Subject: Re: Censorship vs Appropriate Rules of Conduct
Date: Jul 11 09:48:43 1998
From: Michael Price - mprice at mindlink.bc.ca


Hi Tweets,

Andy Stepniewski writes:

>Well, as someone aptly pointed out in a recent post...we know a lot more
>about Don Baccus than we did heretofore. I'd say that goes for Michael
>Price too.

This is the kind of slighting personal reference I have so far been able to
avoid making in all this. To say in a debate on an issue that you know a lot
more about me from my espousal of free speech is insulting, Andy; please
mind your manners. It's a useful, tactically sound debating trick, though
unscrupulous, to discredit a perceived opponent's point of view before he or
she states it by trying to prejudice the audience toward the person, not the
issue.

>Whew, there's my 2-cents worth and that's about all I'll offer
>on this very inappropriate dialogue, except for the following:

Besides it being the exclusive right of the list owner, Andy, may I suggest
it is not up to you to determine for the rest of us which are appropriate
topics for discussion?

And, in my opinion, it *is* appropriate in the larger context of freedom of
speech. Freedom of speech vs. censorship may be only peripherally related to
those of birding and birds, but as the censorship of scientific data on the
cod and salmon's declines by Canadian and provincial government bureaucrats
and others, and substitution of fanciful figures to suit interest groups has
shown, or the harassment of 'ecological management' biologists and
suppression of their data which show declines due to hunting by the Old
Boys' network of 'game management' (pro-hunting) bureaucrats, it can be an
important one. This is why I am bothering to exert energy in a seemingly
off-topic area: to persuade (where Baccus seeks to demonstrate) that freedom
of speech is too important to give up to hard or soft authoritarianism.

>An unfortunate result from this distasteful and inappropriate topic will be
>the loss of information regarding birds to those on Tweeters.

An assumption made stronger by proof, Andy. The cowbird thread, kingfishers,
and site postings shows there's still birding being done out there and
reported to our suddenly-fractious little list. I think this possibility a
phantom. Heck, I plan to get out to Iona this evening, if I can, and post
the results.

>Witness Paul
>Cozens withdrawal of the Seattle RBA from Tweeters.

He did not leave because of this, according to what people have told me,
Andy; my understanding is that he left Tweeters over the lack of a
'this-list-is-for-birds-only' policy because he didn't want to read anything
that wasn't on birds. Either way, parenthetically, to deny the community the
contents of the Seattle RBA because of what appears on the list is not to
his liking smacks of snittiness and punishment of others for not running it
the way he wants. But for you to buttress your argument with such an
unconnected 'cause' by claiming a connection is not scrupulous of you, either.

>I suspect there are a
>number of other birders, naturalists and conservationists who have learned
>much about birds in the Pacific Northwest, their behavior, whereabouts and
>migrations, who are also uncomfortable with the present tone and tenor on
>Tweeters.
>The loss of dialogue by those folks will be missed.

Then let them speak for themselves or stay silent, stay or leave, Andy,
instead of you trying to intimidate anyone who may have an opposing view to
yours by bringing in this phantom army of people who may (or may not) agree
with you or who may (or may not) leave. Hell, *I'm* not comfortable with it
either, but there's an important issue here which won't go away just because
it discomforts some. Besides, as we move on, as we always have in the past,
any discomfort will be temporary. Life goes on, and there's always the
'Delete' key.

Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery, and change;
mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
Aphra Behn (1640-1689)