Looking for the Code...
Thom Cleland
>>
>>Hi all--some time ago the Code was posted, all the g++ f t+ w B4 etc.
>
>Umm....g++ is a preprocessor for the GNU C compiler... B4 is a security
>level in the Orange Book, and f is the standard abbreviation for the
>finger command, while w is the standard abbreviation for who. I don't
>know about t+ and I have hope that this is vaguely relevant to soc.bi
>but I am not quite sure that it could ever be.
I'm not sure if you're teasing me (sniff) or if you know less than I
do. but thank you for all the incredibly miscellaneous information.
Check out some people's sigs for codes like these... basically it's
shorthand for what they like and what they *are* like, an abbreviated
personality and preference beacon. I had a copy of the code, lost it,
alas, and want it back.
and yes, it's relevant to soc.bi, after all you want to please people
with your careful ministrations, don't you?
>--scott
Thom!
--
Thom Cleland \ /^ >Neural network physiology in the Panulirus STG<
Fido: 1:202/503 \ / >Aoinagi Shito-ryu == bend, and the wind passes <
tcle...@ucsd.edu + >Defend every inch of ground where liberty stands<
"Wild magic is graven in every rock, every tree, in every blade of grass"
Scott Moir
>>>
>>>Hi all--some time ago the Code was posted, all the g++ f t+ w B4 etc.
>
>do. but thank you for all the incredibly miscellaneous information.
>Check out some people's sigs for codes like these... basically it's
>shorthand for what they like and what they *are* like, an abbreviated
>personality and preference beacon. I had a copy of the code, lost it,
>alas, and want it back.
>
>and yes, it's relevant to soc.bi, after all you want to please people
>with your careful ministrations, don't you?
It is the NCBS.. or 'Bear Code'.. It is as Thom describes it, and it
can be gotten via anonymous ftp from spdcc.com. I beleive the current
version is NCBS.v1.9.1 and it should be in the /pub directory.
The number part may not be right, but it is the only file in there that
looks anything like that..
Scott
--
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement
pent...@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com \ \/ / # for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+ \/\/ # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
Olaf Seibert
>with your careful ministrations, don't you?
Well, for those without FTP access, I'll post it here. It's the file
spdcc.com:pub/NBCS.V1.9.
Oh, and thanks to Kay, for originally pointing me in the right direction.
/****************************************************************/
/* NBCS - V1.9.1 The Natural Bears Classification System */
/* */
/* A classification system for bears, and bear-like men */
/* Version 1.9.1 3/24/1991 */
/* Authors: rdon...@spdcc.com and jl...@bearhug.UUCP */
/* (Bob Donahue = BBC) (Jeff Stoner) */
/****************************************************************/
Because "Bears" mean so many things to different people,
because bears come in all shapes and sizes and have different sexual
proclivities, because classified ad prices are SOOOOOO expensive,
we (while eating lunch at a Boulder, Colorado, Wendy's on Thanksgiving
weekend, 1989) came up with this incredibly-scientific system to describe
bears and bear-like men.
Since we both have interests in astronomy, we are well-versed in
star and galaxy classification systems, which use prototypes to set the
standards for describing things. Rather than just saying something is of
"Type I" or "Type II" (etc.), it is better to use natural features to describe
an object, in particular as a continuum of a range of features. Such is
the case with bears.
------------- T H E C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S C H E M E -------------
The most obvious characteristic of a bear is understandibly
his facial fur. So, that is the most logical place to begin. Using
a capital "B" to denote "BEAR", we have added a sub-class characterizing
"beard type" which combines a bear's beard's length, thickness, and
overall "keptness", numbered from 0 to 9 and defined in the following
way:
0 - (Little/no beard, or incredibly sparse) Such a beard is
the absolute minimum that could ever be classified as a
beard. We're talking 5-o'clock shadow, here! And yes, we
are of the opinon that the beardless can still find
company among the ursines!
1 - (VERY slight beard) This is the kind of beard that people have
who want to have a beard, but can't grow one.
Or someone who is contantly at the 1-week phase.
2 - (Slight beard) A beard kept VERY short at all times, or
thinned out.
3 - (Thin beard) A beard in all respects but kept thin
and short.
4 - (Mostly full) A beard that is full except for a few noticable
bald spots, or kept trimmed.
