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
Associated with a particular actor?
Is the TV show named after the animal?
[CdM] Real Animal played part? NO (or I certainly hope not)
[Phil] Mr Ed? - NO
[Raak] Cartoon? - NO
[Projoy] Particular actor? - NO, not as such *Some muttering in the audience*[Kim] Named after animal? - NO
Mr. Blobby?
Is the animal a puppet?
Was the audience muttering because a known actor voiced this character?
Is our elusive friend a puppet?
Whoops! Sorry, Kim.
I'm also going to request a clarification on the classification. Though you have classified this primarily as abstract, does (or did) it still have some physical (presumably vegetable or mineral) existence? (Although maybe that is just a very roundabout way of asking Kim's question for the third time!)
[Raak] Mr Blobby? - NO
[Kim] Puppet? - NO
[CdM] Voiced by well-known actor - NO
[Dujon] - still no
CdM - Some physical existence? - YES *some applause* (but the classification is still correct)
Was this animal played by an actor in costume?
Not a real animal, not a puppet, and not a cartoon. Not many possibilities left.
Was the animal invisible?
Do we take your earlier rejection of "cartoon" to include all forms of amination?
Is it a logo or mascot?
I am thinking along the lines of something like Pudsey the bear (though not him of course as he begins with P).
One of the Playschool toys?
Just as an observation, we have nothing indicating that this is a children's show, though I think we are all tending to assume that it is.
[CdM] Gorilla-suited? - N)
[Raak] Invisible? - NO
[Kim] animated? - NO (I don't split hairs in this game)
[Bigsmith] Logo/Mascot - NO
Playschool? - NO
[CdM] Good point, well made.
Pantomime horse?
Well this is proving harder than I had ever imagined
[Software] Panto pony? - NO (precluded by answer to CdM's previous question)
Not a real animal, not a puppet, not a costumed actor, not invisible, not a cartoon or other animation. We are obviously missing something here but I am drawing a blank.
Was this animal ever seen (in some form or another) by the TV viewers?
Avian?
getting warmer
[CdM] Was the animal seen? - YES (it will become clear)
[irach] birdy? - YES *relieved applause*
"Phoenix rising from the ashes"?
[irach] Phoenix? - NO
Did the animal have an individual name?
"Eagle eye"?
Did the TV show feature a representation of this bird (e.g., a picture) rather than the bird itself?
[Raak] Named? - NO *a few murmurs in the audience*
[irach] Eagle eye? - Never heard of it, so NO
[CdM] Representation? YES(ish), a picture? - NO
There are 3 words on the card, including the indefinite article.
Is this from a comedy show?
[CdM] comedy show? - YES Loud and relieved applause*
Is it visible during the show?
[Phil] Visible? - YES
A Liver Bird?
[CdM] Liver Bird - Good guess, but NO
Was this seen in a pet shop?
"Dead Parrot" a la Monty Python?
Close enough for jazz
I don't want to draw this out so I declare irach the winner! The answer on the card was A Norwegian Blue
[CdM] The category that had not been suggested was 'a prop/model'
(To explain the convoluted intro 'a Norwegian Blue' can also be an orienteering course or the nickname of the earliest fossil proto-psittacoid, which was found in Scandinavia.)
One baton totally bereft of life handed on to irach.
Simulposted with:

