Stewart Wechsler wrote:
> I figured out one scenario of how this one observer sees Goshawks with
> patterns and in sizes that don't corespond to current field guides and how
> he frequently observes them in locations where they have rarely if ever been
> seen before. As a kid his dad, older sibling or other mentor thought hawks
> were the coolest of things and was really excited every time he or she saw
> one and would exclaim "Oh my gosh! a hawk! For this child every hawk became
> a "Gosh! hawk". Once he learned how and where and when to spot them, seeing
> hawks became a common occurance, but to him they would always be Gosh-hawks.
> Though he found one hawk in the bird books by that name, which he realized
> was normally spelled "Goshawk" he noticed that all of the other "Goshawks"
> were mislabeled.
>
>
I hold no brief for the "Goshawk Guy" and am not an advanced enough
birder to make useful comment about his ideas. To my knowledge I have
yet to see a goshawk in the wild, but I have seen or know of a number of
situations where people rejected and derided by their community turned
out to be substantially right. Of course, before they are vindicated
they are usually dead or at least thoroughly bloodied by their
relegation to the bottom of the pecking order. Names like Galileo
Galilei and Alfred Wegener come to mind. I doubt that Mr. Briefer's
name will be added to that little list, but the world is a complicated
place and if there is ever ANY vindication of what he is saying there
will be a number of people around heree with serious egg on their faces.

I am a relatively recent subscriber to Tweeters, but in subscribing I
expected to find respect for scientific effort even where it may
sometimes be misguided. I always think that the answer to misguided
science is better science not finger-pointing and sarcasm.

End of sermon. Pax vobiscum.

Happy holidays.

Dale

--
Dale Chase
(AKA ravenintherain)
Seattle, Washington
ccorax at blarg.net