surely a mistake?

as a keen amateur "naturalist", if i see something occasional, rare or declining (flora, fauna, fungi etc) then i submit a sighting to my local (Glos) WLT website.
theres no point in submitting that ive seen nettles again LOL!

they havent updated their "recent sightings" since last year - which upsets me. surely "publishing" what us wanderers have seen helps records and furthers understanding - so ENCOURAGE people to do it by showing their efforts
personal experience also grabs readers in a fun way that a PhD wont. LOL!

the reporters did the work for nothing and unseeking of reward but a bit of encouragement will draw others in i woulda thought.
which means more data.

worse, if you click on the Glos WLT "recent sightings" and scroll down, youll see someone "recently saw a large smooth snake on a footpath in Cam"
the posting is under "species seen - SMOOTH SNAKE"
date 13 Jul 2010


since (unless im sadly mistaken) this is surely an error, why have the Glos WLT put this up i wonder?

mind you, it would be great to think there are smooth snakes in my home county!


ben

Edited by GemmaJF - 17 May 2011 at 9:08am

Scale wrote: It does my bloody head in. I send in reams of records covering a range of species..... and at great cost to my time.

yeah mate, thats just it.

information shouldnt be ignored and equally, accurate records are important. a WLT ought to know there are no CA in Glos.

i usually send in a pic too. in an effort to show im not talking complete ball locks of course. plus helpful field notes - all eating up more time.
your account was a frustrating revelation to me. i didnt realise the extent of the problem.
thats a right drag for you!

for a laugh, perhaps next time ill tell em ive spotted parthenogenic Archaeopterix courtship during a tropical cyclone in Cirencester Tescos car park, a disorganised shoal of Unicorn larvae in the Forest of Dean Desert or herds of polycephalic and pseudo-erythristic Variegated Lesser AgaricuslousewhaleBambibirdephants on their weekly migration through the geothermal vents of Stroud outdoor swimming pool.



Can someone please check the tuning on the RAUK radio cos i think i (and therefore, we) just lost free speech for a minute.
there was some strange interference to my post................

interesting editing Gemma!
first time ive noticed an edit since i joined. is this a record of any kind? LOL
my impression was that you were targeting the perceived tone of my New Topic Post and/or its content, rather than the wording itself. whether you were pushed by tetchy complainers or acted of your own volition ive no idea. bit surprising if it was my choice of words alone though.

because (and to whoever it may concern)..........


1. the noun i originally used in my title and text is legal.
unlike (as far as im aware) the BIG TWO SWEARWORDS, this has been tested and therefore presumably proven in British Law;
a 9ft x 6ft shop window display of the word in Nottingham city centre during 1977 resulted in a court case.
3 magistrates (2 of them women) ruled that the word "B******KS was "not indecent" and aquitted the shopkeeper - following defence evidence proffered by the Prof of Eng Studies at Notts Uni, the Rev James Kingsley.
the court heard that B******KS has appeared in speech and literature (including Medieval BIBLES and Veterinary works) since at least the year 1000. in Anglo-Saxon times it simply denoted small balls or ball-like structures/objects.
more recently (19c) this moniker has been ascribed to clergymen/their sermonic outbursts and even as an alternative name for Orchids!!
it is NOT a sexual or scatalogical profanity - OFFICIAL!
no need to get uptight!

2. the other word i used and got gagged for (P**s) is simply onomatopoeic (or should i say, onomatopeeic?) and whats more, its a brilliant example of the form. such nomenclature gives our language colour and diversity. why not welcome it?
if anyone finds this word offensive then i strongly suggest that next time you urinate, you stick your index fingers firmly in your ears
lest you affront your own delicate sensibilities.
A WARNING TO MALES; your accuracy may be impaired.

3. ive previously seen the penultimate SWEARWORD on RAUK - unreplaced/unparaphrased.
you know, the one that appproriately rhymes with the sound a broody mother hen makes.
albeit with asterisks replacing the 2nd/3rd letters.
as if THAT hides ANYTHING really!

compared to that my "swearing" was feeble.

personally i woulda thought the unrecognised fieldcraft/data of dedicated fieldworkers and the inn-accccurut recording/publishing of a major conservation body in custody of habitat far more upsetting/disturbing than the usage of a pair of innocuous words.
but there you go, we're all different eh?


what do i know anyway? PRESENTLY, im just a humble postman.
has anybody got a bucket of sand i can stick my head in?


cheers, ben


PS i applaud the (mostly voluntary) efforts of the Wildlife Trust workers and am not trying to "diss" such bodies wholly.
however,they shouldnt be immune from criticism or things wont improve.
people spending their own free time surveying and submitting sightings like me and Scale is ALSO unpaid work - and surely valuable?
we need to know its worthwhile thats all. its worth discussing.

Come on Ben, you should know that you can't post any old sh*t, or bollocks here  

No it doesn't. Feck?

I'm oirish you see.