That must be it, though I am guessing that "A Norwegian Blue" are the actual words on the card. (That's irach's win, not mine, if correct.)
Well, that one was put to rest at last. The psittacoid in question pining for the fjords is now in birdie Valhalla.... The next one is ANIMAL with an ABSTRACT Connotation.
Human?
A single individual animal?
Is the answer a phrase?
[CdM] Non-human.
[IMJ] More than one.
[Rosie] Sort of a phrase.
Lemmings?
A single species of animal?
A team or pack?
[Tuj] Not lemmings.
[CdM] Not a single species.
[Rosie] A team of sorts, not a pack.
Domesticated animals?
Likely to be seen in the wild?
(in counterpoint to INJ)
[INJ] Not domesticated.
[CdM] Yes, and no.
Fictional?
Dickybirds?
Land animal?
[Tuj] Fictional in part.
[Rosie] Not dickybirds.
[Software] Yes. Land animal
Does it begin with P?
To business.
[Tuj] 'Pologies, but no "P" whatsover, in either the beginning, middle, or end.
The Circle of Life?
Ouch.
[Tuj] Not the circle of life.
An animal of which there are both domesticated and wild examples?
[Kim] Only wild or presumed wild.
Does the name of an animal (or several) appear on the card?
[INJ] Yes, the animals are named.
Indigenous to the UK?
"Wild? I was absolutely livid!"
Do they form an heraldic or symbolic group?
[Bigsmith] Not indigenous to the US individually, but togeter, yes, very British.
[INJ] Yes, they form a heraldic or symbolic group.
Lion and Unicorn?
[Software] The Lion and the Unicorn it is. The baton is passed
Bu**er! That means I'll have to think of something. Right, after 30 seconds deep thought here it is:

VEGETABLE with ANIMAL and ABSTRACT connections.

Terry Schiavo?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Is the vegetable wood?
Smaller than a toaster?
[Raak] Yowzer!
[Raak] Terry? No
[INJ] Wood? Yes.
[CdM] er.. No.
[Tuj] Toaster? Difficult one, probably Yes.
Are the animal connections human?
Is there only one of these?
A board game?
[Raak] Human? Yes.
[Kim] Unique? No.
[Tuj] Boardo? No.
A tool?
Found in a kitchen?
Long and thin?
[INJ] tool? some may say so, but a sensible answer is probably No.
[irach] kitchen? some would say Yes.
[Rosie] phalic? No.
Edible?
Chopsticks?
*wonders about the short fat approximately toaster-sized chopsticks that irach eats with*
[CdM] edible? theoretically, Yes.
[irach] ching-chang-chew? No.
Part of a foodstuff that is not normally eaten? (eg fish bones)
[Rosie] Fishy? No.
A container of some kind?
Specific to a particular culture or country?
[Tuj] Container? No.
[CdM]Specific country/culture? No.
Serves a decorative purpose?
I'm struggling with the edible wood.
Heart of palm?
[INJ] Decorative? No.
[Raak]Swamp cabbage? Had to Google that! No.
Advent calendar?
About the size of a toaster in all three dimensions, two dimensions, or one?
Found in most homes?*
* for a definition of home based on the Western European model
[G III] Chocolatey date thing? No.
[irach] Toaster sized? In one dimension maybe. Yes.
[INJ] Domestic? Yes. (random claps from audience)
Used in the preparation or serving of food?
Is the abstract connection something to do with the arts?
[INJ] Jamie Oliverish? Nah.
[CdM] Arty-farty? No.
Associated with apparel?
[INJ] wear it? No.
Clue?
Is the abstract connection a phrase or saying?
Does it begin with a 'P'?
Sorry Tuj, but we can only wait so long for you.
[Tuj] Clue? OK. This is a give away: almost everyone has used one of these.
[CdM] Abstract? Not a phrase or saying as such, but a familiar term.
[INJ] P? Not in the answer itself. * audience murmurs.*
Paper of some sort?
Toilet paper?
[Chalks] Paper? Yes. *audience claps*
[GIII] Bog roll? No.
Advent Calendar?
ooops - CANCEL THAT
Box of Tissues
Newspaper?
[Chalks] Advent calendar? You wish! And not paper hankies either. No.
[irach] The fourth estate? No.
Paper Towels?
[irach] Towels? No. Hint: it is paper, approximately toaster sized in one dimension.
Is is typically written on, e..g. foolscap paper?
[irach] Written? Not by hand, but Yes. * audience claps * Foolscap? Are you a lawyer?
A Telephone Directory?
A fortune cookie?
[CdM] Directory? The exact words on the Card!!!

Well done and over to you!! I'm glad that its gone because I'm away from a computer for the next 5 days and there would have been a big gap!

