Entomological labels

Now the foam has already fallen from mug to mug (not only about-forum Vivat!), now the " bug "is drunk" vdrabadan "(this is how the song is sung entomological; not about "vdrabadan", but about the fact that the bug is drunk), but according to the text (entomological songs) " the bully boy is hanging...". So, I demand: iftarah! That is, tell me the boy's last name...
complicated? Ah, that! I try…
But simply put, I am in favor of having the collector's last name (and initials) on the labels.
Breaking through an open gate? If it weren't for A. J. Elez, then yes. But, after all, there is a position of A. Y. Elez'a…
Regarding this position (the totality of arguments in its defense), I want to say a couple of words (although, of course, it seems like we passed a long time ago, BUT ... the forum is working... and if the moderator "sdyuzhit", then appanirovanie will take place)…
When A. Y. Elez first spoke out about the collector's signature, it was "normal" (in a sense), - well, h-k is afraid to shine in the face of an unfair legislative norm ("evil uncles" will come and seize the hoard for years, but not just "seize", but also punish - I won't tell you how...). Scared?
The solution (the most elementary one) is to "go into a deep unconsciousness" - and I am not me, and the collection is not mine (go and prove it - my last name is not on the labels). This (tactic) was subjected to reasonable criticism on the forum. Opponents pointed out that the label is not a legal document. But it's still scary...
And it is on this subjective feeling that the everest of "arguments"comes up. It is not the arguments themselves that confuse me, but their (excuse me) "foundation", so to speak...
After all, there is one who is like "evil uncles" - chhi-chhi… So what? for him, even "arguments" are worthless.
Premise-a premise, a larger premise (not in the Philosophical sense, but in the sense of Aristotle's syllogism )… What is it like? Existential.... And what am I doing here? Well, it's scary for someone, but what does science have to do with it? One of A. J. Elez's lines says that science is moving towards "impersonality" (if I understand it correctly). So, then not so (not like that) at all! Whose geometric space is it? - Or Riemann-Lobachevsky or Euclidean. Whose laws (one-two-three) of thermodynamics? M. B., Newton. Table (yes, yes! that's the one!) Whose is it? Mendeleev. Whose cycle is it? Krebs. Whose ring (benzene)? Etc, etc, etc.... Science does not tolerate anonymity. Why? - Because authorship = responsibility.
"Hooligan boy" (from an entomological song) found " bug " - Where? When? "Are you sure?"?? If the "boy" is not anonymous, has a full name, then he will also present a diary (field), and even, horibile dict, a travel document… And so (without a last name), what to take from it...
But not only that (responsibility), the scientific community is not alien to other human qualities, which include "gratitude" in the good sense of the word (Do you add "L." on fig labels? Linnaeus died a long time ago?)
Here, so, not all w A. Y. Elez'u "ottyagivatsya in full growth" ...

of course science is impersonal! From now on, everyone should indicate (Anonymous)in their publications And no one can argue with this )

About the law.. it's kind of scary on the one hand.. But so far, no one can bring anything particularly against us.. After all, we have a lot of friends in the institutes - they can stand up for us, say that we are replenishing museum collections, helping with scientific work.. After all, it is! And they will not be able to do it! They know about it - these giants of science!
Now, if something serious from the government gets into our garden, then we can stop writing names for security reasons - but in the meantime, what do we care?
But I think even if the government decides to do, I beg your pardon, F * ck, then won't we be rebelling against this government? Otherwise, what do we need such a life for? Aren't we going to start writing letters, breaking out with questions, dialogues, with the "nachalnegami", so that they stop the lawlessness at least in this sense?
Soratnegi, friends, take heart! Don't let them catch you! Do not be afraid of anything, because there is nothing to be afraid of yet! write names, write locations, carry material across the border, go, catch, change!! Nothing can stop us! A net in one hand, tweezers in the other, and a distant gaze.
I sincerely wish everyone not to run into rakes and pitchforks, as well as all sorts of freaks, including in the face of the government, otherwise what do we have?

And the labels are just pieces of paper, but very valuable for us, and for no one else! And leave everything and be afraid of names, afraid of coordinates, afraid of places, afraid to write? why?
We will move with a confident step, add to our collections, discover new views, and get mad with fat!

In short, Sklikhasovsky!
It's better to see it once.
I do it like this.

Pictures:

4.jpg — (51.18 k)


3.jpg — (47.67 k)


2.jpg — (56.65 k)


1.jpg — (52.67к)

So, what was the argument about? Now you give the coordinates yourself and confirm that the accuracy is "up to the gopher step". And here is the dot itself. And what else do you need to write in the label, in addition to coordinates and clarifying information about the place?

And it depends on where to write it-in a dimensionless letter to a colleague who will read it in five minutes, or on a small label designed for centuries. Truth is always concrete. So if you think you've been caught and not caught, have a good day. As I understand it, you wanted to be witty, so what prevented you from doing so? After all, what you said doesn't apply to me at all. How many times have I talked about the usefulness of GPS? Where did you find my negative attitude to GPS data? If I hadn't seen your productive participation in the controversy, I would have thought from this message that you were suddenly woken up by the noise of someone else's struggle and were sleepily directing your criticism in the wrong direction. The controversy was about labels, not the great role of GPS. That's "what the argument was about." So I did not write these numbers on any labels! And I assume that you fully believe this: firstly, you already know my methodology in this regard; secondly, we are talking about an extinct population, and it is unlikely that anyone will be able to mark Ausonia at the same point in the foreseeable future.

Just for the sake of helping T. Morozzz (and M. B. - so that you happily take the bait, thinking that your uncle is crazy and after everything he said, suddenly decided to give himself into your hands) I gave him information: if my accuracy within a radius of 500 <i>m</i> is not enough for him, then let him mark the point more precisely, and take GPS data for the base (I already wrote that I don't know today a more accurate way - from among the available coordinates - to establish coordinates), because for those in a few minutes, after which he will read my message, the continents will not float away and the toponymy will not be shoveled either on the terrain or on Google Earth. This is not something to write on the label in the expectation of future centuries. And you decided to catch me in contradictions. Well, scoff, bravo, if you still think your remark is fair; I won't go into the bottle, let's laugh together. But I didn't advise anyone to put those numbers on the label! I've already told you what to do with them a thousand times. Translate them into natural language and indicate them on the label. Then you will be understood in any age. And where do I contradict myself? What you have demonstrated is logically called the substitution of a refuted thesis.

By the way, I took the numbers just by finding a point on the well-known Google Earth (the one where you took the picture from; the one where the detail of toponymy causes only bitter laughter and few seem to overtake the school globe). Moreover, I took it there because this very program was recommended here by colleagues (I don't miss their posts). So, on a normal map, according to the entry from post 277, which I recently referred to on a special occasion, you will find this point in any century. Do you know why? Because in any century, you will be able to take today's normal map, which has all the anchor objects on it. And find out what place I was talking about.

But in Google Earth, I can't find an option to call the map based on the state of toponymy not on the day I entered the program, but, say, a year and a half ago (not to mention half a century, say). I go there with searches for, say, the city of Frunze according to old labels, but there is no Internet... Looking for Zhdanov, en netuti... I'm looking for Stalinabad-Dushanbe gets out; okay; but there's no word that this is a new name for the same item, guess for yourself why it's another word that got out - renaming, administrative entry of the requested into the shown one, a program glitch or something else. But the old information on labels and in the literature remains so old, there are no GPS points in them. What to take from old labels. You spit, take a normal map for that date (if you don't find it at home, then in the library), and everything is so decorous, noble...

For T. < b>Nucifraga</b>. It is now clear what kind of men Nekrasov wrote about in "Who should live Well in Russia", describing their manner of argument and attention to other people's arguments? I thought that everyone was already better off, pacified, posted the protocol of unanimity and decided to rest for a day, but on you...

