Dear Tweeters,

Once again, Michael has overreacted to a single statement in a
posting of mine, and ignored the rest of the posting. No apology from
me is needed, and none will be forthcoming. If anyone has "smeared"
Michael's reputation, it is Michael himself, in his own admission of
the difficulty he had in learning warbler songs, and still has in
identifying some singing flycatchers. I merely called attention to
statements Michael made himself in his posting of May 22 to Tweeters.
I expressed an opinion about Michael's qualifications as a forest bird
surveyor, based on those statements and on my personal experience with
him. Others are free to agree with or disagree with my opinion.
I find it a bit annoying when someone who is not an expert on a
subject (in this case, identifying bird songs and calls) presumes to
lecture the rest of us on the subject. That is the reason why I
included a quote from Michael's earlier posting on identification by
ear.
Michael alleges that I have smeared his "professional competence"
in public. First of all, if Michael has any qualifications as a
professional, either as a biologist or biological technician, I am not
aware of them. I was aware that he had been paid to do some bird
survey work. If he means by "professional" simply that he has been
paid to do something, as opposed to doing it for free, I suppose that
makes him a professional. However, the more usual meaning of
"professional" is someone who has certain qualifications, such as a
degree or diploma.
I have no idea how Michael is making a living now, nor is it any
of my business. However, there is lots of bird survey work that does
not depend on ability to identify songs (e.g. surveys of waterfowl,
raptors, or seabirds.) Michael's eyesight is much better than mine,
and I would not hesitate to recommend him for that kind of work, as
long as it was supervised by a qualified biologist. I stand by my
earlier statement that one should recognize one's limitations in
identifying birds by songs and calls, and act accordingly. If not,
others surely will recognize those limitations.
I find it disturbing that, in many Tweeters exchanges between
Michael and others, he tries to extricate himself from a losing
argument by either launching a personal attack on others, or making
exaggerated claims of a personal attack directed against him. This is
a fallacy in logic commonly known as "argumentum ad hominem"
(argument against the man), in which one tries to deflect attention
from the subject under debate by attacking the opponent, rather than
his/her position. I will not be drawn into a "flame war" over this
subject, and I hope others will see through the transparency of these
tactics.
I have ignored many questionable statements made by Michael in
postings to Tweeters (by this, I mean mainly questionable science, not
questionable identifications). However, the hypothesis proposed in
Michael's posting of June 11, in which he suggested that a
Black-headed Grosbeak might respond to a supposed territorial threat
from a Yellow-breasted Chat by mimicking its song, and that this might
be a regular occurrence rather than an aberration, seemed so ludicrous
to me that I felt it required a response. My initial response, I
believe, was both thoughtful and respectful to Michael. If Michael
would simply accept this kind of response, instead of acting as if he
felt threatened every time someone disagrees with him, and responding
with "flame words", there would be a lot less acrimony on "Tweeters".

Sincerely,

Wayne C. Weber
114-525 Dalgleish Drive
Kamloops, B.C. V2C 6E4
Phone: (250) 377-8865
wayne_weber at bc.sympatico.ca




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Price <mprice at mindlink.bc.ca>
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 8:08 PM
Subject: A Tweeters First (was: Grosbeak/Chat Song Resemblance: A
Fluke)


>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
>