Moths & Butterfly's of Josephine County, Oregon.

On 23 Aug 2009 09:56:24 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:53:21 GMT, Frazer Jolly Goodfellow
: wrote:
: : On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT), CB wrote:
: :
: : Moths & Butterfly's of Josephine County, Oregon.
: :
: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUWBNKPxE3Q
: :
: : Nice photographs, shame about the grammar.
: :
: : "Butterfly's" = "Butterflies" in English.
:
: That's a spelling error, not a grammatical error, since there's no difference
: in the spoken form.
:
: It can be seen as a spelling error because the word changes and as a
: grammatical error because it forms the plural incorrectly. Which one
: it actually was depends on what kind of brain fart or ignorance lay
: behind its production, not on the form of what was produced.
:
: Yes, that may be a rather fine point to call you on, but you "jolly" well
: asked for it.
:
: When you try to make a fine point do be careful not to sit on it.

I stand by my comment. In linguistic analysis the spoken form almost always
takes precedence over the written form. If it sounds right, it is right. The
cited error is one of orthography, not of grammar.

Bob

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:33:26 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:53:21 GMT, Frazer Jolly Goodfellow
wrote:
: On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT), CB wrote:
:
: Moths & Butterfly's of Josephine County, Oregon.
:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUWBNKPxE3Q
:
: Nice photographs, shame about the grammar.
:
: "Butterfly's" = "Butterflies" in English.

That's a spelling error, not a grammatical error, since there's no difference
in the spoken form.

So you think using the possessive form rather than the plural form is not a
grammatical error. Are you a greengrocer, perchance?

Robert Coe wrote:
On 23 Aug 2009 09:56:24 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:53:21 GMT, Frazer Jolly Goodfellow
: wrote:
: : On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT), CB wrote:
: :
: : Moths & Butterfly's of Josephine County, Oregon.
: :
: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUWBNKPxE3Q
: :
: : Nice photographs, shame about the grammar.
: :
: : "Butterfly's" = "Butterflies" in English.
:
: That's a spelling error, not a grammatical error, since there's no difference
: in the spoken form.
:
: It can be seen as a spelling error because the word changes and as a
: grammatical error because it forms the plural incorrectly. Which one
: it actually was depends on what kind of brain fart or ignorance lay
: behind its production, not on the form of what was produced.
:
: Yes, that may be a rather fine point to call you on, but you "jolly" well
: asked for it.
:
: When you try to make a fine point do be careful not to sit on it.

I stand by my comment. In linguistic analysis the spoken form almost always
takes precedence over the written form. If it sounds right, it is right. The
cited error is one of orthography, not of grammar.

Except that one of the cases in linguistic analysis where the spoken
form doesn't take precedence is where we are considering the slightly
different grammar of the written language, most obviously in the case
as here of homophones. The apostrophe is not pronounced, so the case
of the possessive apostrophe in English is a point of written English
grammar which has no counterpart in spoken English. As is the
difference between "they're", "their", and "there" or "its" and
"it's". Those are grammatical differences. "If it sounds right it is
right" doesn't apply to written language in the case of grammatically
distinct homophones.

--
Chris Malcolm

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:12:23 -0700 (PDT), Geez wrote:


Apparently you are an expert on the subject so would you kindly tell
me which specie was shown 6 times or "over six times"? Shouldn't be
hard for an expert like you.

And I'm still not sure if you did lke the photos or didn't like them.
You seemed to vacilate more than once.


Even if you were slightly off in the number of duplicates. Please tell
me the specie name of *any* duplications

Charlie


After looking them over again (on your request, otherwise they didn't
deserve a second look, to answer your second question) I was in error on
there being as many as six of one species. I remember the first image
seemed to appear many times, the /Prochoerodes lineola, transversata/,
"Large Maple Spanworm Moth". It has many shading variants from almost lemon
yellow to chocolate brown and everything in between. Not watching for
unique species very closely afterward (images unimpressive to my eye) I
thought I saw 5 or 6 more of the same. You have two more species shown two
times each. Very similar to the first Large Maple Spanworm and easy to
mistake them for it with a quick glance. Two images of /Synaxis jubararia/,
"October Thorn Moth", images 3 and 21. Images 11 and 25 also being
identical species though I can't place its name at the moment. Image 20
also being a look-alike to the "Large Maple Spanworm" and might very well
be a variant of the "October Thorn Moth". My image numbers in your video
may be off by one count either way. I put your FLV file into a viewer and
slid the frame-position handle to try to count them, rather than painfully
watching through it each time to count which image numbers they are.

In any case, you have 6 that are near look-alikes, being no more than 3
species. Though all of them, except for the one I can't recall the name of,
I too have already photographed many times. I think my most productive
lepidoptera month netted me (in photographs of live subjects only, never
actually "netted"), over 600 unique species. Each photographed as
artistically as possible should I want to publish them some day. It was a
an interesting two years on that self-appointed project.

I think my most favorite insect photos of all are a tiny little species
with a full wingspan only 3.5mm wide. A "Moth Fly" in the family
Psychodidae. I first mistook it for a very very fuzzy micro-moth but it's
actually related to the same sub-order as mosquitoes. (Nobody's been able
to accurately ID the species that I photographed yet.) Its wings and body
looking like black and white zebra-striped feathers all fluffed out, like
the feathers on a feather-boa. A little 3.5mm wide kitschy looking
shag-coat you'd have seen in a 70's disco somewhere. It's more of a micro
ball of fluff than it is a flying insect shape. The fluff's length almost
the width of one forewing. I've no idea how they are able to fly with wings
like that. They look like the slightest breeze could drag them anywhere but
somehow they manage to fly under their own control fairly fast. The cutest
and silliest looking micro-things I've ever seen.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Geez wrote:


How about providing me a link to your photos. Since mine didn't
deserve a second look and are so "unimpressive to your eye", it would
be a huge thrill to view those "artistically" prepared photos of
yours. You do have these great photos easily available don't you.

