[Dujon] A scientist? NO

[Software] A writer? NO
[CdM] Alive in 2001? NO

[Software] A celebrity? Hmmmm....if you mean "a famous person" then YES. But if you mean someone who seeks fame then NO.

[Rosie] Performer? NO
[GIII] Alive in 1900? NO

[CdM] Famous for a single event? NO

[Rosie] Novelist/Playwright? Neither

[Software] Became famous accidentally? Tricky...probably YES *some interest from an intelligent audience*

[GIII] Naturally reclusive? I think I'll go for YES, although there could be some debate on "naturally".
[CdM] Sporting? NO
[Rosie] Academic? NO

[Rosie] A songwriter? NO
[Dujon] A Nobel Laureate? NO

[Rosie] Public servant? NO

[GIII] An actor? NO

[Rosie] Makes things? NO

Did he live to more than fifty years old?

[CdM] Lived > 50yrs? NO

[Rosie] A soldier? NO
[Dujon] Cyanide and an apple? NO

I'm tempted to give a clue, but I don't think it's needed just yet.

[Rosie] Gave his name to something? NO

grasping at straws

Notorious?

[Software] The Eagle? NO (no sporting connection)
[CdM] Notorious? YES *hearty applause*

A serial killer?

[GIII] Disappear? NO
[CdM] Serial Killer? YES *Even heartier applause*
[Projoy] Criminal? YES

[GIII] British? NO
[irach] Hannibal? NO

[Dujon] Various questions asked, but I'm guessing that what you want to know is that the person in question is from the USA.
[Rosie] Mack the Knife? NO, it's a real person, as previously established.

[Software] Boston Strangler? NO

This shouldn't really take long, now that we've established that it's a real American serial killer, who lived in died in under 50 years, some time between 1901 and 2000.
A curious aside: no-one was ever arrested, charged or convicted of the "Boston Strangler" murders, and criminal theorists now believe that more than one person was involved.

Thanks Phil. That narrows it down to a hundred or so.

That should narrow it down considerably.

Aka David Berkowitz

[IS,P!] Fried? If you mean did he fry his victims, then NO. If you mean was he executed on the electric chair, then also NO.
[INJ] Son of Sam? NO

[Phil] Bollocks. I was sure it was Ted Bundy.

[IS,P!] Natural causes? NO

[Dujon] Done in by a fellow lag? YES *Intense applause*

who I looked up last night on google, and have since been regretting ever reading about.

[Projoy] J. Dahmer? CORRECT! I thought that would go quicker, as he was the first serial killer that sprung to my mind. Not a terribly nice chap, but I do find the US police's attitude to their inept, racist, homophobic officers rather disgraceful and distasteful. Anyway, I hand over a baton made of nothing ghastly, thankfully.

---

So, Jeffrey Dahmer, then. Not exactly a name on everyone's lips. What proportion of the people in this country have ever 'eard of the bugger? The square root of a mouse's ear'ole, at a generous estimate. What on earth is the point of all this? There are better things to do than ferret around websites looking for the name, amongs hundreds, of American serial killers. The answer should be in one's head, if the spirit of the original game is to be followed. This game is a waste of time.

---

As often happens, I find myself broadly in agreement with Rosie’s viewpoint, though not with his way of expressing it or conclusion. I lose interest in this game the moment it becomes evident that I’m going to have to start searching the web for the answer. I know others take the view that doing so is not unreasonable given the fact that this is an online game, so I won’t stop playing. However, if I get in again, I won’t select answers that I wouldn’t expect a good proportion of participants to know about.
Having said all that, I had heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, although it was only passive knowledge and I doubt if I would ever have dragged the name up without googling.
Over to Projoy

---

[INJ/Rosie] I apologise. I thought Jeffrey Dahmer was as well known as, say, Peter Sutcliffe, Myra Hindley, Harold Shipman et al. I didn't expect anyone to need to search the web to find the answer. It appears that I know a dangerously disproportionate amount about serial killers, and I did not intend that one to be so hard. My thought process was "Umm...what to do? I think I'll make it simple by just doing a person. Who shall I do? How about someone infamous rather than famous. Oh, I know...Jeffrey Dahmer." I even had a mental image of his photo in my head. Soz!

---

[Phil] You are obviously the person to have on one's pub quiz team - or are you the one who sets them?

---

(Phil) A generous apology. The thing is that it is very frustrating, having scratched one's head throughout over what the answer could be, to find that you could never have got it in the first place. It's not as if I lack general knowledge, or was born, er, yesterday. On with the show, then.

---

Well, I certainly had heard of Jeffrey Dahmer. I only resorted to google to get the fact about his being killed by another prisoner (which I didn't know). I certainly think of him as sufficiently infamous to be on the tip of people's tongues.

That said, I'm one of those who's happy to google and isn't disappointed to discover the answer was something I couldn't have guessed. For then I learn something new I did not know before and my life is just that bit brighter... and sometimes I still get to win the round despite only pretending to have known all along about the obscure answer. :-)

Anyway, my turn. This is something players may or may not have in mind already. ABSTRACT

[Software] Both, actually - I write a quiz every week for the pub, so I tend to have a scant knowledge of a wide range of not terribly useful subjects.

[Phil] And when dey met, it wuz... NO
[Rosie] Grass is riz? NO

[Raak] Terminates here? NO

Just a thought.

[Dujon] Filthy Prancing Shirtlifters? NO

[Phil] No apology required - my comment read as more critical than I intended. I was trying to agree with Rosie's general point rather than criticising your choice of subject, which may well have met my criteria for reasonableness. Casting my mind back, some of my subjects were probably not justifiable by those criteria anyway.

[Software] Linguistic trope? NO
[INJ] Artful? NO (only very tangentially and unhelpfully)

I know we keep having the same discussions over and over again in the morniverse. It may be one of its defining features. Still, this one is a more than a bit tiresome, because the discussion really is identical each time. Someone (usually Rosie, to be honest) complains that the chosen subject was unsuitable because they hadn't heard of it, and they conjecture that most others have not heard of it either. Someone else (often me, to be honest :-) ) observes that there is no requirement for this game to follow the "spirit of the original game", because this game is on the internets, where we have search engines. Can we just agree to disagree on this one, and accept that people have different standards for what makes a reasonable/good subject?

I'd add two points. First, I think Rosie may have actually misjudged Dahmer's notoriety. I certainly knew of him, and I suspect the majority here have heard of him as well (which probably says something good about Rosie and bad about the rest of us, come to think of it). Second, this is an international community, so I don't think the trivia of "this country" should be privileged: in the global scheme of things, I expect that Dahmer is much better known than Sutcliffe, Shipman or Hindley.

[CdM] Point taken - and I think my lack of knowledge about Dahmer probably reflects on me (I do tend to avoid that sort of story). That said; to me, googling to get the answer feels like cheating.

I'd never heard of him but I did Google-up 5 US serial killers wiped out in jail. I do, however, suspect that Shipman and Hindley are much better known this side of the pond.

[CdM] Scientific? IN BROAD TERMS
[INJ] Specific to a single culture? NO
[Software] A human concept? YES *some discontented muttering from epistemologists*