Back to T. < b>Mikee</b>. Yes, you are a poisonous person, but you know the specifics and they also corrected me on the case. That is why I will tell you (and if you can think for yourself and explain to me if you can) a case that happened last summer in one of the former socialist countries of Europe. One of my friends (she has nothing to do with entomology at all and had no idea what the tables were dancing on the forum for several days) told me a story the day before yesterday, which I immediately decided to save for you personally. She went to this country, and there her local colleagues from some university took her for a walk in nature. A small group of friends was led by a certain owner and admirer of a device that you understood, on which he marked the points of passage, then simply found out where the group was located, i.e. which village was on the right, which on the left, etc. As a result, when everyone got lost completely and got out completely tired in the wrong place, he began to explain this by saying that the Americans were currently conducting exercises here, and that's why all the readings of the device were marked with the letter "Grisha"...

For what I bought - for what I sell. I don't have any other details. In your opinion, really extraneous factors (and now there are a lot of such factors in any forest, and there are a lot of people flying in the near sky and in space, everyone seems to live on a TV tower) could easily interfere with the establishment of coordinates? Or did the guy just move the arrows, and it was not that, but those satellites that must necessarily be visible 3 and which might not be available then? And if the latter is the case, then do we have the opportunity to know already when determining the coordinates whether the device currently has enough satellites overhead and whether unwanted interference affects its tsifir? In a word-to know whether we will get the truth from the device at this moment or God knows what? And, if the latter, how to eliminate the influence of these interferences? After all, for example, radio interference, as far as I remember from the magazine "Radio" 40 years ago (from the material about hooligans on the air), can calmly bring planes to an accident, disrupting their communication. Your opinion? Unfortunately, I don't have any other details about the incident. But maybe there will still be some versions? By the way, so do other colleagues.

My previous post, registration didn't work for some reason.

M. B., this time the registration will not fail... Message 499 is mine.

When A. Y. Elez first spoke out about the collector's signature, it was "normal" (in a sense), - well, h-k is afraid to shine in the face of an unfair legislative norm ("evil uncles" will come and seize the hoard for years, but not just "seize", but also punish - I won't tell you how...). Scared?
The solution (the most elementary one) is to "go into a deep unconsciousness" - and I am not me, and the collection is not mine (go and prove it - my last name is not on the labels). This (tactic) was subjected to reasonable criticism on the forum. Opponents pointed out that the label is not a legal document. But it's still scary...
And it is on this subjective feeling that the everest of "arguments"comes up. It is not the arguments themselves that confuse me, but their (excuse me) "foundation", so to speak...
After all, there is one who is like "evil uncles" - chhi-chhi… So what? for him, even "arguments" are worthless.

One of A. J. Elez's lines says that science is moving towards "impersonality" (if I understand it correctly). So, then not so (not like that) at all! Whose geometric space is it? - Or Riemann-Lobachevsky or Euclidean. Whose laws (one-two-three) of thermodynamics? M. B., Newton. Table (yes, yes! that's the one!) Whose is it? Mendeleev. Whose cycle is it? Krebs. Whose ring (benzene)? Etc, etc, etc.... Science does not tolerate anonymity. Why? - Because authorship = responsibility.
"Hooligan boy" (from an entomological song) found " bug " - Where? When? "Are you sure?"?? If the "boy" is not anonymous, has a full name, then he will also present a diary (field), and even, horibile dict, a travel document… And so (without a last name), what to take from it...
But not only that (responsibility), the scientific community is not alien to other human qualities, which include "gratitude" in the good sense of the word (Do you add "L." on fig labels? Linnaeus died a long time ago?)

I did not say and do not say that science is moving towards impersonality, but I do not say the opposite. I just do not know how you understand the "personality" or "impersonality" of science. If as an indication or concealment of authorship - then here I have already expressed an unkind word about the depersonalization (more precisely, attribution to myself, my personality) of other people's scientific achievements. If there is any other way, I abstain.

But, throwing messages here, none of us thanks Microsoft, Academician Alferov and many, many others in every word (when working with a computer, the list will be larger than today-the credits at the end of the movie). We write on paper and do not thank the Chinese in every phrase. And we sing songs to suit the mood-not to count. And who of my opponents thanks (or just remembers by name) people who did not catch a seven-point cow in the Moscow region, but wrote "Varyag", "Oh, viburnum blooms" or at least "Bublichki"? But here you have questions of both copyright and appreciation-in one bottle. We explain to someone that we need to go along a parallel street, and do not thank Euclid. We write an article with illustrations that show preparations under a microscope, and do not thank Leeuwenhoek for each illustration. So here you need to look at the case a little more precisely, good words alone are not enough. Truth, I repeat, is always concrete. Here already T. Ripper correctly said: it is not necessary to bring to the point of absurdity. Everything has its place and its measure.

As for " L."in the specific name, this is not the same as specifying the name of the author of the article or picture. There, authorship is indicated for the sake of identifying the creator, which is interesting to us in itself. When, for example, a legislative act is published (not the most plyugavoe essay on social role, you will agree), you will not find the name of the writer, because there only socially significant text is important to us. And the author of the law will not receive royalties from each reprint (this is not the "Forsyte Saga"). The primary describer of a species (or any other taxon above or below the species) also does not claim a percentage of the income of anyone who later mentions this species. So copyright has nothing to do with it. This is a slightly different opera.

And appreciation has nothing to do with it. None of you have tears of gratitude for Linnaeus at every mention of hives, with all due respect. Science is guided here by a completely different, much more masculine consideration: a reference to the original source, from which you can find the original description in order to use it. That is why in the strict version, after the surname of Linnaeus, the year of publication of the work with the original description of this type is indicated, and not - for the sake of gratitude-the years of Linnaeus ' life (in parentheses). This means that we are concretizing (clarifying) scientific information about the taxon, and it is the taxon that interests us in this case. Where science does not need such clarification, it does not even use surnames. Thank you in publications, but not when structuring natural science nomenclature!!! Do not be lazy to thank the chemist and recognize his priority in articles and books, but not on the label pasted on a bottle of ethyl acetate! The nomenclature only includes the surname of the first writer when it is necessary to compare the description of a typical instance with what we have in front of us at the moment of the research work. Where this is not necessary, where there is a structural formula behind the name that can not be confused with anything, no one puts a surname on bottles of chemicals, unless it became at the will of the first writer (no rules require this!) part of the actual name (like, say, Shostakovsky's balm).

In general, talking about "gratitude" seems to me almost the last refuge in the absence of really scientific arguments. Here, except for me, no one even signs their last name (I already mentioned this). Is this how colleagues fight against the impersonality of science?? Who should I thank for this or that message? This is where the signature belongs, and this is where it doesn't exist. Or do you want to say that you recognize your posts as external to science? I hope not. And it is unthinkable to sign every brick in a science building as a sign of appreciation, just as we do not do this with bricks when building a residential building and almost never do it even with the building as a whole. Even the name of an architect can be mentioned in a guidebook, in a historical essay, and the building is indicated very rarely (less often than I keep the names on the label), i.e. only in special cases. It's not a lack of gratitude (I don't suffer from this either) for someone's work that is useful for society, but a sober sense of proportion that allows you to draw a line between gratitude (write down personalities in notebooks, pour out gratitude in reviews, articles, monographs, synodics), but not on the label, not at the bottom of the box, not on the handle of the net, not on the fence, etc.) and absurdity.

I know that it is possible to receive and save a lot of important information on a copy, and I did not oppose this. I'm all for it. (Unfortunately, I have been repeatedly polemicized here, out of carelessness, about provisions that I did not put forward.) It was about a specific issue - the optimal standard of design of the main label. If the surname is included in the required minimum of this standard (and even Canadian authorities, to whom one of my opponents addressed us, assure us that it is not included!), then there are perplexities and practical difficulties that no one has refuted, in contrast, throwing only possible pluses, up to how awesome it would be with absolutely impossible projects. I wouldn't argue with the pros if it weren't for the presence of cons. I will not repeat them, because those who were not interested in them before will not care about them now. In the modern political dictionary there is such a discordant word - populism. This is when, roughly speaking, they advocate that everyone should live like kings and not have a single slave, or when they demand at least a fantastic increase in minimum salaries. But who can argue with the fact that it would be oh, how good it would be if it weren't for this and that, not the third and fourth, from which there is no escape. Therefore, before putting forward such slogans, it is necessary to deal with all the indicated disadvantages with evidence, and not shout with increasing volume about the awesome and actually understandable advantages to everyone.

As for the police side of the issue, I do not consider it the main one, although I think it is completely wrong not to take it into account. The law on the protection of flora and Fauna has not been repealed, and an unthinkable number of by-laws have been produced. By the way, you can be punished for extermination and smuggling; no " uncles "can actually" seize " your collection, and I never expressed any concerns about this in my life, it just seemed to you. Despite the fact that this law prohibits the replenishment of private zoological collections, there are no by-laws providing for specific sanctions. But a whole bunch of acts provide for sanctions for the seizure of a particular type of natural material.

This is not only a domestic problem. Climb entomological collections to a certain height, and acquaintance with Kuzkin's mother will become more than likely for you. Many people are already intimately familiar with it (but this is precisely what collectors of such a level are doing that they don't spend hours of their lives on forums like we do). The only question is when and to whom it will come into the head to suddenly begin to comply with this or that law (sometimes such a thought dawns on any government) - tomorrow, in five years or never. Yes, when they have enough cash from two solid ones, they don't catch you by not wearing your seat belt. And when is it not enough? Yes, the name on the label is not a legal document. Ah, I didn't know! and I didn't agree with it myself! Or maybe just take a look at posts # 317 and # 321? Do you know all the possible reasons for the arrest of Russian entomologists abroad? Not all of them, I suppose. Do you know this method: after finding out who is the source of the material that someone wants to keep or establish their monopoly on, this person can (believe me, without any expertise, believing in your last name) simply track your intended departure and warn customs and local environmental or simply law enforcement agencies through one channel or another, and the competitor will be tied up red-handed as cute? According to the laws of other countries, even without contraband, just an illegal fee can last for a long time. And there are a lot of other ways of non-economic competition that end in a very standard way. We are not living in the time of Linnaeus!!! Go ahead and sign up. And then, as suggested here, throw the caps of your friendly protests at foreign policemen. They need either protected law and order, or compensation. And now - do you have any guarantees or at least information from the Lord God, from what day in the Russian Federation will they start to act similarly with their own, and until what day can you safely count on raseysky law enforcement razdolbaystvo? It's been a long time - it doesn't mean that it will always be. Protests only very rarely win in this case, but even then only externally, the pitfalls of settling the issue are simply not visible to you. Even in our own country( and this is still not abroad), we cannot completely eliminate the phrase "protection against unauthorized collection" from the Red Book (and this is still not the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the Prosecutor's Office), or simply from species that are completely ridiculous to protect... Who seriously believes in collecting signatures, and why didn't they hold such a collection a long time ago for the complete abolition of punitive sanctions against entomological hunting and collecting? That's right - because the realist himself somehow understands that it's one thing to bend fingers on the forum, and reality is another, and, as Vysotsky would say, "he couldn't do anything against the police," especially if the latter is supported, alas, by many professional entomologists. But, I repeat, the legal consideration was only one of a whole series (it did not take even one percent of what was said earlier!), there were also more important considerations, everything was already said, and who needs it - they read it (as they could). So it's not "everest of' arguments 'come up on this subjective feeling" at all, it's not true. You'd have to be blind to think that extra-scientific considerations could have been the main thing for me. Thank you, of course, for Everest, but save the quotation marks around the arguments and subjective feelings (sic!) for someone else. You still need to be able to prove such quotation marks, and not put them just out of a subjective feeling .

Thank you for your message and generally for entering the topic.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/16/2009 07: 05

Dear Elez, when discussing this question, do not go into philosophy. As a final convincing argument about the need for surnames of the collector on labels, I can whisper to you in confidence that all those famous collectors who, as you mentioned, do not care about our forum, always write their last name on the labels of the material they personally collected. Even in the face of the horror of retribution to come. That's why they are called new species by their surnames. And the degree of trust in the material of the famous collector in connection with the indicated name on the label is much higher. Whether these pathetic arguments of mine are pluses, or still arguments, you can decide for yourself.

Yes, maybe not in the subject, maybe someone will not like it, but I will still speak out.
Uv. A. Y. Elez, I am grateful to you for pointing out a point in the area of the Setun River floodplain. I just needed to know for my soul's sake - where, not far from my native home, ausonia flies (or used to fly). And everything.
Not the fact that I will go there to catch it. Maybe 7 years ago I would have been caught, but now my interests are not the same.
It is only strange to me why you reacted with such negativism at first to the request to indicate in detail the point? Is this a P. apollo population in Moscow?
And it is not clear that this saying:" only now it is not there " gives some childish shade. Like where it was there is no more.
If you are afraid that a crowd of forumchan on the May holidays will comb the wastelands near the river Setun, then you have nothing to fear. A person who has never been there before will not find it so easy to navigate. It will wander among the Ochakov industrial zone or cemeteries. Well, if we want to, we'll find a clearing.
Something else surprises me. The tone that permeates your messages is alarming. I ASSURE you, I wasn't the only one who imagined it. Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm neurotic and it's time to go on vacation to the Pampas, but you seem to say it like this:"I'm so cool, I found ausonium right under my nose, heh-heh, and I won't tell you anyway, beeeee"
It reads like this.
In the volume of messages, no one restricts us yet (I'm afraid that Bolivar will now limit me, offtoplyu, I'm indignant here), but why should we philosophize?
But, thanks anyway.

and now, in order not to leave me completely
offline, the THEME IS AS SIMPLE AS A SONG. FORUMCHANE, DEAR!
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WRITING ENTOMOLOGICAL LABELS, READ PLAVILSHCHIKOV'S OLD LITTLE BOOK "TO THE YOUNG ENTOMOLOGIST"
From that and abstract

Guys, I realized that someone (I didn't calculate who) wrote that the last name on the label is unnecessary. YOU TH WITH OAK COLLAPSED ALL??? WHAT IS THE MOST COMPLETE BIRD???!!! You must write the importer's last name!

more often it is necessary to go to the forum we have probably been discussing this issue for 2 weeks already, we have already washed all the bones of the labels )

Zhuk'y
I'v-voll! (Under the visor to take?)
Who would argue?
Are there still such people left? It's hard to believe.

This post was edited by nucifraga - 02/16/2009 13: 17

By the way, this friend's opinion coincided with mine on the name of the collector, but the main factor, in his opinion, was not even the uselessness of specifying it, except in unique cases with the archives of great entomologists, who did sometimes indicate the place and time very carelessly and approximately. So this is when there was practically no standard of label requirements yet. But today , the situation is not the same: everyone has long been used to specifying the exact place and date, especially those professionals from whom some archive will remain in science, and not just discussions on the forum. But the main thing, my friend believes, is not even this, but simply the danger of such indications of the last name on his own head: in his opinion, if the law-makers who constantly want to eat will tighten the green nuts even more steeply in the future, then the names of collectors will be very useful to law enforcement officers and will be accepted with gratitude. We are not living in the time of Menetriye. There is less use, and more lookout...

Duc this, legalize and will not be afraid that they will take What is not an option to solve the problem?
By the way, as in its own way, "green nut twister", "chain dog mode", etc., etc. I can say that the absence of your last name on the label will not help you much. It is better to keep the collection in a safe house

A. Y. Elez: "I once visited an entomologist in one of the Volga region capitals about fifteen years ago. My uncle avoided talking about dots in his stories (say, according to Apollo, and not only that), but these dots literally shone (briefly and clearly) on its labels. I'm not Johann Weiss and I wouldn't have remembered the numbers, and with a barcode scanner, no one would have allowed me under the glass (by the way, even in museums sometimes glazed boxes are completely sealed), and according to those labels, from the next day I calmly darned my uncle's apollo populations, etc. May God grant him health with his traditionalism! " (post 229) Is this an argument? an argument? Well, how is it without quotation marks? But, frankly and cynically ; but there is hope that not everyone is like that…
And also, for the right quotation marks for "arguments", see at least a couple of Ripper's posts (261, 286: "If someone doesn't do something..." and "about relatives"). I can also add a whole series of" arguments "and" arguments "that are more indicative of wit than profundity (but better than replicating" arguments", I will repeat some rhyme-nito, maybe, memorize). As for "subjective feelings", my agreement with Ripper's assessment of A. Y. Elez's "arguments" changes the status of the assessment, it ceases to be subjective. Otherwise, it turns out that only the corporal is walking "in step".
But this, indeed, is subjective: reading long posts, you involuntarily recall the remark of one of the heroes of the "Caucasian Captive" of the PRA "Sklikhasofskava". In other words, this subjective feeling can be conveyed as a wish to express paucis verbis (for those who write labels in Latin – paucis verbis) .

I take my words (prA "Sklikhasofskava") back. In the sense that there is nothing subjective here either. I just need to count the number of lines signed by A. Y. Elez in this topic and calculate the percentage of the total number of lines belonging to the " pen " of all other participants. But" offhand " can be seen – the percentage will be considerable...

Gentlemen!
It's fun to see how you can team up against someone who has a different opinion from you. I did not take part in the discussion, but I read this topic with great interest and it is a pity that very few people are interested in the initial ideas, the argumentation is not perceived and you have to repeat the same thing several times, and the discussion has sunk to the level of entertainment and discussion of the personality of one of the participants. As for the volume of A. Y. Elez's messages, I can only envy such an ability to correctly, intelligibly and patiently express my thoughts. And, by the way, as it was rightly noted in one of the parallel topics, his messages are always interesting and very informative.
Dear Comrade A. J. Elez, I raise a glass to your health!
Dear forum participants, Let's be more tolerant of each other!

This post was edited by Sungaya - 02/16/2009 22: 50

Yes, maybe not in the subject, maybe someone will not like it, but I will still speak out.
Uv. A. Y. Elez, I am grateful to you for pointing out a point in the area of the Setun River floodplain. I just needed to know for my soul's sake - where, not far from my native home, ausonia flies (or used to fly). And everything.
Not the fact that I will go there to catch it. Maybe 7 years ago I would have been caught, but now my interests are not the same.
It is only strange to me why you reacted with such negativism at first to the request to indicate in detail the point? Is this a P. apollo population in Moscow?
And it is not clear that this saying:" only now it is not there " gives some childish shade. Like where it was there is no more.
If you are afraid that a crowd of forumchan on the May holidays will comb the wastelands near the river Setun, then you have nothing to fear. A person who has never been there before will not find it so easy to navigate. It will wander among the Ochakov industrial zone or cemeteries. Well, if we want to, we'll find a clearing.
Something else surprises me. The tone that permeates your messages is alarming. I ASSURE you, I wasn't the only one who imagined it. Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm neurotic and it's time to go on vacation to the Pampas, but you seem to say it like this:"I'm so cool, I found ausonium right under my nose, heh-heh, and I won't tell you anyway, beeeee"
It reads like this.
In the volume of messages, no one restricts us yet (I'm afraid that Bolivar will now limit me, offtoplyu, I'm indignant here), but why should we philosophize?
But, thanks anyway.

and now, in order not to leave me completely
offline, the THEME IS AS SIMPLE AS A SONG. FORUMCHANE, DEAR!
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WRITING ENTOMOLOGICAL LABELS, READ PLAVILSHCHIKOV'S OLD LITTLE BOOK "TO THE YOUNG ENTOMOLOGIST"
From that and abstract

Sometimes A. Y. Elez can also make a joke. With negativism (and even then with a lot of fun) I was more concerned not with your desire to know the point, but with the fact that it has recently been said as accurately as possible, and the interested person missed it, that's all. I think you've had a lot of fun, too. And about the fact that the discovery was only one day and that the view is no longer there, he warned only - out of his own scrupulousness-for information, so that it would not turn out that he addressed his comrades to the point, praised it and let people down. Just to let you know that I can't promise any Ausonia in this place anymore. That's all, I didn't pursue any other goals and didn't tease anyone. I just explained the situation in principle, taking advantage of the fact that my post 277 was initially skipped by you. If somehow my intonation provoked my colleagues to take offense on this occasion, then I can take the intonation back, although I don't understand why I deserved the offense here. Also to me, the enemy of the people was found...

Plavilshchikov we know, grew up on it. But we don't need to give any examples here: we can simply say that the opinion with which I argued here is supported by almost all the literature on the subject for at least the last century and a quarter, not only for schoolchildren. I have already recommended to my friends K. K. Fasulati's manual on the field study of terrestrial invertebrates. A colleague (Romik, if I'm not mistaken) he addressed us to highly qualified Canadians (who, in any case, consider the name useful for us). In general, this is a passing point of view in the literature. You can't find exactly the opposite one (i.e., my own)there points of view. What are the historical prerequisites (now already historically dead)? I think I have already explained such a common position for literature.

The presence of a classical opinion should be the mainstay of the development of science, and not be used as a brake on this development. Here T. Nucifraga mentioned Lobachevsky; but I wonder if they had said to him: uncle, the question of parallelism is not worth a damn, everything is clear to all of us for a long time, there is an opinion of Euclid (read his poem "To a Young Mathematician"), so calm down, stop your verbiage, etc. - it would be more profitable for the movement of science? Without drawing personal parallels either between myself and Lobachevsky, or between Plavilshchikov and Euclid, I simply consider it fundamentally important to consider any question first of all per se (as a classic would say, "not examples, not digressions, but a thing in itself", although both examples and digressions can be useful) and completely I support the opinion of T. Ripper that a reference to what someone is doing or not doing there is not an argument on the merits of the case, but at best a source study commentary that does not have its own evidentiary force.

It is a pity that, sometimes without noticing the real arguments, colleagues simply start quoting my explanations, comments or individual stories, examples of specific situations, etc. - which are by no means prohibited if the author considers them to explain his point of view or simply deserve the public's interest and wants to present them to its attention. Quote and say-here they are, your arguments. No, colleagues; the arguments were just in the middle of what you quoted, and you quoted not arguments, but comments and other polemical material. Not all speech in a polemic consists of actual arguments. If I quote your texts in this way and criticize everything that is said just by the way, as if it were presented as an argument, I will cease to respect myself.

To T. Bad Den. As soon as we reach legal status together and do not discuss the arrests of our colleagues here and there, we will think about the issue again. But it is unlikely that all amateurs will be happy with the alternative - either become legal (although there is still a question of what is meant by this), or sushi paddles. If only legal fishing remains, and illegal (according to current standards, illegal) fishing will not be, all local talk about bursa will sink into oblivion, along with 95 percent of even the limited material that is currently in circulation among collectors. I'll see if my fellow forum members will be happy. I have already expressed the opinion (though in another topic) that empirically studying the world of insects without the help of a whole army of those who do not have the slightest reason for "legalization" means slowing down the development of science. And with this on the forum, in my opinion, everyone agrees. Our findings are used on odd days even by those who, on even days, compose against us (not against numismatists or philatelists) a list of fines for corydon da meleager in the Moscow region.

In general, I would like to understand what kind of thing it is-a legalized poacher. I say exactly "poacher", because you can be a legitimate hunter for moose or bear (by paying for a license), for apollo, for swallowtail and in general for insects in the middle zone, you can only be a poacher, a license for catching for money has not yet been thought of to sell. There remains an institutional form of legalization: either you need to be a professional (and science will never keep them as much as it takes to study entomofauna, and many of us already have other professions), or join societies, detachments, squads, etc., which are also not rubber. If everyone who wants to catch and study insects can be legalized, you can write off the Red Books and the entire green movement and mass-produce even old children's butterfly nets. Who will allow this? So again, as the Scripture says, we will have to separate the sheep from the goats, and we will all be equal, but still someone will be even more equal than the rest. It turns out that without registration and not under the control of the top, you can collect bottle labels, you can get involved in history, literature, astronomy, but entomology is impossible. After all, entomology without field training is a fiction. The situation, in my opinion, is very offensive, especially in connection with the considerable amount of ingratitude of proscribing professionals in relation to entomological amateurism as such. True, of those who have not yet been directly affected, few people see the problem beyond the reach of their own nose; in Russia, from time immemorial, they were not baptized in advance. Of course, someone who is already in the system today, so to speak, is not afraid of a fried rooster that bothers an amateur; therefore, the advice "get legal" shows only detachment from our real situation. It was impossible to understand the peasants to the tsar, who responded to the phrase " Yes, they have no bread!"I was genuinely surprised and said,' What's the big deal? Let them eat cakes..."

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/17/2009 03: 26

As a final convincing argument about the need for surnames of the collector on labels, I can whisper to you in confidence that all those famous collectors who, as you mentioned, do not care about our forum, always write their last name on the labels of the material they personally collected. Even in the face of the horror of retribution to come. That's why they are called new species by their surnames. And the degree of trust in the material of the famous collector in connection with the indicated name on the label is much higher. Whether these pathetic arguments of mine are pluses, or still arguments, you can decide for yourself.

If you serve it as arguments, then, of course, arguments. But to what extent they are correct is another question.

Those collectors that I had in mind (and there are quite a lot of them not only in the Russian Federation) are not famous at all. The famous ones are the ones that you know and that everyone who meets you and crosses you can know in general. But the people I'm talking about are a completely different kind of people, and they don't want to be known as collectors (in situations that are sometimes close to combat, as they say), on the contrary: they don't enjoy being seen by the general public at times, preferring that their work should be known only by the general public. the one who needs to know, and even then-not all of it, but only each in his own part. But this is not the fault of these people, but the fault of the situation that forces any more or less productive collector who does not have an official "roof", but has competitors, to avoid advertising their fees for more than one thousandth (these are the cases when their name is called a species; but, believe me, it would be imprudent to conclude from this naming of new species that the person who proposed the new species to science at the same time threw out to the people all the background information about their fees in general). Keep your pocket wider. These are not children. Yes, there are those that you speak of, but I also know those that I speak of. Yes, these latter are a minority, and most independent entomologists really ignore the "horror of future retribution", I know this very well myself. But I adhere to the point of view of T. Ripper - if someone does or does not do something, this does not mean that the method is correct or incorrect, and even more so does not represent a "final convincing argument". Yes, you are in the majority on this issue, but I am not. There should be a majority of supporters of your point of view. Not for the foreseeable future, anyway. If I had expected otherwise, I would not have spent any gunpowder here, but would have left this matter to the own scientific evolution of my colleagues in the forum. You are right, of course, in the sense that to a certain extent we all ignore "retribution", including myself - because of the nature of my entomological studies-but it just seems completely superfluous for someone to tease geese for completely unnecessary reasons (since even apologists have not proved the need).. All the more so ("I can tell you in confidence") that I don't consider myself famous. And I can only envy anyone who even now imagines that they are completely insured by their own celebrity-and not, on the contrary, by the fact that lightning simply does not strike a hazel tree...

As for the fact that the degree of trust in the material of the famous collector is higher, this has already been stated and refuted by me several times, including by real examples from the history of science. This, in my opinion, was also noticed by colleagues who disagree with me on the main point. Therefore, it hardly makes sense to repeat almost verbatim, like an incantation, our own already refuted propositions: if objections and counterexamples have already been received, we must either say that these examples are lies, my idle invention, or show that in reality, in the cases I have cited, more respect was shown for the famous collectors (and not for the famous collectors). As I have shown, a complete disregard for when it is true and when it is not), i.e., that these examples do not refute, but confirm what you have said. In short, do not leave the objections of your opponents without a reasoned answer: this is more difficult than simply repeating your opinion once again.

To T. Sungaya. I'll drink to your health, too, without fail. It would not be a bad idea to repeat this task at the same table before the season is over. Approach it practically. I also need to show you some new literature (a lot of awesome receipts; the rest of us have already watched it, but you still haven't seen it). And to drink, by the way, to the health of those who are not too lazy to discuss issues that are not indifferent to me. After all, even half of the thoughts I have expressed here would not have been formed if it were not for the objections of colleagues. Criticism only polishes the position, clearing it of rough edges, and you learn a lot of important things. But, let them not be offended, I will drink generically, health does not allow for each separately...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/17/2009 09: 34

I can tell you that not having your name on the label won't help you much.

Otherwise, even being careful when crossing the street may not help. But it's better not to deliberately throw yourself under the wheels. Well, unless you want to put your name on a granite label as soon as possible...

It's better to keep the collection in a safe house

I don't have this option yet. And I don't think it's urgent because even in the current law there are no punitive sanctions for storage. But I am grateful for your understanding of the problem and I am glad that you are already approaching the issue seriously, maybe even tragically at first. But everything is already a step forward, everything is better than holy naivety. God grant that your example is followed by other colleagues, except for the benefit, no one will get anything from this.
!!!

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/17/2009 04: 32

I was once again convinced that butterfly collectors are schizos and psychos (persecution mania!) Gentlemen, collect flies or quail, and you will be happy!

Dear T.Elez, unfortunately, you are very difficult to quote, but I will try:

And it depends on where to write it-in a dimensionless letter to a colleague who will read it in five minutes, or on a small label designed for centuries. Truth is always concrete. So if you think you've been caught and not caught, have a good day. As I understand it, you wanted to be witty, so what prevented you from doing so? After all, what you said doesn't apply to me at all. How many times have I talked about the usefulness of GPS? Where did you find my negative attitude to GPS data? If I hadn't seen your productive participation in the controversy, I would have thought from this message that you were suddenly woken up by the noise of someone else's struggle and were sleepily directing your criticism in the wrong direction. The controversy was about labels, not the great role of GPS. That's "what the argument was about." So I did not write these numbers on any labels! And I assume that you fully believe this: firstly, you already know my methodology in this regard; secondly, we are talking about an extinct population, and it is unlikely that anyone will be able to mark Ausonia at the same point in the foreseeable future.

Just for the sake of helping T. Morozzz (and M. B. - so that you happily take the bait, thinking that your uncle is crazy and after everything he said, suddenly decided to give himself into your hands) I gave the following information: <skiped>

I can assure you that I did not experience any particular joy and did not take the bait, this, sorry, is your speculation And our dispute was reduced only to the sufficiency of specifying coordinates instead of the generally accepted verbal information about the location of the capture. I just found your example very interesting. The reason is a big city with a little-known place. I imagined what and how to write in the label so that an outsider could find this place. And he gave an example of how in this case only geocoordinates are enough. Obviously, less space is needed. In general, I remain of the opinion that specifying coordinates is more economical, more accurate, and allows you to forget about the grimaces of toponymy and its changes. I don't impose my opinion on anyone, here we just discussed points of view.
For the second part of your message, I will answer later, with your permission. There just isn't enough time right now.

I was once again convinced that butterfly collectors are schizos and psychos (persecution mania!) Gentlemen, collect flies or quail, and you will be happy!

Keep your cool, or you'll be slandering my colleagues, my dear. None of them seriously think about harassment (as, for example, in gorbushki until very recently, they did not particularly worry about selling counterfeit goods). On the contrary, everyone is an optimist. I'm not quite the only one (and even then within the framework of G. E. Zheglov's advice: don't wake up the famously while it's quiet). So what kind of mania, and the persecution mania of colleagues is definitely not. Where is it, if they consider it mandatory to openly indicate their own name on the label as very important information for science about a specimen (sic!) caught by a celebrity (possibly a future one). I argued for a different point of view, but not because of the presence of delusions of persecution, but simply because of the lack of megalomania. We are just discussing the methodology and the situation in connection with it; some people think the situation is one, others another, but those who are interested in this topic are not yet caught, regardless of their position. So we are far from delusions of persecution. And on the" flies or quails " I personally act on the route more often not with a net, but with a repellent: here, perhaps, the persecution mania can be seen...

By the way: if you still have a bunch of bumblebees stuck in the Red Book among your webs, I advise you to dry the crackers first, and we, the butterfly people, will still have time to come to you with a message ...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/18/2009 17: 58

I think Proctos is a joke
in terms of the fact that butterflies are very popular and many withhold data. Very few people deal with flies, eardrums, there is no competition, on the contrary-the desire to learn and share much more

I think Proctos is a joke
in terms of the fact that butterflies are very popular and many withhold data. Very few people are engaged in flies, eardrums, there is no competition, on the contrary-the desire to learn and share much more

Fellow Ripper! Many thanks for the clarification! Or did we all lose our sense of humor during the discussion?..

Friends, enough about the poor entomologists detained for the barbaric extermination of Red Book insect species! Examples of colleagues detained in foreign countries are not covered here, this is from a slightly different topic. Does anyone know a reliable fact of bringing to administrative (not to mention criminal) responsibility at least one person for the capture of apollo, swallowtail, deer beetle and so on in Russia? Yes, there are articles in the Administrative Code and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that can theoretically lead to such liability. But they don't work yet. And no need to croak ahead of time, click on your head trouble! Go like everyone else, on the bumps (this is a joke, if you are interested in someone-I will write it off, it is short, though blasphemous). It seems that some were burned by milk and blow on the water, others are just the same saltykovskie p and skari the wise! You see, they do not write the name of the collector in the labels for conspiracy purposes, they are our stirlitz! This is no longer foresight, it is a diagnosis... I'm very sorry if it was a little harsh. But I just don't have the strength to keep silent anymore.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 02/18/2009 18: 24

Send me a joke in PM please

Friends, enough about the poor entomologists detained for the barbaric extermination of Red Book insect species! Examples of colleagues detained in foreign countries are not covered here, this is from a slightly different topic. Does anyone know a reliable fact of bringing to administrative (not to mention criminal) responsibility at least one person for the capture of apollo, swallowtail, deer beetle and so on in Russia? Yes, there are articles in the Administrative Code and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that can theoretically lead to such liability. But they don't work yet. And no need to croak ahead of time, click on your head trouble! Go like everyone else, on the bumps (this is a joke, if you are interested in someone-I will write it off, it is short, though blasphemous). It seems that some were burned by milk and blow on the water, others are just the same saltykovskie p and skari the wise! You see, they do not write the name of the collector in the labels for conspiracy purposes, they are our stirlitz! This is no longer foresight, it is a diagnosis... I'm very sorry if it was a little harsh. But I just don't have the strength to keep silent anymore.

The tone is not harsh, but normal. Otherwise, they would have already found fault with my tone, but no - this time they even ask for more salt in the personal account. But if you don't write me the promised joke in a personal account, you will offend me. I suspect that you will have a lot of orders today...

But in essence, the positions were distributed somewhat sharply. There were no such people here yet, who "for the purpose of conspiracy". On the contrary, the self-advertising approach prevails. In general, it seems that I am the only one who opposes the obligatory name on the label (of course, from among the participants in the local discussion). But, if you have noticed, I did not specifically attach myself to the police issue (it was others who brought the conversation to this steppe), I considered this moment casually from the very beginning, as very secondary, and the main thing was connected with my doubts about the great scientific expediency of referring to my own surname (and not, of course, with the fact that the same prokom, to Pushkin), when you know perfectly well for yourself that you will not be able to provide any other data beyond what is already indicated on the label during your lifetime or in posthumous archives, even if you crack. I have never set up the" goals " of conspiracy, I just can't understand the goals of any other course of action. And we've already discussed this, I don't think I'll learn anything new. The police topic flashed through my mind only for the sake of a comprehensive consideration of the problem. And in general, between the extremes, between the Shchedrin minnow and Stirlitz mentioned by you - and Gogol's Pyotr Ivanovich Bobchinsky, who dreamed that the tsar himself would know about its existence - intermediate positions are also possible. And none of them, as our regular participant T. Ripper said, need to be brought to the point of absurdity. After all, I don't write you down in Stirlitz, that you didn't directly post the joke here, although in the Russian Federation so far no entomologist has been arrested for any anecdote...

About examples about foreign countries. Why "don't roll"? Once upon a time, there were no problems there either. Once upon a time, there was no concept of poaching at all. Then it appeared. Once upon a time, gold was washed in teapots, now it's a cap. And in the days of the gold rush, no one would have believed in the possibility of the current situation. And people caught insects where they wanted, exchanged as they wanted just by mail. But all this was just so far, for the time being. If Tsvetaev (I won't say Krulikovsky) had been told what would happen today in the world with the attitude of the law to amateur fishing, he would not have believed it, he would have accused him of minnow fishing. Now there are problems abroad. So why are these examples "not rolling" in our country today? Because again it hasn't touched us "yet"? The story doesn't end with today. And the global trend in this aspect is quite obvious to you. And the fact that we are a little behind, so this is not the first time for us, we will catch up and overtake... I personally do not perceive the current situation, even in relation to those who catch "there", as tragic, do not simplify. But, I'm sorry, I can think about today's situation and what tomorrow's situation will be like. Today's problem is not yet a disease or a diagnosis, but already a symptom, and then-sapienti sat. So - think sharply, in extreme categories. Between" croaking " and burying your head in the sand (for the time being), there are also sober intermediate positions. And these positions, as T. Ripper teaches, do not need to be brought to the point of absurdity.

Regarding whether cases are known in Russia. Russia, as I have already admitted, is not yet a country that has such cases. Our cases are different: drive the loot and get lost with your bedbugs. And I know plenty of such cases, from the city (!) From Moscow to very remote areas, and with at least three (!) state services, which should not be named here. So the articles work very well, they just work in Russian in Russia. So far we have so. While. But once there were no problems anywhere at all; trouble (the exact term is only in the personal account in exchange for material) always creeps up unnoticed. Once upon a time, and abroad, someone was caught very first; who among us is tempted by the prospect of such a championship? Smart people learn from other people's mistakes. We have the same attitude to our holy cause, so why the hell would you reproach someone with more caution than you do? Our job is to offer a position - your job is to accept it or reject it. Just don't push it to the point of absurdity...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/18/2009 19: 28

Dmitrich:
send me a joke please, in this topic

Dmitrich:
please send me a joke on this topic

Five points.

Dmitrich:
please send me a joke on this topic

Yes, please! I hope Bolivar will forgive me.
Jesus Christ is walking with his apostles on the sea, like on dry land. And only the Apostle Paul will step-and knee-deep! One more step - and up to the waist! Still - and on a neck under water goes! Jesus turns to him and says: "Pasha, don't get cold feet, go like everyone else, on the bumps..."

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 19.02.2009 11: 54

After all, I don't write you down in Stirlitz, that you didn't directly post the joke here, although in the Russian Federation so far no entomologist has been arrested for any anecdote...

Phew, I still read your post to the end, dear A. Y. Elez! Mastered it. I won't argue - I don't want to provoke you to further multiply the pages in this topic. You've worked hard enough on this already. Although, believe me, there is something to say. First of all, because I work in one of the law enforcement agencies myself, and I know the situation from the inside. And as for the joke... It seemed to me that everyone understood that I did not write it right away only in order to comply with the established rules of behavior on the forum. Off-topic conversation, flood, if you know, is not welcome. Refusal to indicate the name of the collector in the label, including in order not to leave evidence to the "men in black" who are going to arrest the poor entomologist (do not deny it, you have raised this issue, you), and the fact that I did not post an anecdote in the topic, not knowing whether it is necessary to other participants, saving space on the "page" and the time of participants who may read my message - you will agree, these are two big differences, as they say in Odessa.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 02/18/2009 22: 07

Phew, I still read your post to the end, dear A. Y. Elez! Mastered it. I won't argue - I don't want to provoke you to further multiply the pages in this topic. You've worked hard enough on this already. Although, believe me, there is something to say. First of all, because I work in one of the law enforcement agencies myself, and I know the situation from the inside. And as for the joke... It seemed to me that everyone understood that I did not write it right away only in order to comply with the established rules of behavior on the forum. Off-topic conversation, flood, if you know, is not welcome. Refusal to indicate the name of the collector in the label, including in order not to leave evidence to the "men in black" who come to arrest the poor entomologist (do not deny it, you have raised this issue, you), and the fact that I did not post an anecdote in the topic, not knowing whether it is necessary to other participants, saving space on the "page" and the time of participants who may read my message - you will agree, these are two big differences, as they say in Odessa.

I was just joking about the joke. I understand the difference between the forum's rules and state laws (including environmental laws) myself. True, I never considered the latter less dumb. But if everyone in the law enforcement agencies is as loyal and unselfish as you are, I will willingly remove the entire police part of the discussion (especially since, as you have noticed, the problem is quite clear to me even without this aspect) and rejoice with everyone. Of course, I hardly know these structures from the inside.

I know from the outside. Oh, I'll tell you what a happy man you seem to be... And I repeat, I am not worried about the fact that my uncles will be tied up (this, God willing, will remain hyperbole to the detriment of opponents in the coming years), but about the fact that uncles of any department want to eat. There were plenty of cases to make sure of this, both for me personally and for others. For example, one of my friends just poked, for prevention (and suddenly on what so hooked) was searched at the metro station by state-owned guys, found collections of butterflies and beetles (already in boxes, on pins) in a travel bag and escorted the lucky person to the nearest point.

They don't care about the fauna and the Red Data Book (as well as in most cases, whether Petrov or Sidorov will die from an unfastened belt). But they do not care about the amount of money in their own pockets. And they've heard that it's forbidden to catch any butterflies, and that's enough. Well, is it their families ' fault that their fathers didn't get caught with drugs today? So, they just told him that they would take away all these bedbugs and let him butt heads with them as he wanted (and there were proserpines, by the way, and some other equally interesting and valuable things that took a lot of work and that you can't always catch). And he had no guarantee that the expert examination would be done by the good Dmitrich, rather, he could assume that the indefatigable E. M. Antonova would receive this case for examination, and she would not lie under oath about the Red Book view for the sake of protecting the teapot, that it was not Red book. Even if he could then somehow wince out the butterflies, they would come back to him from some Sergeant Dubinin in such a state that it would be better not to take them at all. This is not the coolest example (in terms of the amount of compensation, by the way, too) that I have in my memory. Do you think that if there were no such laws, butterflies could become a breeding ground for extortion and threats? I think it is unlikely: when such norms did not exist, and such a case would have been unthinkable. Can our guardian today take away from you, say, a brochure about growing cucumbers and demand money, threatening to expose you for this brochure? No, because there are no restrictions on such brochures. I'd have to look for something else. In the absence of a triangular bag, butterflies will go with the plan, and in a hungry year - and an unfastened belt (we've already been through this here, outside), to such an extent, the children are literate.

The fact is that there is a legal framework that allows you to be a big claim to an amateur entomologist. And the starting depth of digging (when - from a serious piece of evidence, and when-from a dozen or a hundred or two labels for one name) is historically mobile. The fact that today I am in correspondence with you from the outside (as you are with me), I noticed myself, so of course, there is no need to exaggerate the difficulties either. But we'll wait and see. We seem to be about the same age, so remember what happened about forty years ago in our business. Solid ground under your feet, and also who would have thought that not forever. Now, as you can see for yourself, judging by your very relevant anecdote, the sea is already all around, and there is really only hope for the hummocks that have survived under the water. So calculate your future prospects yourself.

The whip cannot be known from the inside at all, it can only be known from the outside. To say that you know the whip from the inside out is to admit that you don't know it at all. But the back of it is recognized well. And just as I don't question your knowledge of the situation from the inside, just take my word for it that I have quite a few sad situations in my memory, including those here. Guess three times whether their total number will grow over time or will decrease . Yes, labels have not yet played a direct role in such cases, it was enough that they were simply taken red-handed (except in cases where competitors were neutralized ahead of time with the help of law enforcement agencies, but this applies to foreign countries, including the so-called near ones; I have already mentioned this). While. As for the question itself being raised here, after my first mention of it, the subsequent ones were caused more by the plentiful objections of colleagues, who also wanted to disagree here and who somewhat outnumbered me, which required lengthy answers so as not to offend anyone by evading the discussion of objections. But even then, I made the main post (No. 321) on this issue simply from quotes from colleagues, without adding a single word from myself.


I have worked in universities for years and know the "inside situation" there, but when people talk outside about moral corruption and self-interest in the university system, tell me how and where and from whom and who extorted a bribe, I do not dispute this as an internal witness of the system as a whole (but a witness in another university and with other people!), and I say: alas, there may not be a majority of people like me there anymore... Let's be realistic.

All the best!

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 19.02.2009 00: 10

  

I have worked in universities for years and know the "inside situation" there, but when people talk outside about moral corruption and self-interest in the university system, tell me how and where and from whom and who extorted a bribe, I do not dispute this as an internal witness of the system as a whole (but a witness in another university and with other people!), and I say: alas, there may not be a majority of people like me there anymore... Let's be realistic.

All the best!

I have been working at the university for the last ten years, and in a position that, judging by numerous press reports, is most conducive to bribery, and I can confidently refute your assumptions about the growth of corruption. The number of bribe takers, at least in my particular university, is infinitely small compared to honest teachers. Often, problems are created artificially, and they are presented in such a way that you start to believe if you don't know the whole story from the inside. And you probably didn't have any luck with the universities where you worked

This post was edited by sdi-19.02.2009 09: 24

I have been working at the university for the last ten years, and in a position that, judging by numerous press reports, is most conducive to bribery, and I can confidently refute your assumptions about the growth of corruption. The number of bribe takers, at least in my particular university, is infinitely small compared to honest teachers. Often, problems are created artificially, and they are presented in such a way that you start to believe if you don't know the whole story from the inside. And you probably didn't have any luck with the universities where you worked

In my opinion, an objection for the sake of an objection. Moreover, it inflates one of the private issues into the rank of an independent extraneous topic even more than before. But if there is time and the moderator can handle two people (both you and Dmitrich), then I will answer as well.

In this regard, if - so when lucky, when not. There are different types of universities, different traditions, and different levels and values. Of course, the country's largest universities, especially the central ones, are still almost normal. I worked at Moscow State University, and I can hardly say a bad word about him in this area, at least at the end of the 1990s. True, the children of the bratkovs were not trained close by either. So after all, the media never reported this about the place where I worked. But, in addition to such islands, there are many universities that exist mainly not for giving knowledge, but actually for issuing diplomas. So again, knowing the situation from the inside (but from another university, another city, or even other times) does not determine anything. So far, I have seen this situation from the inside, and in other places it has not been the same as today. It changes from year to year for the worse at a time when I personally am no longer "inside", I have been working in an academic institution for a long time. So it's better to listen to your friends who are studying themselves or whose children are studying. Let's not portray them as girls who also fell from the moon. Are you trying to make me prove to you that two times two makes four, too? I categorically refuse to believe that in a number of universities, information from my friends about extortion is constantly coming to me just because, you see, I am not lucky, that I am the only one who attracts such information, and the rest receive radically different information. And my friends who do not have such experience (their own or children's), such information from some third parties visits from time to time because they were infected with bad luck from me. And in the evenings, I find out something like this on the news, probably just because I personally was unlucky with the news broadcast, and this is not a bad situation. There are no such coincidences, colleague. Don't make people laugh. News broadcasts, especially official ones, about such things (not only in relation to universities) are by definition only the tip of the iceberg. The whole country is "unlucky" like me, and there are only a few people who have formed the opposite impression (either out of interest or complete blindness), so think about it and let your colleagues think about it, where does your exceptional informative luck come from when "bad luck" (and, accordingly, very depressing impression of the situation) became the norm a long time ago. You might think that we live in a society where conscience rules, not money. I'm not smearing everyone with the same paint (God forbid you should understand me this way: for example, your university is, as you say, normal) and I'm not saying that there are definitely fewer honest employees today, I'm just talking about the prevailing statistical trend.

