Re: New Rules



Giboshiman@aol.com wrote:

> In reviewing the item below, please note there is flexibility provided.  (And
> I believe was directly suggested as possibilities by Chick during on-line
> discussion.)
>

Allright, so I talk too much.  Lord knows what I suggested, it seems that my head
is always full of wonderful ideas and sometimes I hear voices telling me what to
do.

I appreciate Kevin giving me credit for something I said that someone finally
agreed with, BUT...I do not support what is being done in the Journal.  I don't
hate it as much as I hate the Preferred Growers Program, but I think it fails the
old cost/benefit test.  In no way did Kevin say that I had any part in coming up
with this stuff, but just to avoid any misunderstanding...

I think the Journal's purpose is to inform, educate, and entertain the
membership.  I do not see how any of these purposes are served by pretending that
hostas that have names do not really have them unless they are registered.  The
only reason to exclude unregistered names from the Journal is to coerce
originators to register their plants.  Personally, I don't think that is a good
enough reason to make the information in the Journal less accurate, less complete,
and less valuable to the readers.  If the editor has a good picture of a good
hosta that may not be registered, what benefit is there to the reader to refuse to
publish it or to refuse to identify the plant by its name?  Seems silly to me.


Chick



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index