FW: [BIRDING-AUS] *New Members*

["Mules, Michael" <>]

OK.  I wasn't going to comment, however I now feel the need.

 

The recent series of topics on who has the right to information, the need to request information in a certain way, and now who is worthy to be on this mailing list, have left a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.  I have several concerns with the sentiments (and specifics) of these messages; one personal and some in-principle.

 

My first in-principle concern is that it is not our place to censure someone for their writing style when they request information.  There are a number of posters whose style I find bemusing, abrupt or plain strange, but it is their way of communicating, and we should treat their communications with respect, and (initially) at face value.  Private concerns are fine, but it is rude and insulting to attack someone in public just for asking a question.

 

My second concern is over "vetting" of new members.  I'm sorry, but when I first joined BA some 5+ years ago, no-one asked me who I was, or what my intentions were; I didn't need to supply referees or photo ID.  What makes the current members of this mailing list more respectable, or more worthy than new applicants?  There is no content on this list other than that provided by its members.  If people don't want information known, then they should show some self-restraint and not provide it in the first place.  I have strong objections to making anyone have to sit an "entrance exam" of any sort.  

 

My personal concern is with JAG's veiled attack (see below) on Sophie's honours thesis (refer to Laurie Conole's email from earlier in the day) and her intentions.  I take this as a personal insult to myself and my ethics as a former zoology (honours) student.

 

"just an idea to help out all beaut folk as opposed to others that kill wild birds for their studies sake." (sent by Penn Gwynne at 10:59am, signed "JAG an Ozzie Whag")

 

Did JAG even read the intention of Sophie's study? I have to ask, is JAG aware of what the discipline of zoology encompasses, what scientific study (of any sort) entails?  Is he aware of Animal Ethics committees, and if so, what SPECIFIC examples does he have to show that such committees are derelict in their duty of placing animal welfare first?  JAG is basically saying that there are good people ("beaut folk") and then there are zoologists.  I take grave offence at this.

 

The reason why I am not addressing this concern to JAG personally, is because he posted this comment as a public message on Birding-Aus.  Therefore, my response and reaction is similarly public.

 

Given the recent trend in off-topic conversations, personal attacks and polemic debates, I no longer consider this the best birding mailing list.  It is getting to the stage where I no longer want to check the emails, and am considering unsubscribing as a result.  This may not be that great a loss to birding-aus, but it already feels like a loss to me.  When it is at its best, it is a joy to be a member of this birding list:  trip reports, sightings, assistance with problems freely given.  I miss it.

 

Yours, Michael Mules

 

 

DISCLAIMER:This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the School. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The School accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.