From: cs360x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu (HASH BROWNS)
Date: 26 Apr 91 19:30:18 GMT

<pre>
	/****************************************************************/ 
	/*     NBCS - V1.9  The Natural Bears Classification System     */
	/*								*/
	/* A classification system for bears, and bear-like men  	*/ 
	/* Version 1.9					 2/ 4/1991	*/
	/* Authors:  rdonahue@spdcc.com         and jls2@bearhug.UUCP	*/
	/*           (Bob Donahue = BBC)            (Jeff Stoner)       */
	/****************************************************************/ 
 </pre>
	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. <P>

	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.<P>

------------- T H E   C L A S S I F I C A T I O N   S C H E M E ------------- <P>

	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:<P>

	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!<P>

	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.<P>

	2  -  (Slight beard)  A beard kept VERY short at all times, or
		thinned out.		<P>

	3  -  (Thin beard)  A beard in all respects but kept thin
		and short.			<P>

	4  -  (Mostly full)  A beard that is full except for a few noticable
		bald spots, or kept trimmed.	<P>

	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.<P>
						
	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.		<P>

	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.		<P>

	8  -  (Very Long Beards)  These beards are usually very bushy and
		haven't seen clippers for a very long time.<P>
						
	9  -  (Belt-buckle-grazing long beards)  The prototype is ZZ Top.
		Need we say more?<P>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>

 
	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).<P>

----------  O T H E R   C L A S S I F I E R S   F O R   B E A R S  -------------<P>

 
	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.   <P>

	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".<P>

 - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - -   <P>

 
	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:<P>

<UL>
<LI> 		f++	WAY above average fur
<LI>		f+	above average fur
<LI>		f	furry in a bearish sense
<LI>		(none)	"neutral", avg. fur from a sample population of
<LI>			both bears and non-bears
<LI>		f- 	below average fur
<LI>		f--	WAY below average fur--"Nair-smooth to the max!"<P>
</UL>

	t - "the TALLNESS factor".  To describe bears that are tall or
		short for their frame.<P>
<UL>
<LI>		t++	a virtual giant bear
<LI>		t+	taller than average
<LI>		t	tall but not very tall
<LI>		(none)	average height
<LI>		t-	shorter than average
<LI>		t--	a bear of very small stature<P>
</UL>

	w - "the WEIGHT factor".  For those who perfer their bears more
		or less fluffy.<P>
<UL>
<LI>		w++	a round bear/BIG TEDDY bear
<LI>		w+	a big boned bear
<LI>		w 	bear with a tummy
<LI>		(none)	average weight for frame
<LI>		w-	a thin bear (otters!)
<LI>		w--	a bony bear<P>
</UL>  <P>


	c - "the CUB factor".  For the junior up and coming bears.<P>
<UL>
<LI>		c++	complete daddy's boy
<LI>		c+	definite cub
<LI>		c	cub tendencies
<LI>		(none)	not "cubbish"
<LI>		c-	looks like a cub but isn't<P>
</UL>
  <P>


	d - "the DADDY factor".  For the cubs, etc.<P>
<UL>
<LI>		d++	DADDY with a vengenance (even his parents call him SIR!)
<LI>		d+	definite DADDY
<LI>		d	daddyish tendencies
<LI>		(none)	not a daddy
<LI>		d-	looks like a daddy but isn't</UL>
<P>

    Note there are now also HYBRID classes "cd" and "dc":<P>

<UL>
<LI>		cd	A cub with "daddy tendencies"... Sort of like
				a "grown up cub".
<LI>		dc	A daddy with cub-like tendencies/features.
<LI>		dc-	More daddy than cub
<LI>		d+c	REAL daddyish and also VERY cubbish
<LI>		(etc.)
</UL>
  <P>

		
	g - "the GROPE factor":  This is the amount one likes to be touched
		or pawed etc.<P>
<UL>
<LI>		g++	Love to grope/paw/touch etc.  Will attack without 
			warning.  Gives hugs to hot otherwise unknown bears
			on the street in open daylight.
<LI>		g+	likes to be touched most of the time
<LI>		g	Generally outgoing with ursine affection, a little
			more reserved about place/person...
<LI>		(none)	Average amount of receptivity to being touched
<LI>		g-	Generally doesn't like people to invade his 
			personal aura/lair.
<LI>		g--	You touch my bod, I break your face!<P>
</UL>
  <P>


	k - "the KINKY factor"...  for those who dare.<P>
<UL>
<LI>		k++	likes just about EVERYTHING... we mean *EVERYTHING*!!!
<LI> 		k+	picks and choose according to likes; willing to consider
				new ideas
<LI>		k	open minded.  Might choose SOME things on the "menu"
<LI>		(none)	kinky neutral
<LI>		k-	has definite ABSOLUTE dislikes
<LI>		k--	totally vanilla<P>
</UL>
  <P>


