Notes From Nature Talk

Subject: ANN000088b

Subject ANN000088b Full subject data (JSON)

Comments

  • bjornbjorn 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

  • geckzilla by geckzilla

    Public Camp

    Posted

  • Pict by Pict

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

    Posted

  • geckzilla 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

  • Pict 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

  • Pict by Pict

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

    Posted

  • darryluk 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

  • geckzilla 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

  • geckzilla by geckzilla

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

    Posted

  • Pict 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

  • Pict 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

  • Pict by Pict

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

    Posted

  • geckzilla 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

  • geckzilla by geckzilla

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

    Posted

  • Pict 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

  • Pict by Pict

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

    Posted

  • geckzilla 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

  • SandersClan 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

  • SandersClan 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

  • SandersClan 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

  • SandersClan by SandersClan

    Are we in agreement?

    Posted

  • darryluk by darryluk

    Yes, If it will calm things down a bit!

    Posted

  • SandersClan by SandersClan

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

    Posted

  • joanball by joanball scientist

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

    Posted