ID wanted

[CJ]

I hope you are not implying 'someone' does. The" dark green robust branches"(trout) isn`t a good start??? Or the decriptionof the spines or airioles, that was question as to whether yours was the same.(?)  But You never answered.. Or that a photo an reference wasn`t an honest attempt? But then you didn`t even seem aware there was such a thing as "Kimnach' T.Taquimbalensis.

Also i jus read something that really bothers me... I Don` mind being wrong. Must accept at any rate,reality is. But i do mind being led down a path,unless asked.... very discourteous.

[EA-1306]

No, a color edition of San Pedro has not been made, yet. It may be but would cost $300-400 and may be sold by demand alone.

I am a bit unclear on the T taquimbalensis aspect, I do not own any examples of that species.

Being led down a path might entail deception, however asking for what might allready be known is not deception unless it entails a statement to the effect that the sought after information is unknown. Wants are not needs and though an opinion may be sought after concering a topic, it might not be required. A clarification might entail a test. Not to get too philosophical but perhaps life is very much like being asked a question that the person posing the question already knows the answer to.  

There is no such thing as a wrong guess provided that guess is earnest, honest and genuine.

Here is another photograph of the seedling that began this thread.

[laughingwillow]

Shucks, I've got it now. Took me a few tries to figure this one out.

That there is a T egogenisis...

Thanks for another revealing lesson, EA.

lw

[EA-1306]

Yes LW I named it for you.

It is SS01 X Juuls Giant.
I never said I didn't know what it is.

[CJ]

You know,this is really too bad.EA. I personally would have been more than willing,willing enough anyways, too show respect and interest for what you know. I`m always willing to learn. But the fact you have to resort to deception jus`tells me  the wrong thing about you.This coupled with your incessant citing of Trout`s name every chance you get,and then some, implies to me something devious and insecure. it`s obvoius you know your subjects, I don`t see why it had to be that way....

But simply put sir,you did mislead, and that by omission. You can claim otherwise,but by asking in itself,you implied you did not know the answer. That is a short step away,or  plainly synomonous with lying.Personally, I find it impossible to extend myself to you now. I mean both in the general sense that I greet everyone with some benefiet of doubt, and somebody it seemed particular of note.. Sorry for the harsh words,but I have been taught better now.

[Green2Herman]

I dont get the deception. Could anyone explain.

In life it is also important not to get irritated over small things that on the hole do not matter. If you do get irritated you are the only one that will suffer from it.

[laughingwillow]

Thanks for the civics lesson, green2.

Cj's point is that we both thought we were helping EA to identify a specific plant.  (But now I realize that ID "wanted" and ID "needed" could be construed as different requests.)

The bottom line is that neither of us would have participated in this quest if it was known that EA was simply testing the community to see who knows what rather than seeking our assistance.

Frankly, its a different segment of the community that would gather at the feet of this master or any other with the desire to show us all he/she knows.

lw

[Green2Herman]

Ah

I get that you get a bit angry. Cactii ID is a pain in the ass.

[laughingwillow]

Green2: As english is your second or third language, I'll try to explain...

While ID'ing cactus can be enjoyable, that's not the issue. (Although you do bring up a good point, imo. )  

There is a difference between a person coming to the community with a request for assistance and one creating a thread and encouraging answers that are already known by the author. In most cases, its fairly easily to discern which thread is which type of the above examples. But the thread in question was composed in a way to create the impression of a person seeking assistance when it was really the other. The issue, imo, lies more with subtlies and subtext than surface content.

Btw, EA and I aren't exactly on friendly terms. I unwittingly participated in his (mock) quest for an ID in an effort create the foundation of a bridge of cooperation betwee like-minded individuals. I wouldn't have posted if I knew it involved sitting at the feet of a master wishing to share enlightenment rather that a comrade searching for a cactus ID as advertised.

lw

[EA-1306]

LW is always at odds with me for some reason.
I find it amusing that people took this as some sort of deception, I think that you guys who are offending might be taking it a little too seriously.

It might not be known but there is a consensus that all of the plants that look like this are a KK242 phenotype that some are claiming is T cuzcoensis.

I chose to included spiritplants in this experiment, by placing a plant that could be ID'd as the particular KK242 phenotype in question. Other forums were involved and this elitist forum is the only one that took offense. It shows a great deal about the prevalent mindset here.

The entire thing was inspired by a post Winder had asking about a pH of something he had already tested. The point of this post is to explore the notion that appearances for cacti cannot (at least in some cases) be definitive for species in Trichocereus. Regardless of how emotional a couple of you got over it, I feel that the purpose was well served.


Those of you who think this has to do with ego are either mistaken or are just outright fools. This is not some effort to establish expertise or even test knowledge or identification skills. This is to explore the concept that appearances in Trichocereus can be devious.

There is no such thing as a bad guess and this is one of the forums that elicited much more interesting ID's. I guess some of you just feel insulted that you didn’t guess correctly, when it was not about being right or wrong. I don’t expect a couple of you to be able to understand that given your immature behavior, however I think others will get the point that has escaped you.

What looks like a species or phenotype may actually be an intermediate. The appearance of phenotype of a cactus cannot be guaranteed to allow identification.

Another lesson might be gleaned from reading these posts, it has to do with the quality of the character of those involved. If you think that not mentioning that I knew what it was makes me a fraud, then so be it, but perhaps you consider any test of consensus fraud. I think that the tones indicate a great deal about the posters.

LW has always been a bitter person to me and I have come to expect negativity and animosity from him. CJ seems to have issues with me as well that his posts indicate go quite beyond the situation in this thread. Since this forum is known for being negative, ostracizing and elitist this comes as no surprise that some of its members would exemplify such behavior. It seems that like the moral majority they are just fishing for an excuse to take offense.

[laughingwillow]

Well, its only natural for someone to hang where they feel comfortable. And Surely your little social experiment has revealed to you which forums are seeking interraction of the sort you offer.....

lw

[EA-1306]

Contrast is good.
It might help to have some folks around who aren't total assholes.

[laughingwillow]

Well, if you read my initial posts in the thread, you will see that  I was participating with respect and interest.

lw

[CJ]

Baloney EA.

 Iv`e stuck to the thread,don` really know anything to go 'beyond it' with. You remind me of somone else,who kept wantimg to expand perameters,jus to keep himself inbounds. Perhaps i convey a personal dissapointment. you jus` plain bs`ed unwitting folks. Therfore...

Listion,this can go on,but nothing is going to change now. This is an open forum. you can percieve hostility as much as you want,and with myself concerned,well,the attitude of me about you is truly negative. I stated quite clearly that you decieved ,and deception is 'wrong'. You won`t get it,or won` choose to get it, at any rate. I won`t say this will be my last post in this thread,but i`d much rather drop it. I prefer no more wasted time by any cause created by you, EA. Nine/ tenths of that is me choosing to type anything,and I know that. But I`m also pissed enough not to let you got anything out of this, without it being openly known you screwed ppl. to get it.

BTW, if this was a true experiment,and not some personal one time wack- off,generally things like this have to be repeated many more times for some notion of validity. Of course, in a tighter framework than exibited here,and within Ethical constraints ,EA..

Yuck. Bye.

[EA-1306]

I'd call you the waaambulance but I think your already lost CJ.