To the Tweeters List,

In all the debates I've enjoyed over all the years, no matter how intense or
virulent they become, has a professional had the grotesquely bad manners to
have smeared another's professional competence in public. Here, then, a
Tweeters 'First-Record':

Wayne Weber writes:

>Frankly, I would not put a lot of faith in
>the results of those forest bird surveys that Michael conducted.

Well done, Wayne!

Now, what to do about this? Well, for starters, Wayne, evidence for the
above extraordinary assertion. Second, if evidence is lacking or contrived,
than an apology, please, for your astounding breach of manners. And not one
of your usual 'gee, if I said anything offensive, I must have been
misunderstood; I'm sorry if you misconstrued, etc.,' weasel-worded
specialties) or (my favorite, the last time you pulled this sort of smear),
'Well, I'll apologise if you'll apologise.' Nope. A complete, explicit,
non-weaselling apology. In as much public light as the calumny you uttered.

Given that you are an ornithologist, and I am not, your word as a
professional has weight. Given that I still may seek employment as a bird
surveyor, this statement of yours may be read as credible by other
ornithologists or others who may then be unfairly prejudiced against me if I
apply for work with them. Your calumnious statement about my competence may
result in actual financial and occupational damage to me. It is clear, also,
from the context in which you make this statement that it was not
inadvertent but part of a larger minimising of my skills; in other words,
intent is obvious--you could not plead misinterpretation should the issue go
further. Do you begin to see the very thin ice upon which your
malice-induced blindness has led you?

Either substantiate the above assertion of yours or repudiate it without
reservation and offer a full, unqualified apology. Publicly. Now.

Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
mprice at mindlink.net