Greetings All,
The purpose of this message is to correct
a very wrong and I consider offensive assertion (below) made to
First Denis Wilson posted an interesting
report with the above subject header. I initially had no idea at the basis for
the subject header "Out of area". However it seemed pretty unimportant,
because I considered the subject and message to adequately describe the location
and whatever other bits were needed. I reckon most readers would have a
pretty good idea where Nowra is, so what "area" this was referring to
didn't matter to me. I thought it was just a random typing error or
accidentally copying an earlier header from something else - yes that happens, I
have done it too. Either way it seemed not important enough to comment on.
However it is clear from the text in the original message (I suppose the part
that matters) that Denis understood the location to be within the normal
range of the bird. We were all very clear on that.
Then Geoffrey Dabb wrote: "Joe Forshaw
confirms turqs (within range, not OOA)". Of course I took this as that Joe
Forshaw confirms the identity of the species. Both I and Lindsay had wondered at
the identity, based on the not so great posted photos and if Blue-winged Parrot
was a possibility. Either species would still be a very pleasing find. Geoff, in
passing (indeed in brackets) made a correction to the subject header "Out of
area", pointing out that it is not OOA, Geoff's point being that the location
was within the range of the Turquoise Parrot. No issue from any of us about
that, though they are hardly common, so an observation of a group is certainly
worth reporting.
Only then I realised that
there was a possible confusion and started to think why would Denis had headed
it that way. It occurred to me that his "Out of area" was intentional and if so,
the only logical thing I could come up with was that he likely meant the
location is outside the COG Area of concern (NOT relating to the distribution of
that particular bird). In keeping with the generosity of spirit I always display
to contributors, I sent a message to Geoff pointing out that I believe I had
identified the confusion and that, considered this way, the header and text were
describing different things. If so both the header and the message were correct
and that the correction Geoff had offered, although itself understandable, was
probably not needed. Only out of courtesy I also sent this to Denis. I also
sent it to Lindsay only because he had also responded. Geoff has since responded
to me acknowledging that I was correct and that this "Out of area" description
is ambiguous. Denis informed me of a kind of rule or tradition that "out of area" - as that is a COG
tradition when reporting unusual,. but hopefully interesting sightings. I
knew that it the sighting was "out of COG's Area of interest." I am not aware of that "tradition". I do not see any need to
say that, but whatever takes your fancy, some do, some don't - who
cares?
Note that I
did NOT send that message to the list, because I thought my comment to Geoff and Denis self evident
and as the trivial
correction had already been made by Geoff,
it was of no further
interest or importance whatever, other than to those who had shown
an interest. More to the point,
if anyone else was still confused after
that, well that is of absolutely no concern of mine. I did not write the first
or second message. It was not my issue. It would have been ridiculous for me to
waste everyone's time with this. I regard bird observations as standing on
their merits. Apart from that yes geography provides clues or support as to
likely identification, whether something is one side or another of some
arbitrary line is of little interest to me (other than GBS site boundaries of
course).
Next thing I see is my generosity of
spirit responded to with this absurd and demonstrably wrong message from Denis
(below). Not only that, what I
wrote is clearly correct and very clearly says exactly the same message as Denis
said (except I used the word "probably"). That the obs is within range for the
species but outside of COG's Area. It is unacceptable that this (I'll be
understated and say) silly and wrong jibe is then sent on to all on
the list for no reason whatever, when most won't even understand why.
A two
second look by Denis, if he had bothered to check, would
have revealed that I did not send my
advice to the list. This should be done before making public put downs of other
people for no reason. If indeed public put
downs of other people for no reason should be done at all, I think it well
outside the rules of this chat list All of my intelligence is inadequate to
comprehend why anyone would send such a message to an innocent and uninvolved
collection of people. What possible benefit or reward is there for him, for me
or for anyone else, in doing that? Apart from that it is demonstrably wrong. I
was in clearly in TOTAL understanding and agreement with what his message
was saying. I was explaining that the subject header was correct and the
message body was correct but they were describing different things. I hope that
this was obvious to anyone who had the misfortune to read his last
message.
Lastly, I immediately made my objection abundantly
clear to Denis and that I was totally right in my message, and that his
unacceptable response must not be allowed to languish on a public forum. I
made it absolutely clear to him that my message was in complete agreement and
accord with the substance of both his subject header and the message body. I was
overly patient and generous in my direct insistence and requirement allowing him
until last night to issue a total retraction. I informed Denis that a simple
retraction from him would be far more dignified. This not having happened
(indeed was rejected and argued against by him) I need to defend my
status.
My interpretation of the original message was
absolutely and unambiguously clearly completely correct and was offered
privately in pure courtesy to just three people. Therefore this statement from
me of my objection to his message to the coglist stands and must be recognised.
Even though I obviously regret the necessity. If anyone wishes to read the the
gory details of all the messages leading to this, well I'm sure that can be
arranged but I suggest you don't waste your time. And I am sorry for this waste
of time but it is unavoidable.
Philip Veerman
24 Castley Circuit
Kambah ACT 2902
02 -
62314041
The comment was "
Not out of
area".
Therefore Philip's interpretation is clearly wrong.
The
location is out of the COG area of interest, but clearly well within known range
of the Turquoise Parrot.
Denis
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Philip Veerman
<>
wrote:
I suspect that the comment of Out of area refers to
the location being outside of COG's area of interest. Not referring to being
outside the known range of the Turquoise Parrot (which it probably
isn't).
Philip
Denis Wilson
"The
Nature of Robertson"
www.peonyden.blogspot.com
