Hi all,
On a forum like this, it is probably best if some of our
more prolific respondents to emails restrict themselves to bird
issues. Not every rabbit has to be chased up every hollow log.
AND no I don't want anybody to comment on my grammar or sentence
construction or to attempt to interpret this email in a way other
than intended. Cold showers all round please.
Graeme Clifton
On 2/7/2012 12:15 PM, Philip Veerman wrote:
Greetings All,
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 <m("pcug.org.au","pveerman");">>
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
"The Nature of Robertson"
www.peonyden.blogspot.com
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra Ornithologists Group.
Please ensure that emails posted to the list are less than 100 kb in size.
When subscribing or unsubscribing, please insert the word 'Subscribe' or 'Unsubscribe', as applicable, in the email's subject line.
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-Subscribe: <>
List archive:
List manager: David McDonald, email <>
|
|
