I agree with Mike.
Bob Holtz
-Original Message-
From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
Hendrickson
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:35 PM
To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: [mou-net] MOU Website RQD Review Page
Hello:
Well its rainy and I got the day
If the rejection of a report was a personal rejection and thus a legitimate
source of embarrassment, then I'd agree with Mike. But the ideal situation
would be for us to look at bird reports as what they are--one birder's
report of a bird that s/he believes is a particular thing, which can be true
While I understand Mike's point, I look at this issue from a slightly
different perspective. Firstly, I am not embarrassed by the fact that a
sighting of mine has been rejected by MOURC. Their standards are high
and that is as it should be. By the same token, a rejection does not
necessarily
3 matches
Mail list logo
