Tweets and Jon,

I've reread Jon's original posting. I invite you to do the same, but
while you do, imagine how much more mellow the posting would sound if
there were some strategically placed "in my opinion"'s, "IMHO"'s, or
perhaps a "if one assumes that <such and such> then one would have to
conclude that <something else>".

It's been said many times and many ways (as the song says), but with
e-mail you are missing intonation, body language, and much else. Thus
if one were to state something like, "Doing <such and such> violates
every know custom known to man since the 13th century", it has, whether
wanted or not, an accusative edge to it. [Let me be clear here, that I
am just using this as an example, and not suggesting that this is what
Jon said.]

"Strongly held opinions" are part of the spice of life. By putting a
bit more energy into it, one could transform the above statement in a
way that makes one's strong opinion clear, but without providing any
unintended or unwarranted ad-hominem interpretations. For example, one
might have said, "I believe that most people would agree that there have
been customs since the 13th century that try to prevent <such and
such>. If one believes that these customs have merit, then one would
also have to apply them in the case of <something else and such>. There
is no doubt a gray line here, but consider that <something or other>."

If a case can be made, it can probably be made logically and in a manner
that makes it absolutely clear that no ad-hominem attack what-so-ever is
intended. Perhaps the rules that apply to the judiciary might have some
application to debates held via e-mail: (to paraphrase) It's not enough
to know that one is not making an ad-hominem attack, but one must also
actively avoid any *impression or interpretation* that that might be the
case. (At least publicly, anyway. :) )

In keeping with my own words, let me state that this is merely my
opinion, but let me also say, that I find it works well for me. I also
find that I am much more likely to carefully consider an opinion
presented logically and without any possible suggestion of attack, even
if it is one with which I disagree. I am not trying here to castigate
Jon, but I am hoping to contribute to the dialog concerning finding a
way to avoid the occasional flare-ups that occur on Tweeters. It is
much more fun to "listen" to a reasoned debate.

My final word: E-mail is a flawed medium. We must maintain a constant
awareness of just that, and adjust to it.

Bob Mauritsen

P.S. I don't claim never to have violated the above suggestions.



"Jon. Anderson and Marty Chaney" wrote:
>
>
> I apologize for replying to the list on this subject, but I wish to clear my
> name regarding a post to the list.
>
> "Rob Conway" wrote:
>
> >Now that the human STARLINGS on Tweeters have pecked yet another regular
> >contributor to death - so sorry Michelle - I have at last decided that this
> >is it - I'm out of here.
>
> Robin - Sorry to lose you from the community. Your contributions to the
> Tweeters list were valuable.
>
> >I said this once before, when Don Baccus was banned from the list, but was
> >encouraged by others to stay on. I did stay, but the list hasn't been the
> >same since. If Jon Anderson isn't banned from Tweeters, the way Don was,
> >then something is really wrong - are you there Dan???
>
> If you would re-read my original post, you might see that I did not "attack"
> Michelle. I did note that the actions one of her unnamed acquaintances, in
> allowing an animal to starve to death in a trap rather than killing it
> humanely, was less than humane; I stand by that contention. I also noted
> that a state and/or federal permit was needed if any native, legally
> protected bird was trapped incidentally to the starling trapping; It is. I
> did go on to editorialize for a bit about the place of invasive species in
> an invaded landscape - again, refraining from any personal attacks.
>
> If that's "flaming" on a Don Baccus-scale, I would apologize. I don't
> believe that it is. I certainly don't have Don's command of logic, strength
> of argument, or clarity of expression. If Dan asks me to leave his list, I
> certainly would. But, I wouldn't do so because of thin-skinned people
> getting bent out of shape when someone disagrees with their dogma and
> strident rhetoric.
>
> On the other hand, I welcomed Don's sharp wit, insight, and observations.
> Because of his style, and what happened when he 'crossed the line' in
> personal interactions on the list, I think most of us have been pretty good
> about keeping the discussions on topic, without falling into personal
> attacks (see next paragraph....).
>
> >There are some fine and wonderful contributors here - The Sullivans, Wayne
> >Weber, Dian "TV" McC, Gene Hunn, Kelly McCallister and Ian Paulson come to
> >mind. There are also some real schmucks.
>
> I won't pull a Noel Wamer, and demand a public apology (Tweeters archives
> November 1998) for your calling me a "Schmuck" [American Heritage
> Dictionary: Schmuck. n. Slang. A clumsy or stupid person. (Yiddish shmok,
> penis, fool < G. Schumck, ornament < MLG smuck.)], but I would ask that you
> refrain from the personal public attacks on me, Robin. I do not believe
> that I have acted in such a way to the Tweeters community in general or to
> any member in particular, and would ask for the same respect: Attack my
> identification skills, my conclusions, my ideas, my rhetoric or my logic,
> but not me. I'm really not too bad a person, even if my viewpoints diverge
> from yours.
>
> >From the Tweeters standpoint I've been flamed a number of times both on and
> >off line. Usually water off of a ducks back (required bird reference
> here).
> > I've actually met a couple of nice people through the flames - one
> >accusing me of reporting "an impossible bird" until I took them to it the
> >next Saturday - Yellow Billed Cuckoo indeed. Vigorous discussion is GOOD -
> >being nasty either on or off line just isn't acceptable.
>
> Like calling someone a schmuck?
>
> When we keep our discussions and exchanges focused on the issues, we avoid
> these kind of 'flames'. Hopefully then, the people with strongly-held
> opinions will not feel that they must take replies in opposition to their
> points of view as personal attacks, and we can all interact with each others
> as adults.
>
> >My grandmother taught me very early in life that some people and some
> things
> >just aren't worth the time, the worry or the effort they take; I've come to
> >the conclusion that Tweeters is one of those things.
>
> On the other hand, my grandmother taught me that people are good and bad, to
> give everyone the benefit of the doubt and to take the good where you find
> it. I have found that Tweeters is an excellent group of people who care
> passionately about birds, about the environment, and about each other.
> Nothing I've seen since 1994 has persuaded me otherwise. Your attack on me,
> notwithstanding.
>
> >Bye Tweets - this time for good.
> >Robin Conway
> >Bellevue WA
> >Life list now just short of 3900
> >Hoping to make it to 4000 with a trip to Vietnam this year
>
> I'm impressed and jealous that you found the YB Cuckoo, Robin. Cool bird!
> Enjoy your trip to SE Asia.
>
> Jon. Anderson
> Olympia, Washington
> Life list somewhere short of 600... hoping to see birds anytime, anywhere,
> any species