That was unexpected
OK. I am going to designate this as ABSTRACT with ANIMAL connections, while acknowledging that many of you might have deemed this ANIMAL with ABSTRACT connections.
Begins with P?
Anubis?
Mythical?
A well-known phrase?
Pinitial? No.
Anubis? No, but *a tiny smattering of applause*
Mythical? No, but *some audience murmuring and consultation of dictionaries*
Well-known phrase? In a sense, yes, although that's not the best way to think of what you are looking for.
Fictional?
Fictional? In part, Yes; in part, No.
extinct?
Extinct? Er. I think the only reasonable answer is No.
Legendary?
Legendary? Yes, but *some audience murmuring and consultation of dictionaries*
A single, named creature?
Single, named creature? Yes. *applause*
An object of worship?
Object of worship? No (except perhaps in the exaggerated metaphorical sense)
An object of fear?
Object of fear? No.
In place of my rather convoluted introduction, it is probably better to describe this simply as ABSTRACT and ANIMAL.
But does it begin with P?
Pinitial? Still No.
Is its existence controversial?
Controversial existence? Not in the slightest. (I confirmed its existence a few days ago, as a matter of fact.)
Does it have a physical existence?
The MerLion?
Connected with a particular country?
[CdM] I'll believe you this time.
The answers to several of these questions differ depending on whether I am focusing on the abstract or animal component of the answer. My answers to date have been primarily directed at the abstract component (although I don't think any of them would be badly misleading when thought of as applying to the animal component as well.* With that in mind

Physical Existence? The abstract component has various physical manifestations (so I could also add MINERAL connections to the definition). As for the animal component, the best answer is probably No, (or perhaps Yes, of a sort), but had the question been phrased slightly differently I could have much more easily just answered Yes.
Connected with a particular country? Not exactly, but *applause*.
Merlion? No.

*Though I have never confirmed the existence of the animal component.
Does the animal represent in any way a particular human?
Particular human? The animal is a particular human, yes. *applause*
Is the human the holder of a certain position or title?
Connected with a particular religion?
Holder of position or title? Not exactly, but *applause*
Religious connection? No.
The Statue of Liberty?
Long shot.
Lady Liberty? Nope.
So is the animal fictional and the abstract nonfictional?
Fictional status of animal and abstract: The animal is non-fictional. The abstract is partly fictional and partly non-fictional.
Something like "Tom Thumb"?
Like Tom Thumb? Not at all. I would call that totally fictional.
Tom Thumb fictional? Perhaps not.
[Software] Ah. Well, that's what I get for taking Wikipedia as the last word on something. But, in any case, I think the answer is No.
{Software] By the way, I love the picture at top right in your link. "Tom Thumb's Waistcoat," it is labeled. But since there is nothing else in the picture to indicate scale, the waistcoat in question might just as easily be too big for Kobe Bryant....
Male?
Male? Yes.
This is proving harder than I expected, so I'll offer a clarification/clue with regard to the mythical/legendary questions. The answer on the card does not refer (in either the abstract or animal sense) to something mythical or legendary in a narrow, literal myth-or-fable sense of those terms. The answer (in both senses) is legendary in the broader celebrated-renowned sense of that term, and possibly even mythical in the very broad sense of that word ("idealized").
Is the human the holder of a particular record or accomplishment?
Holder of record or accomplishment? The human is known for certain accomplishments.
Dead?
Sporting accomplishments?
Dead? Yes.
Sporting? No.
A war leader?
A war leader? Sort of, yes. *applause*
Well, this is starting to get silly.
Did the human die within the last 100 years?
Alive sometime after1908? Yes.
Notorious rather than universally celebrated?
The Unknown Soldier?
Notorious? The human in question is perhaps not universally celebrated, but certainly "celebrated" is a better term than "notorious". The abstract sense is pretty much universally celebrated.
Unknown soldier? Hardly. *some laughter*
Born after 1908?
Born after 1908? The human in question was not born after 1908. The abstract sense cae into being after 1908 though.
Because you will probably have forgotten most of this when you resume this game in a post-Christmas alcoholic haze, here is a review.

