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
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)?
[Leader] The person in question could certainly be considered a leader, but if you mean to ask if he is principally known as the leader of some group, nation, army etc., the answer is no.
[Specific vegetable] No.
I should clarify that when I say that the name of the human does not appear on the card, I mean precisely that. It would not be unnatural to describe the thing in terms of the person, but the name of the thing as I am envisaging it on the card does not contain the person's name.
IS it relating to a specific type of vegetable?
Is the human fictional?
[Specific type of vegetable] No.
[Fictional human] No.
Was the human involved in the invention or creation of the thing?
Was this thing invented?
(rather than, say, discovered)
[Human involved] Yes. Some murmurs of appreciation from the crowd
[Invented] I'm not sure "invented" is the right word, but it was more invented than discovered, although there is a strong connection to discovery.
Is the vegetable connection in regards to its shape?
[Shaped like a vegetable] No.
(In the sense that the thing can be said to have a shape, which is debatable.)
Was it "invented" in the last century?
(assuming that question makes sense)
[Last century] It did not come into being during the 20th century.
Are we broadly in the realm of science?
[Science] Yes. Audience applauds
Is the science in question astronomy?
Mathematical?
Newton's Law of Gravity?
[Astronomy] No.
[Mathematics] No.
[What goes up...] Nope.
Medical-related?
Biological Evolution related (a la Darwin?)
[Medical] No.
[Biological evolution] Yes. Cheers from the audience
Natural Selection?
Family tree?
[Natural selection] No, but there is a very strong connection. Audience are on the edges of their seats
[Family tree] No. Audience sit back again
The book title, "On the Origin of Species"
Yes! It is the book "On the Origin of Species", or to give it its full title, "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", only that wouldn't fit on the card. Charles Darwin, of course, being the specific named human (not actually named on the card, but could have been); Darwin tactfully refrained from directly addressing human evolution in the book, hence the "specifically non-human" connection. Not that the book wasn't controversial enough anyway. One naturally selected baton goes over to irach.
Holy Galapagos! By the beard of the land iguana! Me again? The next one is quite simply ANIMAL.
Human?
(oblig)
[INJ] Not human.
Skippy the bush kangaroo?
Mammalian?
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord