Adolf Hitler? No - this chap is British
Is there a "school" of painting (e.g. Dadaism) named after him?
[Phil] Is there a school named after him? Not that I know of, or can find evidence of.

Hint: He had a certain style of 'painting' both in the manner of execution and subject matter. This style then became synonymatic.
signing out for Easter
well- I'm sorry no-one seems to want to ask any more questions - because I'm now, due to family committments, 'not around' for a few days.
Is synonymatic a real word?
Turner and his clouds?
... yes I was in the V&A yesterday...
Notices someone else has said Turner
Frig. Constable, then.
Died in the 20th century?
sorry for delay - am rather ill at mo
[IS,P] Synonymatic? Yes
Turner? NO
Constable? NO
[INJ] Died in 20th century? Yes
Ummmm...Do you believe in reincarnation?
He died in the 19th and 20th centuries?
Would this gentleman have 'dabbled' in more than one medium?
Beardsley?
Ah yes, I missed Irg's question - So, we're looking for a poor late Victorian/Edwardian comedian who painted (and wrote a bit)
I'm too ill to carry on with this.

The Answer Is: this chap
Oh, damn. We should have got that. Good one. Hope you're feeling ok...
Red faces all round, I think.
Get better soon, Chalky.
In the absence of a winner, I'll happily take up the baton, as I've got a puzzler that I've been wanting to put forward for ages, if no one objects.
Of Course!
[Chalky]Commiserations - I'll have a whisky on your behalf.
[Kim] Please go ahead. Let me clear the way for you.
Begins with a P?
Anything to do with arachno-syndicalism?
That's a frightening thought
[Rosie] If those spiders get organised we won't stand a chance.
bigger than a toaster?
[INJ] My thoughts exactly. I was already tittering at Rosie's post when yours made me guffaw.
BANG! Oh, you've already started...
This is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL, VEGETABLE and MINERAL connections, so the answers so far are:
[Tuj] No.
[Rosie] No.
[IS,P] Minerally speaking, yes.
A phenomenon?
(INJ) Glad you read it accurately :-)
A piece of fiction?
[Rosie] You're a canny old thing, aren't you?
[Rosie] Boo-booo be doo-boop! N-N-No.
[Tuj] The answer least likely to lead you astray is No.
I have a sense that this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you lot.
Is it a piece of music?
Would this relate directly to religion?
[Raak] No.
[Dujon] Not directly, no.
Related to climate?
Is the animal connection human?
Is the mineral part a structure?
(Tuj) Possibly.
[Quendalon] No.
[INJ] Mostly.
[Rosie] No.
A written work?
A gathering of any kind?
A geographical entity?
[Quendalon] No.
[Rosie] No.
[INJ] Yes. *sustained applause*
A city?
Is it wholly or partially in the northern hemisphere?
Does any Morniverser live there?
Is the Abstract an event associated with this feature?
Southern Hemisphere?
A country?
[Irouleguy] No.
[Quendalon] No.
[Rosie] Almost certainly No and I hope to God not.
[INJ] No.
[Tuj] Yes.
[nights] *applause*. The only adequate answer to this question is Yes and No.
Antarctica?
Though that would lead us into the 'what is abstract?' debate again.
Fictional?
Would explain the 'abstract'?
[INJ] No.
If I were to devote much time to consideration of the "what is abstract?" question, I might conclude that the subject matter of our current discussion is actually ANIMAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL with ABSTRACT connections, or even AMINAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL/ABSTRACT. Fortunately, I'm far too busy to give it much thought.
Río Gallegos, Argentina?
A soulless dump, but with interesting weather.
The Roaring Forties?
[Kim] You didn't answer Bigsmith's last question
The Vatican City
blatantly lurking
Or the Holy See if you prefer
Bugger, ignore that. It would help if I read all of the answers.
[Rosie] No.
[INJ] No.
[Graham III] Duly ignored, as requested.
[Bigsmith] Apologies for missing your earlier question. It's a humdinger. The answer to it is Yes, but I fear that this will create more problems than it solves.
Based on a real country?
The Falklands War?
Is the answer a proper noun?
I've not been credited with a humdinger before - thank you!
Is the answer the name of a fictional work?
Sounds like we could be looking for a fictional account of a real place
Mordor?
[Quendalon] No.
[Rosie] No.
[Bigsmith] No. I've never dinged anyone's hum before, either.
[INJ] No.
[Juxtapose] No.
Is this fictional place in Africa?
[Irouleguy] No. Further trips along this route might (but only might) prove helpful.
Van Daemon's Land?
Above sea level?
In Australasia/Oceania?
Was this once a country but is so no longer?
I think the striking thing is that we are looking for a geographic entity that is not a proper noun, which rules out things like Shangri-La or Atlantis (both of which could also be ruled out on other grounds, I think, but anyway).
Was this place called something else in the past?
Is it defined by a physico-geographical property?
(Chalky) You OK now, gel?
The Lost World?
Chalky] Welcome back!
[Rosie, Iroulé] see chat.
With apologies for absence..
[Rosie] No.
[Quendalon] Y-Y-Yes.
[INJ] Y-Y-Yes.
[CdM] No.
[Chalky] No.
[Rosie] N-N-No. Can you clarify?
[Irouleguy] No.
[Chalky] Welcome back. Hope you are fully recovered.
Polynesia?
(Kim) What I meant was something such as an archipelago.
A coral reef of some description?
[Rosie] No (not Polynesia and not an archipelago).
[Dujon] No.
I am trying to devise some form of clue that won't give the game away. On reviewing what has gone before, I feel that I am being fairly consistent and consistently fair in my responses, but I have to acknowledge that my answer of "No" to INJ's question "Antarctica" is not wholly correct (although "Antarctica" is not the answer on the card). The "What is Abstract?" debate may be worth revisiting in this context.
The ozone hole?
Depicted in sequential art?
The Ross ice shelf?
A migratory path?
[Rosie] No. Animal, vegetable and mineral are all involved.
[Quendalon] Not that I am aware of.
[Irouleguy] No.
[Dujon] No.
An Antarctic base?
[Rosie] No.
Is it on land?
[Quendalon] To the extent that it is Animal, Vegetable and Mineral it is on land (inasmuch as it is not underwater, in the air, in space or anywhere else) but bear in mind that I have said that it is ABSTRACT, with A/V/M connections (or, possibly, A/V/M/A, depending on your point of view).
anything to do with an Antarctic expedition?
[Rosie] No.
Related to Jonathan Swift?
[Quendalon] No.
[Everyone] I'm willing to offer a clue at this point, as I am detecting a slowing of momentum. Takers?
[Kim] Sure. I think we can also use a recap...
The South Pole?
[Rosie] No.
Clue
When is a country not a country? Think about it.
When it's an independent autonomous region of a people's republic?
[Raak] OK. Or...?
A recognised region (e.g. Patagonia)?
[Dujon] Yes! Recognised, or.....?
The unclaimed part of Antarctica?
only in italics
A place marked "Here be dragons"?
[Raak] No. And it's not Wales, either. Listen, is Tibet a country?
Las Islas Malvinas?
The roof of the world?
[Kim] Yes, except when it's an independent autonomous region of a people's democratic republic.
[INJ] No, but you're getting closer.
[Raak] Exactly. It all depends on your point of view.
Is it in South America?
[Raak] No.
South Georgia?
[Rosie] No.
Is it covered by the Antartic Treaty?
...or even the Antarctic Treaty..
Is it on or connected to a specific island or group of islands?
Are you going to answer my question?
(my fault, I know -- the italics thing)
[INJ] Neither.
[Quendalon] Difficult. I'd have to say Yes.
[CdM] Yes. No. Sorry.
Kerguelen?
The British Antarctic Territory?
[Rosie] No.
[Irouleguy] No.
Ilas Malvinas?
[Software] No.
Try asking me some questions about the country itself.
Does the country currently exist?
Is it populated by humans?
[CdM] Yes and no. It depends entirely on your point of view.
[Bigsmith] Yes is probably correct here, but distinctly arguable, if, in fact, it does not exist.
Do the people who populate it currently exist?
Is it an entirely natural feature?
Is it south of 45° S?
I'm getting really pissed off with this, but that's just me.
Is this a dissolved union/federation?
Is at an area of disputed territory that lies in part or wholly in Antarctica?
(I'm thinking particularly Chilean and Argentine claims here, but I'll keep the question more general.)
Actually, I think INJ's question may already have covered this...
Can we have a proper CLUE please Kim :-)
[Rosie] Agree. 18 days and counting is a bit much for this game.
Does it have military significance?
I looked up disputed territories in Oceania & Antarctica and got to over 50! Everything within the Antarctic circle is covered by the Antarctic treaty, plus some more areas as well, it can't be Antarctic as such.
Is this a fair summary of the facts gained so far?
The answer is a fictional entity that may or may not be a country that may or may not currently exist, but not a named place as it is not a proper noun (abstract). It is located in Australasia/Oceana, and the guess that it is a geographical entity drew sustained applause (mineral/vegetable). It is mainly populated by humans - in as much as it is a fictional place (animal). This is the sum product of 18 days' work!
Is it Mu?
El Dorado?
East Timor
Just to get the hatrick you see.
[G3] All proper nouns...
[Bigsmith] I have to acknowlege that I have misled everyone by stating, wrongly, that the answer is not a proper noun. It is. How I came to say that it isn't is beyond me. Truly sorry. *Hides face in embarassment*
[GIII] None of the above three.
[Everyone] I will answer all of the unanswered questions above AND provide a proper clue a little later on today.
Does the fictional part of this derive from one book/author/film/series of films?
[Kim] No worries - everyone else seems to have ignored that answer!
[Bigsmith] It seemed absurd...
[Quendalon] "It" is currently populated by living people.
[Rosie] "It" is not exclusively in the South Pacific and therefore not exclusively South of 45oS. I fully understand and sympathise with your frustration and I think it will be necessary to draw this particular round to an end within the next 48 hours.
[Dujon] "It" is not a dissolved union or federation
[CdM] "It" could be said to be an area of disputed territory that lies partly within Antarctica.
[Chalky] You deserve a better clue than my miserable efforts so far and I shall try to provide a decent clue in a separate post passim.
[INJ] Some of "it" has military significance.
[Bigsmith] A fair summary, which I would like to supplement, if you don't mind.

1. We have recently established that, although it is abstract, it is a proper noun, despite my asserting the contrary, which will probably haunt me forever.
2. The question of whether it exists or not depends entirely on your point of view, which is to say that some people would assert that it exists and others would assert that it does not. Its very existence is a matter of dispute. It is my belief that it does not exist and is therefore abstract.
3. To the extent that it does exist, it purports to be a country, that is to say, those who believe that it does exist refer to it by a name (yes, a proper noun; sorry, again).
4. To the extent that it does exist, it is substantially, but not exclusively in Australisia/Oceania. The question of the whole, or part of Antarctica has some up more than once and is relevant.
5. To the extent that it does exist, its territorial rights are in dispute.
6. To the extent that it does exist, it does not comprise a single landmass, but several.

CLUE
There is a strong biblical connection.
A diaspora?
Sheol?
I don't recall Antarctica being mentioned in the Bible.
Judging by your summary - is this 'place' really really big? Like - huge?
{Bigsmith] Not me! It's been driving me crazy. In fact i almost asked a couple of days ago if Kim was sure. But I'll still forgive him. Maybe.
Is there any part/element of this that we would all agree *does* exist?
In other words, is it the designation of this place that is under existential dispute, or the very place itself?
Is it a 'Lost Civilisation' - like Atlantis?
... and I am aware that CdM mentioned Atlantis some time ago :-)
[Rosie] No.
[Raak] No.
[Chalky] Its Wiki entry does not provide the landmass area in m2, but I would say that it is not "really, really big" (in comparison to, say, Africa).
[CdM] We can all agree that the landmasses that comprise it all really do exist. They are, without doubt, the Animal, Vegetable and Mineral parts of this. What we are testing, I think, is the Abstract element.
[Chalky] No.
Is belief in God (the Bible version) linked to belief in its existence?
[CdM] Yes, I too found the proper noun thing frustrating, glad it is clear now. I think I can bring myself to forgive Kim...just about!
Terra Australis [Incognita]?
The Maori Nation?
Do the landmasses that comprise it all include include Australia, or any part of the Australian continent?
[Bigsmith] Yes.
[Chalky] No.
[Phil] No.
[Irouleguy] No.
By the way...
Is it still possible to attach links here? The answer, when it comes, will best be shown by its Wiki entry.
Zealandia?
[Kim] Yes - you can attach links. I did so when I gave away the last turn.
Am confused by your reply to Irouléguy's recent question and Point 4 in your supplementary summary.
Sorry - scrub my last guess. Silly me. I'll try another one, if I may ....
Does the Abstract element in this refer to something that has been predicted to happen in this area?
Do any of those who believe that it exists believe themselves to currently be resident citizens thereof?
Do the landmasses that comprise it all include include any part of New Zealand?
Chalky] I just asked about the Australian continent - according to the Wikipedia entry, Australasia also includes New Zealand, and sometime also Papua New Guinea and associated islands. I suspect Kim means the South Pacific more generally.
[Chalky] No.
[Quendalon] I cannot find a definitive answer to this, but I think it is very likely that those who claim its existence do not live there and those who inhabit the landmasses would not claim to be citizens of it.
[Irouleguy] In the interests of getting this finished today, I am going to give away the physical location. CLUE: the landmasses that comprise the animal, vegetable and mineral parts of this are various Pacific Ocean islands and certain parts of Antarctica.
Is it connected to some specific Biblical event (e.g., the Flood)?
And is it connected to some particular flavor of Christianity?
[CdM] To be helpful, I will say that it is connected to a biblical legend, but not an event as such.
[CdM] I don't remember mentioning Christianity. If you question were "is it connected to some particular flavor of religion, the answer would be Yes and there would be some *applause*
CLUE: Those who believe that it exists claim that it is an Ecclesiastical Sovereignty.
That makes the result instantly Googleable, I think.
[Raak] Yep, found it. Do you want to do the honors? I wouldn't mind, but I just went a couple of rounds ago and I don't want to hog the spotlight.
The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM)?
I'll take it if Raak doesn't want it :-)
Also .... if I happen to be correct - I am definitely at a PC for the next few days so can reply promptly, which helps the game move along.
*wishes she'd kept Heath Robinson under wraps*
[Chalky] Go on then, I was losing the will to live during this round.
[Raak] I was interested, but I was also way off on the wrong track -- I assumed it was some kind of Young Earth Creationist land bridge.
Whew!
Chalky wins the marathon! I would welcome feedback/discussion on this. Some of those questions were really hard to answer succinctly. *Hands baton to Chalky and runs off to hide"
*takes baton*
Kim] Yup - being 'in the chair' is tougher than it looks. I shall choose carefully and post a little later this evening.
later this evening
M I N E R A L
Oh, come on Chalky, that one's completely unreasonable!
[Kim] So, I was skeptical of that AVMA for the last week or so, particularly when it became clear that the answer was going to be something that I (and I suspect many other people) had never heard of. But, now, having looked up the quite wonderful DoM on the internets, I have changed my mind: I think it was an excellent AVMA subject despite its obscurity. My only quibble (well, other than the proper noun thing) is that I think the Bible hint was kind of misleading, in that it suggested a true religious link as opposed to a made-up-in-order-to-defraud-people religious link.

And you are right that the classification (A/V/M vs A) is very hard. I'm still not sure how I would describe it: my rules of thumb are letting me down here.
(CdM) As you say, the answer was something that very few people will have heard of and we would still be on this wild goose chase but for a very heavy clue from Kim. Frankly, I just can't see the point of this type of subject. It's a complete waste of one's time trying to get closer to an answer that is in effect not there as far as one's own general knowledge is concerned. I feel as if I and others have been made the butt of a rather stupid nerdy practical joke. It's really not what the game should be about.
[CdM] Huh. You might have at least asked a question [if only to give me a reason for being awake at this unearthly BST time].
Is it a human construct that begins with P and is bigger than a toaster?
Oh all right then.
Is it unique?
Tried and true.
[CdM] Human construct, P... , bigger than a toaster? YES, NO, NO
[Quendalon] Unique? YES and NO
Does it require batteries?
[Bigsmith] Batteries? NO
Is it usually to be found in the home?
[Bigsmith] Found in the home? YES - it can be
Could one buy it in a department store?
[Raak] Department Store? YES probably
When you say it's both unique and not, do you mean that there's only one thing called this, but it's mass-produced (ie a 1980 Suzuki GS850-GT)?
Hand-crafted?
[Irouléguy] It IS mass-produced but individually remains unique
[Quendalon] Hand-crafted? NO
Is it a proper noun?
[Kim] A proper noun? NO - but it's a bit prim
Is each one of these prim mass-produced objects unique it itself?
Does each have a unique serial number?
Is it made of pottery/ceramic/clay/glass type stuff?
[Rosie] mass-produced but unique in itself? That's what I said :-)
[Quendalon] Unique serial number? YES
[Software] pottery/ceramic/clay/glass? NO - none of the FOUR you have specified. Dunno about the 'type stuff' - perhaps you can be more precise? :-)
Is it a piece of electronic equipment?
[Raak] A piece of electronic equipment? Good question. Mmmmm .. NO
Does it inform one of the time?
[Kim] Your question made me guffaw and frighten my workmates. You are truly forgiven!
Is it bigger than a £1 coin?
[Bigsmith] Time piece? NO
[Irouléguy] Bigger than a £1 coin? Bigger? How do you mean? Area? Thickness? Width? Height? Bulk? Mass? More famous?:-)
[Irouléguy] Re: the size thing - I've just dashed off a spot of differential calculus and come to the conclusion that it IS and it ISN'T.
Does it have any moving parts?
I keep asking the same questions every time. Is this a sign of consistency or insanity?
Is it a battery?
[Quendalon] Moving parts? NO

[Raak] A battery? NO
Is it primarily made of metal?
Are these objects custom-made?
[CdM] Primarily metal? NO
[Rosie] Custom-made? NO
Primarily ornamental in nature?
[Quendalon] Ornamental? Most definitely NOT
Does it have anything to do with security?
Would this object contain a magnetic stripe?
[Raak] Security? sort of
[Dujon] Magnetic stripe? It's a bit late for me to look it up [mainly because I'm off to bed now], but YES - I think it could have one of those things
will be back at ten a.m. tomorrow
A plastic card (debit, credit, etc)?
Currency?
Is it worth more than £1?
late on parade
[Rosie] A plastic card? YES! *audience cheers but not for the parenthesised bit*
{Quendalon] Currency? NO
[Raak] Worth more than a £1? To some - maybe

Am entertaining the Sunday Lunchers today so may not be here til later this evening.
An Oyster card?
An identity card of some sort?
[Rosie] Actually, I don't think it's either of those [Oyster?] - but please keep asking because you are on the right track ...
[Rosie] ....and, on reflection, it's not an identity card per se but damn close to one
A driver's licence?
[rab] Your new system works well. I just hit the 'enter' key instead of the 'apostrophe' and managed to recover. Thank you.
Does it typically display a photograph of the owner?
[Dujon] I'd imagine that a driver's license is worth more than a pound to most people...
A library card?
A Nectar card?
AA membership card?
[Dujon] Drivers licence? NO
[CdM] Photograph? NO
[Rosie] Library card? NO
[Raak] Nectar card? NO
[Irouléguy] AA membership card? NO

Re: the point I made last night about being damn close to an ID card. Having slept on the matter, as it were, perhaps I should clarify:
It identifies something but not necessarily someone
Oh - previously [Dujon] question. It DOESN'T have a magnetic stripe, ie. it's not for swiping.
A bar code?
[Raak] A bar code? NO
Is it the same size as a credit card?
[rab] Does size matter? *audience applauds the question* It IS and then it ISN'T [see my reply to Irouléguy up the page] As an additional clue - not that it's needed at this stage because we're nearly there - in most countries, we think of it as somewhat smaller than a credit card.
Is it something we would normally expect to use/see on a daily basis?
[Graham III] use/see on daily basis? Use - YES. See - depends on viewpoint - ie. if you were manufacturing it, then yes. But normally NO - not daily, but certainly occasionally.
A SIM card?
Yay!
Raak has the very words on the card.
Well played. IMHO four days including a weekend is about right for this game. Of course, it depends on whether one is available to reply promptly, which I hope I was

*hands smart baton over*
Ok, the next is VEGETABLE and MINERAL, with ABSTRACT connections.
Begins with a P?
Smaller than a toaster?
A geographical feature?
Chalky] Smaller? How do you mean? Area? Thickness? Width? Height? Bulk? Mass? Of lower social status?;-)
[Tuj] Does not begin with P.
[Chalky] Smaller in all of the ways which Irouléguy has enumerated.
I think I've simulposted which may make nonsense of my words. [Editor] Nothing new there then.
[Irouléguy] It's not really your place to say :-)
I'm content with Raak's reply *giggles at lower social status bit. In retrospect, that was funny. *
[Raak] See? That Iroulé bloke has distracted you - how about the geographical thing?
[I] Not a geographical feature. (There's not many of those that are smaller than a toaster!)
[C] I'm serious about the social status! This thing really does rank below the humble toaster.
Is it used to perform some menial task?
Is it manufactured?
Is the vegetable wood?
[B] Not for a menial task.
[r] Yes, manufactured.
[I] Could be wood in part.
Would one find it in the kitchen?
[S] Not related to the kitchen.
Is it typically found in the home?
Does it require a power source?
Larger than a SIM card?
[CdM] Not typically found in the home.
[B] Requires no power source.
[C] Larger than a SIM card.
Would an owner normally have just one of these?
Chalky] I know my place ;)
Is it something of practical utility?
Do people carry these things with them when out?
[I] An owner would have many.
[r] Very practical.
[R] If they have them, they would.
A clarification of my last answer to CdM: a typical home would not have any, but a typical one of these might well be in someone's home.
Is it something one wears?
[rab] One does not wear it.
A golf tee?
Is the mineral bit solid metal?
Is this a projectile?
A walking stick?
Shut up at the back there.
[I] Not a golf tee.
[C] Not solid metal.
[D] Not a projectile.
[R] Not a walking stick.
Is it mostly for use outside the home?
Is its practical utility restricted to one thing only (ie, does it have more than one use)?
Is the vegetable bit wood?
[rab] Yes, mostly used outside the home.
[Kim] Um. It does one thing, but that one thing has many uses.
[Software] See INJ's question earlier.
Connected with travel or motion?
Does it include an implement for getting Scouts out of horses hooves?
[Chalky] Nothing to do with travel or motion.
[Kim] Not a Swiss Army penknife.
Would one normally keep these objects in one's pocket?
[Bigsmith] Yes, one's pocket is a typical place to carry these (although the typical pocket does not contain any).
Is it an object that is only carried on particular occasions?
Is it something one would look through?
Is there a particular kind of person (e.g., age, occupation, specialized interest) who is most likely to carry these objects?
Are these objects more likely to be used by a specific gender?
Is there anything written on it?
A box/book of matches?
[R] Not related to particular occasions.
[r] Not for looking through.
[C] Yes! A particular sort of person would deliberately have these.
[B] Not gender-related.
[Q] Yes, there is stuff written on it (using the word "written" rather generally).
[S] Not a book or box of matches.
Is it used in a game?
[rab] Not used in a game.
Do people use these for work?
Is it a form of 'currency'?
Is any part of it edible, potable and/or smokable?
[I] In a sense, some people do use these for work.
[C] *at last, the audience exercise their applause muscles* It is a form of currency!
[Q] You can't eat or drink it, and one wouldn't want to smoke it.
A five euro note?
Is it "sterling"?
Is it a well-known phrase to describe a type of currency ?
and was this currency used in the past?
sorry .... a bit greedy with 2 questions - but I'm orf to bed now, have an early start, etc etc.
[CdM] Not €5.
[rab] Not sterling.
[Chalky] Not a well-known phrase.
[Chalky] I dare say that this form of currency is as old as currency itself.
Change?
Casino chips?
[Rosie] Not change.
[Chalky] Not casino chips.
Is this paper currency?
Beer token? :o)
Is it a voucher of some kind?
From the U S of A?
[Chalky] *cheering* It is paper currency.
[Software] Not a beer token.
[Kim] Not a voucher.
[Bigsmith] Not specifically from the USA.
An IOU?
A pawn ticket?
The thing you get from the dry-cleaners?
[CdM,Chalky,Kim] None of these are what I would call paper currency.
One of the earliest answers may now prove illuminating.
OK - is it a banknote of some kind?
Am intrigued by the 'wood in part' reply [or was that a reference to paper?] Also, the fact that it ranks below the humble toaster
[Chalky] *applause* It's a banknote of some kind. The wood was indeed a reference to paper. *A ripple of anticipation as Chalky seizes on the significant earlier answer.*
Is the monetary value of this banknote insufficient to conduct the purchase of an average price toaster?
[Bigsmith] From one point of view, it could be, from another, it couldn't be enough to buy a toaster.
A promissary note?
[by way of explanation] some bank notes are promissory notes, some are not.
A forged banknote?
Is its use confined to professionals in the world of finance?
A traveller's cheque?
Is it official currency of any nation at the present time?
[G3,R,K,Q] No, because...
[Chalky] It is a forged banknote.
Hands over a wad of fivers all with the same serial number.
Wahay!
Thanks Raak. We seem to be on the same wavelength :-)
[I thought I knew the solution when you replied half an hour after my 'banknote' question. But I did wait for 3 hours.)
Now - we have this:

A N I M A L with a tinge of ABSTRACTINESS

A Cheshire Cat?
A human being who is bigger than a toaster and smaller than a telephone box?
Cézanne?
Is this animal used as a symbol?
A mascot?
[Rosie] cat from cheshire? NO
[CdM] A human being? YES :-)
[Irouléguy] Cézanne? NON
[Raak] Animal as symbol? N-N-NO
[Software] A mascot? NO
A singloe, specific individual?
[Raak] A specific, singly individual YES
A figurehead in some way?
Alive?
[Phil] A figurehead? Not sure what you mean but I'd say NOT
[Irouléguy] Alive? NO
Someone who has given his/her name to an idea?
[Rosie] Given name to an idea? GOOD QUESTION. YES - in a manner of speaking [that's the abstracty bit]
Robin Hood?
artistic connections?
Died in the 20th century?
[Kim] Robin Hood? NO
[INJ} Artistic connections? NO
[Iroulé] Died in 20th century? YES
Is this person noteworthy in regards to religion?
An academic?
[Quendalon] Religion? NO
[Raak] An academic? Of a kind - YES
Belgian European?
Sigmund Freud?
[CdM] European? Close YES
[Rosie] Freud? NO
Philosopher?
[Graham III] Philosopher? NO
A writer?
[Rosie] Writer? NO
A very dear friend died of cancer this afternoon. Can we convene on Monday ? I'm doubly sad today.
[Chalky] Sorry to hear that.
[Chalky] What Raak said. Such times are always hard. You've got friends who are thinking of you.
Chalky] What Raak and CdM said - imagine a collective hug wending its way to you.
[Chalky] Take all the time you need. We'll just check in from time to time.
[Irouléguy ] You means a wrappy wending?
Thank you all :-)
I must confess I was rather the worse for wine maudlin the early hours of Sunday. Many of his friends decided to go ahead with an already planned get-together Saturday night which was absolutely the right thing to do.
OK - let's be having some more questions ... perhaps beginning with the sex/occupation of this person ...
Is it a transsexual?
[Graham III] Transexual? Not as far as I can tell - although if one dug deeply enough ...
Did this person have a sex occupation?
[CdM] Sex occupation? NO - I've dug deeply and have found no record of any how's-yer-farver professionally, advisorililly, subversively or personally.
Female?
Suppose I ought to ask a sensible question.
Politician?
[Graham III] Female? NO
[Kim] Politician? NO
A composer?
[Rosie] Composer? NO
Entertainer?
Heath-Robinson?
[Softers] Entertainer? NO
[CdM] Heath-Robinson! NO! but it could so easily have been ...
Died in the latter half of the 20th Century?
Rube Goldberg?
[Kim] Latter half of C20? NO - very much the first half [nearly the first quarter]
[Projoy] Rube Goldberg? NO [nice to see you here :-)]
A scientist?
Economist?
[Projoy] A scientist? YES! * audience emerges from its stupor and attempts a mexican wave*
[Kim] Economist? NO *audience calms down a bit*
French?
[Projoy] French? NO
Albert Einstein
Hmm, a scientist, but only a sort-of academic...
[Graham III] Albert Einstein? NO but ... very very close *gasps of genuine anticipation from audience*
Scientist AND academic - aren't all scientists academic?
Planck?
Einstein wrote his most famous papers while working as a clerk, I believe, rather than being in a University.
Werner Heisenberg?
Of course I am Uncertain about this and have a feeling Projoy has it.
Schrodinger?
[PJ, Rosie, Quend] NOT Planck, Heisenberg or Schrodinger. Clue: All are the wrong nationality.
British?
Died before 1920?
[Raak] British? NO
[Projoy] Died before 1920? NO
Niels Bohr?
[Graham III] Bohr? NO
German?
[Kim] German? I refer the Honourable Crescenter to my reply to PJ, Rosie & Quendalon
Enrico Fermi?
[Chalky] As it happens, Schrodinger was Austrian. :-)
Sigmund Freud?
Dutch?
Arrhenius?
[Quendalon] Yes, I know Schrodinger was Austrian [as I am also aware that the other two were German ]- which is why I said that all 3 were the wrong nationality. I rather thought I was being helpful ... and didn't expect it to come back and bite me on the bum... :-)
[Q] Fermi? NO
[Phil] Freud? NO
[[Projoy] Dutch? YES! *audience girds its loins*
[Quendalon] Arrhenius? NO
van der Waals?
[Rosers] van der Waals? NO
Anthony Fokker?
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz?
[Software] Fokker? hell no :-)

but Graham III proves that persistence pays off by nailing the man. Well played Sir!
*passes on the electromagnetic baton*
Yayyyy!
We get there eventually. So, moving swiftly on:

