>Thanks for the friendly response!

You're welcome. Thank you for the original snide comment, I found
it so refreshing.

>In general, and in the opinion of probably the majority of subscribers, most
>posting are welcome thought provokers with the subjects offered for
>discussion...

I'm glad you think so.

I note in your long list of "acceptable" topics, conservation topics
weren't included.

Should we stop that?

OBOL specifically states that such posts don't belong there.

>It is also widely stated by many subscribers (many of whom have indeed
>unsubscribed rather than complain),

If they're unsubscribing rather than complaining, then they're not
"widely stating".

If they're "widely stating", then they must be doing it in some other
forum.

Or do you have special knowledge of the state of mind of those
who don't post to the list?

All I know is that it's come up before, and the overwhelming response
has been "a little diversion is fun".

And mention of conservation issues have brought me many "thank
you"s via e-mail, and I've asked more than once if folks want
me to stop (not that I'm the only person who posts such).

> 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.

Well, as a card-carrying member of the Oregon Cultural Elite (I
can send you a photocopy on request), I gotta say if you can't
afford the service...find one with reasonable prices.

I know this isn't an option for folks in more remote locales, but
certainly if one wants the non-Usenet/e-mail facilities of aol
or compuserve and is willing to pay for them, they shouldn't
complain that it is tweeters that is driving up costs if they
live in an area like Seattle or Portland. You can get flat-rate
Internet connections in urban areas for far less than you pay
for your basic phone service - teleport in PDX is $25/month.

"tweeters" is no exception to the general rule of the Internet:
most people presume that use is nearly free. The recent popularity
of the 'net, and the large numbers of users coming on-board from
services like aol is changing that, but I don't think you're going
to see much change in behavior by old-timers.

Most importantly, though, this group has a very high signal-to-noise
ratio (depending on your definition of "on-topic") and bitching that
the information channel ain't perfect simply lowers that ratio.

>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."

Care to give some examples?

I can think of some that have been very informative that have nothing
to do with birds, but which large numbers of people have encouragd:

1. Conservation issues
2. Discussion of invasive, alien plant species
3. Discussion of invasive, alien fish species (which came up when
someone suggested use of Gambusia to control mozzies)
4. And, yes, once even limericks.
5. etc

I also get into a deleting-message mode at times, because I too
get busy. Or leave town, in which case I unsubscribe because I
don't really have time usually to wade through a big backlog.

So what?

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>