[mnbird] Re: [mou] Why two lists?

[Chuck Cole]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mou-net-admin@cbs.umn.edu [mailto:mou-net-admin@cbs.umn.edu]On
> Behalf Of Chris Fagyal
>
> I don't find Steve's post "snotty" at all, but rather very informative for people new to either list as to the focus of
> the lists.  I've been on both of these lists going on 6 years now, and i've birded with Steve several times, and the guy
> doesn't have a bad bone in his body.  Rather he's one of the nicer guys i've ever met.

It's become amusing to notice how many folk do not get what I actually said and react to my choice of a trigger word.  Must be a
"Minnesota nice" reaction that's keeping folks from reading correctly past a trigger word.  Check the quote below.

Let's be very clear: I never said or meant ANYTHING negative about Steve as a person.  I respect him, his opinions, and his work.
Anyone who thinks my words refer to anything but the web site message should first apologize and then get reading lessons.


> As for the policy of the MOU list, its been explicity stated several times, and never in a way that I would consider
> "snotty", but rather as Sharon has pointed out, it's a focused list server on a somewhat narrow topic (but not nearly as
> narrow as some, as also pointed out by Sharon).  For people who do not like the focus, they don't necessarily need to
> participate, though the MOU doesn't discourage *anyone* from participating.  I find this to be an advantage of the "two
> list" situation that currently exists in Minnesota, because there is a list that should suit everyone.  It could, you
> realize, but a lot more disparate.

The MOU intro note is trying to state restrictive guidelines, but never makes anything definite.  I get the impression that a
newcomer is welcome to make 5 posts, then conform or go away.

>  Florida has many more than 2 list servers, and California has upwards of a dozen for birding.

Florida seems to have many more birds, birding areas, and birding interests.  Might have many more doing birding.  Probably better
situated for migrations.  Haven't seen many types of seabird up here, for example.  Differentiating by bird types could make sense,
especially if traffic is high.


> This "fowarding is repugnant" comment is way out of bounds,

Not at all: I clearly said that was *my* reaction (cf "IMHO") and you have no basis or right to try to limit my reactions.  I object
to having my material forwarded about and/or otherwise misquoted or mis-attributed without my permission.

> and as a matter of fact, nothing posted on any list server is
> copyrighted unless specifically stated, either in the guildelines of the list server, or by the poster him/herself.
> Maybe you should do some reading and do some research before you go off your rocker like this and post such nasty
> comments towards people you don't even know.

You are wholly uninformed of what background research I have or whether what you say is fact or just your own opinion.  You are
wholly out of bounds in these regards.  There's lots of material on this subject and most adds up under the column that quoting
without express permission is illegal by one or more criteria.  Do your own due diligence here.  I have.  My words are not a
statement of precise condition, and only indicate that there is much said "in the literature" about unauthorized quoting.  Re-read
what I actually said.



I appreciate the comments by Mark Alt that attempt to clarify that MOU is indeed open to all.  However, I wish the words would say
just that and not waffle around how the MOU list should only contain some info and not all bird-related info (etc).  My point is
still that the best words do not say "open" in any "KISS" way, and participant comments verify that it is closed in some way that is
not specified at all.

I've been observing and photographing birds (etc) for more than 40 years, but I have looked into and then avoided joining birding
organizations for exactly this kind of "purist" response.  My reaction will be to post any potentially valuable info elsewhere
rather than get into a debate whether my format was the local favorite or not or whether it fits this months restricted species list
or not.  If re-posting is routine, I'll be sure to include a copyright notice and/or omit data to prevent forwarding to a
pretentious "purist" group.  It's really an issue of whether a group can and will promote the interest and help newcomers to further
develop *their* interests in a birding topic.  I'm expecting more info from Florida on the ivory-billed woodpeckers, but will not
post that on the MOU list under present conditions since I won't be a member of MOU and may not follow the proper guidelines.

Similary, I most appreciate Jim Williams comments about how the next-door Wisconsin gets by fine with one list.  Wisconsin's birding
is  probably very similar to birding in MN, as far as the birds are concerned  :-)


It was and is not my purpose to stir up a hornets nest.. besides: they aren't birds  :-)
Having two lists with identical scope of content is a clear message that there's a social and/or organizational problem somewhere.
I hope the list distinctions become clearly stated someday.  Meanwhile, I now know to tread lightly and mostly elsewhere.


Chuck


> Chris Fagyal
> Senior Software Engineer
> United Defense, L.P. ASD
> Fridley, MN
> (763) 572-5320
> chris.fagyal@udlp.com
>
> >>> "Chuck Cole" <cncole@earthlink.net> 03/24/2005 02:29:50 AM >>>
>
> That snotty "go elsewhere welcome" needs to be posted explicitly on the MOU list web site if it's the policy of the MOU
> list.  That is not what the list intro actually requires or directs at present.  Frogs would be off-topic on each of
> these two bird lists.  Monitors doing some forwarding is repugnant, IMHO.  Some would say that violates some copyright
> regulations concerning author's rights as well.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mnbird-admin@lists.mnbird.net [mailto:mnbird-admin@lists.mnbird.net]On Behalf Of Steve Weston
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:57 AM
> To: cncole@earthlink.net; MNbird
> Subject: [mnbird] Re: [mou] Why two lists?
>
>
> Mou-net is for postings that would be of interest for serious birder.  I post to MOU-Net sightings of unusual birds,  the
> newsletter and meetings of MRVAC (Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter), and very little else.  I post to MNbird any
> Mou-net post plus posts that might be of interest to the wider community of birders.  For example I might post to MNbird
> the results of a frog survey and how to recognize the calls of the frogs found.    These natural observations would not
> be welcomed and would be off topic for MOU-net.  While some listers are put off by the attempts of the MOU-net to keep
> the focus narrow and on topic, that is the mission of the list serve.  New birders should join MN-bird, which welcomes
> inexperienced observations and questions.  The posts of those birders who choose to join only MOU-net, will be fowarded
> to MN-bird by monitors who watch for such posts of interest.
>
> Steve Weston on Quigley Lake in Eagan
> sweston2@comcast.net

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chuck Cole
> To: MNbird ; MOU
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:43 AM
> Subject: [mou] Why two lists?
>
>
> Seems really silly to have two lists and most folks making double posts.  Since the double posting seems so regular, the
> old political split or whatever must be quite stale by now.  Is there any good reason to continue double postings?  Why
> not rig one list to be an active standby in case the other one fails?  ... or make sure every message gets copied so we
> only need to see them once.
>
>
> Chuck