Page 4 of 6
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:34 am
by SolidusRaccoon
Steltek wrote:Well, RH's asking for it with strips like these. I mean, it
begs the question doesn't it?
Though I guess you can make the case that that's the kind of question you should ignore no matter how much it begs.

Good idea.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:36 am
by Madmoonie
Yes, a important consideration.
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:45 am
by Sharuuk
mwalimu wrote:FWIW, Mulharney and the three thugs were wearing the same color.
The City Guardsmen have always to my knowledge had red uniforms.....but you do make a valid point.
S'aaruuk
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:12 am
by Squeaky Bunny
Sharuuk wrote:mwalimu wrote:FWIW, Mulharney and the three thugs were wearing the same color.
The City Guardsmen have always to my knowledge had red uniforms.....but you do make a valid point.
S'aaruuk
Hmm. The old brittish officers wore red so the troops didn't see it if they got shot. I wonder why the french officers wore brown?
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:15 am
by Madmoonie
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:40 am
by SolidusRaccoon
Bright Red, not very good on the ole camo index.
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:56 am
by Sharuuk
Yup.....Bright British Red.....just like a bullseye!
S'aaruuk
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:00 am
by Sharuuk
Squeaky Bunny wrote:Hmm. The old brittish officers wore red so the troops didn't see it if they got shot. I wonder why the french officers wore brown?
So the troops couldn't see when they'd been shot
AT!!
S'aaruuk
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:18 am
by Shyal_malkes
mayhaps so the enemy troops couldn't tell which of them were fine and which were wounded by sighting which ones were bleeding?
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:26 am
by SolidusRaccoon
Sharuuk wrote:Squeaky Bunny wrote:Hmm. The old brittish officers wore red so the troops didn't see it if they got shot. I wonder why the french officers wore brown?
So the troops couldn't see when they'd been shot
AT!!
S'aaruuk
I just think the sight of an enemy soldier would have them making a mess in their pants.
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:14 pm
by Sharuuk
SolidusRaccoon wrote:Sharuuk wrote:So the troops couldn't see when they'd been shot
AT!!
S'aaruuk
I just think the sight of an enemy soldier would have them making a mess in their pants.
Hence, the brown uniform pants.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:50 pm
by SolidusRaccoon
Sharuuk wrote:SolidusRaccoon wrote:Sharuuk wrote:So the troops couldn't see when they'd been shot
AT!!
S'aaruuk
I just think the sight of an enemy soldier would have them making a mess in their pants.
Hence, the brown uniform pants.

Yup, even have a French gun from the war. Never fired, but dropped twice.
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:34 pm
by RHJunior
Kerry Skydancer wrote:Steltek wrote:But for a raccoon, it's different -- you know that male raccoons have jointed bones in their -ahem- members, right? He might need some kind of cast.
We had that discussion already, and have been given a canon ruling (and a comment that we are all sick, sick puppies). Since they're upright, sheath and bone wouldn't work - they're essentially human in that department.
Precisely.
Anthropomorphic artists, writers, and cartoonists, in their quest to be "more realistic," crib their species' anatomy off of RL animals--- forgetting that the structures that work fine for a nonsapient, quadruped animal DON'T work for a bipedal race. Penile bones and sheaths being one example. One does NOT need to go into detail as to why this does not work for an upright bipedal species.
Other examples:
Multiple breasts. Animals have 4+ breasts because, typically, they have 4+ offspring at one go. However, the larger cranium, and different hip structure for a bipedal race, means a lower at-a-time birthrate. Fewer babies=fewer boobies. Get it?
Breasts only apparent while nursing. Again, this ties into the lower birthrate, which contributes to the necessity of a chronic sexual activity cycle (to maintain the interest of the male, to be blunt.) Large breasts become a visible sign of sexual maturity. Having them disappear between childbirths would be counterproductive.
Not to mention what the two above conditions would do to coordination and balance to a bipedal species.
Tails: so many artists I've seen who put the root of the tail <I>in the middle of the back,</i> rather than where it belongs--- the (oh what a surprise) TAILBONE. The spine would have to <I>fork</i> above the pelvis in order to accommodate how many artists draw the tail.
Digitigrade legs: Rarely do I see this done well. (Digitigrade means "crooked doggy legs," btw.) They rarely take into account issues like center of balance or strain on joints.
Nor, taking tails and "crooked legs" together, do they make any accommodation in the shape of chairs. or toilets. Or vehicle seats....(Most racconan chairs are backless, vaguely bean-bag-ish, or otherwose accommodate.)
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:41 pm
by Richter B.
all i have too say is "way to stick it to the man dude"
=P
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:14 am
by SolidusRaccoon
Yeah a lot of artist and writters just don't get it. Glad Ralph has more sense than that.
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:50 am
by Sharuuk
I was just discussing this very subject (tail root location) with another forumite the other day and we both agreed that is was a refreshing change to see that RH draws them in the correct anatomical position.
S'aaruuk
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:59 am
by SolidusRaccoon
Sharuuk wrote:I was just discussing this very subject (tail root location) with another forumite the other day and we both agreed that is was a refreshing change to see that RH draws them in the correct anatomical position.
S'aaruuk
Yeah must of them wouldn't know their rear from a hole in the ground.
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:17 am
by Sharuuk
SolidusRaccoon wrote:Sharuuk wrote:I was just discussing this very subject (tail root location) with another forumite the other day and we both agreed that is was a refreshing change to see that RH draws them in the correct anatomical position.
S'aaruuk
Yeah must of them wouldn't know their rear from a hole in the ground.
There's a pun somewhere in there....but I ain't goin' for it.
BTW...did you get the email I sent you....monkeys and footballs?
S'aaruuk
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:21 am
by SolidusRaccoon
Yes, thanks you,.
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:40 am
by Squeaky Bunny
Sharuuk wrote:SolidusRaccoon wrote:Sharuuk wrote:I was just discussing this very subject (tail root location) with another forumite the other day and we both agreed that is was a refreshing change to see that RH draws them in the correct anatomical position.
S'aaruuk
Yeah must of them wouldn't know their rear from a hole in the ground.
There's a pun somewhere in there....but I ain't goin' for it.
BTW...did you get the email I sent you....monkeys and footballs?
S'aaruuk
You mean like when setting up camp the sarge found a dead donkey and told the PFC to bury it. When the PFC was concentrating on getting the last foot dug, the general comes up behind him and said, "Foxhole?" The PFC replied, "No A$$hole".