5 - (Full beard) A full beard not generally trimmed, though not
generally bushy. May have a few bald spots on inspection.
Usually full and roundish beards fall into this category.
6 - (Very full) A full beard, not trimmed. May be slightly
bushy but very full. Thick, full beards (moreso than B5's)
are B6's. B6's beards also generally are higher up on
the cheeks than B5's.
7 - (Longish/bushy beards) A full beard or slightly thin beard
with longish fur. This beard is not trimmed and does come
away from the chin.
8 - (Very Long Beards) These beards are usually very bushy and
haven't seen clippers for a very long time.
9 - (Belt-buckle-grazing long beards) The prototype is ZZ Top.
Need we say more?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok... Using this scheme, it shouldn't be hard to narrow a person
down to within 1 sub-class, although occasionally people may fall between
two classes, and then the end result is left up to the person classifying,
or one may use a hybrid designation (for example: B7/4) for those who vary
across time (in the given range they spend more time near the first number).
---------- O T H E R C L A S S I F I E R S F O R B E A R S -------------
While beards can be an observable trait of bears, there are other
things that different people take into consideration as to "what makes up
a bear", and things that people like in their bears. So, bearing that in mind
(pun intended) there are other criteria that can/should optionally
follow the "B" designation.
N.B. It is not necessary to have a "grade" for each of these
traits! For each there is a "neutral" value, which basically describes
someone who is "average" or "unknown" within that trait. These "neutral"
values are given below, but would not be reported --- treat them as either
"default" or "assumed".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
f - "The FUR factor". Some bears are particularly hairy about the
rest of their bodies, others INCREDIBLY furry, yet others
though rightfully bears, have little or no fur on their
chests, arms, legs, back, butt, etc. So, one of the
following may be added to better describe a bear's fur:
f++ WAY above average fur
f+ above average fur
f furry in a bearish sense
(none) "neutral", avg. fur from a sample population of
both bears and non-bears
f- below average fur
f-- WAY below average fur--"Nair-smooth to the max!"
t - "the TALLNESS factor". To describe bears that are tall or
short for their frame.
t++ a virtual giant bear
t+ taller than average
t tall but not very tall
(none) average height
t- shorter than average
t-- a bear of very small stature
w - "the WEIGHT factor". For those who perfer their bears more
or less fluffy.
w++ a round bear/BIG TEDDY bear
w+ a big boned bear
w bear with a tummy
(none) average weight for frame
w- a thin bear (otters!)
w-- a bony bear
c - "the CUB factor". For the junior up and coming bears.
c++ complete daddy's boy
c+ definite cub
c cub tendencies
(none) not "cubbish"
c- looks like a cub but isn't
d - "the DADDY factor". For the cubs, etc.
d++ DADDY with a vengenance (even his parents call him SIR!)
d+ definite DADDY
d daddyish tendencies
(none) not a daddy
d- looks like a daddy but isn't
Note there are now also HYBRID classes "cd" and "dc":
cd A cub with "daddy tendencies"... Sort of like
a "grown up cub".
dc A daddy with cub-like tendencies/features.
dc- More daddy than cub
d+c REAL daddyish and also VERY cubbish
(etc.)
g - "the GROPE factor": This is the amount one likes to be touched
or pawed etc.
g++ Love to grope/paw/touch etc. Will attack without
warning. Gives hugs to hot otherwise unknown bears
on the street in open daylight.
g+ likes to be touched most of the time
g Generally outgoing with ursine affection, a little
more reserved about place/person...
(none) Average amount of receptivity to being touched
g- Generally doesn't like people to invade his
personal aura/lair.
g-- You touch my bod, I break your face!
k - "the KINKY factor"... for those who dare.
k++ likes just about EVERYTHING... we mean *EVERYTHING*!!!
k+ picks and choose according to likes; willing to consider
new ideas
k open minded. Might choose SOME things on the "menu"
(none) kinky neutral
k- has definite ABSOLUTE dislikes
k-- totally vanilla
s - "SEX (ok, SLUT) factor: In SOME people's bear codes, "s" might
really mean "k" (since "k" WAS originally "s" in the earlier
versions...).
s-- strictly monogamously/relationship oriented. No
outside affairs, or in some cases, sex ONLY in
relationships
s- relationship oriented. Perfers a formal sort of
relationship over playing around, however the
scope of the word relationship is not defined here.
