[Tweeters] Re: Yes and no on BBWO

Jim McCoy jfmccoy at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 11 13:38:12 PDT 2005

I'm trying to decide whether or not to be sorry. I can appreciate Burt's
distaste for banding codes, but it rhymed so nicely with "Yes and no," and I
thought it would be easy enough to figure out given that there had been so
much discussion of Black-backed Woodpeckers in the last few days.

Normally I spell things out, but I'm not a big fan of censorship, so I
risked the one or two flames that it might draw.

Burt, I'd invite you to spend your emotion on something a bit more
important. I will usually cater to my audience (ignoring for the moment
that some of us in the audience actually *like* the banding codes) but I
don't for a moment believe that this issue merits rules and threats. A
little intellectual exercise never hurt anybody...

BTW, what does PO'd stand for? ;-)

Jim McCoy
Bellevue, WA
jfmccoy at hotmail.com

From: Guttman, Burt <GuttmanB at evergreen.edu>
To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: [Tweeters] Yes and no on BBWO
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:06 AM
Although it's hardly worth the effort, it took quite a while to figure what
"BBWO" stands for. We've had this debate before, and it's clear that many
people share my opinion that these damned abbreviations are confusing and
unnecessary. If people on this list won't stop throwing them around so
casually, I'm going to quit the list or ask Dan Victor to prohibit their
use. Lots of things have been prohibited on Tweeters, and I nominate this
for another one.

In a decidedly PO'd mood,

Burt Guttman
The Evergreen State College
Olympia, WA 98505 guttmanb at evergreen.edu
Home: 7334 Holmes Island Road S. E., Olympia, 98503

More information about the Tweeters mailing list