Hi Tweets

Michael Willison writes:

>Also, Why is it that any time anyone even starts to mention anything about
>the types of messages being posted to tweeters, that "everyone" goes nuts
>to try and protect what tweeters and it's diversity of messages are? Are
>some people afraid that the truth will be uncovered? That maybe, just
>possibly, there really are more people logged on to this group that enjoy a
>bird note rather than one on something else?

"The truth..." Hmmm, yes, well, Michael, if you just happen to have some of
that there "Truth" handy, please share it. I've been looking for it all my
life, and I've got to confess that I've come close only once or twice...

Second, your comment implies that the majority of Tweeters are a silent,
disapproving majority, an implication that would, of course, be all the
better for proof. If true, this leads to an interesting thing. When I look
back at all the stuff that has appeared on Tweeters in the last month, I
note that, conservatively, 95--97% of the postings are directly or
indirectly bird related and, second, that there is a lively, free-ranging
correspondence between a relatively small number of people. You don't cut
much slack for us who do 80%--90%of the posting. To extend your thinking,
would it be fair to say that you suggest that Tweeters should be 100%
*directly* bird-related, instead of in the high 90%-range? That "The truth"
that we undisciplined types are so afraid of you uncovering hinges on a
mangy 3%-5% of topic headings?

And indulging in such puerile conspiracy-theory terminology as "Are some
people afraid that the truth will be uncovered?" is about as useful a form
of discourse as talking about black helicopters with UN markings over
Oklahoma City, or a similar nonsense-on-stilts. If we're to talk about this,
at least let's talk sensibly, hm?

If the majority is silent, it seems that your contention can be restated to
say that a relatively small number of contributors are putting on a show of
which this much larger, passive audience disapproves, that the rest of you,
for which group you have appointed yourself spokesperson, find
insufficiently entertaining, informative, or supportive of your own
preconceptions of what a bird discussion group should be.

Let me make it plain to you that if Tweeters were to trim its wick so its
flame was weak enough to satisfy the 'bird-sightings-only' group (and I
still want to see some proof that they're a majority), its light would
simply become so dull to me that I'd leave out of sheer boredom. It is
precisely the variety, the scope, the humor, the erudition, the maturity,
and the *humanity* of this group which makes it--to me--a *most* valuable
group. Dennis Paulson once came up with a lovely term which resonates in
this context, The League of Never-Seen Friends. And friends' conversations
are notoriously digressive.

In the context of this and related discussions about the 'purity' of this
discussion group, I notice from time to time a good whiff of
anti-intellectualism. I observe (an observation, not an opinion) a
persistent anti-'egghead'-ism in the U.S., in its usual manifestations a
relic of the viciously terror-stricken McCarthy era, but having recently
acquired a coating of politico-religious orthodoxy, a sort of intellectual
head-cold for which science may never find a cure, which seems to have as
its main purpose a need to throttle speech, free or otherwise, on anything
but its own narrow, safe, approved subjects.

As far as "everyone" going nuts "to try and protect what tweeters and it's
diversity of messages". Well, Michael, I can tell you that with the world
awash in lying crap, that having something as intelligent, mature, and
sometimes funny as Tweeters is a definite gift, and worth defending in its
present form.

On the other hand, no-one's going to be totally pleased with anything this
side of Heaven. On Earth, that's why we invented politics, the art and
science of balancing competing interests (a more earthy definition, just as
apt, is that politics is the art of getting along with people you don't
like). There will always be a tension between those interests, no matter how
well balanced: that's life. Where that applies to a discussion group such as
this is that different people have differing and sometimes opposed versions
of what a bird listserv should be. If such a disapproving, suffering silent
majority as you say exists wants change, then it needs to find its voice and
make its wishes known. Otherwise, it should find its delete button and use
it with might and main.

>Do many tweeters people actually object to someone posting a message
>about a bird sighting? I know many birders who appreciate an on-line way to
>get the word out about a rare bird that might show up somewhere. Oregon has
>long been ahead of us in their network of communication. Even before
>on-line computer groups. It would be nice if we as Washington birders
>could step up>our communications. It would be to our benefit to do so.

If you have some bird sightings, Michael, please feel free to share; others
have, and do. It would be great to have yours too.

Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
michael_price at mindlink.bc.ca