(none) relationship neutral
s neutral wrt to relationships/monogamy.
s+ will form relationships which are generally open-ended
s++ strictly polygamous, prefers very open relationships
ONLY.
m - "the MUSCLE factor"... for those who like meat on them bones.
(N.B. "semi-"official --- may be dropped w/ V2.0)
m++ Arnold Schwartzineger is that you?
m+ definitely works out or is a ranchhand
m some definition/blue collar
(none) muscle neutral
e - "the ENDOWMENT factor"... sometimes a size queen's gotta do
what a size queen's gotta do.
(N.B. "semi-"official --- may be dropped w/ V2.0)
e++ gets complete respect even from straight men
e+ gets attention
e noteworthy
(none) endowment neutral
h - "the BEHR factor"... for behrs (men without beards but bears).
You might also put a parenthesized number for the "B"
designation to give an idea of WHAT the person would
look like with a beard.
h behr (moustache no beard)
h+ Definite BEHR (moustache no beard)
h- no beard OR moustache! (very rare but still
cave dewlling)
r - "the RUGGED/OUTDOOR factor".
r++ "Grizzly Adams"
r+ Flannel/jeans/C&W really *are* second skin
r Spends some time outdoors/camping
(none) rugged neutral
r- prefers indoor-type activities (techie or 3-piece)
r-- never seen in the outdoors at all.
p - "the PECULIAR factor"
p Some idiosyncracies --- no judgement made to
whether these are "good" or "not so good"
q - "the *Q* factor (ahem)"
q for people who look like bears, but
"when they open their mouths, yards of chiffon come out"
ADDITIONAL PUNCTUATION
The following aren't graded, they are just flags attached to the
overall classification:
v for variable, said trait is not very rigid, may
change with time or with individual interaction
(e.g. some guys who are generally REAL daddies,
may turn into REAL cubs occasionally, etc.)
? for traits where there is no HARD information
available and the value is completely guessed
at: eg. a picture of a hot bear that LOOKS like
a rugged outdoorsman, r+? but in reality could
be a 3-piece suit bear.
: for traits which are observed but uncertain,
eg. a guy who is wearing a lot of clothes, so
you can't be SURE he's an f+, but his forearms
REALLY suggest that he is, hence f+:
! for cases where the trait is as close to a
prototype as possible, or an exemplary case of
a specfic trait... eg. the ultimate f++!
() for indicating "cross-overs" or ranges. A guy
who goes from k to k++ depending on the situation
(ie mostly "k") could use k(++)
You can make the punctuation as detailed as desired, although
the best ones to read are the ones which are the most clear and
simple to understand.
NOTE: None of the classification materials in any way suggests a ranking or
value judgement, in terms of what constitutes a "better" bear. Every
person has their own favorite type!
----------------- S O M E S P E C I F I C E X A M P L E S ----------------
The authors:
Bob Donahue B5 c+ f s-: w t- r k?
Jeff Stoner B6 f+ w sv w r+ k(+?)
A sampling of our joint classifications of other mailing list folks...
Steve Dyer B5/7 dvcvc f++ t- w+ k- (the shoulders get the f++)
Brian Gollum B4 k++ s: c?- t- w++ r- p
Ken Dykes B8 s+ f+ m t w e+ r p
"Furr" Madison B7 f+ t+ w- e+ k+ cv
Rob Boldbear [a/k/a Bernardo] B2 f+ t- dvcv sv w- m+ r+ p g+
Jay Schuster B3 c f- s+ w- p?
Bob Rowe B4 m s+ r+ e (Jeff trying not to put +++'s)
Notables from Bobby...
Wilford Brimley: B0 h w+ d+ k? f (OK I'm wishing for an "k")
Hacksaw Jim Duggan: B6 w+ t+ k+? m++
Lyle Alzado: B3 w+ k+? f-- m++ e++ (so I'm told)
model in 4/84 HONCHO: B6 w d+? r+ f+++! <---- an exceptional case
Dan Blocker: B0 h- w m+ d+ f+ r++ t+
Notables from Jeff...
Dan Seals: B4 r+ d f+? t+ k+? (wishful thinking!)
Randy Owen: B5 r+ f+? w- m e? k++? (more wishful thinking!)