	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...).  <P>
<UL>
<LI>		s--	strictly monogamously/relationship oriented.  No
			outside affairs, or in some cases, sex ONLY in
			relationships
<LI>		s-	relationship oriented.  Perfers a formal sort of
			relationship over playing around, however the
			scope of the word relationship is not defined here.
<LI>		(none)	relationship neutral
<LI>		s	neutral wrt to relationships/monogamy.
<LI>		s+	will form relationships which are generally open-ended
<LI>		s++	strictly polygamous, prefers very open relationships
			ONLY.
</UL>
<P>

	m - "the MUSCLE factor"... for those who like meat on them bones.
			(N.B. "semi-"official --- may be dropped w/ V2.0)<P>
<UL>
<LI>		m++	Arnold Schwartzineger is that you?
<LI>		m+	definitely works out or is a ranchhand
<LI>		m	some definition/blue collar
<LI>		(none)	muscle neutral</UL>
<P>

	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)<P>
<UL>
<LI>		e++	gets complete respect even from straight men
<LI>		e+	gets attention
<LI>		e	noteworthy
<LI>		(none)	endowment neutral</UL>
<P>

 
	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.<P>

<UL>
<LI>		h	behr (moustache no beard)
<LI>		h+	Definite BEHR (moustache no beard)
<LI>		h-	no beard OR moustache! (very rare but still
				cave dewlling)</UL>
<P>

	r - "the RUGGED/OUTDOOR factor".<P>
<UL>
<LI>		r++	"Grizzly Adams"
<LI>		r+	Flannel/jeans/C&W really *are* second skin
<LI>		r	Spends some time outdoors/camping
<LI>		(none)	rugged neutral
<LI>		r-	prefers indoor-type activities (techie or 3-piece)
<LI>		r--	never seen in the outdoors at all.
</UL>
  <P>


	p - "the PECULIAR factor"<P>
<UL>
<LI>		p	Some idiosyncracies --- no judgement made to
			whether these are "good" or "not so good"
</UL>
		
	q - "the *Q* factor (ahem)"<P>

<UL>
<LI>		q	for people who look like bears, but
			"when they open their mouths, yards of chiffon come out"</UL>
<P>

 
	ADDITIONAL PUNCTUATION
	The following aren't graded, they are just flags attached to the
		overall classification:<P>
<UL>
<LI>		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.)<P>

<LI>		?	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.<P>

<LI>		:	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+:  <P>

<LI>		!	for cases where the trait is as close to a 	
			prototype as possible, or an exemplary case of
			a specfic trait...  eg. the penultimate f++!<P>

<LI>		()	for indicating "cross-overs" or ranges.  A guy
			who goes from k to k++ depending on the situation
			(ie mostly "k") could use k(++)
</UL>
  <P>

	
		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.<P>

			
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!<P>

-----------------  S O M E  S P E C I F I C   E X A M P L E S ----------------<P>

The authors:<P>

<UL>
<LI>Bob Donahue		B5 c+ f s-: w t- r k?
<LI>Jeff Stoner		B6 f+ w sv w r+ k(+?)<P>
</UL>

A sampling of our joint classifications of other mailing list folks...<P>
<UL>
<LI>Steve Dyer		B5/7 dc f++ t- w+ k--	(the shoulders get the f++)
<LI>Brian Gollum		B4 k++ s: c?- t- w++ r- p
<LI>Ken Dykes		B8 s+ f+ m t w e r p
<LI>"Furr" Madison		B7 f+ t+ w- e+ k+ cv
<LI>Rob Be[a]rnardo		B3 f+ t dvcv sv w- m+ r+ p
<LI>Jay Schuster		B3 c f- s+ w- p?
<LI>Bob Rowe		B4 m s+ r+ e		(Jeff trying not to put +++'s)
</UL>
<P>

Notables from Bobby...<P>
<UL>
<LI>Wilford Brimley:	B0 h w+ d+ k? f		(OK I'm wishing for an "k")
<LI>Hacksaw Jim Duggan:	B6 w+ t+ k+? m++
<LI>Lyle Alzado:		B3 w+ k+? f-- m++ e++	(so I'm told)
<LI>model in 4/84 HONCHO:	B6 w d+? r+ f+++!	<---- an exceptional case
<LI>Dan Blocker:		B0 h- w m+ d+ f+ r++ t+<P>
</UL>

Notables from Jeff...<P>
<UL>
<LI>Dan Seals:		B4 r+ d f+? t+ k+?	(wishful thinking!)
<LI>Randy Owen:		B5 r+ f+? w- m e? k++?	(more wishful thinking!)
</UL>
<P>

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:<P>

<UL>
<LI>Santa Claus		B8 d++ f? w++ k--?<P>
</UL>
  <P>


Enjoy!!! From half of the states required to make the "Four Corners" exist...<P>

-----------------------------------------------------<P>

	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.<P>

 
Have fun!
BBC