Tuesday, September 26, 2006

We read all this shit so you don't have to!!!

We are not going to link to all of the new IBWO info because, well, we actually have a job, and the two all-IBWO-all-the-time sites do a much better job of that than we ever could.

So we will, instead, do what we do best...comment on the IBWO news, on funny little tidbits, on some of the stupid little comments that are floating around right now in the blogosphere. Pretty much our random thoughts on the whole situation.

This post will be updated as work allows. Blogger is fucked up today so who knows what will get through. (Why all the vulgarity today? Is this the only birding blog that regularly curses???)

1. OK, doesn't it seem like Cornell's web site is a big corporate deal, while Auburn's was put together by a bunch of guys in their basement? To put it into birder terms:

Cornell=National Audubon Society
Auburn=local birding club or ornithological society

That's not intended as an insult...we strongly prefer local birding groups over the NAS...but it is kinda funny.

2. Note to Auburn: do you have a law school? Because there are a lot of copyright notices on the sites that say something like "this information is copyrighted and cannot be used without permission." But you can't copyright information. You could copyright the actual text of an article, or of a field note, but you can't really copyright the information. There is no restriction on using that information, at least not in this context. And all of the info on the site is copyrighted to Hill and Mennill...but the individual sighters should still have their own copyright in their own field notes.

3. We at BINAC do really like these Auburn guys. They seem like nice, normal, approachable birder dudes. And they are being totally honest about what they have and what they don't have, and they have made almost all of it available online. (We'd still like to see the video!!!) So kudos to them for that, they have learned from Cornell's mistakes.

4. Who the fuck is Amy Lester? (Again, the vulgarity.) What, you don't even have to own a pair of binoculars to comment on the IBWO now? And that link that someone posted to a "paper" on birds written by "Amy Lester" (that was obviously written by a grade schooler) was hilarious. We give credit where credit is due, so if that link really was posted by Fishcrow, kudos to Fishcrow!

5. What the hell is John Wall talking about? Hey, we love his Worldtwitch site, but his theory is that the Auburn sightings are some sort of Bush-Rumsfield conspiracy to preempt the election of a Democrat governor in New York? WTF??? Is everyone crazy?

6. The rumor mill was pretty much wrong on this one. Or at least the people pimping the rumor were wrong. Remember all that talk about True Believers dancing on the graves of suicidal skepctics? Didn't happen.

7. You can't blame Auburn for the rumor mill, though. They have been honest and straightforward about what they have. And putting the original field notes and virtually all of the recordings online was a cool deal. We also like the editorial that was attached to the online paper. And you actually have a chance to respond to both the editorial and the paper itself. Very interesting.

8. So did pd actually take up Amy Lester (again, WTF is she???) on her thousand-dollar bet offer?

9. More kudos to Auburn for bringing Jerry Jackson into the loop on this one.

10. If we have one major objection to the Auburn team's way of doing things, it involves birder access, as noted by Mike H. in comments below. If the area is open to the public, it is open to the public, period. You can't let hunters and fishermen in and then chase out (even politely) birders.

11. What do you think Auburn would have found if they had gotten just a tiny piece of the $1M plus that Cornell used to get exactly zero credible sightings this past search season? But see #10. After Cornell's efforts, no photo=no money.

Encourage everyone to go down to the Chachi-wacthie or whatever its called and *someone* will get a photo if the birds are actually there.


12. Somebody just clicked onto this site by Googling the phrase "Florida Ivory-bills Here We Go Again." That's pretty funny, we might steal it!!!


Bill Pulliam said...

So far as I know, Amy Lester is some biochemist or molecular biologist or something like that. I suspect she's a grad student. She doesn't know or care jack shit about birds by her own admission. Her favorite pastime is arguing wth Intelligent Design proponents; being Tom Neson's personal attack dog (oops I got the gender wrong) is just a sidelight.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but so far Amy has been right and Bill has been wrong.

How to explain that?

Anonymous said...

BINAC, one thing this debacle has proved is that bona fides in Ornithology and/or birding is hardly necessary or sufficient in avoiding stupidity.

Bill Pulliam said...

This is obviously some obscure useage of the word "right" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

Anonymous said...

Right is simple, Bill. Amy is right that Ivory Bills have not been proven yet.

It's that simple. When a real photo shows up. She will, at last, be proved wrong.

But don't hold your breath.

Bill Pulliam said...

I don't recall claiming that they had been proven to a scientific standard, bub. I have expressed personal feelings on the matter, but that' a different issue. We all believe the likelihood of some things that we understand have not been proven.

Meanwhile Amy claims the Auburn team is carrying out a deliberate hoax. That's right? She's got proof for that? And don't try to backpeddle, that is what she flat out said with no hedging and no qualifying.

Y'all see the world in such fuckin' (since BINAC established the precedent, no need to be coy here) black-and-white terms!

Anonymous said...

"...black and white terms..."

Good one, Bill. No, that's how CLO and Auburn see Pileated.

Anonymous said...

That's the deal, Bill. I really agree with you. But everytime, Amy turns out to be right!

The day before a big annoucement I think "this is it". A good photo is coming.

But no, Amy is right! Makes me so mad. But not at Amy. At those boobs at CLO and now Auburn.

Bill Pulliam said...

Don't blame Auburn et al, so far as I know they were NOT the ones who promoted overhyped rumors about a dozen-and-a-half birds pecking on kayak's bows. All they did was release what info that actually had -- some sightings, some audio. If expectations were overbuilt this time, blame the rumor mill.

Anonymous said...

We went over this before, Bill. Remember? Auburn says they have "12 sightings of Ivory-billeds..."

They didn't say. Hey, we have a bunch of noises. What could these be?

They went a bridge too far with nothing but Pileated sightings until the IBWO photo is produced.

Again, continue breathing.

Bill Pulliam said...

BINAC -- I suspect "Amy Lester" is a pen name for Ann Coulter.

Anonymous said...

Well that, Bill, would prove that she is "right".

Bill Pulliam said...

Unless she's actually just Tom Nelson's alter ego. We already know he is "right."

Mike's Soap Box said...

I really believe Amy Lester is actually Tom Nelson. If Amy is a real person then holy cow she must be having one hell of a period! Can someone giver her some midol! Damn she's a pain! I mean she must be one hell of a bull dike! Did she play softball in College?

Tom's wife is nice, quiet and sort of a backyard birder type. I can't see how someone like Amy is hanging around with a guy like Tom. Tom in public is real quiet. He's the type of guy that stands in the corner by himself and looks at everyone. He's not a out spoken person so maybe Bill you are right, that Amy is in fact Tom.

I also know Bill if you ever met Tom face to face, Tom would rather walk away from you then discuss his opinions on IBWO matters because he's more secure in expressing his thoughts on a key board then face to face situations. This is true with anyone that he meets. Tom is basically shy in person but once he gets in his private little room behind his computer then Tom is what you see on his website.

Personally everyone who comments on Tom's blog are not birders and its safe to say the only pair of bins they own are some cheep Tasco bins and if they own a scope it's most likely a Nikon spacemaster they bought in 1980! They know to present papers in journals, review data and all that other crap but in reality they are not birders, thye have no field experience, they have no idea on how to seperate a Greater Yellowlegs from a Lesser Yellowlegs, a fall plumage Bay-breasted Warber from a Blackpoll and ect.. they are not birders in any sense of the word! They are the people that pay for local guides in other states to show them birds, they need to hold someones hands to see birds and they do not have the confidence to bird on thier own! They look at a bird and run to thier field guide for help!

This is also true with all the idiots on BirdForum.

Anonymous said...


Are your a misogynist or what? Tone it down a little. Maybe someone will actually read some of your good comments.

Take the bullet out of your foot!

Anonymous said...

"Personally everyone who comments on Tom's blog are not birders.."

Never ever fool yourself, Mike. Fool others, sure, but not yourself.

Bill Pulliam said...

Ah well my most recent posting on my own blog seems to have gotten me blacklisted from Nelson's... again.

Shocked, I am. Shocked.

Birding is NOT a crime!!!! said...

Tom's blog is so popular that people talk about it on other blogs!

We're not taking sides on this one...but flame away if you want to.

Mike's Soap Box said...

oooh Tommy doesn't like you Bill? All his buddies are ignoring you as well? Is Amy responding to you?

LOL --

Are you going to sleep ok tonight?

Did anyone hand over some midol to Amy yet?

Bill Pulliam said...

Check the edit on my own blog for the latest shocking revelation...

Bonsaibirder said...

Personally everyone who comments on Tom's blog are not birders and its safe to say the only pair of bins they own are some cheep Tasco bins and if they own a scope it's most likely a Nikon spacemaster they bought in 1980!

Wow that's some pretty specific information you have on contributors (some anonymous) to a blog. Don't you think you could be generalising somewhat (=bullshitting)?