Subject: Tweeter fodder
Date: Jul 8 00:08:56 1995
From: Scott Ray - scray at WOLFE.net


>From prior posting to Tweeters:

>>There are no other list like tweeters. OBOL, for example, is restricted
>>to the *serious* business of birding.

Scott Ray wrote:

>And how refreshing that very idea is!

Don Baccus wrote:

>Ahh, a complaint in your very first post. Such excellent form.
>Do we really bore you so?
>. . . I'll teach you how to unsubscribe. Why bitch when
>you can just as easily leave?

Don,

Thanks for the friendly response!

In general, and in the opinion of probably the majority of subscribers, most
posting are welcome thought provokers with the subjects offered for
discussion, eg. discussions on ID, taxonomy, speciation, breeding biology,
conservation and other ornithology related subjects. It's exciting to see
and benefit from the wealth of knowlege exchanged so freely in the Tweeters
community.

It is also widely stated by many subscribers (many of whom have indeed
unsubscribed rather than complain), that some of the periodic subject
deviations can be time consuming to regular readers who must be make their
living away from their computers and don't have all day (or evening) to
spend reading and composing email. Some subscribers pay heavily for
excessive numbers of messages received.

I must admit (and many others admit to this habit) to the habit of simply
deleting many articles (most on some days) after a quick glance at their
subject lines, especially after a few disappointing readings of articles by
the same seemingly off-subject thread. More than once, I've asked a
colleage if he has read an article on a particular subject on Tweeters, only
to be answered by something like, "Oh, I've been deleting all the postings
with that subject line because they have *nothing* to do with birds."

>Do we really bore you so?

For the most part, no.

Good birding!


Scott Ray
Yakima, WA
scray at wolfe.net

[click *here* to view my web page]