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 ....
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.
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.
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.
{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....
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").
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*
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? 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.
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.
[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.
[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
[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 :)
[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.
[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]
[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
[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'.
[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.
[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.
[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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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? 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.
[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.
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.
[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) 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] 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.
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*
[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.
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!
[Rosie] A recovered memory? NOT QUITE, but you're practically treading on its tail now. [irach] Distant memory? NO. [Software] A false memory? YES! That is the exact answer I started with on the card... or at least... I think it was.
Software, you really must realize that this is a family friendly site and that the word 'vegetable' should never have any less prominence than the words 'meat' and 'three'. I bet you hate Brussels sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower too. ;-)
[Rosie] Parliamentary rip-offs? NO. INJ has it in a nutshell, this game has been like the Mouse Trap. [INJ] Toxic debt? NO. much less specific to the current times
[Softers] Thanks mate :-) Delighted and all that. However, is this a poisoned chalice/baton I be picking up? I really don't want to set a new one unless I know for sure that all interested parties are going to play nicely and in a regular manner. [In otherwords: I'm not sure if I can sustain a chairpersonship for 9+ weeks - which is what you had to do]
[INJ - Unlikely but true. In this forum, I would never post a reply without checking the facts first -- you are all way too canny :) Here is a Wiki quote: "In April 2003, three-time guest panellist Stephen Fry announced that he was boycotting the show following the sacking of Angus Deayton. Fry described Deayton's disposal as "greasy, miserable, British and pathetic"."]
[Software] Metallic? - NO [Rosie] Portable? - NO some chuckles in the audience [Chalky] - Rocky? - YES [Re SF - Actually, now you remind me, I do vaguely remember that.]