Alright, Tweets. You got me. 56 messages (that's what I get for having a
job at the moment and no time to download e-mail 8), most of them dealing
with how we talk to each other. I have to agree wholeheartedly with Michael
Price.

Denny Granstrand stated

>>While Michael's use of the current ornithologically-correct lingo fits in
>>perfectly with the users of a scientifically oriented list, I don't think it
>>is a good fit with Tweeters.

and

>>Many of the people subscribed to Tweeters are beginning or inexperienced
>>birders who are learning with nearly every post they read.

That's right -- and there are some of us who have been birding for a very
long time who are still learning, too. I, for one, appreciate the
opportunity to learn new terminology, whether or not I choose to use it in
everyday conversation. In part of his reply, Michael asked

>Am I wrong to think this? That there is a significant
>proportion of people on our list who would resist strenuously any proposed
>dumbing-down of it as implied in your above remarks. Am I wrong to think this?

No, Michael, you're not wrong. I, for one, would object strongly. In my
opinion, talking-down to anyone or dumbing-down what one has to say is an
insult. It implies the listener is a few bricks shy of a load and is
incapable of understanding. And it is an insult to expect someone to
express himself in a manner inconsistent with who he is as a person.

There is indeed a fine line in presenting information. Doing so in person
is easier because one can judge the response by observing facial
expression, body language, etc -- then perhaps adjusting accordingly until
the listener indicates s/he understands. In the case of a forum such as
Tweeters which depends on the written word, clarity and accuracy are vital.
And *ALWAYS*, in either situation, a person can *ask questions*! In the
case of Tweeters, a message requesting clarification could be sent
privately to the original sender, if someone was shy about doing so in
front of the entire group (or thinks the group might not be interested).

>I *know* this because when I teach a class of beginners I
>*encourage* them to ask even the 'stupid' questions

Amen.

As for the idea that use of "more difficult" terms is not "a good fit with
Tweeters" -- How long have you been here? The accepted beauty of Tweeters
is that anything and everything even remotely connected with birds is "fit"
for discussion. (And that topic is one dead horse that's getting to smell
pretty ripe.)

Bring on the limericks, Don!

Cheers,

Janet Hardin
feeling feisty in
Port Townsend, WA
wings at olympus.net