Mammal Tooth From A Hawaii Beach?

[bone digger]

I find almost all the posts are fossil related in some way, it is still educational, and it's also nice to have a good laugh! But it would be a shame to see it go to far in the wrong direction and end seeing some of our best members go the way of the Dodo!

[screweduptexan]

I apologize if I upset anyone...personally, I have learned quite a bit since joining the forum. Previously, I only browsed this forum occasionally, but since joining, I have discovered a renewed interest in fossils and minerals. I must say that I enjoy the social interaction with others that have the same interests as me and always enjoy being educated. I know I have a long way to go before I could ever say that I am an expert in paleotology or any field thereto related. However, I now understand that there are those on this forum that are here strictly for the educational and/or serious aspects or so it seems.

Personally, I have a lot of respect for Harry and others like him who seem to know quite a bit about their individual fields. Mostly, I made the "funny" comment because I had never seen much of the less serious side of Harry...oh, and because I was up later than usual. Isn't it interesting how it is so hard to judge one's intentions in a forum or email setting? I have seen on more than one occasion someone get upset because they assumed another's intentions were negative.

Just for the record, I do remember quite well commenting that I think this forum is way better than Myspace.

I am here for both the educational and social interaction and it probably is a generational preference.

[FossilFreak]

Auriculatus and Harry (and others),

Thanks for the input on the ID. Here are a few more pictures.

You certainly know a lot more about fossils than I do. So how do I tell if it's mineralized/fossilized?

I tried to burn it. It "clinks" against my ring. I licked it and it did slightly stick to my tongue.

[tracer]

ff - we've probably sort of played out on input on this one. the points of the others are valid that it pretty much can't be a true fossil bovid tooth if it was found in hawaii, and i haven't been able to find anything in research to refute that. you can be certain that the tooth is very much mineralized in that it was very much mineralized before it left the animal. you can pretty much tell by looking at it that it is unlikely to have had much if any mineral replacement or permineralization of any pores or spaces between the existing minerals.

i am unaware of any cheap and non-destructive means of analyzing the tooth further.

[Harry Pristis]

"This forum's topics flow like conversations, they start on on the topic described but almost every time the topic will be lost in conversation and you never know where it is going, we like it that way it keeps the board friendly and makes for interesting reading..."

The above is quoted from the "New Members, Please Read" topic. I believe that, as a "mission statement", this establishes The Fossil Forum as a community of fossil fanciers of all walks. I further believe that a level "off-topic" banter is completely consistent with (if not requisite to) the community aspect. We share more than knowledge with each other; we share of ourselves. A fascination with fossils is the common ground around which we gather, but it is ultimately a gathering of individuals.

There is a nice discussion of the "virtual community" here. Scroll past the philosophical portion.

It may be that acknowledging that threads here do go astray and speaking of that phenomenon in approving terms was a mistake. Certainly, it's not a "mission statement" unless you believe that confusion is a goal in life.

The larger any human community becomes, the more valued is personal responsibility and self-discipline. Traffic control is a useful analogy. The more automobiles in a concentrated area, the more important are the traffic lights and signage. These signs are reminders that it is our personal responsibility to exercise self-discipline in our driving in order to keep the system coherent.

Perhaps the list-owner should consider changing the "New Member, Please Read" blurb to something that encourages subscribers to use self-discipline in their posts. The 'Paleolist' forum doesn't have a problem with off-topic banter.

[Auspex]

It may be that acknowledging that threads here do go astray and speaking of that phenomenon in approving terms was a mistake.

Calling it a "mistake" implies that there were unintended consequences. This Forum was intended to be less formal and less restricting; that is why the statement is there.

The 'Paleolist' forum doesn't have a problem with off-topic banter.

Paleolist is a good forum, but I don't think Anson wanted to emulate it. The Fossil Forum is different by design.

Having said this, I do want to acknowledge that shepherding the character of the Forum is a huge challenge, especially in the face of such rapid growth. In order to manage it successfully, care need be taken that the founding premise is not lost to censorship.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Due to the number of posts, I too, usually, don't read them all anymore. Usually, I stick to the invert stuff, but when I see that certain members have made posts in a discussion, I usually check it out; as I know there is always some good stuff in the post.

That being said, I look forward to a chuckle every now and then, and find that even some of the "off topic" posts are not only entertaining, but often educational.

[Harry Pristis]

Calling it a "mistake" implies that there were unintended consequences. This Forum was intended to be less formal and less restricting; that is why the statement is there.

Paleolist is a good forum, but I don't think Anson wanted to emulate it. The Fossil Forum is different by design.

Having said this, I do want to acknowledge that shepherding the character of the Forum is a huge challenge, especially in the face of such rapid growth. In order to manage it successfully, care need be taken that the founding premise is not lost to censorship.

That's funny! Do you think of yourself as "the Good Shepherd," Auspex? Are the subscribers here the sheep? Do you think that "New Members, Please Read" is immutable, inerrant truth graven on stone tablets?

This is not so complicated as all that. While you're doing your shepherding, try to keep in mind that fossil-related interests are the primary reason we're here. We have FaceBook and CraigsList and endless other venues for posting jokes and sharing ourselves.

There are always unintended consequences. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" has many expressions. This one is so straightforward, anyone can relate to it: "Every action will have at least one reaction that was not planned by the initiator."

Finally, Auspex, I just don't understand your closing remark about a founding premise lost to censorship. Can you elaborate?

[screweduptexan]

The original post Auspex is referring to reads:

"This forum's topics flow like conversations, they start on on the topic described but almost every time the topic will be lost in conversation and you never know where it is going, we like it that way it keeps the board friendly and makes for interesting reading. That being said it is important for new members to read over older posts, even if the topic doesn't sound interesting, you may find that it really is interesting.

:Raptor"