<< Whether we like it or not, posting on Tweeters is something like
publishing, as it is widely disseminated. >>

Yes, posting on Tweeters is something like publishing {a scientific
article}. However, let's make no mistake about it, there are two types of
scientific article, not refereed and refereed. With the former, just about
anyone can publish just about anything, and woe be unto him who takes the
information on more than face value. Even in refereed journals mistakes can
be made and are found with some frequency, however the fact of refereeing
tends to weed out the most egregious errors. One does not read the one with
the same confidence that one reads the others.
Unlike the unrefereed articles, Tweeters doesn't even have proofreading
help, let alone gatekeepers to the truth. One trusts what one reads in
Tweeters, as in most other "publications", based upon one's own experience
and knowledge and upon a certain faith in those with whose work we're
familiar. There can be no doubt that Tweeters is, in this regard, a
quasi-scientific forum. But it can be viewed only as quasi-scientific.
Finally, equate the mistaking of a flock of whatever for a flock of
Western Sandpipers hardly equates, in my view, to mistakenly announcing the
winner of a presidential election. Or did Dewey actually win the last
election?

Steve Aronoff
Bellingham Wa
oceras at aol.com