About tropics, merchants, and personal preferences

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → About tropics, merchants, and personal preferences

Pages: 1 ...11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19... 26

Likes: 1

25.09.2010 18:03, Ekos

Well, that's it, Dragonsbane, you shouldn't be unlocking – rhopalocera.com Dragonsbane is the same thing. To the evidence given above, I add more facts. First, I found a person who was under the nickname rhopalocera.com we have, on two other forums under the nickname Dragonsbane (there is simply no doubt about this – there is data there that allows us to make a clear conclusion that this is the same person). In other words, you really have a lot of experience communicating on forums, as you say. And another interesting fact – on your site rhopalocera.com, namely, on the page http://www.rhopalocera.com/dosang.htm there is a photo of a male polixena from the Saratov region (2010, Cretaceous, Lugovskoe). And, a photo of the same butterfly, but taken from a slightly different angle and photoshopped, is posted by you (i.e. Dragonsbane) on our forum in the topic " podsem. Zerynthiinae "September 22, 2010 with the caption "Saratov Province" (http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=183576&hl=). For comparison, I will attach these photos here. By all the elements of the drawing, the morphology of the butterfly, its pose, the blade of grass and the torn leg lying on the blade of grass (in the photo from our forum it is slightly cropped), it is clear that this is the same specimen. In other words, the picture was taken by one person. And I highly doubt, especially in the presence of other facts about the identity of the two nicknames, that someone has someone splagiatil these photos. And you are not an acarologist at all, which is clearly evident from your posts! So, Stanislav, you shouldn't have trolled people here, it's not pretty. So many coincidences just don't happen! And there is no point in denying it – the evidence firmly says that Dragonsbane is you!!!

This post was edited by Ekos-25.09.2010 18: 14

Pictures:
picture: s_foruma_molbiol.ru.jpg

s_foruma_molbiol.ru.jpg — (68.75к)

s_saita_rhopalocera.com.jpg — (83.82к)

25.09.2010 18:31, Dragonsbane

Well yeah Dragonsbane is me. Ah rhopalocera.com " that's him.
Well, I will cool your ardor a little regarding your "proofs".
In the pictures, one butterfly is torn, the other is not. If it's the same copy , I'm Belmondo. The light on butterflies is completely different - but this is already so, indirectly. As for the severed leg-uh-huh, in the lower photo it is. On the upper XS what is there. Maybe another blade of grass is sticking out. Oh, by the way, there is no Photoshop in my photo. I don't know how to use it. Well, the pose... They have a standard pose like this at rest.

Where else did you find Dragonsbane? Give us the links here. I'll look at the namesakes with interest.

By the way, what makes you think I'm the author of this photo? Did I put the copyright there?

This post was edited by Dragonsbane - 25.09.2010 18: 35

25.09.2010 18:54, А.Й.Элез

To T. okoem. It's clear with the collectors, I didn't formulate it well here; I started with the formula "special (non-service) work for the person who publishes articles". In general, I agree with the main thing, but I will add.
There are sciences and offices where people can spend years doing experimental research, and articles on this will be cooked up by their boss. And then, the difference is painfully superficial: if Ivanov studies entomofauna for years, and then Petrov provides data from his field research, and Petrov traditionally points him out for this as a co-author of the article, Ivanov is an entomologist. If he modestly refuses to co-author, he will receive only a commendation in the text; with the same work, he is no longer an entomologist. I would suggest that we still talk on the merits. Otherwise, we will logically reach the point of measuring the place in science by the volume of articles. Let the academic councils do this during attestations, this is just according to their depth of analysis.
In my opinion, in order to consider yourself in a certain scientific field, it is enough to engage in it - and own it-more or less specifically. Hardly an explanatory dictionary (that's what "formally"means!) on the terms "entomologist", "physicist", chemist", etc. it necessarily provides for the presence of articles; scientific (specifically special, not auxiliary) work - not necessarily literary work in a scientific field. When they say to someone in a polemic: "you are a bad mathematician" or "you are a bad philosopher", this is not the lack of articles at all, but the weakness of knowledge in this field of science and/or poor ability to master it (and there may be articles). What you understand, you can count yourself there boldly (and then you can grade what level you are a chemist, depending on how much you understand).
There is another "formal" usage-this is based on a specialist's diploma (but even this is not due to articles). Few of us were taught physics, chemistry and history by the authors of the articles, but I would consider it unfair to call my biology teacher only a biology teacher (according to the diploma of the pedagogical university), I think it is possible to call her a biologist (a specialist in biology); even if not at the highest level, but still a biologist. A chemist can spend his entire working life purifying our drinking water, and we will drink it and tell him that he is not a chemist, there are no articles. The entomologist will be distributed to the state farm, successfully fight pests for our benefit, and we will say to him: "you are bullshit, not an entomologist, you give us articles, and the damned weevil will not choke on our buryak."
A competent article is a plus for a specialist who would argue. But both in entomology and in other fields, I can name a whole bunch of cases when, putting one scribe and one non-scribe side by side, the question of which of them belongs to science, I will decide (and not I alone, but many more, even with articles) in favor of the second, and I will offer to drive the first out from science precisely because the presence of publications only increases its danger to it and to society. Each of us knows such examples, so it is better to look at the root and avoid too simplified and" formal " definitions, which only pave the way for mediocre people to enter science.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 25.09.2010 19: 02

Likes: 3

25.09.2010 21:49, okoem

In the pictures, one butterfly is torn, the other is not. If it's the same copy , I'm Belmondo. The light on butterflies is completely different - but this is already so, indirectly. As for the severed leg-uh-huh, in the lower photo it is. On the upper XS what is there. Maybe another blade of grass sticks out.
......
Well, the pose... They have a standard pose like this at rest.

You don't have to be a Belmondo to see that the butterfly is the same. In both photos, the butterfly is equally torn (a piece of the wing is torn out - we look more closely), and that the light/color in this case depends on the angle (against the sky - this is one thing, against the background of greenery - another). The pattern on the rear wing is identical.
As for the pose, hmm... IMHO, the pose is just not standard. Polyxena, like many diaries, sits on the blades of grass from above, wings to the sun, opens them completely. The butterfly in the photo is suspended under a blade of grass. This, as well as the severed leg, suggests that it was crushed and hung on a blade of grass artificially.

This post was edited by okoem - 25.09.2010 21: 51

Likes: 2

25.09.2010 22:22, А.Й.Элез

Personally, these details didn't bother me at first. But I can't help but notice that there is definitely no need to combine the wings. The angles of the images vary, and here, apart from crap, in any case, you can't get anything, even if the objects are completely identical.

By the way, both butterflies I personally saw only 5 legs.

In the pictures, the tip of the severed foot (this is everywhere a foot, and not something else) on a blade of grass is in a different position, although the height of the location on the blade of grass, which can be determined in accordance with the location of the butterfly on the blade of grass, the severed foot is in the same place. It is clear that in the image, the point of shooting of which is shifted slightly clockwise (if you look from bottom to top), the tip of the foot is no longer on the background of a blade of grass. And what explains these coincidences and how it determines who is who, let the free pack decide at the grand council. Personally, I still know a good half of the participants only by their pseudonyms, but even I respond very calmly to letters from anonymous people with completely empty profiles in my personal account (with certain questions), only in special cases refusing to transfer information with reference to the anonymity of the correspondent.
P. S. And the mention of the ixodovs ticks, very possibly-indeed, too much conspiracy...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 26.09.2010 19: 34

Likes: 2

25.09.2010 22:29, Dragonsbane

I personally wasn't bothered by these details from the beginning. But I can't help but notice that there is definitely no need to combine the wings. The angles of the images vary, and here, apart from crap, in any case, you can't get anything, even if the objects are completely identical.

By the way, both butterflies I personally saw only 5 legs.

In the pictures, the tip of the severed foot (this is everywhere a foot, and not something else) on a blade of grass is in a different position, although the height of the location on the blade of grass, which can be determined in accordance with the location of the butterfly on the blade of grass, the severed foot is in the same place. It is clear that in the image, the point of shooting of which is shifted slightly clockwise (if you look from bottom to top), the tip of the foot is no longer on the background of a blade of grass. And what explains these coincidences and how it determines who is who, let the free pack decide at the grand council. Personally, I still know a good half of the participants only by their pseudonyms, but even I respond very calmly to letters from anonymous people with completely empty profiles in my personal account (with certain questions), only in special cases refusing to transfer information with reference to the anonymity of the correspondent.
P. S. And the mention of the ixodovs ticks, very possibly-indeed, too much conspiracy...

The rear wings are almost in the same plane. Therefore, the overlay gives a very clear result. And as for the paw... Maybe there was someone else sitting on the side?