On Sun, 18 May 1997 HKrauss787 at aol.com wrote:

> Tweeters: It seems to me that Jim is over-reacting and might examine his own
> reasons for acting so violently.

I didn't read Jim's flame, but I reacted the same way, I'm sure. This was
the 15th or so time I've received this advertisement, and I'm royally sick
of his posting it repeatedly to multiple lists (lists in which he does not
participate except to post his ad).

[snip]

I think a kinder, gentler
> approach is more worthy of the high caliber of folks that I believe are the
> majority of bird watchers. Why not simply tell this guy in a nice way that
> his ad is not bird related or appropriate if that is the way you feel?

I've e-mailed him privately, and he doesn't respond. I admit that the
latest thing I sent him was not particularly polite, though :) Just
because the majority of bird watchers are 'high caliber' doesn't mean that
"kingfishr at aol.com" is. In fact, there's no real reason to think he's a
bird watcher. He posts to all kinds of lists, fairly indiscriminately, as
long as they are related to nature in some way.

> I had to respond because the author's motivation is obviously love for the
> environment

Bull puckey. He wants to sell his book. Let him come in and defend his
motivation, and his "netiquette" while he's at it, I say...

Chris Hill
Everett, WA
cehill at u.washington.edu