My two cents worth, I agree with Byran on this entirely.  I'm not even 
sure why there should be an objection to the occasional notice of 
for-profit products, events, Web sites, etc., as long as they're clearly 
identified as such.  There's surely nothing dishonorable about making a 
living by providing products and services the birding community wants.

I subscribe to birding magazines for the ads, as well as the editorial 
content.  I do occasionally spend money on birding-related things and 
it's helpful to know what's out there.

Obviously, we wouldn't ever want the list to be overwhelmed with this 
type of stuff, but it's hard to imagine that happening to our rather 
obscure little corner of the birding world.  A limit on repeat postings 
or an overall limit of X number of posts containing commercial 
information or links per month or something would be one alternative-- 
if Ernie was willing to take on that extra monitoring task.

If there isn't overwhelming objection to it, I wonder if it would make 
sense to have a time-limited experiment and see what happens.  If it 
showed signs of getting out of hand, we could go back to the original ban.

But either way, I'm cool with whatever Ernie decides to do.  This list 
provides me with all sorts of information I otherwise wouldn't have, and 
I'm profoundly grateful for it.


> 3) I had been opposed to posts by private enterprise, but Iíve changed
> my mind on this. If itís about birds, and doesnít get out of hand, why
> not? I myself have no need to promote my trips or photography workshops
> on VTBIRD. But, as Ernie said, in order ďto strike a balance,Ē perhaps
> occasional, judicious posts -- directing folks to a web page, for
> example, and discouraging follow-up discussion -- may be appropriate
> from entrepreneurs of my ilk. Iíll, of course, abide by the will of the
> birding masses.