So let's hear some feedback on this! It's been a little quiet around
here lately. While we wait for more to come along, here's an appropriate
classification for the season:
Santa Claus B8 d++ f? w++ k--?
Enjoy!!! From half of the states required to make the "Four Corners" exist...
-----------------------------------------------------
Added note: We're still working on this... Some bears
have asked that we extend the system to include "beard parameters
like thickness, length, kemptnmess, etc...., so inevitably "VERSION 2"
will be done... I have run across a bear or two that for me defied
"good classification", mostly because of the beard. So... we'll see.
Have fun!
BBC
--
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert B4f+-t-w--g+k+(+)svmrp+ rhi...@cs.kun.nl
\X/ How can you be so stupid if you're identical to me? -Robert Silverberg
Thom Cleland
>
>Well, for those without FTP access, I'll post it here. It's the file
>spdcc.com:pub/NBCS.V1.9.
>
>Oh, and thanks to Kay, for originally pointing me in the right direction.
>
>___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert B4f+-t-w--g+k+(+)svmrp+ rhi...@cs.kun.nl
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C preprocessor indeed! (sulk)
david parsons
Okay, so it's 0130, and I'm still at work, so my resistance is low.
I suppose there comes a time in everybody's life when he's gotta be
classified:
B3 f--(+?) g+ k r- p++!
____
david parsons \bi/
\/ o...@pell.chi.il.us
Colin Dente
|> Okay, so it's 0130, and I'm still at work, so my resistance is low.
|> I suppose there comes a time in everybody's life when he's gotta be
|> classified:
I think it's fun. As a natural bear myself, I've been meaning to sort out
my bear code for *ages* - so it's now in my .sig. Now, who want's to help
me remove the brackets from the g(+)?...
Does anyone have a copy of the smurf code?
Colin
--
Colin Dente | JANET: de...@uk.ac.manchester
Manchester Computing Centre | ARPA: de...@manchester.ac.uk
University of Manchester, UK | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente
... Blatantly Bisexual ... | B3(4) f+ c g(+) k r s
Jon Harley
>I think it's fun. As a natural bear myself, I've been meaning to sort out
>my bear code for *ages* - so it's now in my .sig. Now, who want's to help
>me remove the brackets from the g+?...
There! A bit of gratuitous editing and it's done!
(For a more permanent removal track me down at the Edinburgh party)
>Does anyone have a copy of the smurf code?
There was a fruitbat code once, as well. And a wombatcode has been talked
about...
> Colin Dente | JANET: de...@uk.ac.manchester
> ... Blatantly Bisexual ... | B3(4) f+ c g(+) k r s
Blatantly - all those brackets show that you just can't make up your mind! :-)
/jon
___________________ ____ ________________________________________
/ -- Jonathan Harley \ /_ A witty saying proves nothing. // // //
/ J.W.H...@ncl.ac.uk \/ / --Voltaire // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__NBCS:B2t+w-g+svrp__IRC:Jimblewix_/////////// //
Colin Dente
|> de...@els.ee.man.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
|>
|> >I think it's fun. As a natural bear myself, I've been meaning to sort out
|> >my bear code for *ages* - so it's now in my .sig. Now, who want's to help
|> >me remove the brackets from the g+?...
|>
|> There! A bit of gratuitous editing and it's done!
|> (For a more permanent removal track me down at the Edinburgh party)
Thankyou - I may just do that <wicked grin>
|> There was a fruitbat code once, as well. And a wombatcode has been talked
|> about...
I recall the Fruitbat code, but don't remeber the wombat code. Though I *do*
seem to recall a certain person not-exactly-unknown-to-this-group being known
as wombat...
|> > Colin Dente | JANET: de...@uk.ac.manchester
|> > ... Blatantly Bisexual ... | B3(4) f+ c g(+) k r s
|>
|> Blatantly - all those brackets show that you just can't make up your mind! :-)
Awww... giz a break - I can't help it if my beard keeps growing, and some of the
rest seem to be slowly creeping upwards - I think I'll soon be:
B3(4) f+ c g+ k+ r s+ and of course, it is only modesty that prevents me adding
e++... ;-)
Colin
--
Colin Dente | JANET: de...@uk.ac.manchester
Manchester Computing Centre | ARPA: de...@manchester.ac.uk
University of Manchester, UK | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente
... Blatantly Bisexual ... | B3(4) f+ c g(+) k(+) r s
Ken ``Blackfur'' Jones
> Awww... giz a break - I can't help it if my beard keeps growing, and some
> of the rest seem to be slowly creeping upwards - I think I'll soon be:
> B3(4) f+ c g+ k+ r s+ and of course, it is only modesty that prevents me
> adding e++... ;-)
> Colin Dente | B3(4) f+ c g(+) k(+) r s
Anyone including the Bear Code "e++" must present proof upon demand...
