Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually

Old Comments:

2009-03-20 02:02:20
It's ok, I found it, but thanks. It got in the wrong folder. It's a beautiful photo of blue sky, trees with snow, water, to the left a partia tree up front, rocks at the bottom...lots of blues.
2009-03-19 20:33:42
or if you just say what the picture was, I could probably remember who posted it, and if not there is alot of other people here who might know.
2009-03-19 20:24:33
Connie I think you have me confused with some other poster, because I have never spoke with you about my desktop pic, but I think I do recall seeing some comments under a pic where you and johnny walker and either peach fizzy or blue fuzzy said you all had the same desktop picture, maybe one of them can remember what the pic was and who posted it.
2009-03-19 15:46:09
I apologize to fmwlowe for using the term 'now shut up'. I felt provoked by your comment that I had contributed "to the destruction of this fragile ecosystem". I have been involved in environmental issues and therefore resented that comment. Nonetheless, I should not have written that.
2009-03-18 13:42:39
I forgot to add please after 'shut up' ;-) Skip, remember the photo that you and I have on our desktop? You had posted it. Well, to make a long story short, I lost it. Can you tell you what words to use under the 'Search' button? Hopefully, I get put it back on my desktop.
2009-03-18 13:07:33
Oh, for crying out loud - MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!!! When I saw this photo, I thought it looked too clean, too well set up, almost man made. So, before posting, I did a bit of research and found some information on Wikipedia (see above). I'm perhaps spending too much time being concerned with exploitation of women all over the world - slavery of women and children in the Sudan, child labour, abuse of women, lack of water and food for a great many, etc. Howe thoughtless of me!! As for you, fmwlowe, YOU OVERREACTED, MADE A FALSE ASSUMPTION, AND ONE HELL OF A PAIN IN THE BUTT. NOW SHUT UP. See Skip...I'm not always polite ;-)
2009-03-18 08:08:35
Hey fmwlowe: Get back here and explain what you mean. If you are directing your comment at me, then click 'reply to this' under this comment, then I'll know you're talking to me. If you're talking to Patito, then click 'reply to this' under his comment, so he'll know that you're talking to him. Your last comment makes no sense because nobody on this page was praising the behaviour of exploiting sea life etc and you had already agreed with Patito's second comment, so who is the "oh my gosh! YOU"? ;-)
2009-03-18 06:29:37
I meant to say she's not the photographer.
2009-03-18 06:28:00
You are a great addition around here fuzzy blue one, you always lighten things up! To fmwlowe, you made some good points, but I don't think you should be directing that "shame on you" at connie, when she may not have been aware of your information
2009-03-18 06:19:45
This reminds me of those things the girls wore on their heads in The King and I.
2009-03-18 06:06:56
I think that comment was aimed at me, Ms P...and I have to admit that fmwlowe is pretty much right about everything here..all I can do is plead ignorance...when I saw the photo I was simply struck by the sheer physical beauty of the object, and didn't think about what it was or where it came from or the circumstances of its demise....and while I'm generally suspicious of zealotry in most of its manifestations I can not only understand how and why the pace at which we are fouling and laying waste the natural resources and natural beauty of our planet could inspire one to passionate defense of the natural world, I'm somewhat encouraged that there are people who feel that way.
2009-03-18 05:38:05
fmwlowe: I don't get your comment "but the second comment by, oh my gosh!, YOU, (Sorry; I really was surprised to see that it was you)". Why are you surprised that I made that comment? It should be pretty clear to everyone who has seen even a few of the pictures I post that I 'boogey' with Nature. - You don't happen to be one of the photographers who are after my a.., are you? :-)
2009-03-18 04:42:38
To PATITO. I agree that there is a difference, if only slight; but the second comment by, oh my gosh!, YOU, (Sorry; I really was surprised to see that it was you) pretty much says it all. Praising the behavior of exploiting sea life or any animal life this way; killing for trinkets; not unlike killing elephants for ivory, or tigers for their penises (pini?) only encourages the perps to look for more praise thus perpetuating the rape and the ultimate destruction of our planet. I believe that if everyone does one conscious thing to ease the burden on Mother Nature, our grandchildren might have a place to live. PS: I don't think that I'm a zealot; just passionate and horrified by all the destruction that I have seen in my travels around the world, both above and below the surface. Hmmm...maybe I AM a zealot after all. What do you think?
2009-03-18 01:59:54
The reason I jumped in here so strongly is this: In order to get ‘adornment’ for their homes, many people just do not understand that there is no difference between shooting a rhino in Africa and taking a rare sea urchin from the sea. “Oh, I would never kill an endangered rhino and display it in my home” they say but then, quite happily, without a twinge of regret, they ‘harvest’ rare marine creatures for the same purpose. I would never kill any living thing just for the sake of ‘having a trophy’ – not even fish; I eat what I catch. Prof. Andrew H. Muckle-Flugga is the only “trophy” animal I live with. He is a Ural Owl (Strix uralensis) that met his demise by flying into power lines and is now a really snooty ‘stuffed shirt’ who bosses me around... ;-)
2009-03-17 21:21:30
Well, I feel guilty for enjoying looking at the picture...I expect fmwlowe and Ms P are right, though..the casual and thoughtless detsruction of marine resources of all sorts is proceeding full tilt, and it's something mostof us don't think about and many of us aren't even aware of. But I would suggest to fmwlowe that there may be a difference between actually participating in the physical destruction of fragile marine ecosystems and looking at a photograph.
2009-03-17 15:17:05
One more point: the tag 'under water photography' in erroneous, since the picture has not been taken under water. In their natural habitat - alive - these creatures have long spines!
2009-03-17 15:13:40
So the small sea urchin is the new species: Coelopleurus exquisitus.
2009-03-17 15:08:31
Fmwlowe is quite right in his/her comment. See the following links (and there are many more!) Although I cannot match Fmwlowe’s diving hours, I have personally witnessed the destruction of fragile marine ecosystems by divers alone… they go to exotic places to see unusual creatures of the sea and think that they are in a supermarket where they can just choose anything they wish. Coral, sea stars and sea urchins are the favourites to take home to adorn their fireplace mantels. Most diving destinations strictly forbid the taking of ANYTHING from the sea as ‘souvenirs’, but it does not deter the divers who leave their brains at home. I used write in the reader’s columns of diving magazines about it all the time… The link has exactly the same picture as Connie’s and says: “The little sea urchin on top is quite unusual. It was discovered by a research vessel near New Caledonia at a depth of 1000 ft.” Quote: They say you can get anything on eBay. Now it seems you can even discover a new marine species. Sea urchin shells and spines are popular collectors' items on eBay, but buyers began to get confused when the shells they received didn't look like anything else in their collections. "Every week I'd get collectors contacting me and asking me to identify the species," says Simon Coppard at the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in London. When he and colleague Heinke Schultze, an independent researcher, compared similar unidentified specimens from New Caledonia in the South Pacific with species records, they found nothing matched. Instead, they realised that people were buying and selling a new species, which they have called Coelopleurus exquisitus (Zootaxa, vol 1281, p 1). Coppard is worried about the large numbers of these shells and spines that have appeared for sale in the past five years. "We think they must come from illegal trawling," he says. "Unfortunately, the only use the bright colours seem to have is to make them very desirable to collectors.
2009-03-17 08:59:40
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM FROM WIKIMEDIA : Steve Jurvetson fat sea urchin"The little sea urchin on top is quite unusual. It was discovered by a research vessel near New Caledonia at a depth of 1000
2009-03-17 08:53:45
If I'm not mistaken, these are the remains of two sea urchins boiled in bleach to expose their colorful skeletons. It is a common and abhorrent practice that caters to tourists looking for baubles from the sea. In the unlikely event that I am wrong, having spent more than 5000 hours in the home of these creatures, I apologize for disputing the source. In the very likely event that I am correct in my assessment, shame on you and all who contribute to the destruction of this fragile ecosystem.
2009-03-17 04:46:30
WOW ! Bravo !
2009-03-17 04:28:28
A fat sea urchin with a little sea urchin on top which is quite unusual. It was discovered by a research vessel near New Caledonia at a depth of 1000 ft."