Michael Price writes:
>
> 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?

> 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.

I swore I'd stay out of this, but...your whole post is right on,
Price (can't say Michael, you're both Michaels).

And especially this part - it is precisely the group of people
who post the most information on birds and ornithology who also
post the most "off-topic" stuff. If the audience is annoyed
by the performance by regular posters, perhaps the audience should
simply change channels rather than insist that the regular
posters only post things which meet their taste.

Or, perhaps they should post more frequently themselves on items
they feel are appropriate. If the ratio of "on-topic" to
"off-topic" posts is too low for your taste, you have a simple
mechanism at hand to raise the ratio: post and post again.

Instead, we see the ratio lowered by off-topic posts complaining
about off-topic posts. Beating a dead horse, to boot - we've
had the discussion, recently, and the majority of those who took
time to respond said they liked the diversity. I expect I'll
spend today rapidly deleting posts reiterating that position.

If Willison wants a bird-sightings only group, why not start
one himself? He and those of his ilk can move to it, while the
rest of us continue to talk about the ongoing debate on taxnomy
triggered by the "DNA revolution", removal of purple loosestrife
from Montlake Fill, the danger of introducing gambusia in native
waters, and the like. Along with bird sightings - where do you
get off suggesting we're opposed to posts about bird sightings,
Mr. Willison, when such posts appear all the time? That sentence
was downright offensive.

I'd much rather see a dozen requests for information on mammal
distribution in the State of Washington from legitimate researchers
than a single post whining that "this is a bird group, I don't
want to hear about mammals".

This group (usually) has the highest level of discourse on a wide
range of (mostly) natural-history oriented topics that I've found
yet on the net, and I don't want to lose it.

Look, I didn't even lose my temper this time :)

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