The words on the card are sort of a well-known phrase that does not begin with P. The words have both an ANIMAL sense and an ABSTRACT sense. There is no controversy about the existence of either.

The ANIMAL sense is a particular male human, who was born before 1908 and died after 1908. He is known for certain non-sporting accomplishments and was sort of a war leader. He is celebrated rather than notorious, though not universally celebrated. He is legendary in the sense of being celebrated and renowned, and possibly mythical in the sense of being idealized, but he is not legendary or mythical in the more literal senses of those terms. He is not exactly connected to a particular country, but the question earned applause. He is not exactly the holder of a position or title, but that question also earned applause. He has no religious connection. He is not Anubis, the Merlion, Tom Thumb, Lady Liberty, or the Unknown Soldier.

The ABSTRACT sense came into being after 1908, and does have physical (mineral) manifestations. It is partly fictional and partly non-fictional, and it is likewise legendary in the broad senses of the words, but not in the narrow senses. I recently confirmed its existence.
T. E. Lawrence?
T.E. Lawrence? The human is T.E. Lawrence, yes. *sustained applause*. But, though this one is now clearly there for the taking, I cannot declare Raak the winner.
Come on, Raak, get a wriggle on.   ;-)
Lawrence of Arabia?
Lawrence of Arabia is indeed the correct answer. One Aqabaton delivered from the Turks to Raak.
The next is ABSTRACT.
The Riemann ζ-function?
n=∞
Not
Σ
 1/ns
n=1
Cognitive dysfunction?
Could be regarded as a symptom of one.
"Happy New Year"?
Oh, and Happy New Year to all.
Not a happy new year.
A human characteristic?
E.g. numeracy :-)
Not a human characteristic.
An organisation?
Not an organisation.
Anything to do with religion?
According to Wikipedia, no connection with religion.
Christmas?
Not Christmas.
A well-known phrase or saying?
Not a phrase or saying. Well, there's a phrase on the card, of course, but the mystery object is what it refers to, not the words themselves.
Is the mystery object Animal?
No, it's ABSTRACT.
Connection with science or scientific endeavour?
No connection with sciency things.
A human construct?
'cos somebody had to ask it.
Yes, a human construct.
Does the mystery object instil fear?
Any connection with the arts?
[Rosie] (laughter) Does not instil fear.
[INJ] No connection with the arts.
Does the mystery object represent an achievement?
Is this a sporting accolade?
[Rosie] No, but there could be an achievement involved.
[Dujon] Not sporting.
Related to Politics?
[INJ] Not related to politics.
Is it an activity?
[Kim] Not in itself, but activity could be involved.
Does it normally involve more than one person?
[INJ] Generally involves just one person.
Could it be considered enjoyable?
Might or might not be enjoyable.
An attitude or state of mind?
Not an attitude or state of mind.
Scientific/technical connection?
No scientific/technical connection.

I expected this one to be really easy..

Related to humour?
Not related to humour.
Anything to do with employment?
Nothing to do with employment. (The audience devolve into cockroaches and scuttle away between the floorboards.)
Any connection to sleep?
Zzzzzz....
How about a hint?
Seasonal relevance
New Year Resolution?
I resolve to hand the baton over to Chalky!
Have we taken a resolution to terminate old games?
No, I don't think we have.
It's been slowing down recently - but I still look at it and try to contribute at least once a day when I'm able to get online (though I try not to ask successive questions). Maybe we need fewer ABSTRACTs in order to get the thing moving along. After all, it's not as if other games are flying along.
Chalky appears to be fairly abstract at the moment ;o)
I'm sure she's here in spirit.
Absent friends
I don't get the feeling we are going to see Chalky soon.
EEEK!
sorrysorry. Have been away for a few days - had completely forgotten I'd posted that. Thanks for your patience ....

