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 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'
*suspects INJ has given it away*

but just in case... A father-in-law?
(INJ) NO, not the bride's father. re "Gary" - you may well be right. :-)
(Irg) Worth the shot, but not him either.
To do with a birth?
(probably just as well - I won't be posting on Thursday or Friday, so I'd better not win this)
A godfather?
(INJ) Fear not; you haven't. It's nothing to do with a birth. Good luck on K2 and see you Saturday.
(Phil) NO, not a godfather.
Defined by relationship(s) with others?
A grandfather?
(Quendalon) NO, not defined by any relationship.
(Irouléguy) Not a grandfather.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord