> In article <aeednTUEqMJybw_GnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> > news:mqGdnVYtCKpkLBDGnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com:
>> >
>> >>> Rodney Reason <ogri.rules.ok@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>> news:vtcjod9d7hf0p4reggcocf2t6h67ren3kg@4ax.com:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:49:20 -0500, retrowavelength
>> >>>> <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:36:59 -0500, retrowavelength
>> >>>>>> <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> =ybegin line=128 size=459648 name=checklist_A.jpg.bin
>> >>>>>>>> Attachment decoded: checklist_A.jpg.bin
>> >>>>>>>> =yend size=459648 crc32=5806a32b
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Comments on the checklist_A.jpg
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Faye Syms - I'd like to know what set that was. :-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi rwl, I was just looking at some old messages and noticed
>> >>>>>> this comment. Don't know if you were serious or if you're
>> >>>>>> still interested, but here's the photo her face came from.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Thanks for following up on that. I was generally leery of the
>> >>>>>checklists, if I recall rightly, because they were supposedly
>> >>>>>based on Myarchives info which is sometimes wrong (to be fair,
>> >>>>>they weren't trying to be a research site). But this name I can
>> >>>>>confirm.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Those checklist indexes are sure a mixed bag. Looks like
>> >>>> it was a lot of work to put them together, too bad there's
>> >>>> no provenance for so many of the names, beyond Myarchives
>> >>>> I mean.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Faye is one of the lucky ones :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> RR
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> rwl
>> >>>
>> >>> I missed the lists. Can they be posted again? I would be very
>> >>> interested in looking them over.
>> >>> Thanks very much if possible.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> For what it's worth, I went thru the 3 files & checkmarked ones
>> >> that I'm sure I have some documentation for the names (other than
>> >> per seller or per myarchives or per Spider Pool Research Group
>> >> even though I have a good deal of trust in SPRG determinations).
>> >> There's a number of the names that I kinda accept (maybe because
>> >> they get so much repetition) but I didn't check those. Maybe
>> >> y'all can add more checks if you have names in print, etc.
>> >>
>> >> --rwl
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > If I find anything I'll let you know.
>> >
>> > Is there a logic to the order? There seems to be several groups
>> > sorted in alphabetic order but I can't figure out what the groups
>> > represent. Years? My mind is balking at having to look all
>> > through each sheet to find a name. That's a lot of names.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I didn't see any obvious logic to it though I kinda thought some of
>> it may have been pasted in from other shorter lists & that makes
>> parts of it look organized but not the whole thing.
>>
>> --rwl
>
> Your right that the checklists were compiled of 2 or 3 lists that were
> in aiphabetical order, now stacked together. Just thought I would give
> something back to the group. Whether the name confirmed or not it
> helps me sort/file a picture from time to time. I will look over your
> check marks and if I can supply any proof of name I will post it.
>
Thanks for clarifying that. Yep, we've used all kinds of tags & made-up or
claimed names to sort images & link them together. Some of the names are
kinda obviously such kludges (e.g., Brunhilda) but sometimes they can be
mistaken as claims for real names (e.g., Sue).
Those name lists are usually presented (or accepted) as actual names but
aren't always accurate (& sometimes contain kludge names). My checkmarks
don't mean some of those non-checked names are not accurate, it only meant
I did not have a positive ID source. There's a number of them that I've
always accepted (e.g., there was some sort of consensus) but without any
proofs in hand. It would be super if more of those could be associated
with some printed proofs of the names.
Thanks for assembling the lists! Fuel for more research & fun.
--rwl
|
|