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
[FGZ] Valuable? Yes.
Begins with P?
An object or objects?
More than 50% metal?
Unique?
Stone?
Is it radioactive?
Second letter A?
Last letter Y?
[Tuj] /^P/ No.
[Rosie] An object or objects? Yes.
[GL] More than 50% metal? Yes.
[Dujon] Unique? Typically no.
[Software] Stone? Stone is often involved.
[CdM] Radioactive No.
[Tuj2] /^.a/ No.
[GL2] /y$/ No.
A machine?
[Rosie] A machine? No.
Decorative?
A letter opener?
[GL] Decorative? I'm going to say Yes, though it's debatable.
[Softers] A letter opener? No.
Smaller than a toaster?
Bigger than a bread van?
[Tuj] <"toaster" Yes!
[GL] >"bread van" Nop.
A depositary of some kind?
A Ring?
[Dujon] depositary - a facility where things can be deposited for storage or safekeeping? No.
[FGZ] A ring? Yes. *much expectant applause*
A millstone?
An engagement ring?
[Softers] A millstone? Not quite...
[CdM] An engagement ring? YES! Well deduced, all. As it turns out, I am soon to be one half of "Mr. and Mrs. Juxtapose". The Mr. half, specifically. Have a ludicrously overpriced hand-made wedding baton.
Almost a lurker's victory, there. And congratulations, Juxtapose! All right, this one is

ANIMAL with ABSTRACT connections
Conservatism?
An anarcho-syndicalist rabbit?
Making a welcome return.
Supermouse?
Conservatism? No. (Is that an animal?)
Picketing Bunny? No.
Supermouse? No.
Is the animal human?
Human? No.
Starts with P?
David Cameron?
Mind if I join you?
Living creature(s)?
Is it a mascot of some sort?
OK, scratch that last one. David Cameron is human, as far as anyone knows.
P-begun? No.
The beast Cameron? No.
Alive? No.
Mascottish? Yes.
A cartoon character?
Cartoon character? No.
Represents a nation or geographical area?
National Geographic? No.
Is it associated with a particular company or product?
Symbolic?
Extinct?
Also making a (hopefully) welcome return.
Of the feline ilk?
Associated with company or product? Yes *applause*
Symbolic? Yes, in the mascottish sense already noted. Did you have something more specific in mind?
Extinct? No (or perhaps not applicable would be better)
Catty? Yes.
Is it Tony the Tiger?
The British Lion?
The Wild Haggis?
Familiar to a resident of America?
British company or product?
Tony? Wrrrrrrrrrrrrong.
British Lion? No.
Wild Haggis? No.
Familiar from California to the New York islands? Yes.
British company or product? No.
US company or product?
To get the obvious follow-up out of the way...
A product more than a company?
US company or product? Yes.
Product more than company? No.
Morris the Cat?
Morris the Cat? No.
The paddle pop lion?
Very similar to the Merlion in Singapore
Paddle Pop Lion? I think you will find that begins with P. Therefore, No.
The MGM roaring lion?
MGM lion? Close enough for a Yes! The words on the card were, strictly, The Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lions (plural), with the answer referring to the actual animals. (Not all the lions actually roared, by the way.) At least in my question-setting world, many of the guesses that people gave would be Abstract with animal connections, as opposed to the Animal with abstract connections that I specified.

One celluloid representation of a baton passed on to irach.
This next one is just ANIMAL.
Unique?
Human?
Symbolic?
[CdM]Yes, unique.
[GL]Yes, human.
[Software] Hmmm... I presume could be considered a symbol of sorts.
Alive now?
[jim] No, but in a sense will always be alive.
Ronnie James Dio?
[jim] No, not RJ Dio.
Did they die before 17th May 1983?
[GL] The person in question was reported to have died prior to 17 May 1983, but will likely always be immortal.
An entertainer?
[INJ] No, not an entertainer.
Jesus Christ?
No, not Jesus Christ.
Fictional?
[Juxtapose] Yes, fictional.
When you speak of this fictional human as "always being alive" and "immortal", do you mean that there is something about this particular character that is immortal, as opposed to the character being immortal simply by virtue of being fictional? If you see what I mean.
[CdM] Mostly just by being fictional, but perhaps a little more than just a character in this case.
Did the character originally appear in a book?
[jim] Yes, the person first appeared in a book.,
Main character in a book?
Does the person's name appear in the title?
[Juxtapose] Yes, the person's name is in the book title.
[Software] Yes, the person is the main character in the book.
Was the book in question published prior to the year 1900?
[Juxtapose] The book was first pubished prior to 1900.
Was this person a mariner?
Does this person appear in more than one book?
By the way -- not as criticism, just as observation -- I would classify any fictional character (or place, or thing) as primarily abstract, with xxx connections as appropriate. Is that how others also think about these classifications?
[CdM] Research indicates that it was one book, published in two parts.
Is the person female?
[Juxtapose] The person is male.
British or Irish author?
[jim] Neither British or Irish author.
Originally written in English?
Oedipus?
[jim] Not originally written in English.
[GLogin] Not Oedipus.
Begins with P?
[CdM] I concur
[Tuj] Not beginning with "P".
The Count of Monte Cristo?
You missed Dujon's "mariner" question, by the way.
[Dujon] The person was not a mariner.
[CdM] Not "The Count of Monte Cristo"
Hercules?
Written before 1800?
[FGZstar] Not Hercules.
[INJ] Yes, written before 1800.
Written before 1700?
Original question, I know. Though irach did say "published in two parts", and we can't go too much further back before "published" stops being a meaningful concept.
[jim] Yes, both parts first came out in print prior to 1700.
Don Quixote?
Just a wild stab at a windmill in the dark...
[jim] The baton...or lance in this case is passed to you...Don Quixote it is! The books Part I, El Ingenioso Hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha and its sequel were published for Cervantes ten years apart, in 1604 and 1614 by publisher Francisco de Robles. Incidentally, Don Quixote was one of the first bestseller books for which pirated editions soon appeared in the marketplace. The fact that I considered Don Quixote as being a little more immortal than just famous for being a fictional character (in response to CdM's question) is that the personality trait adjective "quixotic" has also been derived from his name.
Takes lance with extreme caution
Thank you, thank you. Another result of the first book's being so popular was a rash of what you might call "unofficial sequels", of rather poor quality. The second book was written in part as a response to these.
I hope it's not considered too much bad form to guess like that straight after having a question answered. Actually, I couldn't think of any two-part foreign language books of that sort of antiquity, and was about to guess the Bible, although certain that wasn't it, just to eliminate the possibility, when another candidate suddenly struck me.

Anyway, I am now thinking of an ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections. Game on.

Is the animal human?
'En un lugar de La Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero recordarme...' - I've always liked that as an opening line - it's the 'no quiero' that gives it its interest.
[Animal human] In one connection, specifically yes. In another connection, yes, but not specifically so. In a sense, specifically no.
Does the answer contain a verb?
Is it a well known phrase or saying?
[Contains a verb] No verb.
[Well known phrase] No. That is, the name of the thing is certainly well known, and you might make a case for its being a phrase or saying, but the thing itself is not one.
Minotaur?
[Minotaur] No.
Character in a book?
[Character] No.
Does the human animal connection refer to a specific individual?
[Individual] The "specifically human" connection is to a specific individual human, yes.
Begins with P?
Ends with Y?
[Tuj] Pno.
[Gusset] Noy.
A general reference to an unspecified constituent of a group (e.g. 'one of the mob', 'a club member')?
[General reference] No. There's a sense in which the AOTC could be said to refer to a group of closely related entities, but it would usually be considered as a single specific thing.
Is the answer a mythical creature?
[Mythical creature] No.
Does the name of the human connection appear on the card?
Is the specific human a man?
[Name on card] No.
[Male human] Yes.
A leader?
Does the vegetable connection refer to a specific vegetable (such as a single identified tree, for example)?
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord