BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fugl" data-source="post: 1699089" data-attributes="member: 816">In spite of what others are saying, I don’t think there’s been much wrong with the tone of your postings which, it seems to me has been polite enough (I’m the one who often gets in trouble for tone!).  It’s the content we (or at least I) object to.  What you (& your supporters) appear to be saying is that the letter of the law should be slavishly followed even in cases where doing so is in clear violation of its spirit.  This is a mentality I have very little sympathy with.With regard to personal “jeopardy”, if one breaks the law for whatever reason one risks the prospect of unpleasant consequences.  Of course, and this is how it should be—it’s called “putting your money where your mouth is”.  What’s wrong with that?  And why are you so exercised about it in this case anyway, where both intent & effects are clearly benign & where as just about everybody has pointed out charges are extremely unlikely to be brought?  But, it’s pretty clear nobody’s going to change his mind about any of this.  In fact, I have a vague memory of a previous thread involving a very similar case in England where exactly the same positions were taken & defended to the death as here.  Maybe somebody remembers it better & can dig out the link?</blockquote>