It seems that in the debate about 'humourous' messages on this site, three
quite different issues are being debated:
1) whether one ought to reply to a sender or the site as a whole when a
question is asked
2) whether messages should be kept highly 'sober'
3) whether messages whose main content is alleged humour are appropriate.
I have strong views on the third. So let me preface them with a brief
comment on 1 and 2 which otherwise cloud the issue.
I learn lots from answer to other people's questions. Most people who send
to this site know more than I do about birds, so I value it a lot. In
general, therefore, I'd be happy to see replies kept public. If a debate
does not interest me, it's easy to see which messages to delete by the
label.
Sometimes, it seems sensible to reply to the sender only. But even then (as
with RFIs) it may not be the case. I like the RFIs because even it concerns
somewhere I'm not going yet, I might one day and I can (and do) collect and
archive the messages.
On 2, heaven forfend that we cannot pass the odd humourous story or
anecdote about birds and birders, or put a joke or anecdote in a more
serious message.
That leaves 3. I certainly find it tedious, time wasting and annoying to
have people creating and sending messages full of juvenile humour that
wastes my log-in time and disk space down loading them.
True, I am beginning to recognise certain names and delete their messaes
unread and I guess as long as there are only a few such pests around, it is
only a minor irritant.
The fact remains, however, that it does not take many such twerps before
the site starts to clog and people unsubscribe. This is a case of the
'tragedy of the commons' -- the pursuit of individual 'rights' ("I'm free
to send any message I like") without regard to others needs wrecks it for
all.
Interestingly, I suspect that we recognise this dilemma as birders. If a
fragile habitat was under threat by people wanting to 'tick' the rare
species that bred there, we'd be enthusiastic about protecting the resource
for all. Pity some do not recognise this principle as site users.... as
another correspondent said, there are plenty of humour sites for would be
comedians.
Stephen Mugford
|
