@Toddy: Believe it or not, but even factual dialogues can be pretty funny...And why should "fun" be the one and only criterion? Bashing exhibits just for the sake of it doesn't sound like a lot of fun for me, too.
About the "corrections": well, what do you think started this discussion?
And as I remarked torwards ashley-h in another thread: "agree to disagree" is a on the very first look tolerant, but in fact rather unproductive approach, conserving the 'status quo'.
@Dan: Honestly-Your constant "Chinese Stone-throwing" references and similar examples of inadequatly emotional remarks could make it rather difficult for me to take a lot of what you write here seriously, mate... There is a dude @Zebraduiker and I happen to know who hates zoos and uses everything to slash out against them. He wouldn't mind (mis)using these comments for his agenda if it served his purpose. That's what I meant with "harmful"-you don't know who's reading what...
If you quote me, then make sure not to leave out important bits.
"Alas, there are examples, both the negative and the positive ones, where qualified opinions tend to agree on when it comes to size-especially, if biological, (species-)specific parameters are taken into account." refers to said obvious examples of bad, outdated husbandry. One should remark that to notice and remark that the constant stay in a small bare concrete cell is not adequate for any living being does not take "zoo knowledge", but just a wee bit of common sense...
For a profund, fair and honest critique, you should know the whole story, not just a tiny bit-and you should know your stuff (even if it's "no fun") if you don't want to disqualify yourself as an ignorant fool.
As in all debates one is free to quote whatever one wants from one´s opponents.
As I wrote in response to sooty mangabey:
"We are some 450+ nerds here. Nothing that we write will rock the world."
Your fears, Sun Wukong, are equally unfounded.
Using expressions such as "ignorant fool" is a bit hard to take, though. I suggest you cool down a bit and try to be a little more polite to your opponents.
The "fun (or no fun) issue" has been dealt with above and I find it somewhat disgraceful of you to bring it up again.
I think there is nothing wrong with constructive criticism of zoos. We are (or should be) all zoo lovers here - most of us care deeply about our zoos and about the work they do and the animals they keep.
I think it is only natural for us to want the best for the zoos and the animals - and I think it is perfectly reasonable to express concern about the weaknesses we perceive about a zoo.
However, we must also keep in mind that negativity on its own is damaging in a number of ways - criticism should be constructive as much as possible, and we should also take the time to praise the good work that a zoo does when appropriate ... it is too easy to spend all our time complaining and not enough time highlighting the good things.
I encourage debate and discussion - just please don't make it personal.
Using expressions such as "ignorant fool" is a bit hard to take, though. I suggest you cool down a bit and try to be a little more polite to your opponents.
I could suggest to you the very same-see your "jolly" pinpricking at the "speech police" or your attempt above to make the mickey out of me...I remember you remarking that you have problems to understand humour in general (Alligators at Usti Zoo...)-yet you expect others to automatically understand your kind of "humour"? And why shouldn't I utter my opinion about the "fun" aspect? After all, as we have recently been reconfirmed that everyone is allowed to publish his/her opinion, right?
If, by mischance, you want to misinterpret the very generalizing "ignorant fool" to take it personal, then this is your cup of tea. However, this seems to be quite revealing in regard to your apparent underlying opinion torwards me, just as the use of the phrase "opponent" (not: "dialogue partner"? lol). Maybe a calmer, "cooler" approach to my last post might be of help to see things in another, more benign light...
@Sim: "constructive criticism" is the keyword. Unfortunately, it appears that some members here tend to extremes: either they glorify the exhibit (and don't warm up to any contradiction), or they sneer at it, often in ignorance of the "backstory". Such imbalanced critique is a guarantee for repeated outbreaks of bad blood, as the recent example shows.
A better, more prudential and diplomatic balance in the division of laud and objurgation might be advisable for future comments-and that, like the last sentence in my last post, addresses all readers and commentators, not just one in particular.
Thanks for your obligingness.
@Dan: Apology accepted-and I hope that you @all got my message so that I don't have to repeat myself and this kind of dissonance won't occur again - for the sake of all.
