BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 31 Jan 1994 13:41:01 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
From: [log in to unmask]
Dear BEE-Liners:
                With regard to Dave Cawley's suggestion about having a
new list for the special requirements of beekeepers (as opposed to bee
scientists) . . .
  The thing is is (I've been looking for an opportunity to use this
splendid neologism for the first time) we've been through this before:
 
First there was BEE-L (set up by Ed Southwick, and let's not forget to
   thank him once in a while, eh?)
Then the People said: there's too much Science (or was it too LITTLE
   science?) on this List!
And so Ed created SOCINSCT List (which was, if I remember correctly,
   especially provided for the more academic types).
And so, in theory, there should have been a migration of the scientists
   to SOCINSCT List (it didn't quite happen that way, however).
 
And so here we are again: once more the People are asking for less
science . . . "We want more BEEKEEPING!", they cry.
  One thing should perhaps be remembered: BEE-L has been a fantastical-
ly generous and cooperative list.  Over the years, newcomers to beekeep-
ing have frequently posted their queries on BEE-L, and almost always
have been rewarded with useful advice and encouragement.  Some of this
has come from professional beekeepers but much, also, has been donated
by extension people, university professors, Provincial Apiarists, Agri-
culture Canada personnel . . . you name it.  The word "eclectic" really
might have been invented just to describe this list and its membership!
  So by all means start another list, hoping to restrict the scope of
discussion . . . but you may find that you don't quite achieve what you
had in mind.  The discussion may indeed become more restricted, but more
in terms of VOLUME than in scope!  A better strategy might be merely for
more people who are interested in beekeeping per se to post more mess-
ages to this list.  I suspect that they won't suffer from lack of
response.
  Best regards, Chris Plowright.
 
--
Chris Plowright - via the University of Ottawa
Return addresses: via INTERNET: [log in to unmask]
                  via UUCP    : ...uunet!csi2!uplow!chris

ATOM RSS1 RSS2