Arthur & Tweeters:
I hope that Tweeters can be a place where we *can* discuss controversial and
ethical bird-related issues. It used to be, until a few people (mostly one
who shall remain un-named but not forgotten) began hurling invective at one
another, rather than accepting the rights of others to have strong feelings
contrary to their own beliefs. Things deteriorated so much that Dan Victor
decided to put a stop to it, and I agreed with his decision.
But, I miss the spirited discussions on Tweeters, before things got a bit
too mean, personal, & crude. Controversy can be carried too far, but a
certain amount is, I think, a good thing. It's interesting, entertaining,
and can be enlightening. These issues are all around us - should we ignore
them or only preach to the already converted? How do you know what other
viewpoints are unless someone expresses them and you listen? We can all
learn a lot, even if it's just when to hit the Delete key :-).
I don't have a problem with the starling debate, though I found myself with
my usual messy bag of mixed feelings.
Here's to strong points of view, tempered with civility.

Ruth Taylor
rutht at seanet.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur & Meg Grimes <agrimes94 at earthlink.net>
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu <tweeters at u.washington.edu>;
mcalllkrm at dfw.wa.gov <mcalllkrm at dfw.wa.gov>; dlmoor2 at coastaccess.com
<dlmoor2 at coastaccess.com>
Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 9:07 AM
Subject: Tweeters mission?


> Kelly, Dianna and Tweeters:
>
>So what is "Tweeters" for? This Starling issue raises this thought. Is
>tweeters merely a site for serious ornithologist and related to post
>scientific research, daily bird list, and rare bird sightings? Or is it
>a site to also discuss other more personal, controversial and ethical
>issues such as trapping Starlings?
>I'm sorry but I see no harm in the email discussions on this topic.
>