Hello, all you out there in tweeterland. I'm responding to stuff that's
been going on in your forum for some weeks now. I haven't read all the
messages, but I tune in on the web from time to time (I'm always more than
a little interested in what's going on in birding, even if I'm out of it
mostly) and I've had an amazing number of recent messages forwarded to me
by people who thought I'd care.

One of the reasons I dropped off tweeters a couple of years ago was *not*
because it covered subjects other than birds, as I was one of the strongest
proponents of letting discussions go where they might and continually
argued that point. It *was* because there were too many egotistical minds
blasting off at the viewpoints of others. I know, because I did it myself
a few times, and I always was left with the nagging question of whether I
wouldn't have been a much better person for responding personally rather
than on a public forum.

I've known Dan Victor for years, and I was one of the first and most active
people on tweeters, otherwise I wouldn't be writing. I think there has
been some misunderstanding. Don Baccus was not expelled from tweeters
because he spoke his mind; he was expelled because he spoke it in too
confrontational a way. He brought too much anger to the forum along with
his intellect and knowledge, and--it seemed to me as an onlooker--was
involved in a rather large proportion of the antagonism expressed on
tweeters. He was the focus for some concern about the direction of
tweeters that could easily have ended in taking it off the air for good by
the authorities at the UW. Any of you with the proper facilities could
have resurrected it, of course, and then you would have had the
responsibility for it. I could only hope you could handle it as well as
Dan has.

I'm like Don Baccus in some ways; I'm troubled much of the time by the
inanity, prejudice, and just plain stupidity that run all too rampant in
our society, including their expression on the internet. If I were on
tweeters, I would have been right in the middle of most of the
controversies spawned in recent years. That's exactly why I dropped off,
to avoid getting embroiled in them and spoiling it for those folks who
thought it was supposed to be a resource about birds and who were
interested in discussions and not arguments.

>From what I understand, there has been no restriction on subject matter,
even though birds are of course intended to be the primary focus. As
someone who reads your messages at least sometimes, I hope people don't
stop writing about whatever interests them (certainly about dragonflies!).
I doubt if someone who sends in a recipe for sweet pickles but doesn't
lambast someone else while doing so will be blocked from tweeters access.
Does anyone reading this think that calling one another names is about
birds?

I think our modern world is all too lacking in gentility, and, while the
First Amendment surely protects freedom of speech, it doesn't guarantee
that you can malign someone else freely and not suffer some consequences.
As far as I know, Don had a lot of choice in this matter, and he chose to
stick to his guns and remain confrontational. Dan had much less choice
and, I think, acted for what he thought was the best interest of all.

I would humbly request that those of you who use words such as "Nazi" and
"Pope" in referring to Dan Victor have some second thoughts about what
you're saying.

Best wishes,

Dennis

Dennis Paulson, Director phone 253-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 253-756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416
http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/museum.html