On Sat, 28 Oct 1995, Randy Deardorff wrote:

My concern is this: Would the people in front care or even notice if
everybody else just left?
>
those who feel they can't deal with related posts might have to
leave the list. The extended discussions on various bills, initiatives
optics, whatever, are all important adjuncts to birding and birding
concerns. The important thing here is that everyone on the list
has similar concerns and many are confused about which way to
vote on upcoming initiatives..640, Ref 48 etc..I really enjoy
seeing a spirited interchange over an issue I'm conflicted
about and I REALLY APPRECIATE THOSE WHO TAKE THE TIME TO SHARE
their feelings with the list. The subjects I feel I have
enough information on I just *D*..

> Then Don Baccus wrote:
>
> > How many times do we have to debate this issue? ... This is at least
> > the third time the issue's been debated since I joined the list. The
> > answer has always been the same, a large groundswell of support for
> > the list as it is.
>
> Don is right.

yup..he is...he ABSOLUTELY is..


The same thing happened then as is happening now: a few very strongly
> stated opinions from a small minority of the subscribers.
>
That's the nature of lists.


> But I'm not fooled into believing that this means the majority of the
> subscribers want to debate non-birding issues here. Especially in
> light of the usage statistics mentioned above.
>
The stats don't prove anything about the *majority of subscribers*.
You only *know* about those who post.

> Then M. Smith wrote:
>
> > ...it seems like such a waste of all of our time.
>
> I find it interesting that a serious discussion about the quality of
> Tweeters is seen as a waste time, but debates about social, political,
> and economic issues are not.
>
Randy, no serious discussion about anything is a waste of time.
Faced with some critical votes and the big money pushing some of
these initiatives we need to arm ourselves as best we can as
our habitat is in extremis.

One of my computer jock friends periodically e-mails me posts
from other nets. One particular argument from a religious net
was so vitriolic it boggles the mind. I dropped off a music net
and a motorcycle net because the posts were so trivial and
frequent I sprained my *D* finger from over use. The same cptr
guy surfs a lot and he says Tweeters is the most well-behaved
interesting, diverse net he's seen. Most of us tend to agree.
I think the high points of the net are when a few pit-bull types :-)
really get into it..i.e., the thread on albinism etc.
I guess we can continue to try and shape the net in ways we think
we might like better, but we all ought to recognize that it's our
own ego assuming that we know best for everyone else..

Personally, I wouldn't change a thing..and this net without those
few active posters wouldn't be near as interesting..
So keep those posts informative, interesting, entertaining and
yes, if you choose, even in rhyme.

Tom