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
[Graham III] A bull ring? NO

Re: last 2 questions. Remember - tickets are NOT sold for this particular thing.
Hmm, perhaps that doesn't have too much to do with 90 degree angles...
Parkour?
[Graham III] Parkour? NO
Hopscotch?
Hurrah hurrah
Irouléguy chucks his stone into the square and hops to victory. HOPSCOTCH is the very word on the card. Well played!
Very well done Irouléguy. I was barking up totally the wrong tree for most of that.
Thanks, G III. My thanks go to Juxtapose - it was the 90 degree angle question that helped me put it together. Throwing the jack again, we next have an ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections (and a few MINERALS, strictly speaking, but they're not helpful).
Animal human?
Rosie] Animal human? Yes
Is it a human construct that begins with P?
An activity?
CdM - Is it a human construct that begins with P? No (to both)
Rosie - An activity? *hum of discussion in the audience* Ye-es - although there's a case for saying that 'no' is also a valid answer.
Growth?
CdM - Growth? No
Is the vegetable paper?
A process?
Does this involve people meeting each other?
Is it a place?
One installation of a new home PC later - Vista's very funny looking, but I forgive it everything I'm likely to discover for how fast it loads. Questions, questions...

Raak - Is the vegetable paper? Paper isn't the primary vegetable, but it is involved (or not)
Quendalon - A process? For some people, yes
Rosie - Does this involve people meeting each other? It could do (though the opposite could also be true)
Chalky - Is it a place? No
Does it involve correspondence?
Rosie] Does it involve correspondence? It could do, but I think it usually doesn't.
Is it a game?
Raak] Is it a game? No
Related to language?
Quendalon] Related to language? No
A learning process?
Rosie] A learning process? Yes, it is - though it's not the most obvious description of this.
Requires more than one person?
Quendalon] Requires more than one person? No - though it's argued that people doing it together will have a better experience.

Oh, and re-reading the above, there are no sexual connotations - the answer is perfectly SFW.
Is there a musical connection?
Making marks on a surface?
Are computers involved?
Is it a social process (ie, concerned with the development or conduct of social relationships)?
Chalky] Is there a musical connection? No
Quendalon - Making marks on a surface? No
Raak - Are computers involved? No
Kim] Is it a social process (ie, concerned with the development or conduct of social relationships)? *stirrings in the audience* If successful, it will almost certainly change the development and conduct of social relationships. And you could describe it as a social process, for particular definitions of 'social'.
Counselling?
Graham III] Counselling? *more stirrings in the audience* No, though counselling can often help with this.
Divorce?
is this something that happens to people?
Rehabilitation?
An AA meeting?
Juxtapose] Divorce? No - see the answer to Quendalon's last question but one.
Chalky] Is this something that happens to people? *applause* Good question - no, it's something that people do.
Rosie] Rehabilitation? No
Raak - An AA meeting? *applause and a few cheers from the audience* No, but nearer than any previous guess
Teetotalism?
Cigarette addiction?
Are these people trying to come to terms with a problem they have?
Raak] Teetotalism? *shudder* No
Graham III] Cigarette addiction? *cheering from the audience* So close!
Rosie] Are these people trying to come to terms with a problem they have? *more cheering - the audience pick up their bags and coats preparing for the end* YES!
A visit to the Doctor?
Chalky] A visit to the Doctor? *the audience put their bags down* No
Losing weight?
Not to lurk, but...
The answer's giving up smoking.
A lurky guess - Tuj wins! Those are the exact words on the card. One low-tar, filter-tipped baton passed over.
[Tuj] Does it begin with P?
[CdM]

The very words on the card!

*hands over baton*
Ha!
O-kay... This one is ANIMAL.
Is it a humang beeing?
A human being? Not yet. *appreciative amused murmurs from the audience*
[Tuj] I'm now worried about my victory. Were the words on the card "Does it begin with P?" or "Does it begin with P"? If the latter, then fine. But if the former, am I right in thinking your answer should have just been no, since I didn't ask "Does it begin with P??"?
A stem cell?
The next Dalai Lama?
Stem cell? No.
Antereincarnate? No.
An embryo?
An embryo? No. Examine your assumptions.
A humanoid?
Edible?
[CdM] To be honest, you had the question in before I thought of anything, but it amused me so much it merited that =)
A humanoid? No.
Edible? Strictly speaking, yes, but highly unlikely to be eaten!
A primate?
Is it unique?
My signature question.
A mammal?
Fictional?
Hang on...
Does it begin with a P?
A spermatazoon?
A body part or product?
A primate? No (but examine your assumptions)
Is it unique? That depends somewhat on your definition of "it", but I think the least misleading answer is No.
A mammal? No (but examine your assumptions)
Fictional? No.
Begin with P? No. Spermatazoon? No.
Body part or product? No.
Is this a collection of things?
Collection of things? Well, "collection" is not the usual word, and nor is "things", but Yes. *some audience applause*
The genome?
NB - "Not yet" a human being = a teenager.
Well, my wife is due home shortly so I'll back out of here for a few hours. I do ever so hope that she has that glint in her eyes.
Well, my wife is due home shortly so I'll back out of here for a few hours. I do ever so hope that she has that glint in her eyes.? No.
(but an interesting guess, it has to be said)
Is it an egg?
A dismembered corpse?
Shoal of fish?
I take it wasn't anything to do with Rosie's genome?
Is it alive?
Genome? No.
Teenager? No. *laughter* Sorry. I know I already composed those answers, but I must have previewed and failed to post.
Egg? No.
Dismembered corpse? No,
Shoal of fish? No.
Alive? Yes.*applause, as much from relief than anything else*
I say again, you need to examine your assumptions. Some of my answers have involved very careful parsing of the questions.
A troop of monkeys?
Troop of monkeys? No. *smattering of applause, none the less*
Dr. Frankenstein's collection of spare parts?
Just clarifying the answer to Chalky's initial question:
Is this thing normally expected to become a human being?
*Before he can even answer, the audience applauds the decision to return to Chalky's question*
Normally expected to become a human being? The thing described by the words of the cards is definitely* expected to become a human being.

*There are imaginable ways in which this might not happen, but they are highly improbable.
Is the answer humorous?
a chromasome?
or even a chromosome?
The glint in a father's eye?
I suppose that is abstract really, but might at least clarify whether I'm thinking in the right ballpark.
Humorous? Not at all. If anything, the opposite.
Chromuhsome? No.
The glint in Dujon's wife's eye? No. And not even the right ballgame, never mind the right ballpark.
Dare I say: Examine your assumptions?
Posterity?
Posterity? No. *smattering of applause*
The Second Coming?
Descendents?
Second coming? No.
Descendants? No. It was only a smattering of applause!
attempting a summary

ANIMAL
IT IS NOT a stem cell, the next Dalai Lama, an embryo, a humanoid, a primate, unique, a mammal, fictional, a spermatozoon, a body part or product, the genome, a teenager, an egg, a dismembered corpse, a shoal of fish, a troop of monkeys [drew some applause], humorous, a chromosome, glint in a father's eye, posterity [drew a smattering of applause], the second coming, descendants, Dujon backing out of here for a few hours hoping for a wifely eye glint.

IT IS: definitely expected to become a human being, edible [but unlikely to be eaten], a collection of things [but 'collection' and 'things' are not the best words to use], alive [drew relieved applause],
Are there more than 100 of these?
And presumably not Frankenstein's stack of spare parts, asked earlier?
Would you need a microscope to see it?
Are there more than 100 of these? No. *substantial applause*
BRAAAIIIINNNSS? No.
Would you need a microscope? No.
Chalky's summary is accurate but must be, I will remind you, carefully parsed. And perhaps it should also include the answer to her first question: It is not yet a human being.
Do we need to examine the definition of 'human being' in order to make some progress with your little cunundrum?
Does it exist at the present time?
A human clone?
Do we need to examine definition of human being? No. That's not where your confusion lies.
Exist at present time? Yes. *some applause*
Clone? No.
Is it the subject of any political controversy?
Is sex involved?
Would the answer to any of the things this is NOT, in Chalky's list, have been yes, if the question had been posed in the plural?
e.g. more than one mammal.
Subject of political controversy? It has a connection to political controversy but is not to my knowledge the subject of pc.
Sex? No.
Yes if plural? Yes! *substantial and relieved applause*
Siamese twins?
Siamese twins? No.
Is this a tribe?
... and I think it has been fairly obvious for some time that the answer is in the plural - just look at the yesses.
And yet it becomes a human being.
...and isn't a human body part or product. Hmm.
Well, that disqualifies "dismembered corpses"... and you do not need a microscope to see it, which disqualifies stem cells, chromosomes, and a couple others... Is it pre-natal?
A tribe? No.
Prenatal? No.
*(The audience is starting to enjoy this)*
Could you fit it into a telephone box?
That is, the whole group of whatever they are, all in to a single telephone box.
Vanishing twins?
Are these mostly found on one continent?
Are there less than 50 of these?
Phittable in a phonebox? Not yet.
Vanishing twins? No.
Mostly found on one continent? Mostly, yes. *applause*
<50? Yes.
Are they used in scientific research?
Pigs bred for the purpose of human organ transplants?
Do they exist right now?
Is the continent they are mostly found on Asia?
Are there less than 12 of these?
Used in scientific research? No.
Porcine donors? No.
Exist right now? Yes.
Mainly in Asia? No.
<12 No.
The audience, rather belatedly, is thinking that Chalky's third-to-last question might have indicated a promising line of thinking on her part. Or it might not.
Can they talk?
Can they talk? Yes. (It's conceivable that perhaps one or two of them in fact can't, but I have no special reason to think that is true.)
Continent: North America?
North America? No.
Are they human right now?
An example of conjoined twins?
Are they particularly small?
Is this the group of 'nearly humans' but 'not quite yet' that have been in the news lately?
... which is what I was aiming for when I asked about a 'tribe'?
Human right now? Yes. *audience applauds, more out of relief than anything else*
Conjoined twins? No.
Particularly small? No.
Nearly but not quite human? No. *The audience now thinks they were in fact correct not to applaud Chalky's earlier question*
Maybe it is time to look once again at your assumptions. You are all missing something rather obvious.
Does this number of humans-right-now have a collective name?
Are these human-right-now related?
Is this a collection of people who will eventually be just one, the rest having been excluded from the group in some manner, such as by dying or being knocked out of a competition?
Collective name? That's actually a little tricky to answer. I think the best answer is No. However, the five words on the card might be thought of as a collective name for these humans right now.
Are they related? No.
Is this a collection ... competition? YES! *sustained applause*
The participants on Big Brother?
Participants on Big Brother. *audience laughter* No.
The candidates for US President?
Mitt Hussein Rodham McCain? No.
Are the members of this group members because of their own choices/actions?
Members through choice or action? I suppose that some choices influenced their member ship of this group, but the best answer is definitely No.
Is there a definite date, already known, by which time only one will be left?
Definite known date by which time only one will be left? No.
Further to Raak's earlier question, is the point at which there will be only one member of the group remaining determined by the death of the other members of the group?
A tontine?
Is 'survivor' one of the words on the card?
Five words... The members of my [CdM's] family?
Point at which one left determined by death of others? Yes. *applause*
Tontine? No.
Is 'survivor" one of the words? No, but "surviving" is. *applause*
Kind Hearts and Coronets? No.
Speakers of a particular language?
People in line to inherit a throne/kingdom?
Oh - and continent: Europe?
Speakers of a particular language? No.
Kind Hearts and Coronets? No.
Continent = Europe? Yes, although my earlier agreement that they were "mostly to be found on one continent" was in fact slightly inaccurate. A better statement is that the majority are to be found in Europe.
Surviving Veterans of World War I?
Last surviving veteran of WWI?
... just to cover the other possibility :-)
We have a winner! "Surviving World War One Veterans" were the words on the card. Looking back, Chalky's first ("a human being?") question, which I couldn't resist answering as "not yet", led you all to run after a large number of untamed waterfowl. I was surprised to discover that there are still at least 15 (plus maybe another 8 depending on exactly how you count) living WWI vets.

One batonet handed carefully to Chalky.
* who not-so-carefully wallops CdM's backside with it*
... and if I'd have missed out the indefinite article in that question, who knows how you might have replied ;-)
Will post a new one at 0730 GMT
... late on parade
Next up - A B S T R A C T with Animal connections
Are the animal connections human?
[Graham III] Animal connections Human? Not yet ......

Only joking :-) YES
A specific human?
A mythical character?
A fictional character?
[Irouléguy] Specific human? NO
[Kim] Mythical character? NO
[Bigsmith} A fictional character? NO
To do with mathematics?
A human characteristic?
[Raak] To do with mathematics? NO - not really
[Rosers] A human characteristic? NO
Is the animal connection a reference to a human body part or parts?
Is this an activity undertaken by human beings?
[CdM] Referencing human body or body parts? Strictly speaking ... YES [see next reply]
[Graham III] Activity? YES! *applause*
Is it sporting?
[Graham III] Sporting? Some may find it sporting, some may not :-)
Sex?
[irach] Sex? Not sex per se - but some may find it sexy and some may not :-)
Is it a particularly energetic activity?
[Raak] Particularly energetic? NO. Good question.
Is it mostly carried out by one person at a time?
Some form of research?
[Graham III] Mostly by one person at a time? Not sure of the stats - if indeed there are any. Can be one, can be two, can be three, can be four, can be .... am I boring you?
[Dujon] Research? NO
Scrabble?
Is it yoga?
[Graham III] Scrabble? NO
[Kim] Yoga? NO ... but *audience cheers with considerable gusto*
Tai Chi?
Pilates?
Is it essentially play?
sorry for delay - had to do hospital visiting

Wow - an excellent deduction Raak and spot on. Tai Chi it is. I am a huge fan of this 'soft' martial art.

*hands over baton in slow motion stylee*
*grasps swallow's tail, waves hands like birds, repulses monkey, weaves with shuttles, and greets fair lady*

The next is MINERAL, with VEGETABLE connections.

Is it manmade?
Is it used in a culinary capacity?
Is it commonly referred to in the singular?
Is it edible?
[Raak] repulsing monkey is my favourite move :-)
Is it a tool?
Does it begin with P?
Crude oil?
Marmalade? No.
Not culinary.
You can have just one of these.
Not edible.
Tool? It performs a function.
Does not begin with P.
Not crude oil.
Are the vegetable connections wood?
Man-made?
.. assuming Marmalade reply wasn't meant in jest :-)
Wooden connections? Sort of.
Oops, just my eyes going funny. IS man-made.
vegetable = Paper?
Yes, paper. Speaking of which, this thing could fairly be said to have ABSTRACT connections as well.
Is it bigger than a toaster?
Anything to do with a creative activity?
Bigger than a toaster.
Has to do with a creative activity. *sounds of the audience approving*
Is the abstract connection writing?
[Q] Writing? Narrowly understood, no, broadly understood, yes.
is one of the words actually "paper"?
A keyboard?
[J] "Paper" does not appear on the card.
[R] Not a keyboartd.
Chinese scroll-painting?
[I] Not Chinese scroll-painting.
Anything to do with musical notation?
[G3] Nothing to do with musical notation. At least, not specifically.
Rubbings?
[Q] Not rubbings.
Ink?
[Rosie] Not ink. *the audience once more make approving sounds*
Related to holes?
Is there paint (or a coloring medium) involved with its typical use?
[Q] No holes.
[J] Yes, a colouring medium.
Is it unique?
The Blue Pencil?
[Tuj] Not unique.
[Rosie] Not the Blue Pencil.
Is it a paintbrush?
Is it one particular colo(u)r?
[nights] Not a paintbrush.
[CdM] Not a particular colour.
You're all thinking too small.
could you fit it through a door?
[J] You can't fit it through a door. Well, an ordinary door.
Would this be a man-made construction which in turn produces something?
The 'You can have just one of these' comment has me flummoxed though.
[Dujon] Yes, a man-made construction producing something. "One of these" -- well, you can have one, or more than one, so answering Juxtapose's question, it can be referred to in the singular or the plural.
a kiln?
Not a kiln.
A photocopier?
That's probably a bum shot.
Not a photocopier (but the audience have started to look cheerful again).
A printing press?
Bingo! A Printing Press.
Yay! An answer that was a good combination of sufficiently uncommon, yet not randomly obtuse giving me a chance there. For the next one we have:
MINERAL AND VEGETABLE (normally).
Edible?
[Raak] Yummy? NO.
A geographical feature?
Man-made?
Is it unique?
[INJ] Geographical? NO [Rosie] Man-made? YES *light applause from the audience* [Quendalon] Unique? NO
Metal and wood?
Mood/Wetal? YES, these are both normally involved.
is it found on/near streets?
Would this normally (or, at least often) be associated with visual art?
Would this normally (or, at least often) be associated with music?
Is it a tool?
Is it a building?
[Juxtapose] Street dweller? NO
[Dujon] Art? Normally, NO
[Quendalon] Music? NO, not that I've ever heard of.
[Raak] Tool? NO, not within the definition of Chambers.
[Tuj] Building? NO
Does the metal part consist of fastenings holding the wooden parts together?
[Raak] Fasteners? NOT EXCLUSIVELY
In between the size of a toaster and a phone box?
Toast-box? YES!
Is it a piece of furniture?
[Raak] Furniture? NO in the conventional sense.
A box or container of some kind?
Commonly found in one's home?
[Rosie] Box? NO
[Quendalon] Homebased? YES *applause*.
Does it have any moving parts?
Sorry, I forgot that I was the last one to post. How gauche of me! Please forgive the solecism.
Does it have any moving parts?
Problem solved.
Is it normally found in the same location (e.g. usually in the kitchen)
[Q/J] Moving parts? YES
[INJ] One place? NOT USUALLY (as far as I know about people's homes...)
Would this normally (or, at least often) . . . curse you, Quendalon. ;-)
Does this have hinges?
Commonly found not in one's home?
Would most owners normally own just one of these?
A door?
*suspects Raak has nailed it*
More wood than metal?
(Irg) All my doors have screws. :-)
[Irouléguy] I doubt it's a door, as we've been told it's not found on or near streets.
[Dujon] You're too kind. :)
Grandfather clock?
[Dujon] Hinged? NOT IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE
[CdM] Out of house and home? YES, though you may not come across it usually.
[Iguy] Just one? YES
[Raak] Door? NO
[Rosie] Woody? DEPENDS ON YOUR MEASURE AND THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. Mine has more wood by volume if that's any help.
[Quendalon] Clock? NOPE.
Is it collapsible?
[Juxtapose] Collapsible? YES *audience excited now*
[GIII] Delectable italicise text, that *approves*=)
A folding ladder / stepladder?
Is the unconventional hinge similar to, say, a piano accordian or bellows?
A Workmate?
[Tuj] Why thank you :-)
[Quendalon] Ladder? NOPE
[Dujon] according? NO
[Raak] Workmate? NO.
A piano?
A panelled screen?
Associated with play?
A deck chair?
Ironing board?
[Rosie 1] NO
[Chalky] NO
[Quendalon] Only if you're very weird
[Rosie 2] NO
[Juxtapose] YES! The very words on the card! *audience goes wild and jumps up and down*. Here, have the baton:
Aa! It's my first time, so be gentle.
Alright, here we go with ABSTRACT, involving multiple ANIMALish themes.
Multiple animals meaning many different species?
[Irouléguy] Many different species? NO.
Is this a 'saying' which references animals?
A characteristic of animals?
[Chalky] a saying? NO, but quite a clever guess.
[Rosie] A characteristic? A case for both sides here, but saying NO will be less misleading.
Are the animals referred to in the plural?
Are the animals human?
[Rosie] plural? Situationally dependent.
[ImNotJohn] human? YES, there is at least one human involved.
is this a tale or a fable or a story-type thingy?
Is this a form of 'art'?
I'm confused by some of the answers here. We have multiple animals, at least one human, but not many different species. So, in the interest of clarifying this:
Do the animalish themes ever involve a non-human animal?
[Chalky] fairy-tale? NO.
[Dujon] Art? NO.
[CdM] Non-human? YES.
Sorry for the confusion. There are human(s) and non-humans involved, but not "many".
Is this the name of a place?
'Old MacDonald had a farm'?
One man and his dog?
Is this fictional?
[J] Nonono, no need for apology; I was just clarifying.
What! 14 hours and NO replies? *grumblegrumblegrumble*
[Chalky]Place name? NO.
[Irouléguy] Old Mac? NO.
[Graham III] Man + dog? NO.
[CdM] Fictional? NO.
[Chalky] 14 hours and no replies? YES.
Connected to entertainment of some kind?
[CdM] Connected to entertainment? NO.
Is there more than one non-human species involved?
Is this the name of a group or society?
A true life story?
Is it connected to farming or animal husbandry generally?
Begins with a P?
What! 16 hours and NO replies?
[Irouléguy] More than one non-human species involved? KIND OF.
[Chalky] Group or society? NO.
[Chalky] A true life story? OFTEN.
[Kim] Farming or animal husbandry? NO. A case might me made for YES by someone trying to throw you off track.
[Tuj] One of the words begins with a P.
Do these true-life stories occur all over the world, or are they geographically specific?
Medical connections? [illness, disease - that type of thing]
Are the animals specifically pets or similar companion animals?
Connected with birth?
Are these animals alive?
What! 17 hou- oh, never mind.
*chuckles*
Is this an emotion?
Is this a BAD thing?
Is this a human construct?
[CdM] All over the world? YES. *audience members start nudging eachother awake*
[Chalky] Medical connections? YES! *excited noises*
[ImNotJohn] pets? NO.
[Quendalon] Connected with birth? NO.
[Chalky] Alive? YES.
[Chalky] emotion? NO.
[Chalky] Bad? Some might say no. I say YES.
[Chalky] Human construct? NO. Now let somebody else ask some.
Animal testing? (of cosmetics, or pharmaceuticals, or, I dunno, airbags or something)
[CdM] Animal testing? NO.
What! 12 hours and no question from Chalky?
Are the non-human animals fish?
Connected with agriculture / animal husbandry?
An anthropomorphization?
[Irouléguy] fish? NO.
[ImNotJohn] agri-husbandry? NO. (see Kim's question above)
[Quendalon] Antrhopomorphization? NO.
Fictional or fiction-related?
[Tuj] Fictitious? NO.
Summary time, and the living is easy
Fish are jumping...

We have an ABSTRACT involving multiple ANIMALish themes.

It is not: a saying (though the guess was described as 'clever'), fictional, art, a place-name, Old MacDonald had a farm, One man and his dog, connected to entertainment, a group or society, geographically specific (this question got applause), pets, connected with birth, an emotion, a human construct, animal testing, connected with agriculture or animal husbandry, an anthropomorphisation, or fictional. And the non-human animals are not fish, but they are alive. They belong to more than one species, but not to 'many' species.

It is: involving at least one human, something that happens all over the world, and with medical connections.

It might be: a true life story, and a bad thing. There may be more than one non-human animal involved (situationally dependent).

The answer includes: a word beginning with 'P'.
Are the non-human animals mostly one species?
Is it a title of something (book/film/etc)?
[Irouléguy] mostly one species? YES.
[Tuj] Title of media? NO.

[Re: Recap] "situationally dependent" was the answer to the following question: "Are the animals referred to in the plural?" The question "More than one non-human species involved?" had the answer "KIND OF", which I stand by.
Does it involve words?
Is it unique?
Is the non-human species visible to the naked eye?
Is it animal testing?
Kim - Is it animal testing? I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the summary above.
[Quendalon] "Does it involve words?" I'm not really sure how to give a yes or no answer to that which would be helpful. It is not word/language-based.
[Tuj] Is it unique? NO.
[Irouléguy] Is the non-human species visible to the naked eye? NO!
A bacterium/virus/etc responsible for a particular disease/medical condition?
[Irouléguy] A bacterium/virus/etc responsible for a particular disease/medical condition? YES.
Is the answer the disease/medical condition?
Feeling greedy - is the animal specifically a virus (as opposed to a bacterium or other thingy)?
[Irouléguy] Is the answer the disease/medical condition? YES.
[Irouléguy] is the animal specifically a virus? YES. *audience begins to gather coats and hats*
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis?
Poliomylitis?
The common cold?
Does the disease affect one part of the body specifically?
Just for the sake of satisfying my own pedantry, I feel duty-bound to point out that generally viruses are not considered by most scientists as animals, for example because they are not living things, cannot self-replicate, and don't have a membrane separating themselves from the outside world. But that's probably a debate for another time. And yes I know that Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is (a) not a virus, and (b) only theoretical, but it's an amusing word.
[Graham III] Pneumonoultrafragilisticexpialidocious? NO.
[Somebody Else] Poliomylitis? NO.
[Quendalon] The common cold? NO.
[Graham III] Does the disease affect one part of the body specifically? Hmm. As in 'athelete's foot'? NO.
[Pedantry] I know there is some debate, but I did say "animal-ish" not simply "animal", and secondly if I had answered yes or no based on viruses being animals I think it would have been more misleading. I like to consider myself not an evil man.
Bird flu?
Is the disease commonly fatal?
Influenza? The common, non-avian kind?
[Quendalon] Bird flu? NO.
[Irouléguy] Commonly fatal? NO.
[irach] Influenza? NO.
Sexual contact as primary vector of infection?
Is the disease usually known by a colloquial name rather than a formal one?
[Quendalon] STD? NO.
[Irouléguy] A colloquial name? YES. *applause*
Black Death Bubonic Plague?
or any of the Bubonic Plagues?
The dreaded lurgy?
Chicken pox?
[Somebody Else] Assorted plagues bubonic? NO!
[Raak] The dreaded lurgy? NO!
[Quendalon] Chicken pox? SPOT ON! *audience goes wild* Thus the 'multiple animal-ish themes'. Please accept this sterilized and sanitized baton. Well done.
Thank you! It's been a while since I've held the baton. So, let's try:

MINERAL, with ANIMAL connections.
"Tigereye" gemstone?
Man-made?
[irach] Tiger's eye? NO.
[Rosie] Man-made? YES.
Are the animal connections human?
A mousetrap?
A mantrap?
[Rosie] No vegetable as in wood?
[Raak] Animal = human? NO.
[Rosie] Mousetrap? NO.
[Tuj] Mantrap? NO.
Birdcage? La Cages aux Folles?
Is the mineral/one of the minerals glass?
Is it a model of an animal?
Is it a fossil?
[irach] Cage (aux Folles or otherwise)? NO.
[Juxtapose] Is glass involved? OFTEN, after a fashion.
[Raak] Is it a model of an animal? Strictly speaking, NO. *interested murmurs from the audience*
[Kinrah] Fossil? NO.
A representation of an animal or animals?
[Raak] Representation of an animal(s)? NO.
A medical device?
Are the animal connections just one species?
Is it a glass etching of an animal?
Would this be an article manufactured for use on/with/for an animal (e.g. dog collar, cow bell, harness)?
[Rosie] Medical device? NO.
[Irouléguy] Just one species? Tricky, but I think the fairest answer would be NO.
[Kinrah] Glass etching? NO.
[Dujon] For use on/with/for an animal? NO.
Made of metal?
Does a typical Morniverser own one?
[Raak] Is metal involved? YES.
[Rosie] Property of a typical Morningverser? NO. *sardonic laughter from the audience*
Anything to do with farming?
[Rosie] Connected with farming? NO. (One could make a case for YES, but that would undoubtedly be misleading.)
Is the animal part a product of an animal, such as fur or skin?
[Chalky] Contains actual animal parts? NO.

To clarify, there are no organic animal components to speak of; if there were, it would have been MINERAL / ANIMAL. And in the interests of full disclosure, there are occasionally VEGETABLE elements, though pursuing that line of questioning is unlikely to be productive.
A building?
[CdM] A building? NO.
A shotgun?
Y'know, one o' vem Japnese mo'ors.
[Rosie] Shotgun? NO, neither single- or double-barreled.
a geographical feature?
[Chalky] Geography? NO.

On further consideration, [Chalky]'s previous question was incorrectly answered due to an overly narrow reading of it. So, to revisit:

[Chalky] Is the animal connection to a product of an animal? YES.
Leather?
Is it a container?
[Chalky] Leather? NO.
[Raak] Container? YES, although this may be misleading.
A milk bottle?
Would one usually find this in a home?
[Graham III] Milk bottle? NO.
[Chalky] Usually found in a home? NO.
Does this restrict hte movement on animals in any way?
"Of", not "on".
"The", not "hte". I dunno.
[Rosie] Restrict movement of animals? NO.
Time for a recap:

We have a MINERAL with ANIMAL connections.

It is NOT: "Tigereye" gemstone, human animal-ish, a mousetrap, a mantrap, a birdcage, a model or representation of an animal, a fossil, a medical device, owned by a typical Morningverser, connected with farming, made from an animal product, a building, a shotgun, a geographical feature, leather, a milk bottle, found in a typical home, used to restrain animals.

It IS: Man-made, made using metal as a component, connected with an animal product, a container.

It is SOMETIMES: made using glass as a component.

A contestant aroused audience interest when asking if it was a model of an animal.
A contestant aroused audience mockery when asking if a typical Morningverser owned one.
Is the 'Animal Connection' a result of its name (colloquial or otherwise)?
Glasses case?
A cow creamer?
Bigger than a telephone box with a toaster on top?
[Dujon] Animal connection originates from name? NO.
[Software] Glasses case? NO.
[Graham III] Cow creamer? NO.

Clarification/hint: The fact that the subject is a container isn't central to its identity.
[CdM] Bigger than a telephone box? NO.
Does it use a source of power?
[Raak] Uses power? NO.
Does it have artistic pretensions?
[Graham III] Artistic pretentions? YES. *applause*
Is it by Damien Hurst?
[Raak] Damien Hurst? NO.
Does a typical one cost in excess of two thousand pounds sterling ?
[CdM] Typically valued at over £2000? YES.
Faberge egg?
*KA-CHING!*
[irach] YES! (The words on the card are "an authentic Faberge Egg", but that's more than close enough.) Passing over an ovoid, richly bejeweled clockwork baton...
[irach] Are you there? It may be time for someone else to take over here...
All right then, a nice quick ABSTRACT in the meantime.
A human construct?
Begins with a "P"?
I'd just like to point out that this is the first time I have asked this question.
Humanly constructed? Yes.
P-begun? No.
Is it unique?
Is it fictional?
Unique? Yes is the best answer, although there is a case to be made for No.
Fictional? Yes. *applause*
Is the answer a work of fiction?
an apocryphal story?
Connected with politics?
still doesn't understand the concept of "A human concept"...
scratch -cept read -struct
A one word answer?
Work of fiction? Yes *applause*
Apocryphal? No.
Connected with politics? *amused laughter from audience* Some would say yes. Others (perhaps more?) would say no. One reasonable answer is "I don't know". Another is "if you like".
One word answer? No.

[IS,P!] At least as a working definition I take 'human construct' to mean something that requires the human brain for its existence. Most abstract things seem to be human constructs, but not all are. I would say that 'pain', for example, is not a human construct. There are thorny issues when we get into the old debate about whether mathematical issues are created or discovered. Is the following a human construct: on a Euclidean plane, any right-angled triangle has the property that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides? I'm not sure.
Religious?
(CdM) The property of plane right-angled triangles that you mention exists regardless of whether humans are aware of it or not. Maybe a better example would have been imaginary numbers which have no physical meaning until humans invented them and ascribed a meaning to them (a frequency, for example) but are a supremely useful mathematical tool.
Written in the last 100 years?
Religious? *more audience laughter*. It is not a religious work, but if you are asking if it has religious connections, I point you to the answer to "connected with politics", above.
Written in last 100 years? Yes.

[Rosie] Well, but there is also something odd about saying the Pythagorean theorem is not a human construct. As I say, the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered has troubled philosophers of science for a long time, and I don't think it's as straightforward as you suggest, even in this case. Is the number "2" a human construct? But I'm getting out of my depth here, so I'll let the real mathematicians weigh in if they like.
Written in the last 50 years?
(Originally) written in English?
A novel?
Rosie] Isn't the concept of a 'right-angle' a human construct?
Last 50 years? No.
Originally written in English? *audience gasps and starts disputing amongst themselves animatedly* The best answer is clearly no, but a case could be made for yes.
A novel? No.
A poem?
(Primarily) intended for children?
Jabberwocky?
Just a wild stab in the dark...
Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled?
Speaking of wild stabs...
Seedy M? Where are you?
[Chalky] No, I don't think it's that. :-)
Poem? No.
Kid-intended? *audience laughter*. No.
Jabberwocky? *audience snickersnackering* No.
Scots wha hae? *audience chants "Jon-ny Wil-kin-son, Jon-ny Wil-kin-son* No.
Where am I? Sleeping. I live on the other side of the world from most of you lot, remember.
Is it a work based on another work?
Work based on another work? Another surprisingly difficult question. The best answer is No (corresponding to the best answer to "originally written in English?"), but a case could me made for Yes (corresponding to the case that could be made for "not originally written in English").
Anything to do with pseudoscience?
The Lord of the Rings?
Pseudoscience? Not in any way that I am aware of.
Lord of the Rings? No. (I'm pretty confident that was originally written in English. :-) )
Chalky? Where are you?
[CdM] I thought Tolkien translated it from the Red Book of Westmarch.
Is there written evidence of this?
[CdM] Sorry - I kinda thought I had the time difference worked out. [and, selfishly, fail to acknowledge that you may have 'other things to do' at the end of a working day].
Written evidence? I'm not sure what you mean. You already know that this is a work of fiction written between 50 and 100 years ago, and that a case could be made for it having been originally written in English.

As to where I was, it is true that your poem question came in before 10pm Singapore time, so on any given day there is a good chance I would be online then -- but not last night, as it happened.
A play?
The play's the thing? Yes. *applause*
Written by just one author?
One author? Yes.
Was it originally written, if not in English, then in Irish?
Originally written in Irish? No. *curiously, there is still a smattering of applause*
Irish author?
Is it performed much these days?
any moment now...
Irish author? Yes. *applause*
Performed much? Yes.
Samuel Beckett?
Beckett? Yes. *no sound from the audience because they have all left already*
This might be a good time to remind you of the circumstances in which I set the clue. :-)
Well yes, I did think of going straight there. I'll leave the last rites for someone else.
[ImNotJohn] Shall we go then?
Waiting for Godot [En attendant Godot]
That was tricky.

[CdM] Righty-ho. This may look nit-picky when it springs to life on screen but I promise, no criticism is intended - I'm thinking it's all down to my lack of understanding of the ABSTRACT word when used in this game. [which is why I asked the question "is there written evidence of this?" meaning "is this a tangible/material thing?"]
If anyone is interested enough to join in the discussion, I'd welcome other views.
As for a new puzzle, perhaps irach will return soon to take up the baton .
[Chalky] No, fair point, I should have probably added (with Vegetable Connections) to get at the physical incarnation that the play can take. I'm still not sure I exactly understand what you mean by written evidence, though. :-) Anything like a work of fiction is to my mind ABSTRACT, because it conceivably could exist without any direct physical incarnation (i.e., it could be stored as a bunch of ones and zeros, or simply by the neural firings of someone who has memorized it).

By the way, the words on the card were "Waiting for Godot", which I was taking to be the English version, which is why the questions about its previous incarnation in French were tricky: when Beckett wrote waiting for Godot, he didn't simply translate En Attendant Godot, but also made changes. Anyway, I'm done here.


He does not move.
yeah I know :-) You leap in to do a person a favour and some bozo wanders by and starts questioning everything. Still - I s'pose if no-one questioned anything in these forums, it would be a pretty dull place.

And no move from me. Irach??
missing persons
Still no irach? Shall I start a new one?
Sure, you did just win one. Take the baton.
[Quend] well - it wasn't really a 'win' as it had been signposted for some time. However, as I am home-based for a few days I'll happily take the chair.

A N I M A L
A fictional beast?
Human?
[IS,P!] a fictional beast? NO
[Software] human? YES
Alive?
Unique?
[Rosie] Alive? NO
[Quendalon] Unique? YES
British?
[Raak] British? YES *applause*
Died in the last fifty years?
I hope everything is ok with irach; it's not like him(?) to be gone this long.
[CdM] Died in last fifty years? NO
I think it's a 'he' and hopefully he's just on vacation.
Is any structure named after this person?
irach posted twice on Monday. I reckon he's forgotten about this game.
Boudicca?
Let the wild guessing begin!
Male?
Royalty?
Connected with the arts?
Bigger than a toaster? (trad.)
[Rosie] Is any structure named after this person? Excellent question! and YES - you might say that, in a manner of speaking, sort of. *audience already geared up for an early finish*
[CdM] Boudicca the wild? NO
[Kinrah] Male? YES
[INJ] Connected with the arts? YES *more applause*
[Phil] Bigger than a toaster? I'm sure he was :-)
sorry [Raak] Royalty? NO
Henry Tate?
[Raak] Henry Tate? NO
Connected with the Theatre?
[Kim] Connected with the theatre? NO - not specifically
Is the person known primarily as a creator of art?
Sir Arthur British-Museum?
Oh all right
A writer?
*straining to be heard above the cheering audience*
[CdM] Primarily a creator of art? YES
[INJ] A writer? YES to a lesser extent
Is the "structure" mentioned by Rosie a building?
[Kim] The structure mentioned by Rosie is NOT a building as such
Is it a bridge?
William Morris?
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'
*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.
Dutch Uncle?
(Software) NO, not a Dutch Uncle.
The head of the family?
(Irouléguy) NO, not the head of the family.
Related to geographical location?
(Quendalon) NO, no geographical connection.

Hint: You're all missing a feature of the answer that has been the subject of two questions and answers.

Is there more than one of these in a family?
Is there one of these in most families?
Having seconds, as no-one else has had a go for a while.
A maiden aunt?
Sperm?
(Irg) Both questions - There could be. Not relevant, really.
(Raak) Not a maiden aunt. (It's male)
(Quendalon) Sperm? NO. A fully-formed male person.
Best man?
YESSSS! Raak is the best man! Speech!
An alarm clock?
[Rosie] Good one, although the audience surely could have given INJ's 'father of the bride' a little encouragement. I'm still confused by the audience reaction to 'son and heir', though.
Unaccustomed as I am...
[CdM] If the happy couple's son was the best man at their wedding...

The next is M I N E R A L.

Metal?
[Raak] Unusual perhaps, but not "not possible"
Art?
And the son & heir of whom was not defined. My best man was the son and heir of the father of the groom for example...
[CdM] Made of metal.
Unique?
One metal only?
(CdM) Raak's explanation of the "son and heir" audience reaction is what I was thinking of, though I agree it's a bit convoluted and overdone.
Begins with P?
[Rosie] I was more confused as to why the answer to "Alive?" was "could be"
[I] Not unique.
[R] One metal? Possibly, perhaps likely, but not useful to know.
[T] P.
Man-made?
[Q] Man-made.
Does it use electricity?
(Tuj) Well, my Dad's best man is dead, as no doubt are Henry VIII's. I could have said "Yes, at the time" but that would have been giving too much away.
Any moving parts?
[Rosie] Not usually electric.
[CdM] Yes, there are moving parts.
When not electric, is it powered by hand or foot?
Larger than a toaster?
[R] When not electric, it is powered by (at least one of) hand or foot. (Murmurings in the audience.) Ok, partly powered.
[I] Not larger than a toaster.
A timepiece?
[Rosie] (the audience almost applaud) Not a timepiece.
Is it a domestic item?
Used in the kitchen?
Scales?
[Raak] I wonder what that sounds like ;)
[R] Npot domestic.
[I] ...hence not used in the kitchen.
[Tuj] Not scales.
[Tuj] The sound of two hands clapping, but not against each other.
BELLOWS . . . whoops, sorry . . . bellows?
Do people own these things?
A tool?
[D] Not bellows.
[R] People own these.
[I] In a general sense, yes. (Is a pencil a tool? Is a kettle a tool? In that sense, this thing is a tool.)
Associated with leisure?
This weekend I was at a 20th anniversary celebration - we had also been at the wedding, where the best man was the son and heir of the groom (he was a widower).
[INJ] Er...yes, associated with leisure.
A compass?
Also, can you answer my first question?
[GIII] Sorry, missed that. Not art, and not a compass.
Anything to do with television?
Can one person, alone, make full use of it for its intended purpose?
[R] Not directly connected with TV.
[Q] More than one person must be involved.
Is it a game?
[Rosie] (the audience grow alert but not yet excited) Not a game.
Is it a toy?
[Phil] Not a toy.
Associated with sport(s)?
[Q] (applause!) Yes, associated with sports.
Associated with a ball game?
A boule?
[I] Not associated with a ball game.
[G] ...not even in French.
Associated with athletics?
a dart?
A starter's pistol?
[Rosie] (cheering) Associated with athletics.
[Software] Not a dart.
[Phil] **BANG** A starter's pistol.
Really? Gosh! I'll try and think of a new one in the morning.....way too "sleepy" right now.
Till now, I'd even forgotten I'd won, that's how "sleepy" I was.

OK, out next AVMA is VEGETABLE

Begins with P?
Unique?
Edible?
[Tuj] P? NO
[Quendalon] Unique? NO
[Irouléguy] Edible? NO - a titter from the audience
Made of wood?
Potable?
[Rosie] Made of wood? Partially
[Dujon] Potable? NO
Something constructed?
A British Rail Sandwich?
surely inedible?
[Irouléguy] Constructed? Not my first choice of word, but YES.
[Software] BR Butty? NO - I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the audience's titter.
Normally found in the home?
Bigger than a washing machine?
Toasters have been way too privileged in this game.
[INJ] Normally found in the home? It can be.
[CdM] Bigger than a washing machine? YES and NO - depends how you measure "bigness"
Main purpose decorative or display?
I take your answer to CdM to mean: greater in at least 1 dimension, but with a lesser volume than a 600mm x 600mm x 900mm toaster.
[INJ] Mainly decorative? Hmmmm... NO
Re: CdM's question: My answer, in this instance, means larger in at least 1 dimension, but lesser in volume than a standard domestic washing machine (approx 900 x 600 x 600mm). By the way, you have a very big toaster!
Broom?
A tool?
CdM may have said washing machine, but the traditions of the game dictate that he must have meant toaster
does it begin with a P?
[INJ] Maybe he said 'washing machine' because if you say 'toaster' to Phil he puts a bag on his head...
[Quendalon] Broom? NO
[INJ] Tool? NO
[IS,P!] Begin with P? Still NO. And can I take the bag off now please?
Is it used in sport?
Part of the structure of a house?
[Chalky] Used in sport? NO
[Rosie] Part of structure of house? NO *a little applause*
Is it significantly longer than it is wide?
[CdM] Length much > width? Not necessarily, but can be.
A crawling board?
[Rosie] Crawling board? NO
Is this designed to protect?
[Dujon] Designed to protect? Partially YES, but not exclusively to protect.
Is it something like ivy, which covers a house and can project but may not be considered decorative?
That was a lot of words!
[Software] Something like ivy? NO
Would it normally contain something?
[Chalky] A container? NO
Easily portable?
[INJ] Easily portable? NO
Some kind of door or entrance?
We know that it is wholly vegetable but only partially made out of wood. So
Is it primarily (say, more than 90%) wood?
[Rosie] Door or entrance? NO
[CdM] > 90% wood? NO
Is the bit that's not wood some form of natural vegetation?
[Chalky Ntural vegetation? Not in its original form. Don't forget that this has been "contructed", although that is not the most ideal word to convey what has happened to the vegetable constituents.
Is it fewer than 10% wood?
[Phil] I just did that to annoy you. :-)
If not "constructed" would "fashioned" or "sculpted" (either) be a more appropriate description?
[CdM] <10% wood? NO (Me? Annoyed? Nonsense! *unclenches teeth*
[Rosie] Fashioned/sculpted? NO. Probably further from ideal than "constructed", in fact.
Essentially an outdoors object?
[Rosie] Outdoors? NO
Does this comprise of wood (combined with something else) which has been shredded/chipped and then moulded?
Is this always 100% vegetable? (no screws, nails, glue, ink...)
[Dujon] Shredded wood combined with something else and moulded? I think that warrants a YES - *relieved applause*
[CdM] Always 100% vegetable? Good question. Further research reveals a trace of mineral that I was previously unaware of, plus some pigment that may be vegetable or mineral. But essentially I'd say YES, at least 99.5% vegetable. *some more applause*
Would the typical morniverser own one?
Wood chipping mulch/dressing?
[CdM] Would a Morniverser own one? Probably not, but possibly.
[Software] Wood chippings? NO
Paper involved?
[INJ] Paper? NO
"Processed wood" eg chipboard?
[Rosie] Processed wood? NO
Is it MDF?
A little summary perhaps...
The answer on the card is almost entirely vegetable (over 99%) with a trace of mineral, and perhaps some animal. Wood makes up between 10 and 90% of it. It is partially, but not exclusively designed to protect, but is not mainly decorative.
Shredded wood combined with something else and moulded got a YES, but it's not perfectly accurate. It also got some applause. Other applause has been for "part of the structure of a house?", although the answer was NO. Also, querying if it was always 100% vegetable received some applause - mainly for being such a good question.
It is larger, in at least one dimension than a washing-machine-sized toaster. It is not "fashioned or sculpted" from wood. Technically-speaking it is constructed, but that is not how I would put it.
...more...
It does not begin with P; is not a tool, broom, container or crawling board. It does not involve paper, and is not a type of processed wood (such as chipboard), not is it wood mulch. The typical Morniverser probably doesn't own one, but might. It is not used in sport, is not an outdoors object.
Also, the non-wood part is not natural vegetation in its original form.
[Kim] MDF? NO
Is this wooden percentage made up mainly of bark?
Thanks for the precis, Phil, but that's not the job of the Chair and should be attended by one of his or her fawning acolytes.
Is it part of the structure of any other thing?
As opposed to, say, a house.
Is the "other" vegetable hay?
A hay stack?
[Dujon] Wooden percentage mainly bark? It can be, but doesn't have to be.
[Quendalon] Part of structure of non-house? NO
[Irouléguy] Hay involved? NO
[Software] A haystack? NO
A log cabin?
[Kim] A log cabin? NO
Do you own one?
[GIII] Do I own one? NO
Could one see this in a pub?
Even if not in your revered establishment, my Lord. (Dujon) Will that do?
Related to animals?
[Rosie] Could it be seen in a pub? YES, but not all pubs.
[Quendalon] Related to animals? NO
A pool table?
[Chalky] A pool table? NO - I think that would be less than 99% vegetable.
A skittle alley?
[Software] Skittle Alley? NO - I think that would be bigger than a washing machine-sized toaster
Correction to previous answer I was only asked if it was bigger than the toaster in at least one dimension, to which I replied YES. No-one has yet established in how many (or indeed which) dimensions the item is bigger than a toaster (or washing machine).
Is it longer than a toaster?
Is it longer than a toaster standing on its end?
[IRG] Longer than a toaster? YES
[INJ] Longer than a toaster on end? YES
Typically painted?
I've got the image of something shaped like a door or a kitchen worktop.
Is the wood from a specific type of tree?
Is this a regular shape or is it a bit wigglyish??
[INJ] Painted? Strictly speaking, NO.
[Quendalon] Specific tree? NO
[Chalky] Regular shape? YES
Is it a cuboid (tall, long, not very thick)?
[IRG] Cuboid? YES, but not as you've defined. Here's a clue, as I'm going on holiday on Saturday for a fortnight. Wide, long and not very tall.
A doormat?
[Software] Doormat? NO *Some encouraged applause*
Typically varnished or similarly treated?
[CdM] Typically varnished? NO (although I did have to do some reading to check)
Are there typically pictures of any kind on it?
[Quendalon] Typically pictures on it? NO
A floor covering of some sort?
[Irouléguy] A floor covering? YES *rapturous applause and whoops of delirious delight from the audience*
Stair carpet
or something like that, such as a hall runner?
[Software] Stair carpet? NO *audience believes they may get to cheer today*
Laminate flooring?
[GIII] Laminate flooring? NO *ooohs and aaahs*
Fitted wood flooring?
[IRG] Fitted wood flooring? NO
May I refer you all back to "Shredded wood combined with something else and moulded got a YES, but it's not perfectly accurate. It also got some applause." I think that's slightly helpful without giving it away. Note also that I have had to do some research in order to answer a couple of questions.
Cork flooring?
[IRG] Cork flooring? NO - the wood ingredient can be bark (which is what cork is), but doesn't have to be. Also, less than 90% of the total comes from wood.
Coconut matting?
Getting desperate
[Software] Coconut matting? NO
OK, here comes a major clue. Things don't always look like what they're made of.
Linoleum?
[Chalky] Vinyl floor? I'm afraid not.
[Cdm} Linoleum? YES, dagnammit, YES!
It's made of powdered wood or bark, linseed oil, canvas or burlap (both of which are vegetable), with some pigments (hence the traces of mineral). And in 13 hours' time I go on holiday for 2 weeks. ttfn!
Well, I stood on the shoulders of giants that time. Excellent subject choice, and a very educational round. After Phil's clue I thought it had to be lino, but I needed to google to check because I realized I had no idea what it was made of. I'll be back later today to set a new clue.
[Phil] Have a good trip!
although I suppose maybe you could argue for a vegetable component as well
This one is ANIMAL and ABSTRACT.
An anarcho-syndicalist?
Making a welcome return.
Is the animal human?
CdM] Well guessed
A metaphorical character?
E.g. Essex Man etc
But does it begin with P...?
Anarcho-syndicalist? No.
Human? No.
Metaphorical? Yes, sort of. Character? No.
A well-known phrase or saying?
In a general sense does the animal part relate to a particular type of animal?
(e.g. cat, dog, cow)
It's a jungle out there
Well-known phrase or saying? I think the best answer is Yes.
Particular type of animal? Yes.
Does the animal display some particular characteristic such as the smile of the Cheshire Cat?
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
Particular characteristic? Yes (interpreting "characteristic" somewhat broadly).
Is the animal a mammal?
Particular gender?
A fish?
Begins with P?
Cat got your tongue? ;)
Is it a sleeping dog?
Interesting constellation of questions
Mammal? No.
Particular gender? No.
A fish? Yes. *applause*
Begins with P? No.
Feline tongue entrapment? No (but my internets were broken for most of the day; sorry)
Sleeping dog? No.
A particular type of fish?
Under African Skies
Particular type of fish? Yes.
A red herring??
A red herring? Yes! One smoked baton passed to Néa.
Oh dear
It was the aproposes that did it.

Now for something MINERAL
Man-made?
metallic?
[Raak] Yes.
[INJ] Yes.
Unique?
[Néa] Are you sure that shouldn't be "apropi"?
[CdM] Yes. And yes. "Apropoi", possibly.
Art?
[GIII] Only in a limited sense of the word.
An architectural construction?
[Raak] Yes.

There is a small amount of VEGETABLE involved as well.
A tin roof?
A particular building?
Is/are metal(s) the only mineral element?
More than 200 years old?
Could you (or I) lift it?
The "wobbly" (or Millennium) bridge?
Kaknästornet?
:-)
You've been inquisitive while I was gone
[Software] Not a tin roof.
[Raak] Yes, a particular building.
[Graham III] There are some other mineral components as well, but again very small proportions.
[CdM] Not more than 200 years old.
[Rosie] You and I could not lift it together.
[INJ] Not the Cake Nose Tower!
In Europe?
A building that is open to the public?
[CdM] Yes.
[INJ] No.
In Sweden?
Less than fifty years old?
[Irouléguy] No.
[CdM] No.

