Twitching by numbers - Book only available on Amazon (3 Viewers)

[Stephen Dunstan]

Would this be treated as humour if written about a female?

I've recycled the magazine now. The gist of the article is that the female writer ultimately respects male birders for their 'knowledge lightly worn' or similar phrase. But if I suggested a piece for Birdwatch with the synopsis 'I closely watch all the women at twitches and what they wear, the state of their optics and the fact they are all a bit miserable but to be fair they know their stuff and my secondary hobby is now watching women at twitches' I don't think it would be regarded as humorous no.

 

[peterbrash]

Would this be treated as humour if written about a female?

I think you already know the answer to that. If it were crass enough then yes, certain people would class it as humour.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I think you already know the answer to that. If it were crass enough then yes, certain people would class it as humour.

Funny that the definition of crass is this which has to be sexist, why mention gender at all, you can be stupid and insensitive about almost anything.

'showing no intelligence or sensitivity:"the crass assumptions that men make about women"

You could also apply that logic to the book in question but the shamers are on the case again and it's always the same people, let people decide for themselves what they find funny or entertaining, anyone remember 'Viz'?

 

[West End Birder]

It is 100% true that he paid (I believe £1800, might have been £2000) for it to be not only edited but also "created" into something readable from his manuscript. The reason I know this is because I had a long conversation with him about how to do certain things with Amazon's KDP self publishing (which I think is the route he took) and the pitfalls etc. I also offered to proof read it, and also told him to get people who don't know him to read it.

I cannot believe that he did get some independent oversight on the content of the book. Then again i gave an opinion on twitter on the title and he blocked me.

I was also blocked for giving a comment about the "introduction" and that it was not too late to change things. I still don't know why they laid the book out in columns, very odd.

I really cannot understand how an "editor" would have allowed that stuff to get printed in this day and age in an area which is (as Garry and others must know) very sensitive. It's the stuff of private chats not printed matter.

Blimey if only I had had this sort of publicity for Birduder 344 - as Oscar Wilde said:

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about"!

Happy New Year all.

 

[West End Birder]

Sorry I forgot I wrote most of that before - too much partying!

 

[Andy1979]

I agree with Andy A's comments above as well as others on this thread. I would add that the kickback on Twitter should be roundly ignored (whether I or anyone else think Garry's language was appropriate or not is irrelevant). Garry has a right to publish his book, and people can choose whether to buy it or not. That is how things work, if it is popular, it will sell, if it isn't then it won't. The same hierarchy of victimhood kicks in immediately as the permanently-offended, identity politics-obsessed types pile on because Garry explained how he 'used' to be. After all, to use the phrase that the woke-obsessed lot throw around every day - it was his truth or his lived experience which seems to be undeniable if it is on message, but as soon as someone strays from the narrative, the pile on begins. Utter nonsense. It is also interesting to read so many super-humans on here and Twitter that have led such clean, disciplined and inclusive lives throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s who can now lecture everyone else on their behaviour. Or is it simply that people are signalling their virtue to look good and pretend they have never thought the things Garry writes about....

This is simply a religion. Belief systems, priests telling everyone what to say or think, salvation by doing and saying the right things, all heading towards utopia (which we never seem to arrive at!).

And it is cancel culture. Garry's only mistake was to pull the book. Never, ever give in to the woke mob. Ignore them and crack on.

Andy M

 

[Andy Adcock]

I agree with Andy A's comments above as well as others on this thread. I would add that the kickback on Twitter should be roundly ignored (whether I or anyone else think Garry's language was appropriate or not is irrelevant). Garry has a right to publish his book, and people can choose whether to buy it or not. That is how things work, if it is popular, it will sell, if it isn't then it won't. The same hierarchy of victimhood kicks in immediately as the permanently-offended, identity politics-obsessed types pile on because Garry explained how he 'used' to be. After all, to use the phrase that the woke-obsessed lot throw around every day - it was his truth or his lived experience which seems to be undeniable if it is on message, but as soon as someone strays from the narrative, the pile on begins. Utter nonsense. It is also interesting to read so many super-humans on here and Twitter that have led such clean, disciplined and inclusive lives throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s who can now lecture everyone else on their behaviour. Or is it simply that people are signalling their virtue to look good and pretend they have never thought the things Garry writes about....

This is simply a religion. Belief systems, priests telling everyone what to say or think, salvation by doing and saying the right things, all heading towards utopia (which we never seem to arrive at!).

And it is cancel culture. Garry's only mistake was to pull the book. Never, ever give in to the woke mob. Ignore them and crack on.

Andy M

I wrote a paragraph on my perception of modern, mental health in Ruffled Feathers. It stood for several weeks without issue until the same J Gearty who again popped up to be offended, started a vitriolic thread about me, personally on Twitter, they are a nasty little lot in reality.

My post was removed by moderators after receiving just a couple of complaints from people who rarely if ever, post on this site anywhere.

