NotJohn, thanks. Yeah, it has been a difficult time. Missing my Daddy got easier and easier, remembering that he wanted me to have a good life. It was very difficult with my Mama because it turned into me always having to take care of her . . . and the doctors never listening to any of my wants and/or suggestions. It was a terrible experience leading up to her passing and has obviously taken a good deal to get better . . . and there are definitely still issues.

Apols for outage. Disk filled up. Deleted a big file for now, but I'm going to have to work out where the biggest offender is.

Shutting down a city for a day in order to catch a dangerous fugitive? Maybe that is justified. Shutting down a city for a day in order to fail to catch a dangerous fugitive? I think that is officially a victory for the terrorists.

Of course, I may have spoken too soon. It wouldn't be the first time. :-) But the post above was written just after the official word was "Lock down is over and we think the suspect is still in Massachusetts".

(CdM) Yes, 1-0 to the bomber. It's a ludicrous and hysterical reaction. I don't remember this country having a collective nervous breakdown when the IRA were killing people with their bombs in the 70's and 80's. This view wouldn't go down too well in Boston, of course, where they are more Irish than the Irish.

[Rosie] I've been having disturbing thoughts along those lines all weekend, and wondering how much Boston collectively donated to Noraid back in the day.

[Phil] I've had thoughts along those lines - the proportion of the Northern Irish population killed in Omagh was greater than the proportion of the US population killed at 9/11 so would Britain have been justified in launching missiles at Boston? (Of course in parallel with that thought I would vote for the unification of Ireland under the right conditions.)

(Phil) Probably quite a lot though to be fair the average donor may not have known what proportion, if any, went to the IRA. But the organisers certainly must have done. Nobody likes to talk about this, do they?

[Rosie] They were less hysterical this time than after 9/11 though. So progress of a sort.

(SM) Given the respective number of deaths I'd say rather the opposite and it's all a bit dear-old-lady-has-seen-a-spider. At least we haven't seen an arbitrary country bombed yet.

[Rosie] Apart from America itself, bdum tish!

Weep, John Cage.

Nearly managed a month.

For those not following the 8 words game, I saw a hoopoe in my garden in Derbyshire last Sunday. I know enough about birds; a. to recognise it instantly and b. to know it was rare. The hoopoe is a frequent visitor to Southern England but that is the extreme limit of its normal range.
I reported it to the County Bird Recorder of the BTO (British Trust for Ornithology) – he asked me to fill in a ‘rare bird sighting’ form and told me it was the 35th record in Derbyshire and the first for over 2 years.
So, what constitutes a ‘sighting’? Primarily it needs to be accepted by the rare birds committee who make a decision whether to accept it. The criteria vary depending on the bird and the spotter. In my case, although I’m an RSPB member, they won’t have heard of me and wouldn’t take my word for it. if we were talking about some odd little brown warbler, unless it was confirmed by someone acknowledged as an expert. However a hoopoe is extremely distinctive and I have multiple very good photos, so in this case confirmation should not be required. Similarly a pragmatic view will be taken as to whether a number of sightings some time apart should be taken as being one or more individual birds.
Historically records are based on photos, then before that on birds trapped or shot or reported by acknowledged experts – it can get a bit vague, but they go back to the 18th century.

Bring back shooting as the only acceptable form of identification. Everything was better in the old days.

What's hit's history, what's missed's mystery.

[NJ] Thanks. It was the last question I was most interested in. What, in the idealised bird-spotting world, is a sighting supposed to represent? I think you are saying that, ideally, one sighting should equal a particular individual bird -- so if two different individuals spot the same bird on two different days (assuming you could tell, somehow), then that would count as one sighting, not two. Is that right?

Basically, yes. But, of course these records relate to areas; so, if my hoopoe had flown 10 miles East then it might have then also entered the records in Nottinghamshire, even if a series of sightings along its path showed that it was almost certainly the same bird. It's certainly very common for one person to sight a rarity and the next day dozens of twitchers (not birders) will turn up because they want it on their personal tick list. However they wouldn't regard that as a new sighting. It's not clear-cut.

[NJ] That comment took me right back to this classic sequence of Doonesbury.