Hi Tweets,

Janet Creighton writes:

>Perhaps Michael Price should re-read Paul Cozen's post regarding his
>removal of the Seattle RBA from Tweeters. He clearly states that the
>"trash" talk drove him away. Our loss.

I agree it's a loss, but maybe a self-inflicted one. But there's *much* more
to this story.

Late last year or early this one, *long* before this issue erupted, I asked
some Washington birders who were subbed to Tweeters why Paul Cozens, the
Seattle RBA operator, didn't post the RBA updates to Tweeters, as I had
noted its absence from the list for a long time. Their reply was that Paul
was miffed at the amount of indirectly-related-to-birds postings on Tweeters
and had withdrawn postings of the RBA in retaliation for the list not being
run on the post-on-birds-only policy they said he prefers.

*Their* answer, not mine.

Normally, these are credible, reputable people with no axes to grind, and I
saw no reason to disbelieve them since there was the plain evidence of the
aberrancy of the Seattle/Washington State RBA not being posted to Tweeters,
the Washington State/regional list even though Oregon's, Vancouver's and
Victoria's RBA's were, at the time. In other words, given the reality, the
explanation seemed reasonably appropriate. If it is, my remarks about snits
and punishment stand. If this is not the case, would somebody please set the
record straight?

Though another issue arises. If the Seattle RBA is sponsored by an
organisation, say Seattle Audubon, should it not be the organisation rather
than the individual which makes the choice to pull out, to avoid such
arbitrary and potentially-hurtful or counterproductive decisions based on
personal animus of the operator?

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)