Subject: ANN000088b

Full subject data (JSON)

Comments

• by bjornbjorn

  anyone have an idea what "Falls Pub. Cp." could be? I'm not familiar with the abbreviations & haven't had much luck with Google.

  Posted May 30, 2013 5:58 AM

• by geckzilla

  Public Camp

  Posted May 30, 2013 6:11 AM

• by Pict

  Just put the info as is, bjornbjorn. We shouldnt engage in (possibly wrongful) speculation and interpretation, IMHO.

  Posted May 30, 2013 6:02 PM

• by geckzilla

  I don't think there's anything wrong with reasonable speculation. Part of the fun of this project is figuring out some of the puzzles.

  Posted May 30, 2013 9:59 PM

• by Pict

  I disagree. Find out for your own amusement, by all means, but enter what is on the label. What if your deducing is wrong, and then someone

  Posted May 31, 2013 6:04 PM

• by Pict

  uses your wrongly interpreted info, rather than being given the label as is and the chance to interpret it themselves.

  Posted May 31, 2013 6:05 PM

• by darryluk

  Bit harsh! I think any interpretation is valid, and as these records are transcribed by a number of different people, any info helps.

  Posted May 31, 2013 6:19 PM

• by geckzilla

  I did search. Public Camp seems the most likely. This is a group project and if you have another idea about Pub. Cp, share it.

  Posted May 31, 2013 6:26 PM

• by geckzilla

  FYI, Mention of a Falls Public Camp in San Bernardino County: http://newspaperarchive.com/press-telegram/1959-03-26/page-32

  Posted May 31, 2013 6:28 PM

• by Pict

  Im not saying it is wrong in this case, nor did I think I was being harsh; I was speaking generally. We should present researchers/scientist

  Posted May 31, 2013 7:50 PM

• by Pict

  with what was on the label, so they can draw their own conclusions. If we do it for them, it may in some cases be wrong and they dont see

  Posted May 31, 2013 7:50 PM

• by Pict

  the info as it was written on the label. We're transcribers, not editors.

  Posted May 31, 2013 7:51 PM

• by geckzilla

  Respectfully, Pict, they've instructed us to search for and elaborate on vague localities. I'm sure they're aware of our fallibility.

  Posted May 31, 2013 8:10 PM

• by geckzilla

  ...I think this may be a case where we must agree to disagree. I do see your point, however, Pict!

  Posted May 31, 2013 8:15 PM

• by Pict

  The only thing theyve instructed us to search for is missing locality info. For example if country or county isnt on the label

  Posted June 1, 2013 4:36 AM

• by Pict

  That isnt the same as saying "please make guesses to what every abbreviation means"

  Posted June 1, 2013 4:36 AM

• by geckzilla

  The instructions didn't preclude us from doing so, either. Your opinion is that it's harmful to the project. I disagree. It's helpful.

  Posted June 1, 2013 4:52 AM

• by SandersClan

  The moderators have also been paying attention to the 'recent' objects and our conversations. You can tell this by the way they

  Posted June 1, 2013 5:34 AM

• by SandersClan

  participate in some of the conversations. It seem to me that if we weren't encouraged to give logical, thought-out, reasonable input,

  Posted June 1, 2013 5:35 AM

• by SandersClan

  they would have prohibited it in no uncertain terms. I propose we specifically ask a moderator so as not to perpetuate tension.

  Posted June 1, 2013 5:37 AM

• by SandersClan

  Are we in agreement?

  Posted June 1, 2013 5:39 AM

• by darryluk

  Yes, If it will calm things down a bit!

  Posted June 1, 2013 12:23 PM

• by SandersClan

  See the new discussion topic 'Moderators: please read' in Just Chatting.

  Posted June 1, 2013 6:41 PM

• by joanball scientist

  I just responded to this in the discussion topic 'Moderators: please read'. Thanks for calling it out!

  Posted June 4, 2013 9:13 PM