Hallo Jeff.
I don't think I've missed any of your points at all. It's just that I
don't necessarily agree with them. Ok, John may or may not have made an
error in publicly releasing any information at all regarding his finds,
assuming he actually has some. He may or may not have been party to the
picture being fiddled with, but if he was ( and I'd find that hard to
believe, but maybe he was, who knows and who cares?) he certainly made
an error in releasing it, and is probably regretting having done so. I'm
quite open on these issues and I'm prepared to wait and see what
eventuates.
What I do object to most vehemently is that he is being hounded and
doubted by people whose only desire seems to be to bring the poor bloke
to account and have him humiliated. This is the same sort of hounding
that politicians and so called celebs receive every time they put a foot
wrong, wilfully or otherwise. Look what those newshounds did to Diana.
In my posting this morning what I was trying to do was to bring some
sanity to the discussion and have people back off. Even as a frantic
birdwatcher ( yes, a twitcher) I really don't care whether John
ultimately proves to be right or wrong, that's his problem and whichever
way it turns out he'll have to live with it.
I really don't see either that just because he happened to have gone
public that he is now obliged to respond to people who perhaps feel
their reputations and egos are on the line, or that his should be. I
don't concur with these silly "professional ethics". Perhaps these are
their rules made for their own convenience or leverage, but he doesn't
have to follow them if he chooses otherwise. Let them go chase something
worthwhile printing.
I went out with him once in 1997 and he indicated to me even then that
he thought he knew where to find a Coxen's Parrot. I don't mind waiting
another ten years if that what he wants to do.
Your main point seems to be that he went into the public domain and has
now clammed up. He's made a rod for his own back, perhaps he shouldn't
have, who cares? I really don't give a toss about that, and neither do
many people who have responded to me today. That's his choice to make ,
not other people's.
Let's just drop it and leave it to him.
Tony.
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Russell Woodford
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:56 PM
To: birding aus
Subject: Fwd: [Birding-Aus] John Young and his Parrots
I've taken the liberty of removing the previous messages quoted at
the bottom of this one. I'm not sure why Jeff Davies was unable to
post this to the list because it doesn't "trip" any filters.
Russell
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Jeff Davies" <>
> Date: 21 February 2007 4:17:43 PM
> To: <>
> Subject: FW: [Birding-Aus] John Young and his Parrots
>
> G'day Russell,Can you post this manually.
>
> Many thanks, Jeff Davies
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Davies
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:24 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] John Young and his Parrots
>
>
> Tony, you seem to have missed the point of what Andrew Stafford and I
> are making. John Young has released the photograph publicly and after
> scrutiny
> by the leading expert in Australia on photo forgery it was found to
> have
> problems. John Young was asked to present the raw file so this
> could be
> sorted out and he hasn't responded. Why are you shocked and
> dissapointed
> that we are responding logically to something John innitiated by going
> public with this photo in the first place. The image that appeared
> in the
> Courier Mail was high resolution so we are not just passing
> judgment over
> the low res. image posted on his website. There is no "benefit of
> the doubt"
> to give, because the photo is out there and he needs to explain
> away the
> problems that have been found. There is nothing for John to say "sorry
> folks, my mistake" about if this goes the wrong way for him,
> because, well
> do I really have to spell it out to you. We are only "badgering him to
> release other material if it helps explain something that is
> already in the
> public domain. This "conjecture" has arrisen by John presenting a
> photo(evidence)for what is essentialy a scientific claim. All
> scientific
> claims must be subject to peer group scrutiny with all data
> available for
> review.
>
> Cheers Jeff
>
--
This email and any attachments may be confidential and if you are not
the intended recipient, you must
not disclose or use the information in this email. If received in error,
please notify us immediately and
delete the email and all copies. The College does not guarantee that
this email is virus or error free. The
attached files are provided, and may only be used, on the basis that the
user assumes all responsibility for
any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly from the use of the
attached files, whether caused by
the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this
email are not necessarily those of
the College.
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: ===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