ABSTRACT with various mineral and animal (and probably vegetable) associations/manifestations
The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo?
[Chalky] Damn, but you're good. That's obviously correct.
[Chalky] TMWBtBaMC? No, 'fraid not.
God?
[GIII] Oh come on! It's completely against the rules to change the subject after the first guess!
A geographical feature/features?
[Raak] God? NO
[CdM] That would make for a long game. I don't have the patience...
[Irouléguy] Geography? NO
A written work?
Begins with a P?
A human idea/invention etc?
[Quendalon] Written? NO.
[Tuj] Pee? NO
[Rosie] Human? YES!
Invented in the last 100 years?
Connected with chemistry and/or biochemistry?
Is this an emotion/feeling?
A creative activity?
Stigmata?
I can be just as stupid as the next poster, GIII.
[Tuj] Last century? NO, but examine your assumptions.
[Quendalon] Chemie? NO, except possibly indirectly (I say that for completeness - not a helpful line of thought)
[Chalky] Emotional? NO
[Rosie] Creative? NO, not obviously.
[Dujon] Stigmata? NO, dur. ;-)
Named after a specific person?
Is this concerned with the acquisition of knowledge?
[Quendalon] YES/NO - named after two people. Finding them is unlikely to be a fruitful avenue of questioning, but maybe a pertinent fact later on in the game.
[Rosie] Knowledge-hungry? NO
Discovered in the last 100 years?
Any better? ;)
Is it a comet?
[Tuj] NO, and NO. :-)
[Kim] Tailed sun-circler? NO
Connected with money and/or economics?
[Quendalon] YES! *audience applauds with vigour*
The Chicago school?
Marxist-Leninism?
A unit of currency?
Is this an index?
[Raak] Friedmanesque? NO, see Quendalon's question above
[Rosie] Stalinesque? NO.
[Phil] CU? NO
[Dujon] Index? NO.
Do the names of the two people appear on the card?
and since I'm feeling greedy
Were the two eponymizing individuals both born before 1900?
[CdM] Difficult to answer your first question helpfully. I suggest you re-read Quendalon's question, and my answer.
pre-1900? YES!
Malthuniasism?
[Software] Malthusianism? NO, he was only one person I believe.
Clue: More questioning about the nature of this thing will yield much better results than the current line of questioning.
Is it a game?
Is it a theory?
Connected with representative money?
[Chalky] Game? NO
[Software] Theory? NO
[All] Game Theory? Two wrongs don't make a right
[Quendalon] Representative? Certainly has some related aspects, but not a connection you would naturally think of if someone mentioned this.
A piece of technology?
Connected with the transport of material goods?
[Rosie] Techie? NO
[Quendalon] Transport? NO
Is it connected with economics but not necessarily with money?
[GIII] Having reread Q's question and your answer I'm still none the wiser. :-) I get your advice to pursue other lines of questioning, but I'm puzzled as to why my pretty straightforward question is hard to answer (I don't doubt that it is; I'm just puzzled as to why). So let me look for clarification. We've established that this is named after two people.
Does the name (or some word/variant directly derived from the name) of at least one of these individuals appear on the card?
[CdM] Connected with economics but not necessarily with money? NO, more the other way round
Does the name (etc.) of at least one of these individuals appear on the card? YES!
[CdM] By way of a clue, if you were to remove one consonant from your original question (and twist the grammar to fit), I would have been able to answer YES, and you would have been further advanced. Because of that consonant, the answer (strictly) would have to be NO, but only because of pedantry and semantics. I therefore declined to answer in the hope of being helpful...
Do the two people have the same surname?
Marks and Spencer?
Barclays Bank?
Gresham's law?
[Irouléguy] Named for Thomas Gresham and John Law, right?
[Phil] YES! *audience applauds wildly, as Phil has got the key fact behind the name!
[Rosie] M&S? NO
[Irouleguy] Gresham & Law? NO, but:
[Chalky] Barclays Bank? YES! *Audience goes wild, applauding and generally fawning over Chalky*
CdM, GIII] According to Wikipedia, the expression "Gresham's Law" dates back only to 1858, and was coined (ho ho) by British economist Henry Dunning Macleod. Two people involved, only one surname in the answer, about money rather than economics - I was slightly straw-clutching, and it seemed possible.
Well done, Chalky - you're on a roll at the moment!
And another thing
Has there beem some confusion between Barclays Bank, which is as old as the hills and owes it name to one individual, and the squillionaire Barclay brothers, who own the Torygraph amongst other things. I only arsk.
[Rosie] Not according to Wikipedia. "The bank took its name from Alexander and David Barclay, who provided credit to transatlantic slave traders." I checked Barclays own site, but they don't seem to want to talk about their history...
Blimey - I wasn't really trying to win that one - particularly as I've been in the chair rather a lot recently. It's a busy week ahead for me [mainly away from my PC], so would anyone else like to take over?
[Chalky] I'd better not.
[Rosie] What CdM said - as you say, there appears to be some confusion... ;-)
[Chalks] I'LL do it! That is, if it's okay with everybody.
*in power-hungry mode*

[Graham III] I've just looked back to the beginning of this game and now understand why the audience felt duty bound to 'generally fawn' over me when I answered correctly. Pure guilt. For what, you may ask? For not even a merest rustle of surprise and astonishment when my, and the very first question, was SO CLOSE! Even the esteemed CdM knew I was right on the button. And they didn't applaud him either. :-) :-)

So if I am allowed to nominate - I shall choose CdM - and if he isn't available to take up the baton, I shall launch another one
ooh - simulpost.
[Juxta] Are you available to reply to questions regularly - like, more than twice in 24 hours? because that doesn't 'arf drag it out
[Juxtapose] Go for it!
[Chalky] Go for it!
[Juxtapose] Perhaps it would be fairer to allow someone - if not CdM :-) - who actually contributed towards the last puzzler to come forward first?
*maintaining stance*
I don't mind doing one, as I really thought I was going to get the last one :-)
[Phil] Excellent. Was hoping you'd appear :-)
Well, I do tend to check in about 8 times a day, and I haven't done one for yonks, so I vote for me ;-)
If no-one objects, I'd like to set the next challenge as ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections
Human construct?
Begins with a "P"?
Been dying to ask that one!
An artistic work?
Does it have anything to do with fish?
[Chalky] I suppose on reflection you were sort of close with your first guess... My bad, as they say somewhere.
Is the animal human?
A philosophy?
I've Got a Loverly Bunch of Coconuts?
An anarcho-syndicalist recipe
[Chalky] No Comment.
[Kim] Human construct? YES
[Bigsmith] P? NO
[Raak] Artistic work? NO
[GIII] Piscine? NO
[CdM] Phil O'Sophy? NO
[Chalky] Your bunch? Very impressive, but NO
[INJ] Anarcho-thingy-whatsit? NO
Anything to do with mobile phones?
[Tuj] Mobile phones? NO
Some form of study?
[Rosie] Some form of study? Strictly-speaking, NO, although some study would normally be associated.
Phil - Is this abstract thing something that people would do for a living, say?
Would this be some form of skill?
A legislative activity?
[Chalky] Done for a living? NO - a murmur of appreciation from the audience for an almost useful question
[Dujon] A skill? NO
[Rosie] Legislative activity? NO
Is the vegetable connection paper?
Phil] You missed out my previous question.
[Irouléguy] Huge apologies:
Is the animal human? YES
Is the vegetable connection paper? Partly - some hesitant applause
Is this a form of entertainment?
A recreational activity of some kind?
[Chalky] Entertainment? NO A couple of amused chuckles
[CdM] Recreational activity? Having looked up definitions of "recreation", I fell compelled to say YES, but it might not be what springs to most minds as recreation.
Anything to do with the law?
[Rosie] Law-related? NO
Is writing involved?
Is the animal a character of fiction?
Is the definition of recreation under which you answered YES to one of the previous questions as a result of the second sub-definition within the second definition in Chambers?
That's here.
[CdM] Writing involved? Not necessarily, but it would be normal.
[Kim] Fictional animal? NO
[GIII] Did I mean "a new creation"? NO.
In fact, using the Chambers definition, I would say a definite YES to CdM's earlier question on reacreational activities, rather than my earlier vacillation.
Does an instance of this activity involve more than one human?
[Quendalon] an instance involving more than one human? It can do, but it doesn't have to.
So, the definition is "a pleasant, enjoyable and often refreshing activity done in one's spare time." The answer is therefore clearly

Drinking Beer.