Charlie

Yes, they're all easily available, to me. Many DVDs full of them in an
archive sitting right beside my computer. How much money do you have?

I already pulled more than 500 large thumbnails of them off the net once
because of everyone stealing them (due to their rarity and/or quality);
used for their publications, university course lectures, used to illustrate
their required dissertations for their doctorial degrees in related fields,
and what-not. You should have seen the outrage over my doing that. In the
beginning when first posted some would contact me for permission under
false pretenses, where I'd agree to their using them for non-profit
"educational" uses. Then they'd use them anyway after I found out their
real intents and told them "no" later. Too late, I already said yes and
they had the emails to prove it. The follow-ups conveniently deleted and
lost. Yes, even the large thumbnails were that desirable for scum to steal
and use them for their own personal financial and career gains. Some of
these images existing nowhere else on earth; evidence of ultra-rare,
unknown, or lost species; compelled them to think it was alright to just
take them. That they somehow had a "right" to them no matter what. "It was
for the good of humanity and education for all!" they would claim, to
justify their outright theft while padding their wallets and careers with
two years of my work.

Don't believe it? Too bad.

I'm not going through that hassle again, even if it's only for a nice image
of a common monarch or housefly. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice
shame on me.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:19:05 -0700 (PDT), Geez wrote:

would have some photos that were of insignificant value.

Yes, I have some of those, but then why post them? You only want to see
outstanding. Mundane wouldn't prove anything to you. Catch-22, of your own
making.

Practice more with that camera, and ID guides, you might figure them both
out one day.


Bye!

Carl Avers wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:19:05 -0700 (PDT), Geez wrote:

would have some photos that were of insignificant value.

Yes, I have some of those, but then why post them? You only want to see
outstanding. Mundane wouldn't prove anything to you. Catch-22, of your own
making.

Practice more with that camera, and ID guides, you might figure them both
out one day.


Bye!

You've achieved a new level of b.s., a rarity here.

Geez wrote:
On Aug 24, 2:48 pm, Carl Avers wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Geez
wrote:

How about providing me a link to your photos. Since mine didn't
deserve a second look and are so "unimpressive to your eye", it
would be a huge thrill to view those "artistically" prepared photos
of yours. You do have these great photos easily available don't you.

Charlie

Yes, they're all easily available, to me. Many DVDs full of them in
an archive sitting right beside my computer. How much money do you
have?

I already pulled more than 500 large thumbnails of them off the net
once because of everyone stealing them (due to their rarity and/or
quality); used for their publications, university course lectures,
used to illustrate their required dissertations for their doctorial
degrees in related fields, and what-not. You should have seen the
outrage over my doing that. In the beginning when first posted some
would contact me for permission under false pretenses, where I'd
agree to their using them for non-profit "educational" uses. Then
they'd use them anyway after I found out their real intents and told
them "no" later. Too late, I already said yes and they had the
emails to prove it. The follow-ups conveniently deleted and lost.
Yes, even the large thumbnails were that desirable for scum to steal
and use them for their own personal financial and career gains. Some
of these images existing nowhere else on earth; evidence of
ultra-rare, unknown, or lost species; compelled them to think it was
alright to just take them. That they somehow had a "right" to them
no matter what. "It was for the good of humanity and education for
all!" they would claim, to justify their outright theft while
padding their wallets and careers with two years of my work.

Don't believe it? Too bad.

I'm not going through that hassle again, even if it's only for a
nice image of a common monarch or housefly. Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice shame on me.

And how do you suggest I can tell the difference between your story
and a totally fraudulent story. I suggest they are the same. Anyone
with the vast success and advanced outstanding standing in his field
would have some photos that were of insignificant value.

Good day, little man.

In any case, he needs to talk to a copyright lawyer about "fair use".

Carl Avers wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Geez wrote:

How about providing me a link to your photos. Since mine didn't
deserve a second look and are so "unimpressive to your eye", it would
be a huge thrill to view those "artistically" prepared photos of
yours. You do have these great photos easily available don't you.

Charlie

Yes, they're all easily available, to me. Many DVDs full of them in an
archive sitting right beside my computer. How much money do you have?

I already pulled more than 500 large thumbnails of them off the net once
because of everyone stealing them (due to their rarity and/or quality);
used for their publications, university course lectures, used to illustrate
their required dissertations for their doctorial degrees in related fields,
and what-not.

Would I be right in guessing from your use of the term "doctorial"
that the "what-not" usage category was far larger than anything with
any connection to a university?

--
Chris Malcolm

On 25 Aug 2009 08:57:01 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:


Would I be right in guessing from your use of the term "doctorial"
that the "what-not" usage category was far larger than anything with
any connection to a university?

No, you would not be right in guessing that. The self-important
hierarchy-climbing employees of major educational institutions and
identification-guide publishers that were stealing my works bothered me the
most. Mostly due to their outright deceptions in how they tried to obtain
the rights to use them for their own financial and career gains. The rest
were found in screen-savers made of collages from the thumbnails, online
databases who had no right to lift them for their commercially backed
sites, and other "what-not" usages. They've all since been wiped from the
net and from any use in any publications. They all lose. You all lose.
Never to see them again. I hope they all enjoyed their Kodak-memory-only
moment. All this, just because of some large thumbnails that I posted of
them, not even the full resolution better quality images. It was a good
test and worth the lesson to see the true ass-end of humanity, no matter
how "accredited" those people might be. They all failed my simple test,
while I learned a wonderful lesson that no money could ever buy.

Now kindly crawl back under your ignorant-troll's rock where you normally
reside.