Having been on the end of some hounding myself (both as a politician and as
a birder), I tend to agree with Tony. In my experience as a journalist I
found that most people I interviewed did not know how to "go public".
And there is a case closer to home than Princess Diana. Remember Lindy
Chamberlain, and how her particular response to the media was taken as
evidence of her guilt.
Denise Lawungkurr Goodfellow
1/7 Songlark Street
BAKEWELL NT 0832
Ph. 61 08 89 328306
On 21/2/07 4:13 PM, "Tony Russell" <> wrote:
> Hallo Jeff.
> I don't think I've missed any of your points at all. It's just that I
> don't necessarily agree with them. Ok, John may or may not have made an
> error in publicly releasing any information at all regarding his finds,
> assuming he actually has some. He may or may not have been party to the
> picture being fiddled with, but if he was ( and I'd find that hard to
> believe, but maybe he was, who knows and who cares?) he certainly made
> an error in releasing it, and is probably regretting having done so. I'm
> quite open on these issues and I'm prepared to wait and see what
> What I do object to most vehemently is that he is being hounded and
> doubted by people whose only desire seems to be to bring the poor bloke
> to account and have him humiliated. This is the same sort of hounding
> that politicians and so called celebs receive every time they put a foot
> wrong, wilfully or otherwise. Look what those newshounds did to Diana.
> In my posting this morning what I was trying to do was to bring some
> sanity to the discussion and have people back off. Even as a frantic
> birdwatcher ( yes, a twitcher) I really don't care whether John
> ultimately proves to be right or wrong, that's his problem and whichever
> way it turns out he'll have to live with it.
> I really don't see either that just because he happened to have gone
> public that he is now obliged to respond to people who perhaps feel
> their reputations and egos are on the line, or that his should be. I
> don't concur with these silly "professional ethics". Perhaps these are
> their rules made for their own convenience or leverage, but he doesn't
> have to follow them if he chooses otherwise. Let them go chase something
> worthwhile printing.
> I went out with him once in 1997 and he indicated to me even then that
> he thought he knew where to find a Coxen's Parrot. I don't mind waiting
> another ten years if that what he wants to do.
> Your main point seems to be that he went into the public domain and has
> now clammed up. He's made a rod for his own back, perhaps he shouldn't
> have, who cares? I really don't give a toss about that, and neither do
> many people who have responded to me today. That's his choice to make ,
> not other people's.
> Let's just drop it and leave it to him.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)