Phil's confusion was understandable, since he typically does not do this in his spare time.
Philately?
Some kind of music making activity?
[CdM] Drinking Beer? NO (remember, it's not done for a living)
[CdM] Philately? NO - considerable applause from the suddenly-revived audience
[Chalky] Music-making? NO
So we are looking at a hobby of some sort, in which through study a level of expertise may be achieved?
Does it involve the accumulation of items over time?
[Bigsmith] A hobby? YES *some applause*
[Bigsmith 2nd half of question] Gaining a level of expertise? I suppose so, but I wouldn't focus on that if I were you.
[GIII] Accumulation of items? YES *vigorous applause*
Are the items made primarily of paper?
Is the wearing of an anorak a requirement for the complete enjoyment of this hobby?
Beermat collecting?
[Raak] Made primarily of paper? After a little extra research, YES, the items accumulated are usually primarily made of paper (carefully-worded answer) - *some applause and a little discussion amongst audience members*
[Chalky] Anorak-wearing? NO - *appreciative laughter*
[GIII] Beermat collecting? NO
Is the focus for collection the items themselves, or some feature (e.g. writing) on the items?
[GIII] Items or writing on them? Strictly speaking the answer should be YES. But as it's Friday, I'll answer that the focus would be on some feature (e.g. writing) on the items. *Some more applause*
Made of papier mâché?
Autograph-hunting?
[Raak] Mashed paper? NO
[Irouléguy] Philography? NO
Cigarette card collecting?
[Phil] Thanks. I was lazily trying to get two questions in at once...!
[GIII] Cartophily? NO *audience is eagerly awaiting a correct guess, although a few think that Irouléguy's second question might be useful*
Flower pressing?
Some form of ticket?
This may violate the specified non-anorakiness.
Is the writing hand-written or printed?
Are the collected items mass-produced?
[GIII] Oshibana? NO
[Rosie] Ticket collecting? NO. On reflection, I think the activity is a bit anoraky, but I don't think it's required.
[Irouléguy] written or printed? Printed
[Quendalon] Mass-produced? YES
Is the collected item entirely vegetable?
This is strongly implied by previous answers, but I wanted to confirm. Also, interestingly (or perhaps not), when I first asked about recreation, I almost said hobby.
Is it made of cardboard?
Sports card collecting?
Top Trumps?
[CdM] Is the collected item entirely vegetable? There may be small traces of mineral, namely printing ink and ingredients in paper, but otherwise YES. (Hobby would have been a much easier question to answer).
[Raak] Made of cardboard? NO
[Quendalon] Sport cards? NO
[Chalky] Top Trumps? NO

[Everyone] As I mentioned earlier. the items accumulated are normally primarily made of paper. The items collected to provide that accumulation are not, but are still almost entirely vegetable. If that doesn't confuse the matter, I don't know what will ;-)
Phillumeny?
Scratch that, we've already established that it doesn't begin with a "P".
[Quendalon] Phillumeny? NO. Nor is it matchbook/matchbox collecting, for that matter.
Are the items collected labels of some sort?
[INJ] hmm - I was going to ask the same question ;-)
... and if the answer is 'YES' ...
[INJ] Labels? NO
Would this item cover a beermat?
You know. Them things.
[Rosie] Big enough to cover a beermat? NO - at least not in my experience or knowledge
Sucrology?
Kind of a shot in the dark. But if it's a game-winner, that'd be pretty sweet.
Do people [who don't indulge themselves] regard this hobby in a .... sort of, derogatory way?
I can't help thinking about your reply to my question "Is this a form of entertainment" and you said NO and the audience actually chuckled.
[Chalky] A disrespected hobby? NO - The couple of people who chuckled were (like me) amused by the thought of someone exhibiting their collection for entertainment purposes. Probably not very helpful chuckles, but chuckles nonetheless.
[Quendalon] Sucrology? YES - Congratulations, it is the collecting of sugar sachets and sugar cube wrappings. The sweet smell of success is yours. The difference between the collected items (mostly not paper) and the accumulated items (mostly paper) is that sucrologists remove the sugar post-collection and pre-accumulation. The UK Sucrologists Club has around 320 members, publishes a quarterly newsletter called "Sweet Thoughts", and offers a link to (amongst others) the Berlin Museum of Sugar.
(Phil) A bit anorakky?? Positively pathetic, certifiable etc etc. I dunno.
Well, that was interesting! Let's move on to the next item:
Animal and/or Vegetable, with Abstract connections
Begins with P?
[Tuj] Starts with P? NO. *amused laughter from the audience*
Something people eat or drink?
[Irouléguy] Edible/potable? NO.
Is it bigger than a toaster?
One of those blocks, often round, found in public urinals?
Well, give me a break, I don't know what they are called. They usually have a (strong) scent and might have disinfectant properties.
Is the animal element human?
[Dujon] "Urinal blocks" is the disappointingly mundane term you're after.
Life?
(Phil) May be disappointingly mundane but intriguingly ambivalent, given the undesirablilty of a blocked urinal.
[Chalky] Bigger than a toaster? Bigger? How do you mean? Area? Thickness? Width? Height? Bulk? Mass? More famous? ;-)
[Dujon] Urinal cake? NO.
[Phil] A human(s)? NO.
[Rosie] Life? NO.
Does it have anything to do with bodily functions?
Is there more than one of these?
Ends with P?
Is there just one animal involved?
Would you be most likely to find one of these in a house?
[Kim] Bodily functions? NO.
[INJ] Unique? NO.
[Raak] Ends with P? NO. *audience laughs*
[Irouléguy] More than just one animal involved? There are several ways to interpret this question; I think the least misleading answer would be YES.
[Tuj] Likely to find one in a house? NO.
Anything to do with food?
Any connection with language?
[Rosie] Related to food? NO, not really.
[INJ] Connection with language? YES. *applause*
Is it an embroidery sample of the alphabet?
[Phil] Embroidery sampler? NO. *muttering from the audience*
Does this involve the whole animal, or just parts of it?
[Irouléguy] Whole animal or just parts? Just parts
Is it a Scrabble tile?
[Tuj] Scrabble tile? NO.
Is lettering involved?
[Phil] Lettering? NO.
Object or objects involved in writing?
Would someone use this in their place of work?
Would you describe this as an illustration?
Are these found throughout the world?
So this is connected to language but the animal element is not human... Wow.
[Rosie] Involved in writing? NO.
[Chalky] Used in a place of work? NO, at least not in any modern workplace.
[Dujon] An illustration? NO, I wouldn't describe it as such, though I suppose an argument could be made.
[CdM] Found throughout the world? Technically YES, although a NO would be less misleading.
[CdM] Fair enough, there's a human connection, but that's not the animal connection specified in the challenge parameters.
Is the animal part leather?
Is this a type of signage?
[G3] Leather? NO.
[Chalky] Signboard? NO.
Is this an object that is best known because it features in a literary work?
[Chalky] Featured in a literary work? NO, not to my knowledge.
Primitive art?
Eg Cave paintings, white horses, men with enormous plonkers etc?
[Rosie] Primitive art? NO. *interested muttering from the audience*
But is it art?
[Tuj] Art? NO.
Graffiti?
[Chalky] Unartistic graffiti? NO.
Did this exist in the past?
[Chalky] Existed in the past? YES! *applause*
Is the animal part feathers?
[Rosie] Feathers? NO.
That was quick. Bones, then?
[Rosie] Bones? NO.
Is the animal part skin?
Is the vegetable element paper ?
[Irouléguy] Skin? NO.
[G3] Paper? NO.
A single unique thing?
[Tuj] Unique? NO. *approving nods*
Fewer than ten?
;)
[Tuj] < 10? NO. :-)
Is this a catch-all description for multiple and variable instances?
[G3] Could you rephrase? I'm not 100% certain I grasp the meaning of the question.
Hieroglyphs?
I possibly should have said "multiple and unique instances". For example, a solution which would require the answer YES would be "Impressionist paintings", or "skyscrapers", a solution which would require the answer NO would perhaps be "Tyres" or "Lenovo T62 Thinkpads". On reflection a crap question.
[G3] Egyptian squiggles? NO.
[G3] Per the "multiple and unique instances" question, it's a good question, but rather ambiguous. I think the thing under discussion falls somewhere in between your two examples.
So... manmade?
Well, we seem to have got a whole heap of nowhere so far!
[Tuj] Manmade? Definitely YES. (Do you need a recap?)
Would you find this in a museum?
Does this always involve the same part of the animal (ie limb, organ)?
[Chalky] In a museum? YES.
[Irouléguy] Same animal component? YES.
Is this a container of some sort?
[Rosie] Something to put other objects into? NO.
Does this involve multiple species?
A totem pole?
[Irouléguy] Multiple species? Collectively YES, individually I DON'T KNOW.
[Chalky] Totem pole? NO.
Something to do with fossils?
[Kim] Fossils? NO.
Are we talking fur/pelt here - or BLOOD!?
..ahem - just trying to inject a touch of drama :-)
[Chalky] Animal fur/hair? YES. (Blood? NO. :-)
A form of apparel?
[Dujon] Garment / accoutrement? NO.
Inca 'talking knots' - quipus/khipus?
[Irouléguy] Quipu? YES! *wild cheers from the audience* You've tied all the clues together and untangled a rather knotty problem. Good job!
Well, I can't claim all the credit - I was in cahoots with the others.

For a change of pace, our next is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and MINERAL connections.
Begins with S?
[Quendalon] Nice one.
CdM] Begins with S? Sadly not.
Begins with a vowel?
Fictional?
Observable in nature?
Chalky] Begins with a vowel? On
Raak] Fictional? Dr. No
Kim] Observable in nature? *animated buzz in the audience* I'm very glad you asked me that...

I can see a case for answering either way, but I think 'yes' is less misleading
Is it visible or audible?
Is the animal connection human?
CdM] Is it visible or audible? Hmm...insofar as it is 'observable', you would have to say it's visible. Audible, no.
(Quendalon] Is the animal connection human? Yes
Is it a meteorological phenomenon?
Kim] Is it a meteorological phenomenon? No
Related to astronomy?
Quendalon] Brother Sun, Sister Moon? *applause* YES
Is it a constellation?
Kim] Is it a constellation? You cannot be Sirius, man!
Does this change from moment to moment even though retaining its description?
A collection of objects?
Dujon] Does this change from moment to moment even though retaining its description? *cries of 'oooh' and 'aaah' from the audience* In one sense, that's a very good description of it, but it doesn't get you any nearer.
Rosie - A collection of objects? No - this isn't a physical thing or things.
An aura of some sort?
[Iroulé] How do you know that your reply to Duj won't get him any nearer ? ;-)
Is it within the Solar System (understood as everything out to and including the Oort cloud)?
Chalky] An aura of some sort? No
Good point - I suspect it won't get him or anyone else any nearer, then.
Raak] Is it within the Solar System (understood as everything out to and including the Oort cloud)? Bearing in mind my answer to Rosie's question, yes.
anything to do with Astrology?
Does it relate to the movement or path of some celestial object?
Chalky] anything to do with Astrology? Fortunately, no.
ImNotJohn] Does it relate to the movement or path of some celestial object? *applause* YES - though 'relate' isn't perhaps the most appropriate verb.

Some assumptions should perhaps be re-examined.
When Venus is in conjunction with Mars?
Chalky] When Venus is in conjunction with Mars? No, no sexual connotations.
Named after a specific person?
The ecliptic?
An apogee?
Quendalon] Named after a specific person? *some giggling in the audience* For a particular value of 'person', yes.
ImNotJohn - The ecliptic? No
Phil - An apogee? No

A transit of Venus?
The Clarke Orbit?
Currently accepted as scientifically valid/viable/real/true?
ImNotJohn] A transit of Venus? No
Chalky] The Clarke Orbit? Well, I never knew that - a fitting memorial. Thanks, Chalky - that led me into a very pleasant Google. What Wikipedia doesn't say is whether there are other inventions/phenomena named after SF writers - does anyone know of others?
It's not the answer, though.
Quendalon] Currently accepted as scientifically valid/viable/real/true? Correct/accurate/exact/accepted even by flat-earthers and creationists.
The Kirkwood Gaps?
Is the animal connection the "named 'person'" from Quendalon's question?
It has animal and mineral connections, but no vegetable connections, which suggests the earth is not directly involved.
Rosie] The Kirkwood Gaps? No
CdM] Is the animal connection the "named 'person'" from Quendalon's question? Not the main one.
CdM thinking aloud] It has animal and mineral connections, but no vegetable connections, which suggests the earth is not directly involved.
I don't agree - the answer could be 'the equator' or 'the stratosphere', neither of which I would think of as having vegetable connections. This is an abstract, after all - the animal and mineral connections are the physical things without which it wouldn't exist.
The Van Allen belts?
Is the Earth the mineral connection?
A feature of the surface of the earth?
ImNotJohn] The Van Allen belts? No
Quendalon - Is the Earth the mineral connection? *applause* It's the main one, but not the only one.
Rosie - A feature of the surface of the earth? No

Back after the match.
The Trojan points?
Gravity?
Hooray, the "Whoops!" works :-)
Raak - The Trojan points? No
Phil - Gravity? No
Yes, the "Whoops" is a great invention.

To quote CdM, "Again I say, re-examine your assumptions." It's worth re-reading Quendalon's second question, ImNotJohn's first, and Dujon's
Celestial Co-ordinates?
Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses?
Is this a form of electro-magnetic effect?
Phil - Celestial Co-ordinates? No
Rosie - Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses? No
Dujon - Is this a form of electro-magnetic effect? No
Is it the Kuiper belt?
Does this involve man-made spacecraft?
Kim] Is it the Kuiper belt? No
Raak] Does this involve man-made spacecraft? No - complete abstract, remember?
Is it the intersection of two or more things?
Is it visible with the naked eye?
A light year?
or ... a parsec?
Going back to my first question - 'relates to the movement or path of a celestial object' (answered YESish) and assuming that your last answer excludes all man-made celestial objects.
Is the anwer the name or description of that path?
Raak] Is it the intersection of two or more things? You could at a pinch define it like that, but it wouldn't be very helpful.
Kim - Is it visible with the naked eye? Bearing in mind the earlier qualification of 'observable', yes.
Chalky - A light year - or ... a parsec? Inside the solar system? However, a modicum of *applause* for these having something in common with the answer.

INJ] Good question, but no (and your assumption is correct)
An Astronomical Unit?
The rising or setting of some astronomical body?
Kepler's laws of planetary motion?
Is it related to navigation?
Raak] An Astronomical Unit? No
Rosie] The rising or setting of some astronomical body? *applause and some cheering* Related to, yes.
Quendalon - Kepler's laws of planetary motion? No
ImNotJohn - Is it related to navigation? No
The man in the moon?
silly guess - I know :-)
The precession of the equinoxes?
Tidal patterns?
Atmospheric refraction?
Chalky]The man in the moon? No - but it would have been a good one ;)
Raak] www - the world-wide wobble? No
Phil] Tidal patterns? No
Rosie - Atmospheric refraction? No

Dawn?
OK - Is this 'man's' [the animal] perception of something that occurs in our universe [abstract] - meaning, does he need something [mineral] in order to 'see' or 'interpret' this thing [which is abstract]?
... a one-word answer will suffice ;-)
Quendalon - Dawn? *some applause* No, but getting warmer...
Chalky] OK - Is this 'man's' [the animal] perception of something that occurs in our universe [abstract] - meaning, does he need something [mineral] in order to 'see' or 'interpret' this thing [which is abstract]? ... a one-word answer will suffice ;-)

No >:)
Related to a shadow?
The Green Flash?
Twilight?
ImNotJohn] The shadow? Noes
Raak - The Green Flash? *Before Googling* No *After Googling Well, there you go - I've never seen one of those.
Rosie - Twilight? *applause* For the same reason as Quendalon - both of those are necessarily contained in the answer.

Daylight Savings Time?
(I know it's not right (named after a person?) but the audience reaction might be helpful...)
A full moon?
St Elmo's Fire?
CdM - Daylight Savings Time? (I know it's not right (named after a person?) but the audience reaction might be helpful...)*the audience shrug their shoulders* No
Dujon - A full moon? *appreciative murmurs in the audience* This is sometimes contained in the answer
Software - St Elmo's Fire? A wonderful Eno song, but not the answer

A summary?
Is it Keith Moon?
The dawn chorus?
Shut up, dickybirds, I'm trying to get to sleep.
Kim] Is it Keith Moon? No, nor Freddy Mercury either ;-)
Rosie] The dawn chorus? Oh don't deceive me, oh never leave me, how could you treat such a poor maiden - no

A summary

You’re looking for an ABSTRACT with MINERAL and ANIMAL connections. The animal connection is human. It is named after a particular person (for a given value of ‘person’). It doesn’t have a physical manifestation, though it is (arguably) observable in nature, and in that sense visible with the naked eye. It is inside the solar system. The closest guesses so far are that it is related to astronomy, related to the movement or path of some celestial object, and related to the rising or setting of some astronomical body. You might want to think about the scope of the word ‘related’. ‘Dawn’, ‘twilight’ and ‘a full moon’ also received some applause. It is also scientifically valid/viable/real/true (though some of these are more applicable than others).

It does not begin with S, or with a vowel. It is not (leaving out guesses ruled out by the above): a meteorological phenomenon; a collection of objects; an aura; anything to do with astrology; the conjunction of Venus and Mars; the ecliptic; an apogee; a transit of Venus; the Clarke orbit; the Kirkwood Gaps; the Van Allen belts; a feature of the Earth’s surface; the Trojan points; gravity; celestial co-ordinates; Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses; a form of electro-magnetic effect; the Kuiper belt; the intersection of two or more things (well, you could describe it as that, but it wouldn’t be useful); a light-year or a parsec (though these have something in common with the answer); a name or description of the path of a celestial object; an Astronomical Unit; Kepler's laws of planetary motion; related to navigation; the man in the moon; the precession of the equinoxes; tidal patterns; atmospheric refraction; related to a shadow; the Green Flash; Daylight Savings Time; or St Elmo’s Fire.

It is much simpler than most of these. Much, much simpler. You will kick yourselves (you would probably also kick me, for sounding so smug…) Dujon’s definition of “something that changes from moment to moment even though retaining its description” is the closest so far, though my prediction that this wouldn’t be helpful hasn’t been proved wrong yet.
The horizon?
Well, no, not named after anything.
Is the "person" a mythical one?
Is it the Aurora Borealis?
Is it the effect whereby the sun or moon near the horizon appears much larger than when high in the sky?
The moon's measured size is actually less for simple geometrical reasons.
Raak - The horizon? No
Raak - Is the "person" a mythical one? *cheers and applause*YES
Kim - Is it the Aurora Borealis? No
Rosie - Harvest moon? Another great song, but no
Is the mythical figure Greco-Roman?
Would this effect be present if we had no atmosphere?
BTW what I asked about earlier is not a Harvest Moon, which is Something Completely Different and again involves geometry etc.
The tying down of the moons of Jupiter
Sorry for the delay - Bank Holiday weekend, so I slept in.

Quendalon] Is the mythical figure Greco-Roman? No
Rosie] Would this effect be present if we had no atmosphere? Assuming that we were somehow still present, yes.
BTW what I asked about earlier is not a Harvest Moon, which is Something Completely Different and again involves geometry etc. Apologies - I'm not a scientist (which may, now I come to think of it, be relevant).
CdM] The tying down of the moons of Jupiter? Hush, child oblig
Is the mythical figure Judeo-Christian?
Does this involve some kind of catastrophe?
Quendalon - Is the mythical figure Judeo-Christian? No
Rosie - Does this involve some kind of catastrophe? No
Thursday?
Yesterday?
Another song.
Raak - Thursday? *the audience rise to their feet as one person, cheering deafeningly* ALMOST!
Rosie - Yesterday? Possibly the answer, but not when you posted it.

Mate in five, at most.
Wednesday?
One down, one to go. THe winner owes much to Raak.
Friday?
I have asked some questions, so it's not a complete lurk
Rosie] Wednesday? No
One down, one to go. Yes, and as it turns out, no
The winner owes much to Raak. Absolutely!
Phil] Friday? Full of woe - still two to go
Tuesday / Tiw's Day?
Quendalon - Tuesday / Tiw's Day? YES! The baton goes back to Quendalon.
Thank you, thank you. That was a good one!

And now that it's Tuesday, let's start a new round:
ABSTRACT / ANIMAL
Fictional?
[Raak] Fictional? YES, though some would argue otherwise. *applause*
Aslan?
[Raak] The Lion Messiah? NO.
A figurehead?
Begins with P?
A character of legend?
[Rosie] Carven prow? NO.
[Tuj] Begins with P? NO.
[Kim] Character of legend? A very good question, but difficult to answer with the given phrasing. I'll have to go with a potentially misleading IT DEPENDS.
Are we looking at reigious connections?
[Tuj] Religious connections? YES, for a sufficiently broad definition of religion.
Italian?
Mentioned in The Bible or other holy book?
such as Ian Allan ABC of British Railways Steam Locomotives 1952.
Is the animal human?
Are we talking about more than one animal?
Someone that Dan Brown has 'written' about?
Anything to do with the Greek Myths?
[Tuj] Italian? IT DEPENDS.
[Rosie] Mentioned in the Bible? YES.
[Irouléguy] Is the animal human? YES.
[Chalky] More than one? YES.
[G3] Dan Brown? NO IDEA, sorry. (Haven't read him.)
[Kim] Mentioned in Greek myths? YES.
Is it a one-word answer?
Is this the name of a group of people that are connected in some way?
Gods?
If Italian, then Romans?
[Tuj] One word on the card? YES. *applause*
[Chalky] A group of people connected in some way? Technically, YES.
[Kim] Gods? NO.
[Rosie] Romans? As before, IT DEPENDS.
Is this a collective state of mind?
Giants?
[Chalky] State of mind? NO. *laughter*
[Kim] Giants? NO.
Ghosts?
Is this a disease or medical condition?
[Tuj] Ghosts? *DING!* We have a winner!

Passing the ectoplasmic, ethereal baton...
*drawing the line...*
Your answer to my last question
[Quendalon] How refreshing. Neither have I.
[Gra III, Quend] I once tried reading a page or two. Failed [as in - didn't enjoy]. Actually - IMO he's crap :-)
Gosh!
Well, well. I'll set something ANIMAL.
Human?
Bigger than a toaster?
Begins with a P?
Unique?
Alive?
Please please PLEASE let it begin with a P!
Human? [R] YES, though that may be a touch misleading.
Bigger than a toaster? [C] NO
Begins with a P? [K] NO. Gosh, that was an oversight
Unique? [Q] CERTAINLY NOT
Alive? [B] Ooh, tough question. After Quenders' question I'll phrase it as DEPENDS WHICH PARTICULAR ONE YOU MEAN ;) Oh, and psorry.
Is there more than one human [and are they midgets] ? :-)
A human organ?
This could be a quick one!
More than one human? [C] NO (for a particular case). They could be midgets ;)
A human organ? [R] NO, but *strong audience applause*
Organ donors?
Organ donors? [Q] NO *audience sigh and reseat*
The hairs on the head?
Lilliputians?
An embryo?
Egyptians?
Sperm?
*giggles while wondering if GIII missed the "smaller than a toaster" thing, or if there's something I never knew about Egyptians...or toasters, for that matter :-)*
The last five
All NOs. The audience, for what it's worth, looked least interested when Rosie & Graham III posited what they posited.
A component of the human body?
A type of cancerous growth?
In my defence, I misread the toaster question.
A bodily component? [Q] YES! *audience cheer and high-five*
Cancerous growth? [G3] NO
Is it in the interior of the body?
Interior? Strictly YES, though the name is generally used for an exterior area also.
A type of cell?
Cell? [Q] NO
The ear?
Though it's an organ.
Osseous in nature?
Ear? [R] NO. Right letter, wrong bit.
Osseous? [Q] That's a definite PARTLY, bearing in mind what I said to Raak.
By the way
I'm at a wedding tomorrow & unlikely to be by a PC on Sunday, so unless someone knocks this one out by very early tomorrow (UK time) I may have to do a revealio.
Above the neck?
Above the neck? [Q] NO (unless you bent so as to place it there, of course ;))
An elbow?
A muscle?
Knee?
READ THE ANSWERS GIII!
An eye?
Brainy?
Forget that, please,
might this be termed an epiphysis?
Elbow? [CdM] CORRECTO!
A bend of the arm passes on the baton.
Oops. I hadn't checked here in a while, and indeed had forgotten that I had an outstanding guess. Also, that was a lurker's victory, for which I apologise.

ABSTRACT with an ANIMAL connection and also ANIMAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL connections.
Is the single animal connection human?
Is the single animal human? Yes. *sprinkling of applesauce, er, applause*
(that, by the way, is not an obscure hint; it's just what I almost typoed)
Is this a piece of art?
Begins with a P?
Outstanding in both meanings of the word =)
Is the other animal a particular species?
Is the aforementioned human a particular individual?
Piece of art? No.
P's at start? No.
Species part.? No.
Particular individual? No.
Connected with a particular geographical area?
A class of person e.g. musitian?
Is it fictional?
A character of myth or legend?
Is it unique?
Placed? No.
Classed? No.
Fictional? *some muttering in the audience* The words on the card do not denote something fictional as such, but there are definitely many fictional connections.
Myth or Legend? No, but again there are many connections to myth and legend.
Unique? No.
Does this involve a circle?
wondering where that question came from...
Circular involvement? No. I mean, I suppose it could, but not usually, and not in any way that would be helpful for finding the answer.
Is this connected with language?
Connected to language? I think the best answer is No. While there are some connections, there is neither a direct nor a necessary link to language.
Connected with religion?
Connected with religion? Sometimes, but by no means necessarily. (That is a more positive answer than my first instinct, but I am being influenced by a particular dictionary definition I am looking at right now.) The question does also prompt me to say that I should perhaps have said "...and also ANIMAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL/ABSTRACT connections".
Thought?
A mental activity?
Is it "No Man's Land?"
Thought? No.
Mental Activity? I suppose, with a broad definition of mental activity, the answer is yes, but I'm not sure that is helpful.
No Man's Land? No.
Perhaps there is a bit more of a connection to language than I implied before, simply because this is most often made manifest through language (see "fictional connections").
Connected with politics?
A manifesto of some kind?
A ceremony or ritual?
Is it musical?
Poitical? No.
Manifesto? No.
Ceremony/ritual? No.
Musical? No.
Is this a form of entertainment?
Entertainment? No.
Pork Barrel Politics?
Pork Barrel Politics? Since it is not connected to politics, the answer is No.
An observable phenomenon?
Is it an office that someone holds?
Is this linked to ICT?
Is more than one human required?
I'm regretting this one big time...
Observable phenomenon? I don't think it is best described as a phenomenon and it is only observable with a very broad definition of the term.
Office? No.
Linked to ICT? No.
More than one human required? No specific human or humans are required.
Is it something which wouldn't exist without humans?
Any connection to eating and drinking?
One-word answer?
Any medical connections?
Something that wouldn't exist without humans? Yes, in two distinct ways. *applause, tinged with relief for the modicum of progress*
Connected to eating and drinking? No.
One word answer? Yes. *applause* Medical connections? No.
Is it, therefore, a human construct?
To do with relationships?
Human construct? It is most definitely a human construct. *audience laughter and applause*
To do with relationships? No.
Is there a connection with philosophy?
Connected with science?
Connected to philosophy? No.
Connected to science? No.
For most of these "connected to ...?" questions I can imagine some sort of connection. But the card talks about something relatively narrow and specific.
To do with travel?
To do with travel? No.
Does it begin with a letter in the first half of the alphabet?
Alphabetically privileged? Yes.
Discovered/invented within the past 100 years?
Within last century? No.
Is it a condition that affects some people but not others (eg baldness, unemployment...)?
Condition that affects some people but not others? No. It's not a condition. Some people might be more prone to it than others, I suppose, but it is more something that you do than that you suffer from.
Is this an invention?
Invention? No, at least not beyond the fact that it is a human construct.
Is it a sin?
Is it enjoyable?
not quite the same question as Kim's...
A sin? No.
Enjoyable? No, not particularly. Nor is it not enjoyable.
A mental process?
A mental process? Sort of. *cautious applause*. This AVMA isn't intentionally trying to be difficult or misleading. The questions are just hard to answer.
Logic?
Could you tell if someone was doing this by looking at them?
Is it some kind of physical movement?
Are the animal/vegetable/mineral connections concerned with the Earth as a whole?
Logic? No.
Can you tell by looking? No, in almost all cases. Mainly this is because it is almost always made manifest through language, as I said before.
Some kind of physical movement? No.
Connected to the Earth as a whole? No. It is not so much that there are A/V/M connections as a whole; rather each specific example of this will have an animal or vegetable or mineral or abstract connection.
Is this something that we do every day?
Is this an abstract noun?
... such as - Curiousity?
Does it involve stories?
Is it suscepitble to cause and effect?
Does the word on the card start with a vowel?
Something we do every day? Good question, and I actually not really sure of the answer. My first instinct was no. Most of us certainly do not do it consciously every day. On reflection, though, I suspect that it is something we often do without being aware of it, so the answer might well be yes.
Abstract noun? Yes. *applause*
Curiosity? No.
Does it involve stories? Very often, yes (though it might be more accurate to say that stories can involve it). *some applause*
Susceptible to cause and effect? I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I think that the only helpful answer is No.
Vowel at the head? Yes.

Sorry this is so tricky. I have scattered a few obscure clues in my answers of the last several days. If the next few questions take you no closer I'll try to think of a better clue.
An explanation?
Imagination?
An attitude of mind?
(e.g. cynicism)
Explanation, Imagination, Attitude? No.
A type of speech act?
Is it related to a lack of brevity/efficiency or the like?
Trying to read something into the last (and earlier) answers
Type of speech act? No (at least, not as I understand the term). Nevertheless, I think your answers are getting warmer, even if they still need several sweaters.
Soulless wit? No. That was just me being long-winded.
Adjective?
Is this an -ism?
Absent-mindedness?
Abstraction?
Is it a gerund?
anarcho-syndicalism? :)
Adjective? No. Nor is it one.
An -ism? Yes. *applause*
Absent-mindedness?
Abstraction? No, but *sustained applause and a little laughter*
An -ing? No (although there is a gerund that is very closely related to the word on the card, and my answers would probably be identical had I picked that word instead). (In fact, pedantically speaking, I think my answer to, say, your (Iroul's) previous question was probably more about the -ing than the -ism.)
AS? No.
Anthropomorphism?
Spoonerism?
Spoonerism? On, but...
Anthropormorphism? Yes! Chalky gets a highly relieved baton
post -traumatic stress
OK-a-a-aay. The baton enjoyed a few hours sleep but only after extensive counselling. Any temporary relief may be short-lived ....

V E G E T A B L E / A B S T R A C T with ANIMAL/MINERAL connections
Is the abstract vegetable metaphorical?
[Raak] Metaphorical? NO
Edible?
Is the abstract a state of the vegetable?
[CdM] A good subject, but I'm trying hard to see how we could have got to it more logically (of course we could have been luckier at times)
Are the animal connections human?
[INJ] No, I don't think it was a very good subject, actually. It seemed clever when I thought of it, but abstract nouns like that tend to be a bit too, well, abstract. I perhaps should have pointed you to think harder about my human construct ("in two distinct ways") answer. Otherwise you are right; my answers felt very vague to me, and it is hard to see how you could have found your way any better.
The grapes of wrath?
CdM] I thought it was a good one - I'd rather too difficult than too easy.
[CdM] Edible? NO
[INJ] Abstract a state of the vegetable? If you mean the condition of the vegetable - then only in the broadest possible sense.
[CdM] Human animal connections? YES
[Irouléguy] The grapes? NO
Is the vegetable growing/alive?
[INJ] Growing/Alive? YES ;)
Is it a geographical entity?
[Phil] Geographical entity? NO
Fictional?
One particular vegetable?
[Quendalon] Fictional? NO
[Rosie] One particular vegetable? Worded thus, your question can only receive a NO/YES/SORT OF reply. Sorry.
Is the vegetable wood?
[Irouléguy] Wood? NO
I can't believe it has gone this long without someone asking, so.....does it begin with 'P'?
[Bigsmith] Does it begin with a 'P'? ONE of the words on the card does!
Many plants all of the same type?
To try to resolve Rosie's question!
Is it "The Great Pumpkin"?
A quality or characteristic of a vegetable?
Is it connected to a particular human?
[INJ] Many plants all of the same type? In a manner of speaking - YES. *audience applauses*
[Kim] The Great Pumpkin? NO
[Quendalon] Quality or characteristic of a vegetable? I shall say YES with slight reservations because I wouldn't wish to lead you astray :-)
[Tuj] Any particular human? Most definitely NO - the human[animal]/mineral element merely supports the main definition, ie. these components make it happen.
A forest or wood?
Does the answer relate to a particular sense?
(As in smell, etc)
[Rosie] A forest or a wood? NO [but you're moving in the right direction re: the 'vegetable']
[INJ] Relate to a particular sense? *audience applauds an excellent question* Not a straightforward YES here - the answer has connections with sensory organs.
The scented garden?
[Software] Scented garden? NO
Tactile connections?
[Quend] Tactility? um ... NO - by saying that, I'm trying to be helpful :-)
Are the vegetables trees?
{Irouléguy] Are the vegetables trees? NO! You have already asked the wood question :)
An allotment?
[Rosie] An Allotment? NO
Are vegetebles mainly flowers?
[Rosie] Vegetables mainly flowers? They could be - in this particular instance [the Abstract element] they are not.

CLUE: 'Vegetable' can mean something other than a fruit, a plant, an ebible vegetable, a tree, a forest, a flower etc.
ebible? ebible?
Roots?
Chalky] What's wrong with an e-bible? God gave Moses the Ten Commandments on two Tablets, remember ;)
The Pollen Count?
[Irouléguy] Roots? NO - but much much closer because ..

ImNotJohn has tapped straight into my wavelength with a perfect answer!
*sneezes then hands over the baton*
Wipes the baton carefully
I nearly guessed that a couple of days earlier
So let's start again with ABSTRACT/MINERAL
A geological feature?
[CdM]geological feature? - NO
A work of art?
Fictional?
Is the mineral metal of some kind?
[GIII] But is it art? - NO
[Quen] Fictional? - Might be, might not be
[Bigsmith] Metal? - NO
Is it a mineral of myth or legend?
[Kim] Mithril or legendary? - NO
Unique?
Human construct?
A figure of speech?
[Quen] Unique - NO
[CdM] Human etc. - YESish
[Raak] Figure of Speech - YES (applause)
Is it a saying specific to a region or country?
[G111] Region/country specific? - NO
Language-specific?
Feet of clay?
Having a go from the halfway line.
[CdM] The answer is in a specific language ;-)
Could it be in another? - I don't know, and I don't think it would help if I did
[Rosie] Floating like a butterfly? - NO (tipping it over the bar with nonchalant ease)
Is the word "rock" on the card?
A ton of bricks?
Is the mineral iron?
This shouldn't take long
[Quen] Rocky? - NO
[Raak] ton of bricks? - NO
[Dujon] ironic? - NO
Grounds for complaint?
Isthe mineral water?
Is the language English?
(Raak) Is the mineral water what? I think it is, actually. We'll see.
[Software] - Grounds for complaint? - NO
[Raak] watery? - NO
[Rosie] In English? - YES (sorry, I wasn't trying to be clever)
Is the mineral silicon based?
[Glll] silicon-based? - YES is the most helpful answer (*applause*)
Burying one's head in the sand?
cyber space?
Nearly there
[Glll] - Ostriching? - NO (but plenty more applause)
[Software] Cyber space - NO (they fall silent again)
Is the word sand in the answer?
[Glll] 'sand' in answer - YES
The sands of time?
[Raak] egg-timer? - NO
Keep trying
Shifting sands?
Cassandra? Sandra Day O'Connor? Pinsand needles?
A line in the sand?
oh, I bet that's right...
And the next one please
And Rosie gets it! The answer is 'A line in the sand'.
*Baton passed carefully without stepping too far*
*Somewhat startled, reaches over silicaceous demarcation zone and grabs the precious icon.*.

This time, it's - A N I M A L

Is it human?
(G III) Human? - certainly is
alive?
British?
(INJ) Alive? - Could be.
(Raak) British? - Could be.
Is it, at any given moment , a single specific human being?
(e.g., 200 meters hurdles world record holder)
(CdM) Not a single specific person in the way you mean.
A class of being, i.e. police?
Fictional?
Since the "could be" I can't get "Hong Kong Phooey, number one superguy; Hong Kong Phooey, quicker than the human eye" out of my head. Thanks, Rosie. I wonder if that's what inspired Software (hello hello? Police Headquarters).
(Software) - YES, sort of.
(ISP) It makes me think of Monty Python's Nudge, Nudge sketch.
(ISP) Just realised I hadn't answered your question. NO, not fictional.
Both male and female?
Might this person oft times be referred to as 'religious'?
(CdM) No hermaphrodites. One sex only.
(Dujon) Not essentially a religious person.
The occupant of some office?
It is more than one person, right?
(Raak) If you mean the office as a room, then NO.
(CdM) slightly hesitantly, YES
The holder of some position?
That sort of office.
(Raak) Holder of some position? - YES, but not quite in the usual sense. *approving murmurs from the audience*
Male?
(Irg) Male? - Certainly is. *More approving murmurs*
The winner of some competition?
The son and heir?
(Raak) - Not a competition winner.
(Irg) No, that would be impossible. *some discreet sniggers amongst wittier members of the audience*
Eunuchs?
(Bigsmith) "....and Goebbels had no balls at all"? NO, though strictly there is no reason why the subject(s) may not be differently-orchidised.
A child?
(Graham III) - NO, not a child.
Clarification:- My reply to Irouléguy has a temporal significance.
Do you have to be a certain age to be this?
The holder of some kind of record?
(Irouléguy) - Age limits? - YES, in effect, though not in a formal sense.
(Tuj) Not a record-holder.
The oldest man in the world?
[INJ] I was going to ask that a day or so ago, but the animal's not necessarily alive. I asked my previous question to completely rule it out.
A group defined by having experienced/lived through a particular event?
[Tuj] Yes, you're right - it's ruled out for a few reasons (like, not a single specific person) - Scrub that and try this one.
(INJ) (Qu. 1) Not the oldest man in the world. Nothing to do with his age, actually.
(Qu. 2) NO, but an event is involved. *Sort-of approving noises from the audience*
Is the event in the future?
For example, the team to represent GBR in the men's 4x100m sprint relay at the Beijing Olympics.
(Bigsmith) A future event team? NO, the event is basically now but could be in the recent past.
Associated with one particular country?
(Tuj) NO, not associated with one particular country.
Begins with P?
Knew I'd forgotten something.
(Tuj) Perfectly preposterous proposition, pal - er, Not P.
Does the word 'veteran' appear on the card?
(Dujon) The word "veteran" - NO, no old soldiers.
Is the related 'event' to do with family?
Dead man's shoes?
Grasping at straws
(INJ) - Family? Very much so, Gary. *vigorous applause*
(Softers) - The straws got away. Not "Dead man's shoes"
The father of the bride?
[Rosie] Surely you meant 'Very much so, yes; Gary'
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord