Help identifying please

[Buttonboy]

[Chris Yeates]

hi

is the first one a scan from a book? if so why do you have to ask what it is?

anyway: top Sparassis crispa

middle: probably Amanita fulva

bottom: probably Amanita rubescens

Chris

[Buttonboy]

Thank you for the ID if a little more terse than I expected on my first visit to the site. Why did you feel iy was a scan from a book. It was scanned from a photograph I took in 1996 (near Aberdeen) but have not been able to identify. I have another.

[cowshill]

Originally Posted by Buttonboy

Thank you for the ID if a little more terse than I expected on my first visit to the site.

One could also point out that your original post was a little more terse than might be expected on your first visit to the site.

- Jim

[Buttonboy]

Is please not a polite term in Upper Weardale. Probably not!

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by Buttonboy

Thank you for the ID if a little more terse than I expected on my first visit to the site. Why did you feel iy was a scan from a book. It was scanned from a photograph I took in 1996 (near Aberdeen) but have not been able to identify. I have another.

we seem to be getting off to a strange start here . . . . . sometimes people are busy (I was, and often am) and the response they give may be just a single name - check some other threads / posts, it's nothing personal - at other times a longer response may be given - particularly if more than a name or names is being requested; at least on my screen a regular pattern appears when I zoom in on the first image - I wondered whether that was because of a printed original comprised of tiny dots, that was all

and "Is please not a polite term in Upper Weardale. Probably not!" is certainly not terse, but it is extremely offensive . . . . .

Chris

[cowshill]

Buttonboy,

Perhaps we are suffering from some miscommunication caused by differing understandings of the word terse. My online dictionary gives this definition for it:

terse
1. free of superfluous words; concise in a polished, smooth way; succinct
2. brief or concise to the point of rudeness; curt

My natural understanding of the word is the first definition. I read your reply as meaning that you were surprised at the brevity of Chris's response, and I was amused that a post with a 3 word subject and nothing but 3 pictures in the body would be expecting a lengthier response. Hence my (admittedly) mildly sarcastic reply.

It appears, however, that your natural usage of the word is the second definition - that you thought Chris's questioning of the origin of your first picture to be rude, and that you read my reply to be accusing you of rudeness. As explained above, this is not the case, and I apologise for the misunderstanding.

I will, however, stick to my original point that your post was unusually succinct and free of superfluous words for a first post. Normally on this site one might expect to see something more like:

"Hi, this is my first post on your site. I'm hoping someone can help me to identify these fungi that I'm wondering about. The first is one I saw near Aberdeen back in 96 (had to scan a non-digital pic!). The second..." (etc.)

My point is that even this amount of verbiage establishes you as someone wanting to make contact and engage in a dialogue, whereas 3 words and 3 pictures creates an impression of no interest other than to mine information while not engaging personally. If you have read some of the other posts in this forum, you will by now realize that people here are fanatics about fungi and will spend a lot of time engaging with one another and exchanging both information and (often sly) conversation.

If you are at all interested in real conversation about fungi, you have found the right place and you are most welcome!

- Jim

[Buttonboy]

Thank you (both) for clearing up the misunderstanding.

As a new user I was just getting used to posting. This was my first attempt and hence the brevity of my request.

I was not sure what was implied by the suggestion that I had scanned from a book. I have been photographing fungi since 1990 and some of the earlier ones were scanned using a very early, and not very clever, scanner.

My first post was something of a "catch up" and the three I used for were just some of the ones I was keen to establish.

Anyway, I apologise for any offence caused. My interest is in mycology and btw I have no problem with brief replies.

[Chris Yeates]

great stuff - looking forward to your future posts!

Chris

[NickCantle]

Welcome Buttonboy