Randy Deardorff:
>274 messages were posted by 76 different people. 53% of the posts
>were on-topic.

Ahhh, but they're only "on-topic" or "off-topic" according to your
definition. When we've had this discussion before, it has been clear
that there's a consensus in favor of a broad definition of "on-topic".

>But what about the off-topic posts? I found that 59% of the off-topic
>traffic came from just *13* of the 343 subscribers. If you subtract
>the off-topic posts from these people, the off-topic traffic drops
>to just 27%.

I presume you counted yourself, as this subject we're currently
discussing is "off-topic" by your own definition.

>Now, I'm not suggesting that these people are bad, or should go away.
>I'm only pointing out that Tweeters *is* dominated by a very small
>group of highly active posters. Furthermore, that these same people
>are responsible for most of the off-topic traffic.

But by asking us to only post on subjects which meet your approval,
you are asking us to go away for the most part.

Why don't you go away instead? Form your own list. Restrict it
to bird topics only. Enjoy the blissful peace of receiving only
three or four posts a day, just like OBOL folks do.

>But
>we're not all in the front row, because the front row only has a few
>seats. There are many rows of seats, in concentric circles. Most of
>the people are back there, listening and learning from the discussion.

Terrible analogy, for this theater has an infinite number of front
row seats. Those who wish to sit up front are free to step up.

Regarding those who are learning, many seem to be in favor of learning
about more than the last rare bird seen in Washington. Conservation
issues, in particular, have great potential for negatively impacting
the quality of birding in the future. I can't imagine why folks don't
think conservation issues which effect birds aren't "on-topic".

>Occasionally one of them speaks out, or even goes down to sit in the
>front for a while. My concern is this: Would the people in front care
>or even notice if everybody else just left?

Would the people in the back notice if we in front just left? I think
that might be a more germain issue, for that is what might likely
happen. As has been pointed out before, those in back (as you put it)
are bitching because those of us they listen to don't always post
things they like. Well, if they don't like our discussions, they
can always leave. Or type "delete".

If an empty mailbox is what you want, that is easily achieved by
unsubscribing. If you're insisting that you have the right to determine
what's OK on the list, then I'd like some evidence that Dan Victor
has delegated that right to you.


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.

>I remember those too, at least one of them. But, Don is right. The
>same thing happened then as is happening now: a few very strongly
>stated opinions from a small minority of the subscribers.

>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.

But it is true that a majority of those who care enough to make their
opinion known DO want it left alone.

The last debate over this issue saw the same claim: that the person
claiming most folks wanted tweeters narrowed cited the fact that
the majority of posters disagreed as evidence that the majority
of subscribers actually agreed with him!

So, the fact that a minority of respondents agree with you
isn't going to fool me into thinking you represent a majority.
You'll need better proof than that!

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.

It isn't the topic, it is the certainty that flogging this dead
horse ain't going to resurrect it.

Sweet of you to raise this issue when Dennis (one of the worse
offenders) isn't available to chime in...

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