Yes, and it would be a miracle if it were otherwise. Or are you "out of luck" with arithmetic? If an associate professor with a salary of 300 or at least 240 rubles pays 5 kopecks for travel by bus, trolleybus, tram or metro, and without having to run around in advance in search of kiosks that are not everywhere, but by buying a ticket directly from the driver, how much of his salary goes for one trip? From 300 rubles, this is a six-thousandth part. Now, when the bus fare costs 25 rubles (directly on the bus), multiply this by 6000, and you get a figure of 150 thousand rubles. Think about the same thing in terms of paying for housing and other primary things, remember that no associate professor can eat enough of the Holy spirit, and tell me if today the decent person seems to be an alien, whom both you and I are sometimes lucky to meet in real life? Alas, more and more alien, as, by the way, we are with you and with Dmitrich'em, judging by our equally negative attitude to usury. You can, of course, dilute the forum on the topic of working hours, but I warn you - I do not advise, because in this way we will begin to compare no longer situations with other equal conditions. After all, even at that time, I did not talk about income for possible publications of fee-based books and articles (when, by the way, the fee of an unscheduled publication was considered the norm, not the exception, and spending your own money on publishing was generally unthinkable). Not to mention the fact that before the Soviet Union closed, I went on five or six business trips in one calendar year: twice to the Far East (including Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk, and Vladivostok), twice to Tajikistan; I also visited Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and somewhere in the RSFSR. Think about the current need for money for at least half of these trips a year; and today our budget does not pay for business trips, and the left-wing consolation forms of payment affect a tiny proportion of employees.

So, in its purest form, living conditions in the university sphere (and in many others) do not change in such a way that it encourages honesty. It is enough to see this, and the degree of luck of the information I have or you have here does not decide anything. Again, the sapienti sat.

And I really ask you, friends, not to let out steam from dissatisfaction with my position on labels in foreign valves. All of you are doing great, but why break the stools?.. It's probably my own fault: I don't even need to give obvious examples if they don't relate to labels quite directly and may allow someone, due to weakness in the main issue, to dilute me to something else. But who would have thought.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/20/2009 01: 23

Returning to the topic, I attach the label - the same example with the description of the Kuntsevo point.

Double lines separate labels because single lines make it difficult to cut paper accurately, and because the dividing line is very thin, each label has a frame with gaps. And so-it's easier, you cut between the black lines, and each label as a result is limited to a stable frame and looks normal. Everything is in word. The size is 18x8 mm, I use it on the recommendation of the manual by K. K. Fasulati.

By the way, Fasulati, unlike more popular authors, specifically indicates among the requirements for the label that it is not superfluous to remind once again: the label should not be encrypted (see p.159 of the book). When applied to the main label, I personally understand this in the sense that it should not contain information that would still have to be translated using any external sources (archives, programs, etc.) to restore toponymic or calendar information at the time of collection (namely, the information at the time of collection of the label should be translated from the source). give). Of course, it is sometimes necessary to switch to the updated toponymy later, since when drawing up a label, it is impossible to insure against changes in the toponymy in the future (of course, if you do not violate - under the flag of the struggle for brevity, eternity, etc. - the requirement that toponymy should not be encrypted!).

The red crosshair shows the point of insertion of the pin (this may not be quite in the center, but slightly higher or even better slightly below the center (just not sideways), if you risk getting into the signs in the center.

The frame is created without much difficulty, but if anyone needs it, I can personally throw a file of the finished grid under such labels.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 19.02.2009 17: 15

Pictures:

etik3.jpg — (19.45к)

Behind this irresistible verbosity, one could, of course, expect verbosity about...and about..., and even about... (and about bribes to university teachers, including) The sense of proportion of a verbose author clearly changes. And "shorter" and "Sklikhasovsky", it's all "morning dew". But, after all, this is a forum, and not a single tribune. If you separate the wheat from the chaff, then all the author's considerations fit into two lines: do not write names on labels ("rake in"), do not use technical achievements in the description of the gathering place (we will do the old-fashioned way). The "arguments", however, were weighed on the forum's scales, and the weight turned out to be small.
It is interesting, of course, why there is such verbosity in the topic of labels?
I think there may be several explanations. First, elementary graphomania. Second, the legacy of the "old regime" in the form of Marxist scholasticism (in which there are mountains of verbal husks, figs you will understand what; hooch textbook on "scientific communism" take, hooch-on "isthmus", "scientific atheism" and something else-nito pseudo-scientific). Third, he served as a comrade. at the university, I read lectures, left the university, there was no one to" sell " (students suffered), and then ... the forum ... Eh! Razzudis hand! – almost 2 thousand lines (not including quotes). This isn't a cat sneezing! This volume is more than a brochure, a small book already. But the Higher Attestation Commission will not appreciate it , they respect conciseness there...

In general, everything ended in zilch. So much more empty talk, and in the end not a complete label. As the heroine of one cartoon said: "the crossroads of Cybernetics and Soldier Voskoboynikov."

In general, everything ended in zilch. So much more empty talk, and in the end not a complete label. As the heroine of one cartoon said: "the crossroads of Cybernetics and Soldier Voskoboynikov."

But at least we know now which style doesn't seem offensive to you and doesn't cause you any complaints. Congratulations on your good company. I was wondering whose squeamish foot would be the first to enter this room after leaving post 431. And I was not mistaken in my assumptions, although I had a lot of opponents. But-thank you for clearing the way with your chest. Otherwise, I can't imagine how any of us would have raised the hand to leave at least one more message in this topic.

And I suggested that label just as an example and as a layout of the main label, so that people do not specifically make a table, do not prescribe the type and thickness of borders, do not set the size, alignment and margins of cells. You can insert data there at your own discretion, didn't you guess? And don't worry about my own labels. The one who needed it, and based on this data, as we have seen, perfectly found that meadow on the map, and with more than sufficient speed and accuracy.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 19.02.2009 21: 51

By the way, about the meadow. Completely forgot behind all this, for T. Morozzz (maybe needed): exactly on the same point once was marked (not caught) flocciferus, year so in 2000 or 2001. To the south of the crake meadow, at the very end of the last century, the golubyanka betulae was noted, and to the west, at the bridge over the river. Setun, - w-album. Argiades throughout the meadow in recent years gives three generations (the third is mass, respectively, the first is very small), but except for 2008. Of course, I don't report anything less interesting.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 19.02.2009 21: 38

Redirecting the remark, I will say in the words of Lukianovsky Prometheus: "A. Y.Elez, you're angry, so you're wrong."…
Judging by the sample (post 191-428), there are 30 participants (A. Y.Elez is calculated separately; I can argue for this method). Below (in the source data, they are arranged in the order of receipt of the first replica) is the number of replicas (in parentheses – the total number of lines, excluding citations) and the average number of lines per replica (s/r). Without A. J. Elez, the data are easily consistent with the "normal Poisson distribution" (you can not even look into Rokitsky, even Kaufman). The values of the same values in nick A. Y. Elez require an explanation. There may be, of course, others. interpretations, but the above came to my mind (post 431). What does "fastidious" limbs have to do with it? This is a fact, not " morning dew." I repeat, neither the number of posts nor the number of lines of a post are regulated, here - only the author's sense of proportion and his Gutenberg (Kant used this concept to explain the "categorical imperative" of modesty).

A. Y.Elez 66 (1786) 27 s / r
Cerega 7 (13) 1.8 s / r
omar 8 (28) 3.5 s / r
Pirx 2 (9) 4.5 s / r
Trofim 3 (20) 6.6 s / r
Guest 10 (55) 5.5 s / r
Anthrenus 6 (47) 7.8 s / r
Shoffer 3 (8) 2.6 s/r
Yakovlev 4 (27) 6.7 s/r
barko 11 (21) 1.9 s/r
Bad Den 5 (11) 2.2 s / r
mikee 17 (163) 9.5 s/r()
Bolivar 1 (2)
Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg 2 (14) 7 s / r
okoem 4 (28) 7 s / r
sdi 3 (20) 6.6 s / r
RippeR 39 (274) 7s / r
Liparus 5 (19) 3.8 s / r
Romik 5 (45) 9 s / r
rpanin 3 (11) 3.6 s / r
Dmitrich 9 (66) 7.3 s/r
Alex 2611 1 (6)
Konung 1 (4)
Kharkovbut 1 (5)
Zhuk 2 (7) 3.5 s / r
Morozzz 4 (46) 11.5 s / r
nucifraga 6 (116) 19.3 s / r
amara 3 (3) 1 s / r
Sungaya 1 (12)
Proctos 1 (2)
I believe the statistics are given. not to the detriment of the author (by the number of lines) are given.

This post was edited by nucifraga - 02/20/2009 14: 06