 

[Mysticete]

Honestly he might have pulled it just out of embarrassment. The inherent problem with self-publishing is that there is no one to tell you that maybe your work isn't well written. I mean, even folks writing bigfoot erotica probably don't use the term "knockers" or "boobies" in there work.

I mean, I am not reading a book about birding for descriptions of female breasts...

 

[James Lidster]

I wrote a paragraph on my perception of modern, mental health in Ruffled Feathers. It stood for several weeks without issue until the same J Gearty who again popped up to be offended, started a vitriolic thread about me, personally on Twitter, they are a nasty little lot in reality.

My post was removed by moderators after receiving just a couple of complaints from people who rarely if ever, post on this site anywhere.

And apparently you still don’t understand.

 

[West End Birder]

I agree with Andy A's comments above as well as others on this thread. I would add that the kickback on Twitter should be roundly ignored (whether I or anyone else think Garry's language was appropriate or not is irrelevant). Garry has a right to publish his book, and people can choose whether to buy it or not. That is how things work, if it is popular, it will sell, if it isn't then it won't. The same hierarchy of victimhood kicks in immediately as the permanently-offended, identity politics-obsessed types pile on because Garry explained how he 'used' to be. After all, to use the phrase that the woke-obsessed lot throw around every day - it was his truth or his lived experience which seems to be undeniable if it is on message, but as soon as someone strays from the narrative, the pile on begins. Utter nonsense. It is also interesting to read so many super-humans on here and Twitter that have led such clean, disciplined and inclusive lives throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s who can now lecture everyone else on their behaviour. Or is it simply that people are signalling their virtue to look good and pretend they have never thought the things Garry writes about....

I enjoyed reading the above, it has some very good points and I am not a fan of wokery. But....at the end you say "and pretend they have never thought things Garry writes about" - and that's the problem, he wrote about something he should have only talked about. As my sister once said to me "never write anything down as it is always there in black and white".

I actually thought the excerpts posted on Twitter were a spoof just to "dis" Garry - was amazed when I found out they were real. There's no doubt that people have and do think the things that Garry has written but (and here we go again) a decent Editor would have "had a word with him" about it.

 

[McMadd]

Honestly he might have pulled it just out of embarrassment. The inherent problem with self-publishing is that there is no one to tell you that maybe your work isn't well written. I mean, even folks writing bigfoot erotica probably don't use the term "knockers" or "boobies" in there work.

I mean, I am not reading a book about birding for descriptions of female breasts...

You need to sort yer there/their/they’re out Prof…

 

[opisska]

I am still confused as to what these brief excerpts from soft pornography have to do with twitching. I am actually afraid that I have been .... doing it wrong?

More on the topic of the thread: am I correct that all of the people here complaining about wokeness are reasonably well-off white males? If that's true, I would politely suggest that you shut up.

 

[jurek]

Can somebody write about the rest of the book, outside these four paragraphs?

 

[James Lidster]

I am still confused as to what these brief excerpts from soft pornography have to do with twitching. I am actually afraid that I have been .... doing it wrong?

More on the topic of the thread: am I correct that all of the people here complaining about wokeness are reasonably well-off white males? If that's true, I would politely suggest that you shut up.

No you are not correct.

 

[opisska]

So have many of those are, say, women?

Seriously, any man complaining about "wokeness" in the sense of pushback against the endless sea of sexism and chauvinism that still permeates across everything in the western society, is just making a fool out of themselves.

 

[James Lidster]

No you are not correct.

Actually you are correct, there are lots of men complaining here (which says more about the birdforum environment than anything, remember the famous comment the last years from a very keen birdforum member telling a keen young female birder to get back on her pony?). But the reactions on Twitter and from his own casual twitchers WhatsApp group are not from “reasonably well off white males”. I’m not actually sure what that means? I’m a white male, I’m well off, and yet I can’t have an opinion about something?
If people can’t see how this could offend then the problem does not lie with the offended people.

 

[James Lidster]

So have many of those are, say, women?

Seriously, any man complaining about "wokeness" in the sense of pushback against the endless sea of sexism and chauvinism that still permeates across everything in the western society, is just making a fool out of themselves.

Probably the most stupid thing anyone ever wrote 🤣

 

[Mono]

Can we keep this thread to discussion of the actual book? If anyone has actually read anything other than the sample chapter or the excerpts on Twitter.

If folk want to discuss; misogyny in birding; "cancel culture"; the role of topless people in birding or any such topic can they please start their own thread, in Ruffled Feathers if appropriate.

 

[Mysticete]

You need to sort yer there/their/they’re out Prof…

You need to be less pedantic on a public messageboard...

 

[Andy Adcock]

I am still confused as to what these brief excerpts from soft pornography have to do with twitching. I am actually afraid that I have been .... doing it wrong?

More on the topic of the thread: am I correct that all of the people here complaining about wokeness are reasonably well-off white males? If that's true, I would politely suggest that you shut up.

Doubt it, surely even an apologetic, white privilege, male can't do porn wrong.