The super macro guessing game (5)

Is the black part, part of a large sheet, relative to the size of the metal part?

well here is the ole "will the entire object fit in a 375ml/ 12oz can" question

I won’t go on about it, but ;
my opinion -
If you don’t like the interpretation of your question, tough. Your fault. You asked an imprecise question or one which could be misunderstood.
Use nomothetic perspective.

Please stop arguing about
1) interpretations
2) matters which haven’t been raised, such as whether a watch is jewelry
3) whether eg it’s wrong to call a metal tooth a tooth, AFTER it’s been declared as metal

Remember the answers should be yes or no.
Explanations reveal the identity.
It’s not much of a game if an explanation of everything has to be given, is it?

Hubcap?

Obvious question: is the dark part of the image leather?

Chris.R wrote in post #18327233
Is the black part, part of a large sheet, relative to the size of the metal part?

What black part? Do you mean the shadow?

DogDaze wrote in post #18327234
well here is the ole "will the entire object fit in a 375ml/ 12oz can" question

If you cut it open and force it in then maybe yes.

smythie wrote in post #18327277
Obvious question: is the dark part of the image leather?

Not sure what you mean dark part but there is no leather involved.

Chet wrote in post #18327270
Hubcap?

No thanks, I have alloy wheels..

Chris.R wrote in post #18327256
Remember the answers should be yes or no.

Not necessarily.

hqqns wrote in post #18327289
Not sure what you mean dark part but there is no leather involved.

There is what looks to be a retaining stud (rounded top circular stainless steel part) and then the majority of the rest of the image is dark or very black (depending on how much you increased the exposure of that part). It looked like leather to me. Is it vinyl?

Mmmm I guess my monitor is a bit better than most.... I'll increase exposure again.

There is no leather and the dark part is also steel. Something gets retained from falling off yes.

I never would have picked that for steel, even with the brighter exposure. Thanks

smythie wrote in post #18327304
I never would have picked that for steel, even with the brighter exposure. Thanks

That's the problem with taking photos of shiny objects, reflections can effect the 'look'

Hangon, are you talking about the yellow bit? Then yes that is coloured steel also.

hqqns wrote in post #18327181
OK this is getting out of hand, stop picking on Chris, it's just a game. For the record I would have answered the same as Chris on the egg question. Unfortunately OhLook assumed that the question would be interpreted the same way as she was thinking. As a pure question and answer from Chris was correct and logical with no such assumption about taxonomy.

As far as OhLook not 'taking issues' about answers then you are wrong, just recently she assumed that rubber was not plastic and complained about that too. . . .

P.S. This is the last I will comment on this - any issues please send PM and bring it off line, however I suggest you don't and get on with the game .

Sorry, subby, you're getting some noncompliance from this quarter about that "send PM" part. If you meant that any disagreements with your post should be PMed to you (probably not; I doubt you'd want to see them), that's no way to get a consensus about how the game should be played and what constitutes a fair question and a fair answer. Obviously there's an insufficient consensus now.

I don't remember the rubber/plastic question. To a nonchemist, at least this one, rubber and plastic are different substances.

Maybe, to Chris, the peacock's maleness was salient because only males grow that kind of feather, but wasn't it clear at that stage that some of us were trying to get to the taxon? Why do you say that I assumed something but not that he assumed the guessers would understand his answer the way he understood it? If someone posts a feather from a wild bird, sex unknown, how should the egg question be answered? Suppose, even, that the bird is known to be female. It may be too young or too old to lay eggs, but the poster wouldn't know, and "I don't know" is no help.

There have been problems with other answers. Responses when I tried to discuss them were unsatisfying. The thread has become extra contentious because Chris replied to my complaints dismissively and critically. How much tact and patience do you expect of me in this circumstance?

OhLook wrote in post #18327309
Sorry, subby, you're getting some noncompliance from this quarter about that "send PM" part. If you meant that any disagreements with your post should be PMed to you (probably not; I doubt you'd want to see them), that's no way to get a consensus about how the game should be played and what constitutes a fair question and a fair answer. Obviously there's an insufficient consensus now.

I don't remember the rubber/plastic question. To a nonchemist, at least this one, rubber and plastic are different substances.

Maybe, to Chris, the peacock's maleness was salient because only males grow that kind of feather, but wasn't it clear at that stage that some of us were trying to get to the taxon? Why do you say that I assumed something but not that he assumed the guessers would understand his answer the way he understood it? If someone posts a feather from a wild bird, sex unknown, how should the egg question be answered? Suppose, even, that the bird is known to be female. It may be too young or too old to lay eggs, but the poster wouldn't know, and "I don't know" is no help.

There have been problems with other answers. Responses when I tried to discuss them were unsatisfying. The thread has become extra contentious because Chris replied to my complaints dismissively and critically. How much tact and patience do you expect of me in this circumstance?

Do you have a question about the next image?

hqqns wrote in post #18327312
Do you have a question about the next image?

No. I believe there are issues to be cleared up that affect the game generally.