[Irg] Sorry, I missed your previous question - it also isn't the Millennium bridge.
Is it more than 119 years old and less than 122 years old?
[CdM] No, it is not both of those things.
Is it in London?
[Raak] Not in London.
Is it in Italy?
[Kim] Nor in Italy.
Eiffel Tower?
Because [CdM]'s question confused me.
Would the small amount of vegitable be growing on the structure?
Is it a bridge?
[Q] Unless I have also confused myself, Néa's answer rules out the Eiffel Tower. (Her answer is semantically interesting, because it can be parsed in two distinct ways, but only one of them is sensible.)
[Q, CdM] No, it is not the Eiffel Tower. My reply to CdM meant that it is not between 119 and 122 years old.
[Software] There may be vegetables growing on it but that was not what I meant.
Is it less than 122 years old?
Progress at last!
[Irouléguy] Yes, yes it is.
The Forth (railway) Bridge?
Does it perform a specific function?
[Néa] You have missed out CdM's bridge question!
[CdM] Not a bridge.
[Rosie] No.
[Bigsmith] Yes.
Is it in England?
Is it a tower?
[Quendalon] No.
[Graham III] Yes.
Is its specific function to broadcast signals?
[Raak] Yes! (audience starting to prick up their ears)
Is it north of Paris?
Still in use?
Functional rather than decorative?
Not it's getting more difficult
[Irouléguy] Yes.
[INJ] As far as I have been able to tell, the answer is no.
[Rosie] Yes is probably the best answer, but it's not straightforward.
Is it on land?
[Kim] Yes.
Did it collapse in 1991?
A recap:
A mostly metal broadcasting tower in Europe, but not in England, Italy, or Paris, built at least 50 years ago but less than 119, still in use, not open to the public, not the Cake Nose Tower, more southerly than Paris.
The original Radio Luxemburg transmitter?
Raak] More northerly than Paris.
Resisting the temptation to get another question in
[Raak] Probably not still in use.
[Graham III] No, it didn't.
[Irg] Not the original Radio Luxemburg transmitter.
Is it in Scandinavia?
[Raak] No.
Is it in Western Europe?
(i.e. one of Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, The Netherlands and outlying islands)
Being negative today, me
[Graham III] No.
Anything to do with astronomy?
An early warning system?
On an island?
More negativity
[Rosie] No.
[Software] No.
[Quendalon] No.
Is it in a country that used to be in the USSR?
(ie one of Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Russia)
[Irouléguy] Yes!
Is it named after its designer?
cheeky, but...
[Irg] It is indeed.
Is it a hyperboloid structure?
going for the hat-trick...
He knows, really
[Irg] Yes!!
Is it more than 86 years old and less than 89 years old?
It's so tempting...
*rolls eyes (own)*
[CdM] Yes.
[Irouléguy, CdM] Stop grandstanding before I name the bloody thing myself. :-D
Does it share one of its names with an underground station?
CdM, Quendalon] Not grandstanding, but teeing you up - I'm away at the weekend,so for once I don't want to take the baton. This is fun, though...
It's in the CCCP, innit
[Irg] Er. None that I know of, but there are many underground systems with stations whose names I'm ignorant of. Unless you mean its name in English translation, in which case the answer is Yes.
Oh, all right then...
Is it the Shukhov Tower in Moscow?
And about time, too
[CdM] Of course. The hyperboloid baton returned to CdM.
Gah
[Irouléguy] I'm sorry - I didn't remember that it's also called the Shabolovka. Which is of course also the name of a Moscow metro station.
Néa] No apologies necessary. I only learnt that yesterday from reading the Wiki page - and I should have said Metro rather than underground. It just amused me as an MC connection. Good topic!
Credit for the last obviously goes first to Irouléguy.
VEGETABLE and MINERAL. However, I will give an immediate clue that the vegetable element is much more fundamental than the mineral element.
Is the vegetable wood?
I just managed to restrain myself, since I'm on holiday from this weekend for the next 2 weeks.
And the mineral metal?
Does it begin with P?
Unique?
Man-made?
Wood? In part, yes
Metal? No (or to the extent there is any metal involved, it is highly tangential and inessential --even more tangential than the rest of the mineral component).
Begins with P? No.
Unique? Yes.
Man-made? Yes.
Is it more than 100 years old?
More than 100 years old? Both Yes and No are defensible answers.
One clarification. I said Yes to "man-made?", and that is the best answer. But No would also be defensible. There. That's clearer now, right?
Can it be seen from a mile away (without optical aid)?
Clearer? Clear as anything ever is with you, y'bugger. :-)
Is this a monument or other well known structure which was formed, sculpted or roughly shaped within the last 100 years and made out of a substance formed over a hundred years ago which could possibly include vegetable material but is probably made up of various metals (i.e. anything 'heavier' than hydrogen) and which is still extant?
A yes/no answer will suffice.
Can it be seen from a mile away? I am very tempted to say that yes and no are both defensible answers. However, I will say that the answer is No (almost certainly) unless you are talking about a mile away vertically, in which case the answer is Yes.
Is ... extant? Not exactly sure where you were going with that, but the best answer has to be No.
Is it in Europe?
And if you answer "yes and no" I shall weep.
Hampton Court Maze?
In Europe? Yes.
Hampton Court Maze? *The audience gasps collectively and bursts into sustained rapturous applause* No.
A maze somewhere in England?
A maze? Yes.
Somewhere in England? No.
Is the mineral water?
Water? No. For free, I will tell you that the mineral just refers to what is underfoot as part of this maze (that's why I said the vegetable element is much more fundamental). Most of the hard work has been done here; you just need to find out where this particular maze is.
Is this maze in a church or cathedral?
In a church or cathedral? No. (Visible from above, remember.)
In Wales?
Is it in Belgium?
In the grounds of a church or cathedral? No.
In Wales? No.
In Belgium? No.
North of Paris?
North of Paris? No.
In France?
Hellenic, like the hymn?
Hidden textA maze in Greece?
Public Service Announcement: Do not reveal the message in the previous move. Just trust me, ok.
Grecian? No.
In England?
(and GIII asked "in France?")
Oops, and Rosie asked about England. How about, In Eastern Europe (i.e. the old Eastern Bloc)?
You are winding your way in towards the center
In France? No. (sorry)
In England? Still No.
In Eastern Europe? No.
Made within the last 200 years?
Is it, by any chance, in Italy?
Dear Auntie CdM, I know I shuddent of done, but I cuddent resist clicking the "reveal" button like you tole me not to and now my sides av split. Wat can I do? Yours etc. Worried of Whitechapel.
Within last 200 years? Yes and No are both defensible. (See 100 years, above.)
In Italy? No.
Dear Worried. You can listen to me say, "I told you so".
The maze at Schönbrunn Palace?
The maze at Schönbrunn Palace? Yes!

"The Maze at Schönbrunn was laid out between 1698 and 1740... During the 19th century the Maze was gradually abandoned until in 1892 the last remaining hedges were felled. In autumn 1998 a new maze extending over 1.715 m with a viewing platform at its centre was laid out taking the historical model into account where possible."

*leaves the baton at the center for Raak to find*
By the way, I very nearly chose Hampton Court Maze, deciding only at the last minute to be a bit less Anglocentric. Had I stuck with that, Rosie's guess would have been one of the most impressive we have seen in the game to date.
(CdM) V kind! Unfortunately I know of no other mazes.
Left, left, right, right, straight on, over, under, back three squares, up a ladder, half-twist, strile, left, right, flamethrower.

The next is MINERAL (primarily) with an ANIMAL connection.

Man-made?
Does it comprise of more than one mineral?
is it a tool?
[Rosie] Man-made.
[Inkspot] Very likely more than one mineral.
[Software] Not a tool.
Is the mineral predominantly wood?
Doh! Sorry, is the material predominantly metal?
I don't know what's the matter with me these days. I must be getting old.
[Kim] Not predominantly metal.
Decorative?
other mineral is natural (as opposed to man-made)?
[CdM] Yes, one could say that it is decorative.
[Software] Natural, yes; in a state of nature, no.
Is the material mostly stone?
[I] Yes, mostly stone.
But is it art?
[S] Yes, it could be considered to be art.
Is it associated with one part of the world?
[I] It is associated with one part of the world.
Does it decorate the exterior of a building?
Unique?
The Sphinx?
Bigger than a phone box?
[Rosie] Does not decorate the exterior of a building.
[CdM] Unique.
[Software] Not the Sphinx.
[Projoy] Definitely bigger than a phone box.
Is the animal connection that it is manmade?
Is it in Europe?
[G III] It is manmade, but there is a more specific animal connection.
[I] It is in Europe.
A statue or sculpture?
[CdM] Not a statue or sculpture.
The bear pits of Berne?
[I] *Gasp of horror* "Not -- not the Dreaded Bear Pits of Berne!!!" No.
The Bullring, Brum? :o)
Is it a building?
Is the connected animal human?
[S] Not the Bullring.
[G III] It's a building.
[K] The animal is human.
Is the surname of the human one of the words on the card?
Is the building pre 1900?
[Kim] The human's surname is not on the card.
[Inkspot] It is pre-1900.
Is it north of Paris?
Is this going to become my signature question?
Was it built by an ancient culture?
In Eastern Europe (i.e. the old Eastern bloc)
(this is going to be my signature question)
Is it in England?
[I] After closely examining Google Maps, this is not north of Paris.
[G III] Not ancient.
[P] Not in Eastern Europe.
[R] Not in England.
In Austria?
[Software] a ripple of near-applause Not in Austria.
Switzerland?
[Kim] Not in Switzerland.
Germany?
[G III] Germany? Ja wohl!
A castle?
Scloss Neuschwanstein? The animal connection being the Schwan?
Cathedral Church of Our Lady, Munich?
[Néa] Applause!
[Projoy] Boos!
[irach] Cheering! Neuschwanstein it is. The animal connection I had in mind was Ludwig II.
Rats, I nearly just guessed that outright last night.
Okay….. This one is “ABSTRACT, WITH AN ANIMAL CONNECTION”
A work of art?
[Raak] Not a work of art.
The smile of the Cheshire cat?
[Rosie] No smile. No cat, Cheshire, or otherwise.
Is the animal in question human?
[Kim] Yes, the animal element is human.
A piece of music?
[Inkspot] Not a piece of music.
Does the name of the human appear in the answer?
[Rosie] Yes. The name of the person is in the answer.
Is it a unit of measurement?
[Inkspot] Not a unit of measurement.
Anything to do with the scientific world?
{Rosie] No scientific world connection.
Does this encompass art?
e.g. the [name of] school or style.
[Dujon] No, doesn't encompass art per se, except that the person named in the answer has been the subject of some works of art.
Royalty? (any country)
[Rosie] The person in question was not royalty, but did associate with royalty.
Was the person European?
[Irouléguy] The most pertinent answer is yes, the person was European.
Was the human a military person?
[Dujon] The person was a warrior, yes.
Beowulf?
Was the human alive before 1800?
Civis Romanum erat?
[CdM] Not Beowulf.
[Kim] If the person actually lived, it was before 1800 AD.
[Iroulëguy] No Civus Romanum erat.
A character from a fairy tale?
Male?
{Inkspot] Not acharacter from a "fairy tale".
[Nea] Yes, male.
Is is a character of myth or legend?
Is he a God?
[Kim] Yes, a caharacter in myth or legend.
[Inkspot] Not a God. A mortal, but with divine connections, nonetheless.
From Celtic myth and/or legend?
[Irouléguy] Not Celtic.
Scandinavian?
[Rosie] Not Scandinavian.
Someone like Rob Roy?
Greek?
[Software] Not Rob Roy.
[Kim] Yes, Greek.
Achilles' heel?
Sword of Damocles?
[Graham III] Not Sword of Damocles.
[Iroulëguy] ACHILLES' HEEL is it! Take it away.
WOO-HOO! I've cheered so much I feel like a Trojan -
Hidden texthoarse
. OK, our next is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections.
...also involving MINERAL.
Any Biblical connection?
irach] Any Biblical connection? No
Is the animal connection larger than a humanly constructed toaster?
Vegetable connection trees?
CdM] Is the animal connection larger than a humanly constructed toaster? True pedantry offers a number of possible answers, but the useful answer is yes. Rosie] Vegetable connection trees? Noak.
Is the human construction (larger than a toaster) a building?
Software] Is the human construction (larger than a toaster) a building? Not a building, and it's not a human construction.
More precisely, it's not a physical construction, or a physical anything. 'Bigger than a toaster' refers to the animal connection, not the thing itself.
Is it something like 'on the horns of a dilema'?
Software] Is it something like 'on the horns of a dilema'? It's not entirely unlike, but it's nowhere close.
Is the answer a phrase, proverb etc?
Rosie] Is the answer a phrase, proverb etc? *applause, cheering, etc* Yes!
Is the animal connection human?
Is the phrase a kind of warning?
CdM] Is the animal connection human? Yes
Rosie] Is the phrase a kind of warning? No
A white elephant?
Though I struggle with the mineral.
Is the answer a proverb (pace Rosie)?
Software - A white elephant? No - the mineral is implied in the answer, but not named. And don't forget the vegetable.
Kim - Is the answer a proverb (pace Rosie)? Barking up the wrong tree.
Is the vegetaale a fruit?
Is it the Jolly Green Giant?
Inkspot - Is the vegetable a fruit? *applause mixed with laughter from the audience* Yes
Kim - Is it the Jolly Green Giant? No no no
The apple of one's eye?
(Irg) Kim wishes me peace.
Rosie] The apple of one's eye? No
Or he's trying to drink at the same speed as you...
Is the fruit a commonplace edible item?
(Irg) No chance, then. :-)
Rosie] Is the fruit a commonplace edible item? Yes
Is the fruit a citrus?
The Big Apple?
CdM] Is the fruit a citrus? The answer's not a lemon
irach] The Big Apple? NYet
The Garden of Eden?
Is the phrase in question also the title of a work of lliterature
Rosie] The Garden of Eden? Adam fine question - but no
irach] Is the phrase in question also the title of a work of literature? No
So angry I could crush a grape?
Is the answer the title of an artistic work?
Inkspot] So angry I could crush a grape? Ire think not
Kim] Is the answer the title of an artistic work? No
Is the fruit a berry?
The fruit of our labours?
Kim] Is the fruit a berry? *laughter, followed by earnest audience discussion* Probably, yes
Software - The fruit of our labours? No
A berry by name, but not by strict definition?
A blackberry?
** motions towards ear **
Is it green and goes up and down in a lift? A gooseberry?
Graham III] A berry by name, but not by strict definition? No - other way round (probably)
Software - A blackberry? No
Inkspot} Is it green and goes up and down in a lift? A gooseberry? Possibly, unlikely, and no.
Is it a berry within the botanical (as opposed to common) meaning of the word?
Kim] Is it a berry within the botanical (as opposed to common) meaning of the word? *applause* Yes (probably)
'Probably' because the exact meaning of the word on the card is ambiguous, but this is the most likely meaning.
Is the human connection one or more actual persons?
The phrase :"A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and thou beside me?"
Kim] Is the human connection one or more actual persons? *much discussion in the audience* If actual=named, then yes.
irach - The phrase :"A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and thou beside me?" And wilderness is paradise, e? no
Are the named persons fictional characters?
Kim] Are the named persons fictional characters? I refer the honourable gentleman to his previous question. Fictional - almost certainly (though I have seen one website that says the opposite).
Is the berry a grape?
Resisting the temptation to ask whether it is "Attack of the killer kumquats"
Graham III] Is the berry a grape? No
I say tomahto and you say tomayto?
Is the human element a collection of individuals (eg, a class, a group, etc)
ImNotJohn] I say tomahto and you say tomayto? *some applause* No, nay
Kim - Is the human element a collection of individuals (eg, a class, a group, etc) No
Yankee Doodle Dandy?
Is the answer a popular food product?
Software - Yankee Doodle Dandy? No sirree
Kim - Is the answer a popular food product? No - a food product is two of the words on the card, but it's not the answer
Heinz Baked Beans?
Graham III - Heinz Baked Beans? No
Is it a jam or marmalade?
irach] Is it a jam or marmalade? No
Is it ice cream?
A fruit milk shake?
Kim] Is it ice cream? Nein (ty), nein
irach - A fruit milk shake? No
Is the food product shown on the card normally sweet-tasting?
Kim] Is the food product shown on the card normally sweet-tasting? *applause* No
Is the berry an olive?
Popeye and Olive Oil?
CdM - Is the berry an olive? *some applause* No
irach - Popeye and Olive Oil? No
Is the fruit pickled?
irach] Is the fruit pickled? *the audience rise as one person, cheering* YES!
Can one find this on the supermarket shelf today?
Software] Can one find this on the supermarket shelf today? One can find products with the same name on supermarket shelves - whether they are exact product referred to is doubtful.
Is it an ethnic food from the East?
Is the answer in the form 'so-and-so's such-and-such'?
irach] Is it an ethnic food from the East? No
ImNotJohn] Is the answer in the form 'so-and-so's such-and-such'? *cries of 'oooh' from the audience* No, but not that far off - in two ways.
Actually, the audience should have applauded part of irach's question.
Does it involve mango?
irach] Does it involve mango? No mag
Does it involve citrus?
Phileas Fogg's gentleman's relish?
irach] Does it involve citrus? No, Mel
Software] Phileas Fogg's gentleman's relish? No

It's Friday, it's five o'clock, it's Crackerjack! time for a summary, I feel

The whole thing takes the form of something described by “a phrase, proverb, etc”, though it is not a proverb. It includes two words describing a food product, and the name(s) of one or more persons, who is/are almost certainly fictional. The human element is not a collection of persons.

The food is derived from a fruit. Although the exact meaning of the word on the card is ambiguous, the fruit in question is almost certainly a berry, botanically speaking. The fruit is not lemon, blackberry, gooseberry, grape, mango, tomato or olive (though the last two got some applause), and it is not normally sweet-tasting. It is a common-place edible item.

The food product is pickled (sale being the mineral implied in the answer). It is not Heinz baked beans, jam or marmalade, ice cream, or a fruit milk shake. You can find food products with the same name on supermarket shelves, though they are probably not the exact product referred to in the words on the card. It is not an ethnic food from the East, though part of that question garnered applause.

The phrase is not a kind of warning, or the title of a literary or artistic work. [Note – the phrase may have been used as a title, but that’s not where you know it from] The phrase is not: the apple of one’s eye; so angry I could crush a grape; the fruit of our labours; a loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou beside me; Popeye and Olive Oil; Yankee Doodle Dandy. The phrase does not take the form 'so-and-so's such-and-such', but that is close in two distinct ways.

This game is missing one of its usual players, who might well have got this by now, or at least posed a particularly pertinent question.
It is associated with Indian food?
A pound of....?
Peter piper's pickled pepper?
... Or rather, the entire phrase "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled pepper" ?
Begin with the letter P?
Capers?
Well, we've a worthy winner! The complete Peter Piper phrase it is - one pepper-flavoured baton handed over to irach.
The next is ABSTRACT WITH MINERAL AND PROBABLE VEGETABLE CONNECTIONS `
Is this a phrase?
[Software] Yes, a phrase.
Does this phrase relate to extraterrestial bodies - or body?
[Dujon] Totally terrestrial.
Is the mineral a liquid?
[irach] Not a liquid.
Is the mineral reference rock?
Old as the hills?
Shut up at the back there.
is the probable vegetable wood?
Is it culturally specific to English?
[Dujon] Not a rock.
[Rosie} Not "old as the hills".
[Iroulëguy] The probable vegetable is not wood
[ImNotJohn] the phrase was coined in English, but is not culturally specific.
Is the mineral combustible?
[Rosie] The mineral is non-combustible.
Could the phrase be construed as a "saying"?
[Software} Not a "saying", but a frequently used term.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord