While i do agree Andrew, that it would be a shame for Ian May's
email to be the last word i do think that we need to bow to the
requests of the moderator of this group. That's what he is there for.
And as he said, unless something else new comes up there really isn't
anything more to discuss. Everyone has made their points loud and
clear and those who don't agree now will not agree unless some new
FACTS come to light.
Yes it is an important issue but Here-say and opinions are really
irrelevant to the outcome of this debate.
And it has already been rigourously and publicly debated!
Cheers
David Stowe
On 26/02/2007, at 9:24 PM, Andrew Stafford wrote:
With all due respect to Russell's request, I don't think Ian May's
will be the last word on this subject - not when Ian takes it upon
himself to cast slurs such as "gormless wimps", "self-acclaimed
experts", a certain "city-based news writer with a grudge" (I look
forward to Greg Roberts' reply) and "faceless desk jockey(s)". Nor
should it be.
This is a massively important issue; the most significant claimed
scientific discovery in Australian ornithology in decades. So why
shouldn't it also be the biggest topic to hit birding-aus in that
time? Its veracity, and the ethics with which the claim has been
documented, should be rigorously and publicly debated in my view -
although all posters should also be aware of the legal concerns
surrounding this case and choose their words carefully. Including
Ian May!
Those who are bored by the subject can always ignore the thread.
Cheers. Andrew
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