;-)
- Ken
Jon Harley
>J.W.H...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>|> There was a fruitbat code once, as well. And a wombatcode has been talked
>|> about...
>I recall the Fruitbat code, but don't remeber the wombat code. Though I *do*
>seem to recall a certain person not-exactly-unknown-to-this-group being known
>as wombat...
There are at least 2 of us wombats here in fact. The wombat code (or
marsupicode) was just something we talked about in private e-mail ages ago;
we never got round to formulating it.
>|> > ... Blatantly Bisexual ... | B3(4) f+ c g(+) k r s
>|> Blatantly - all those brackets show that you just can't make up your mind!
>
>Awww... giz a break - I can't help it if my beard keeps growing, and some of
>the rest seem to be slowly creeping upwards - I think I'll soon be:
>B3(4) f+ c g+ k+ r s+ and of course, it is only modesty that prevents me
>adding e++... ;-)
But not from posting this fact to a group read by 20000 people!
Me, I'm just lucky that the specification for the `e' factor doesn't
include `-' qualifiers.
ter...@ukcsd.uk.sun.com
|> de...@els.ee.man.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
|>
|> >J.W.H...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
|>
|> >|> > ... Blatantly Bisexual ... | B3(4) f+ c g(+) k r s
|> >
|> >Awww... giz a break - I can't help it if my beard keeps growing, and some of
|> >the rest seem to be slowly creeping upwards - I think I'll soon be:
|> >B3(4) f+ c g+ k+ r s+ and of course, it is only modesty that prevents me
|> >adding e++... ;-)
|>
|> But not from posting this fact to a group read by 20000 people!
|> Me, I'm just lucky that the specification for the `e' factor doesn't
|> include `-' qualifiers.
|>
You mean the + and - aren't orthogonal to the actual characterstic? I'll
just have to re-write my parser then - hmm, perhaps I could derive
endowment_charactersitic from characteristic, and keep most of the code.
What does C++ mean again? Is Bjarne a "complete daddy's boy"?
[apologies to people who don't like computer nerd jokes].
Oh well, I guess I get to strike the e-- out of my (not yet public)
bear code, anyway.
|>
|> /jon
|> ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
|> / -- Jonathan Harley \ /_ A witty saying proves nothing. // // //
|> / J.W.H...@ncl.ac.uk \/ / --Voltaire /// //////
|> /_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__NBCS:B2t+w-g+svrp__IRC:Jimblewix_///////// //
Regards,
Terry Heatlie.
Disclaimer: all my own work (except this disclaimer, which I nicked).
Colin Dente
--
Colin Dente | JANET: de...@uk.ac.manchester
Manchester Computing Centre | ARPA: de...@manchester.ac.uk
University of Manchester, UK | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente
Colin Dente
|> de...@els.ee.man.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
|> > adding e++... ;-)
|>
|> ;-)
With pleasure (but I think you'll be disappointed :-( )
Colin
P.S. Sorry about the last post containing nothing but my .sig file. If I
wasn't such a fuckwit I'd know how to cancel it. Then again, if I wasn't
such a fuckwit, I probably wouldn't have hit the "send" button instead of
the "include article" button. I think this xrn is gonna need a lot of
hacking before I get to like it...
--
Colin Dente | JANET: de...@uk.ac.manchester
Manchester Computing Centre | ARPA: de...@manchester.ac.uk
University of Manchester, UK | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente
... Blatantly Bisexual ... | B3/4 f+ c g(+) k(+) r s
Graham Toal
>I recall the Fruitbat code, but don't remeber the wombat code. Though I *do*
>seem to recall a certain person not-exactly-unknown-to-this-group being known
>as wombat...
Talking of Fruitbat, I think I was the only person he *didn't* flirt
with at the tardis party. I was miffed. I guess I looked too straight.
That's what happens when you turn up with a woman. Mr Invisible.
G
Jon Harley
>J.W.H...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>|> de...@els.ee.man.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
>|> >and of course, it is only modesty that prevents me
>|> >adding e++... ;-)
>|>
>|> But not from posting this fact to a group read by 20000 people!
>|> Me, I'm just lucky that the specification for the `e' factor doesn't
>|> include `-' qualifiers.
>
>You mean the + and - aren't orthogonal to the actual characterstic? I'll
>just have to re-write my parser then - hmm, perhaps I could derive
>endowment_charactersitic from characteristic, and keep most of the code.
...
>Oh well, I guess I get to strike the e-- out of my (not yet public)
>bear code, anyway.
My interpretation is that all valid combinations of + and - are listed,
and nothing else is correct. Otherwise + and - would be listed along with
the other punctuation like : and ?. I suppose e-- isn't in there because
the code is supposed to advertise positive things about you.
Of course, it's debateable whether or not this is a good thing. Personally
I do tend to let people know the bad things about me; it avoids them
being disappointed in me later. I hate it when that happens. Maybe there
is a place for a code which would warn people that I'm not well endowed and
hopeless in bed? Or is it only me that believes in this sort of honesty?
/jon
___________________ ____ ________________________________________
/ -- Jonathan Harley \ /_ A witty saying proves nothing. // // //
/ J.W.H...@ncl.ac.uk \/ / --Voltaire // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__NBCS:B2t+w-g+svrp__IRC:Jimblewix_/////////// //
the Crisco Kid
>You mean the + and - aren't orthogonal to the actual characterstic? I'll
>just have to re-write my parser then - hmm, perhaps I could derive
>endowment_charactersitic from characteristic, and keep most of the code.
>What does C++ mean again? Is Bjarne a "complete daddy's boy"?
Reminds me <sigh>...
'twas about the time that the first edition of Stroustrup's C++ book was
coming out (back when C++ was done with a preprocessor that made your
code quite undebuggable), my friends Mark and Jeff told be that B.S.
was coming to give a talk on the future development of C++ at Rutherford
Appleton Labs, and would I like to attend?
Bjarne Stroustrup! Mane of red-gold hair bannering in the salt-tang air
as his ice-blue eyes transfix the Saxon foe moments before his brave
blade; mighty thews rippling, sweat-soaked bearskin shirt, laughing
lord of a thousand bloody brawls...
"Yes," I said, "YES!"
That's the last time I speculate on what someone may look like from no
better evidence than their name. B.S. is a shortish, darkish, accountant-
looking guy; charming, a decent talker, but no Bloodaxe.
I guess that may be why I've never really learned C++ <sigh>.
mad, bad, and with the odd drop of Norse blood...
Kay
--
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry Poly, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Dave The Grinch
>My interpretation is that all valid combinations of + and - are listed,
>and nothing else is correct. Otherwise + and - would be listed along with
>the other punctuation like : and ?. I suppose e-- isn't in there because
>the code is supposed to advertise positive things about you.
What's wrong with being e--? errrrm...not that I *AM* one, of course...
>Of course, it's debateable whether or not this is a good thing. Personally
>I do tend to let people know the bad things about me; it avoids them
>being disappointed in me later. I hate it when that happens. Maybe there
>is a place for a code which would warn people that I'm not well endowed and
>hopeless in bed? Or is it only me that believes in this sort of honesty?
>
>
>/jon
Why bother advertising that you're not well endowed and/or lousy in
bed when the proportion of readers who would actually find out for
themselves is so low? I believe in being up front with people, but
advertising negative attributes which don't concern them seems
unnecessary.
If you've got it, flaunt it; if you don't, find something else to flaunt.
-Daemon
--
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Dave C.X. Ferguson, B.Sc., M.A.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it."
-Oscar Wilde
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Graham Toal
>Why bother advertising that you're not well endowed and/or lousy in
>bed when the proportion of readers who would actually find out for
>themselves is so low? I believe in being up front with people, but
>advertising negative attributes which don't concern them seems
>unnecessary.
