I agree with Dr. Gurcharan Singh ji, A practice that has produced results, can not be that wrong. I understand that it is the tendency of specialists to be sticklers to procedures, which is an indication of their devotion to the subject, which is good. However, the more the number of suggestions from as many people who may not be experts but who may be living close to nature. I remember an incident when there was confusion with regards to a particular tree. An observation by me that the tree has some kind of latex oozing out when the bark has been damaged, helped in identifying the tree. The suggestions that subsequent replies should be backed by evidence and explanations is only reasonable. I am sure, all of us would agree with it after a good nights sleep. Regards Yazdy.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Satish Phadke <[email protected]> wrote: > Gurcharan ji > Excellent analysis of behaviour of members. I hope everybody reads this and > behaves accordingly. > The approach of "Don't worry' keeps the group rolling. There might be some > hiccups here and there. > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Dear friends >> Through last few years we have developed a culture on this group, that has >> been found to be most useful. Although there have often been suggestions >> that people should give identification only if 100 sure, but if we follow >> this, only 5 per cent of plants on this group would have been identified. >> Thanks to the broad minded approach of some of our experts like Vijayasankar >> ji, Pankaj ji, Dinesh ji, Prashant ji, Satish ji, Ritesh ji, Tanay, Balkar >> ji and many others, we never hesitate to given a wild guess, if we do not >> know identifications. This sets the ball rolling for more than 90 percent of >> the uploads for identification. In fact the person giving the first reply >> has all privileges, he/she can let imagine run wild to suggest any thing >> near. Once that is done, it prompts many who may think this identification >> to be wrong and come up with a more suitable match, but with limitations >> that he/she has to give reasons for his conclusion and negating the previous >> one. The subsequent replies have to be even more careful and give reasons >> and evidence for their conclusions. This procedure has been found most >> successful in this group, and luckily many on this group are ready to be >> convinced with reason. >> At the same time it sometimes creates confusion when an odd comment >> comes in between without any supportive evidence, but then fortunately our >> group is well equipped to sail through and reach conclusion. But then I >> would request that all subsequent replies should be backed up with some >> evidence that they are able to gather. This helps a lot in reaching >> conclusion. >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Gurcharan Singh >> Retired Associate Professor >> SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 >> Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. >> Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089 >> http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ >> > > > > -- > Dr Satish Phadke >