Next one: ANIMAL/MINERAL/VEGETABLE with ABSTRACT connections

I should be around for mornings and evenings for a few days so pile 'em up ....
Life, the Universe and Everything?
Animal is human?
One step at a time ...
Is it manufactured?
Is it a place or geographical location?
Is it you?
Is it Animal AND Vegetable AND Mineral in one instance?
[INJ] Life etc? NO
[Softers] Animal a Human Beeng? NO
[Raak] Manufactured? mmmm ... erm ... sometimes.
[INJ] Place or Location? NO
[Kim] Moi? NON :-)
[Phil] AVM in one instance? Good question - YES, it can be, but then, can, as likely, not be.
Objects that bear a miracluous resemblance to Jesus/Mother Teresa/Tony Blair/etc.?
[Raak] Incredulous Looky-likes? NO - but I suppose one could discern a resemblance given a vivid imagination :)
Would the animal be mythical?
foody?
Sorry for delay
[Software] Mythical? NO
[CdM] foody-y? YES!
A dish?
Food, not ceramic
[INJ] A dish? NO - not a dish
Some sort of convenience snack?
Mmm, salted crisps cooked in lard....
Pork Scratchings?
[Raak] Salty snack? Yes - could be
[Software] Pig scabs? Yes - could be

[INJ] I have cast off my pedant's hat to amend my reply to your recent question: Yes - could be
Normally eaten in a pub?
[Rosie] Pub Grub? Yes - could be
Is the occasion on which it is eaten significant?
Cost under a quid? (£1 Sterling, whatever that's worth today?)
[Raak] Eaten on significant occasion? Yes - could be
[Bigsmith] Low Cost? Yes - could be
Food in general?
A generic description of a meal?
(like 'a square meal' or 'breakfast')
A Tasty Snack?
[Raak] Food in general? YES! *audience cheers because the Animal/Vegetable/Mineral boxes have been ticked*
[INJ] Generic description of a meal? Not exactly 'generic' - but you're heading in the right direction..
[Softers] Tasty Snack? Yes - could be
A snack?
The "Mediterranean Diet"?
[Rosie] A snack? Yes - could be
[Raak] The Mediterranean Diet? Yes - could be

It may be more useful if I change the definition to ANIMAL/MINERAL/VEGETABLE/ABSTRACT [rather than 'with Abstract connections']. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of such a move when this has been guessed :)
Is it to do with dieting in general?
Consumed at a single sitting?
(I know - 'Yes - could be')
[Kim] Dieting? NO *audience chuckles*
[INJ] Single sitting? Funny you should say that/ Yes - it could well be consumed at a single sitting :-)
Overeating?
Munchies?
[Raak] Overeating? Not exactly - but * the audience applauds your attempt to explore the Abstract nature of this little puzzle*
[irach] Munchies? well - having the Munchies certainly links neatly with the words on the card.
Brunch?
Does the card include the word "traditional"?
{Raak] Brunch? Yes - could be
[Dujon] The card does NOT include the word 'traditional'
Cocktail party?
Does it have to do with the enjoyment of good food, but not necessarily to excess?
Who ate all the pies?
[irach] Cocktail party? Yes - could be
[Kim] Non - excessive enjoyment of good food? Yes - could be
[Software] Who Ate The Pies? No - but *audience applauds another attempt to explore the Abstract element*

[Aside to Softers - Are you in Jersey or Guernsey? My memory fails me]
Eating in general?
[Raak] Eating in general? The AotC certainly suggests eating in general *< mode:clue > however, it isn't an action < /clue >*
A square meal?
[Chalky] Guernsey? Wash your mouth out!
[Software] A square meal? Yes - it could include one of those
What I (you? someone?) ate last night?
Entertaining in general?
[CdM] What we ate last night? Yes - it could include this
[Kim] Entertaining in general? Remember - The AotC is not an action. However, it IS entertaining :) <<<<< points to another clue
Finger foods?
A TV Dinner?
Food groups, nutrition triangles, or some such thing?
[irach] Finger foods? Yes - it could include these
[Sierra Mike] TV Dinner? Yes - it could include this
[CdM] Food groups, nutrition triangles, or such-like? OK - it could include these 'though such dour terminology sits uneasily with the AotC.

