Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!gatech!udel!princeton!notecnirp!simpson
From: simpson@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Patricia Simpson)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: give me a break!  Really: give us all a break!
Message-ID: <9051@princeton.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 1 Mar 88 20:47:30 GMT
References: <1988Feb27.172540.5737@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@princeton.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: simpson@princeton.UUCP (Patricia Simpson)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
Lines: 25

In article <1988Feb27.172540.5737@utzoo.uucp> jackson@utzoo.uucp (Don Jackson) writes:
>
> parrots, children, IQ tests, puzzle solving, different cultures, cetaceans,
> etc. etc.

  WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?  Why is there such raving animosity
between the so-called two groups of people who use rec.birds?  The original
writer was sharing some of her experiences with a particular bird.  I found
it entertaining and enlightening, particularly since I've never raised a
bird and so know very little about them.  The response to that posting was
NOT entertaining or enlightening, but an oblique attack on the original poster
via a critique of the use of the word "intelligence".

  Crows are intelligent, it seems to me.  And if I were to post observations
about the diversity of sounds with which crows communicate, I am certain that
no long, vilifying harangues would follow.  Correct me if I'm wrong: I suspect
that poster #2 does not like poster #1 as a person, because poster #1 keeps
captive birds.  This is valid.  If that is the case, then poster #2 should
say so.  Conjectures about the nature of intelligence could begin a fascinating
discussion in rec.definitions.of.intelligence.

In conclusion:
  Say what you mean.  There are serious issues for discussion here, regarding
the morality/immorality/causes/effects/joys/sorrows of capturing and
raising birds.  If this is what the argument is about, argue it!  But please
cut out the personal attacks and wandering diatribes; they serve no purpose.