On the Run 14/9/05

StrangeWulf13 · Post by **StrangeWulf13** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:39 pm

*rimshot*

SolidusRaccoon · Post by **SolidusRaccoon** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:25 am

That is a good one.

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:27 pm

I've been looking at the pictures - I think there is a cup in the Guard armor. Quentyn just kicked him hard enough (maybe he did use the boots) to bounce Mulharney around inside the cup. No permanent damage in that case, I suspect.

CasVeg · Post by **CasVeg** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:06 pm

How much damage would there be if he kicked just behind the cup or kicked the back edge of the cup itself into Mulharney?

Shyal_malkes · Post by **Shyal_malkes** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:32 pm

do we really want/need to know?

Squeaky Bunny · Post by **Squeaky Bunny** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:08 pm

CasVeg wrote:How much damage would there be if he kicked just behind the cup or kicked the back edge of the cup itself into Mulharney?

Instead of a goy he'll become a goil?

Steltek · Post by **Steltek** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 1:41 am

Everything else aside, I have to say that kicking your enemy in the groin before running away screaming cannot look good on a Questor's resume.

BlasTech · Post by **BlasTech** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:06 am

Yup, its right up there with his brief acting career and streaking a gated community

Madmoonie · Post by **Madmoonie** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:23 am

That was tacky.....midly funny as well.

SolidusRaccoon · Post by **SolidusRaccoon** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:12 am

BlasTech wrote:Yup, its right up there with his brief acting career and streaking a gated community

This part of the story will not make it into his book.

Richter B. · Post by **Richter B.** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:23 pm

If he did put it in his book (i presume it's quentyns life story your talking about right) what would he lable the entry as....

Shyal_malkes · Post by **Shyal_malkes** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:24 pm

"He Deserved It"

Dragoon The Griffin · Post by **Dragoon The Griffin** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:00 pm

"If life kicks you when you're down then kick the guard in the nuts."

DracoDei · Post by **DracoDei** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:27 am

Getting back to some of Ralphs earlier points and "playing the Devil's advocate". I am doing this mostly because I have attempted to make a study of comparative anatomy for the benefit of the furry community, and am always interested in learning from others about this subject. Partially to make better fiction, but also because trying to fiddle with a design (even if only in your head, since I don't personally know any cosmetic surgeons or geneticists in fandom) creates a greater appreciation for the supreme quality of the work of the Master Engineer.

RHJunior wrote: 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.

Ok, but many plotlines assume increased sense of smell... just wire sexual interest more strongly to smell instead of sight. Could still have 'chronic sexual activity' triggered by a 'sign of sexual maturity'. OTOH, this might make the angle for nursing wrong in a species born as underdeveloped as humans are in the area of being self-supporting. I haven't really dug into this, but I think primates (or maybe just humans?) are the only species where the mother has to hold the infant to the nipple instead of remaining stationary and allowing the infant to make the 'final approach'. Mice may be born blind, and kangaroos look a bit like worms when then are born, but both of them can crawl to the appropriate location (an especially tough task for the joey, but they only have to do it ONCE... at least for the first stage of development.).

I have problems, as a Christian, with the above for any species that is supposed to be a mirror of the human soul however, unless monogamy is a very strong instinct. If I don't want to be tempted by sluts I can reasonably reduce the number of locations where people who dress like that and I are likely to intersect. I can also look away. Averting the nose can be much harder than averting the eyes. In addition a perfectly faithful woman could be looking forward to the night with her husband while riding next to me on the bus (and that is even assuming that the female pherimones only come into play at full strength when the lady is aroused).

RHJunior wrote: Not to mention what the two above conditions would do to coordination and balance to a bipedal species.

No worse than what I would imagine being within the final month or so of pregnancy does to a woman's balance... which I guess is plenty bad enough without adding in the period until the child is weaned after that!

RHJunior wrote: Tails: so many artists I've seen who put the root of the tail in the middle of the back, rather than where it belongs--- the (oh what a surprise) TAILBONE. The spine would have to fork above the pelvis in order to accommodate how many artists draw the tail.

What is necessarily SO rediculous about a forking spine? It would have to be a "heavy duty" vertibra that the 'secondary spine' came out the back of, but the sanitation benefits of being able to get the tail more fully out of the way might make up for the extra biological energy needed for the extra bone mass and the slight increase of lower spinal fracture that would probably remain even so. The torso would have to lean forward more to keep the balance, but that MIGHT work (look at kangaroo's and T-Rex).

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:59 pm

DracoDei wrote:Getting back to some of Ralphs earlier points and "playing the Devil's advocate". I am doing this mostly because I have attempted to make a study of comparative anatomy for the benefit of the furry community, and am always interested in learning from others about this subject. Partially to make better fiction, but also because trying to fiddle with a design (even if only in your head, since I don't personally know any cosmetic surgeons or geneticists in fandom) creates a greater appreciation for the supreme quality of the work of the Master Engineer.
RHJunior wrote: 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.
Ok, but many plotlines assume increased sense of smell... just wire sexual interest more strongly to smell instead of sight.....

This is also tied into the lower birthrate. Lower birthrate necessitates a chronic reproductive cycle, so as to compensate for the lower numbers. A species whose females smelled chronically "in heat" would only leave the males into confusion as to WHICH females in the room were "interested." Visual communication is an upgrade from olfactory communication. It is better for conveying subtle nuance and complex meaning than crude scent, and lets the person be more specific about who they're "speaking" to. When you're a primitive beast led about by instinct, raw scent is sufficient. When you're a sapient being, it's not nearly enough.

Which, while I'm thinking on it, makes the whole "lacking color vision" thing another annoyance. I can see it under some circumstances-- but for genetically engineered races? Especially for situations like Florence Ambrose of "Freefall," who is supposed to be from a species specifically created to be workers for a human corporation. It would take a certain degree of foolishness to leave a species like that colorblind.
Of more note are the number of comics where the "natural" species are colorblind, yet they strangely have absolutely no trouble color-coordinating their clothing, painting their houses, doing artwork, spotting stop signs and streetlights, cutting the RED wire, etc.....

No worse than what I would imagine being within the final month or so of pregnancy does to a woman's balance... which I guess is plenty bad enough without adding in the period until the child is weaned after that!
Worse, actually, as the weight would be CHRONIC, as well as HIGHER UP THE BODY.

What is necessarily SO rediculous about a forking spine?

The fact that no vertebrate species known to man has one? I mean NONE. Call it a hunch, but I suspect there's a reason. As to sanitary issues, other species have little trouble moving their tails out of the way, so a bipedal one would have none either. Hardly a justification for bestowing a species with such a gratuitous deformity.

SolidusRaccoon · Post by **SolidusRaccoon** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:42 pm

You would need to be able to move thge thing to do day to day functions.

Waschbaer · Post by **Waschbaer** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:09 pm

(Wow... The last time I looked at the forum here, it was only getting about a dozen posts every month. That's some pretty good growth!

)

If operating in a human environment is a major priority for someone genetically engineering a new species, then anthropomorphics are really non-starters anyway. There's no reason to design something to be anthropomorphic when one's main priority is that they work well with humans. To put it bluntly, humans are the ideal species to operate in a human environment. Any aspect of such a species which differs from the human norm would be detrimental to that species. In such a situation, there would need to be an overriding reason for creating an anthropomorphic creature.

However, once the assumption is made that operating within a human environment is not a major priority, it becomes easy to rationalize just about anything. For example, one could have a need for a creature which could operate effectively in environments in which humans are unable (or unwilling) to operate. In all such cases, the most important thing becomes the motives of those designing the creature. Even overall feasibility could be unimportant. When genetic engineering is used, inconsistencies between a creature and its environment can be easily (and logically) rationalized.

In many ways, not using genetic engineering makes things much more difficult. All of a sudden, the species being portrayed must be feasible and must make sense. In circumstances such as this comic, the Racconan must fit well into their environment. It would seem strange if inconsistencies existed. In the end, the environment is shaped by those living in it just as they are shaped by their environment.

Note: 'Genetic engineering' could be replaced with any similar process. The important thing is that those created by this process be artificial in nature.

StrangeWulf13 · Post by **StrangeWulf13** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:57 pm

waschbaer wrote:Note: 'Genetic engineering' could be replaced with any similar process. The important thing is that those created by this process be artificial in nature.

Or, in other words, have an intelligent creator? =P And no, I'm not gonna start up the whole "evolution vs. intelligent design" thing here. Or at least, I'm trying not to.

I just think that any process that produced an intelligent being would require an intelligent creator to begin with. Scientists don't expect to genetically engineer something by waiting for it to happen.

But then, I'm stepping into dangerous territory. This is just my two cents on the matter, that's all.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:45 pm

waschbaer wrote:... In such a situation, there would need to be an overriding reason for creating an anthropomorphic creature....

To be cold and cynical about it, the most obvious one is PSYCHOLOGICAL. If you're going to make a slave race, it helps if the slave race has as little in common, cosmetically, with the humans who intend to enslave them. Making them look like , in Florence Ambrose's case, a dog--- a subservient animal--- makes it easier for the corporation that makes them to argue that they have no real human rights, no matter how intelligent and communicative they are.

And make no mistake, the primary purpose behind creating a new species would be the creation of a slave race--- mentally and physically superior, legally and congenitally subservient, altogether profitable. And readily replaceable. Why hire new workers, or even buy new robots, when you can take a handful of breeding slaves, jab them full of fertility drugs, toss them in a cage together and crank out a few dozen brand new drudge workers?

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:30 am

The main reason for a corp to fund such a thing, yes, I agree. Probably right if a government bankrolls it, too. I can see the scientists involved doing it just for the knowledge and the experience of talking to something that isn't a human, and then being horrified by what the bankrollers do with their creations.

I've got a friend who's convinced that the government killed the lunar program back in the 70's because a) too many kids were getting too interested in science and technology, which requires logical thought (and therefore immunity to politicians) and b) they were afraid the the techies would come up with a cheap way to do it and decide to emigrate en masse to Somewhere Else - and then who would the politicians order to do stuff?

There are days when I just can't argue against the scenario...