Who says it's a negative attribute anyway? Some of us beginners are
intimidated by an e++ and have our hands quite full enough with
a well-tended e-... (well, not hands exactly :-) ) Not that I've ever
done a ... erm ... head to head comparison... (yet)
(As for his other comment, I'm convinced it's just a surreptitious ploy
to encourage the uk contingent of soc.bi to drop in and give him
some practice :-) I suspect he's just being coy...)
G
Dave The Grinch
>In article <1992Jun8.2...@epas.toronto.edu> ferg...@epas.utoronto.ca (Daemon) writes:
>>Why bother advertising that you're not well endowed and/or lousy in
>>bed when the proportion of readers who would actually find out for
>>themselves is so low? I believe in being up front with people, but
>>advertising negative attributes which don't concern them seems
>>unnecessary.
>
>Who says it's a negative attribute anyway? Some of us beginners are
>intimidated by an e++ and have our hands quite full enough with
>a well-tended e-... (well, not hands exactly :-) ) Not that I've ever
>done a ... erm ... head to head comparison... (yet)
*I* didn't mean to imply that it was a negative attribute. In the
first (deleted) comment, I said "What's wrong with being e--?" I
only used the word "negative" because it was implicit in the context
of the original posting. Don't put words in my mouth, G (I can't tell
*where* they've been) :)
Just after I posted, I remembered a comment from a thirtysomething
secretary I lunched with on occasion as a summer student: "It's not
the size that counts, it's what you do with what you've got."
>(As for his other comment, I'm convinced it's just a surreptitious ploy
>to encourage the uk contingent of soc.bi to drop in and give him
>some practice :-) I suspect he's just being coy...)
"Some guys have all the luck..." :)
>G
-Daemon
__
Ken Johnson
@ Why bother advertising that you're not well endowed and/or lousy in
@ bed when the proportion of readers who would actually find out for
@ themselves is so low?
Anyone who wants to find out the truth about me for themselves need only ask.
-- Ken Johnson B0e(7)k+
the Crisco Kid
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Some of the nicest and sexiest people have
dinky dicks. And there are things you can do with a tiny tadger that
you can't with more massive meat...
>Why bother advertising that you're not well endowed and/or lousy in
>bed when the proportion of readers who would actually find out for
>themselves is so low? I believe in being up front with people, but
>advertising negative attributes which don't concern them seems
>unnecessary.
As above: there's nowt wrong with weeny willies, so there's no negativity
in the attribute (IMHO); lousy in bed? face it, so many men *are* that I've
almost come to expect it.
mad, bad, and rattlin'-full of ibuprofen
Don &
Bjarne Stroustrup! Mane of red-gold hair bannering in the salt-tang air
as his ice-blue eyes transfix the Saxon foe moments before his brave
blade; mighty thews rippling, sweat-soaked bearskin shirt, laughing
lord of a thousand bloody brawls...
"Yes," I said, "YES!"
That's the last time I speculate on what someone may look like from no
better evidence than their name. B.S. is a shortish, darkish, accountant-
looking guy; charming, a decent talker, but no Bloodaxe.
I guess that may be why I've never really learned C++ <sigh>.
There are *much* better reasons not to learn C++, but whatever works
for you! C++ is for syntax queens. Give me nice smooth deeply nested
parenthesis any day! I'll wait till C++ has gone through a couple more
generations, when it's called E++.
-Don
Renee
>(From: J.W.H...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley))
>(Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU)
====some deleted===
>My interpretation is that all valid combinations of + and - are listed,
>and nothing else is correct. Otherwise + and - would be listed along with
>the other punctuation like : and ?. I suppose e-- isn't in there because
>the code is supposed to advertise positive things about you.
I just retrieved a copy of the BearCode and now have a better understanding
of all those strange characters. About the e--, just remember that to some
that is a plus factor. Besides, I am sure that the "--" in no way relates
to the sensitivity factor.
>Of course, it's debateable whether or not this is a good thing.
>Personally
>I do tend to let people know the bad things about me; it avoids them
>being disappointed in me later. I hate it when that happens. Maybe there
>is a place for a code which would warn people that I'm not well endowed
I would consider the "++" as a warning (I would hate to be bludgeoned)
>and
>hopeless in bed? Or is it only me that believes in this sort of honesty?
^^^^^^
Well, in that case *snuggle* how are you on the kitchen table? Living room
floor? Or sleeping bag? *purr*
>/jon
Renee (who isn't well endowed either)