This topic seems to be going around in circles now, so I'll simply ask: what
is "relevant"? Obviously birders feel differently about what constitutes a
genuine contribution. Some obviously only want to read trip reports,
discussions of bird behaviour and so on. Others (including myself) are
interested in a broader sense in conservation issues. Hence I have recently
made contributions to the situation in Tasmania regarding foxes, which is
surely profoundly relevant to bird and wildlife conservation in that state.
I also earned the ire of at least one subscriber for engaging Kiran Krishna
over recent statements he made regarding humanity's relationship to the
environment. I asked Kiran how his position was compatible with
conservation. Some obviously found this thread a little too arcane for their
tastes, but Russell Woodford's guidelines extend to bird conservation, and I
was interested in how Kiran rationalised his standpoint in those terms.
I personally haven't found the volume of rubbish on birding-aus to be higher
than usual lately. I don't read the vast majority of what comes in. I get
frustrated with it like everyone else, but this discussion has come around
many times before, and birders subscribe and unsubscribe all the time. I
have to say I've found it far more bearable lately due to the relative
quietness of certain agitators who shall remain nameless...
Maybe we should collectively take a deep breath, get away from these damn
computers and go birding instead - it'd make us all feel better.
Cheers, AS
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
