Lately there has been more than a little edginess creeping into, or
dominating, many communiqu?s to Tweeters.



Rational people have different views on some subjects; because we disagree
doesn?t mean the other party is a jerk.



Even if the other party is a jerk, we can choose to not (a) state the
observation, or (b) respond in kind.



Tweeters subscribers are almost all rational, smart, articulate people with
a common interest in bird behavior and civilized human behavior, or at least
we would all be pleased to be so characterized.



But messaging about cats, for example, or debates over area names, adequacy
of some members? descriptions of birding sites, and other forms of criticism
detract from the shared focus we have.



If we disagree with an identification, there are polite and instructive ways
to note the error while still encouraging the beginners (of whom I am often
one) and not crushing fragile egos. Encouraging posts, even those which are
not composed of perfect prose or totally complete, is important.
Encouraging those with emerging skills to share information should be a
shared goal. Discouraging birding or discouraging people from sharing
information would be extremely unfortunate; about that we all agree.



Every post identifies the sender. If the description of the bird, the
habitat, the location or the access route is incomplete or imperfect, can?t
we send a private email to the sender, requesting more information, instead
of complaining on Tweeters?



So I, for one, an out-of-state subscriber who usually delights in the
Tweeters posts, would like to see a return to focus on the common interests:
bird behavior, where the birds are, and what they are doing there, and
maybe, why they are doing it. Arguments over whether the Fill should be
called the Dump or the UBNAWYSIWYG could be carried on in private. We can
always ask the sender to clarify, if we need to.



We don?t have Ancient Murrelets in Wyoming, or a whole bunch of other
species with which most Tweeters are blessed. You are favored with an
incredible year-round diversity of life in the Puget Sound area; rejoice in
it.



I was a preacher in an earlier incarnation, and I apparently haven?t lost
the inclinations common to that profession. One of the few things still
keeping me from being 100% atheist is the possibility that the incredible
diversity of bird life might just remotely possibly be caused by something
other than natural selection (although I know better); it?s kind of magical
to imagine that some being actually designed them just to delight and
perplex us.



RT Cox

Gillette, Wyoming

birder1 at bresnan.net