Hint: It may be helpful to approach this puzzle from the ABSTRACT angle as it's clear that the A/V/M part is 'food'.
Cookery programmes?
Junk food?
[Raak] Cookery progs? NO
[IruleOK] Junk? NO
Related to any grading system, e.g. Michelin stars?
A banquet?
[Raak] Michelins? NON
[Rosie] Banquet? NO

The negative replies only indicate that the guesses are not the Answer on the Card. How can something so tangible as food become an Abstract?
Fictional?
*applauds Raak*
[Raak] Fictional? Ooh - good question. YES - but I reply with some hesitation.
A work of fiction containing embedded recipes?
"Like Water for Chocolate", etc.
[Raak] fiction - embedded? NO
Food for Thought?
[Softers] Food for Thought? NO - but you and Raak are moving in the right direction.

Summary: The Animal/Vegetable/Mineral part is FOOD [any food in any guise]. The Abstract part originates from a work of fiction - but many things do! There is a key question that hasn't been asked yet. Oh - and it IS a well-known phrase or saying.
The Food of the Gods?
Does it begin with one of the letters A-O or Q-Z (inclusive)?
[Rosie] The Food of the Gods? NO - but *audience applauds with gusto!*
[CdM] At last! Not P? YES :)
The Staff of Life?
[Raak] The Staff of Life? Not the AotC, NO.

My response to Kim's question may provide a clue to the 'key question'
A Bun Fight?
getting desperate
[Softers] A Bun Fight? NO :)
Iron Chef?
The food of love / An aphrodisiac?
sneaking in two related guesses for the price of one.
Clarification please
AotC????????
[Raak] Iron Chef? [Who is this person?] NO
[CdM] Aphrodis/Lovin'food? NO
[Sierra Mike] Answer on the Card [as per the original ISIHAC game :)

There is still a key question that should bridge the gap between 'originates from a work of fiction' and the answer. There is an intermediate level. Please keep asking Abstract-type questions and forget about guessing random food-related phrases.
Supping with The Devil?
Use a long spoon, they say.
tum te tum te tum
[Rosie] Suppin with Devil? NO
Is the work of fiction (primarily) a book
i.e. best known as a book rather than say, the film of a book
Was the phrase coined in the 20th century?
[INJ] Book/Film? Good question. Originally a BOOK - which is very well-known by a very well-known author. The book has been adapted [I use the term deliberately] to make a FILM - which is well-known in a different way. The AotC comes from the FILM.
[Graham III] Coined in C20? Absolutely YES - the second half of the century.
*hints that the Book has been mentioned in 'Ex Libri Bardus'*
Wuthering Heights
In my own defense I Googled it before I asked.
AOTC Attack of the Clones (Star Wars Episode Two)
AOTC Australian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation
AotC Ark of the Covenant (gaming)
AOTC Ahead of the Curve
AotC Aspect of the Cheetah (gaming, World of Warcraft)
AOTC Associated Offices Technical Committee (UK)
AOTC Ahead of Time Crew (band)
AOTC Autodesk Official Training Courseware
A.O.T.C. - Association of Orthopaedic Technologists California
AOTC - Amarillo Obedience Training Club
AotC Army of the Cumberland
AOTC Atlantic OSHA Training Center
AOTC Administrative Office of the Trial Court
I also swept back in the game itself, though obviously not far enough.
The Naked Lunch?
Eats, Shoots and Leaves?
la la lala la la lala
[INJ] The Naked Lunch? NO
[Kim] Eats Stuff? NO *audience sighs and seeks alternative entertainment*
I might well have missed something or other in this rather drawn out seeking: Given that - is this (at least) something like 'Manna from Heaven' ?
[Duj] Manna from Heaven? Yes - it could be - but it's not the AotC
*attempting to entertain the audience*
In addition to the BOOK and the FILM there is also a STAGE production.
Food of the Gods?
[Softers] Food of the Gods? I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous reply to Rosie. ^^^^

...and while you're up there - you may spot all the clues I've been giving. [Where's Projoy when you need him?]
food, glorious food?
Damn! How did I miss that?
Answer, Glorious Answer!
At last dear CdM - the very Words on the Card *audience applauds, cheers and generally goes wild*

The SONG from the FILM and the STAGE production which is an adaptation of the BOOK. A well-known phrase all about FOOD which is very entertaining.
Thanks for letting me off the hook.
[INJ] shame on you :)

* hands over a stuffed baguette to CdM*
[Chalky] Please miss, can I have another?
[CdM] um ... only if I can guess yours :)
All right. This is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and MINERAL connections.
Is the answer an Abstract Noun?
Abstract noun? No. The answer is a noun phrase that refers to something abstract.
A saying?
A Place?
A human construction?
Mineral metal?
Fictional?
A saying? No.
A place? No
Human construction? Yes.
Metal? No.
Fictional? Yes.
Would this abstractness be . . . well . . . revelationary?
revelationary? I'm really not sure I understand the question. But I can say that it would be useful to learn what kind of abstraction this is. Also, some claim that this abstraction is something some claim to be very revelatory or revelationary or something.
A book?
Book? No.
Anything to do with the internets?
Does it begin with P?
Internetty? No.
P-begun? No.
Science Fictiony?
Sciffy? No.
Mineral stone?
Mineral stone? Yes.
Related to the arts?
Arty? Yes, for a reasonably broad definition of "arts".
A statue?
Statue? No. (abstract, remember)
A pillar of some kind?
A monument?
Pillar? No. (abstract, remember)
Monument? No. (abstract, remember)
Between a Rock and a Hard Place?
Is the animal connection human?
Hard rock? No.
Human animal? Yes.
Is it a painting?
A specific human?
e.g. The Iron Chancellor
Specific human? Yes, but be careful how you interpret that answer.
Err....is it a painting?
Oops
Repainting? No. (abstract, remember)
The Theory of Evolution?
Talking about an evolution? No.
Related to a craft?
Crafty? No.
The Man in the Moon?
Mr. Moonlight? No.
Is it a title (e.g president of blahland)?
Religiousy, faithy ?
Is the human a single named real person
(Now, how many questions is that?)
Lady? No.
Madonna? No.
Single named real person? Yes, yes, yes and no.
Perhaps I should punctuate that less ambiguously as: yes; yes; yes and no.
A fictionalised representation based on a real person?
A character in literature?
Fictionalised representation based on real person? Yes.
Based on a novel? No.
Political?
You say you'll change the constitution? No.
Is it associated wih a specific country?
Know where land? No.
I should qualify that last answer. It is probably associated with a particular country but I don't think those associations are particularly relevant or useful.
Give us a clue
A little help
It was getting lonely in this game without you; I thought you were all leaving. I've already peppered clues throughout my last few answers, being for the benefit of you all. Really, I thought you were all getting better at these, but now I don't think you are going to work it out for another fifteen years.
John Bull?
Is 2024 significant?
Some connection with popular beat combo The Beatles?
John, Paul, George and Ringo
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds?
Such a lovely audience
John Bull? Er, no.
Is 2024 significant? I dunno, Projoy. Will you still be sending me a valentine?
Beatly? The audience would applaud this preternatural leap of deductive logic, but they are all too distracted by something shiny.
LitSwD? Yes! Phil gets the psychedelic baton.
A hint of lurking, but I think I did ask a question earlier.

Let us proceed with ANIMAL

The obvious:
Human?
[Dujon] Human? YES
Male?
[Rosie] Male? YES
A male human. That reduces the chances so:
Is this a male human who lives or lived?
[Dujon] Extant or extinct? YES
Alive?
[Rosie] Alive? NO
Was he alive some time in the 20th century?
[Raak] Alive during 20th century? YES
A political figure?
[Rosie] Political figure? NO
Your answer to Rosie's and Raak's questions does indeed raise other buts and ifs:
Was this man a scientist?
[Dujon] A scientist? NO
A writer?
Alive in the year 2001?
[Software] A writer? NO
[CdM] Alive in 2001? NO
A celebrity?
[Software] A celebrity? Hmmmm....if you mean "a famous person" then YES. But if you mean someone who seeks fame then NO.
A performer of any kind?
Alive in 1900?
[Rosie] Performer? NO
[GIII] Alive in 1900? NO
Famous largely for a single thing (is a single event rather than a whole career)?
[CdM] Famous for a single event? NO
A novelist or playwright (either)?
[Rosie] Novelist/Playwright? Neither
Someone who became accidentally famous?
[Software] Became famous accidentally? Tricky...probably YES *some interest from an intelligent audience*
Someone who was naturally reclusive?
Is there a sporting connection?
An academic?
Corpuschristitrimble.
[GIII] Naturally reclusive? I think I'll go for YES, although there could be some debate on "naturally".
[CdM] Sporting? NO
[Rosie] Academic? NO
A songwriter?
A Nobel Laureate?
[Rosie] A songwriter? NO
[Dujon] A Nobel Laureate? NO
A public servant?
[Rosie] Public servant? NO
An actor?
[GIII] An actor? NO
Some who makes things?
[Rosie] Makes things? NO
Did he live to more than fifty years old?
[CdM] Lived > 50yrs? NO
A soldier?
Were cyanide and an apple involved in this man's death?
[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.

Did he give his name to something known by people of all ages?
[Rosie] Gave his name to something? NO
Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards?
grasping at straws
Notorious?
[Software] The Eagle? NO (no sporting connection)
[CdM] Notorious? YES *hearty applause*
Did he disappear?
A serial killer?
Criminal?
[GIII] Disappear? NO
[CdM] Serial Killer? YES *Even heartier applause*
[Projoy] Criminal? YES
British?
Hannibal the Cannibal?
[GIII] British? NO
[irach] Hannibal? NO
Did this man 'operate' from a shack somewhere in the U.S. of A.?
Mack the Knife?
[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.
The Boston Strangler?
[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.
Fried?
That should narrow it down considerably.
Son of Sam?
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
Died of natural causes?
[Phil] Bollocks. I was sure it was Ted Bundy.
[IS,P!] Natural causes? NO
Was this 'gentleman's' fate (read death) brought about by a fellow prison inmate?
[Dujon] Done in by a fellow lag? YES *Intense applause*
Jeffrey Dahmer?
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.
Yes but
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?
Magnanimity
(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.
Hm.
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
Murder? ;-)
[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.
Spring?
[Phil] And when dey met, it wuz... NO
[Rosie] Grass is riz? NO
To do with endings?
[Raak] Terminates here? NO
Homophobia?
Just a thought.
[Dujon] Filthy Prancing Shirtlifters? NO
A phrase or saying?
Connected with the arts?
[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)
Scientific?
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.
Specific to a single culture?
[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.
A human concept?
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*
Mathematical?
[INJ] To be clear, if something can't be guessed with good questioning and a little googling, then I too would judge it a bad subject. I gave up on my experiment of using randomly generated topics from Wikipedia because they too often failed that test (an Estonian province comes to mind...).
[Software] Well, for some definitions of "this side" and "pond", yes. Very possibly not for my current definitions of those terms. Which was my point.
[CdM] Numbery? NO
Learning?
Could we please cease to comment on the previous challenge? Thanks.
Connectivity?
[Dujon] Learning? NO *a ripple of interest in the audience*
[Rosie] Connectivity? NO
Medical?
[Chalky] Medical? KIND OF *a couple of claps from the audience*
An idea?
[SW] An idea? YES, a sort of idea.
Related somehow to the discussions raised by the previous topic?
Sorry Dujon!
[Biggsy] Related to the Internet vs. Rosie's general knowledge, and which is better debate? Thankfully, NO.
Hm. Rosie's General Knowledge and The Internet. They're both rather marvellous bases for games... but which is better? There's only one way to find out!
Something to do with mental processes?
[Rosie] Mental processes? YES! *applause*
Would this have a direct relationship to the lore of the Australian Aborigine?
Risk aversion?
[Dujon] Dreamtime? NO
[Rosie] Risk aversion? NO
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord