I'm going to weigh in again here with a plea for us all to be thoughtful,
considered and temperate in our language when we post messages on a public
forum such as Birding-Aus.
I'm sure Carl had only the best of intentions, but here are some
thoughts/comments on his post.
1. Did he seek John's permission before sending John's personal email to the
list? John may not wish his private comments to be broadcast in this way (and
they may not do him any favours by being made public).
2. Is second-hand information ("hearsay" in legal terms) sufficiently reliable
to justify such strong and emotive language directed at another person ["Utter
contempt is not adequate enough to describe my feelings towards this person."],
particularly when this person has had no opportunity to put their side of the
story? (John himself knows all about this.)
3. John states that the supposed miscreant "implied" that a fire might do
something. I would like to have the actual statement before concluding that
this was a statement of genuine intent or serious consideration, rather than
say a careless or even whimsical comment (possibly misinterpreted in a
sensitive and volatile setting).
I know some might find all of this altogether too prissy and purist, and of
course megaphone commentary makes for much more entertaining reading (or
listening - think shock-jocks). But shouldn't we try on this forum,
particularly with its slightly scientific pretensions, to remain objective,
reasonable, fair, decent - you know, all that stuff?
And surely that's enough on this matter.
> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:54 am, Carl Clifford <> wrote:
> I have just received this email from John Young, part of which I find very
> disturbing. How someone who purports to be a birdwatcher could suggest
> setting fire to a fragile environment as spinifex country, just so he could
> tick the Night Parrot is quite unfathomable. Utter contempt is not adequate
> enough to describe my feelings towards this person. Unfortunately, if I were
> to use the phraseology I would like to, I would likely be kicked off BA for
> life. Suffice to say, they would be a suitable candidate for retrospective
> sterilisation. Enough of my raging, here is John Youngs email:
> Hi Carl,
> I could not resist complimenting you on your quote about governments “Cloud
> Cuckoo Land” how good and factual is that.
> Personally I think they are a baby kissing, weak hand shaking waste of space
> – hence my stand to avoid them at all costs.
> The scary part was I recently had an individual wanting to see the bird for
> his list at all costs and cost was the word.
> He actually implied that a spinifex fire would force them out the other end
> so people could see them if lit when in position.
> If I would have been closer I would have beat the #!%# out of him.
> Surely our priceless fauna mean more than just a bloody tick.
> Our focus as a serious group of people now should be the killing of this
> feral menace that has the potential in the VERY near future of wiping some of
> our precious fauna off the face of the earth.
> A huge thankyou to you and those who are driving this point home..well done.
> My turn is coming and I will take no prisoners.
> Kind regards
> John Young
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit: