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:
Wed, 8 Dec 1993 20:25:13 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
From: [log in to unmask]
Dear BEE-Liners:
                Come now!  Let's have at least a quantum of reputable
scholarship around here.  I have it on EXCELLENT authority (the "below-
stairs" craftsmen that Liz mentioned was actually an ancestor of mine,
although nowadays we prefer to call ourselves "daemons"; now that we
have ascended to the middle-class and have found a home slinking around
the innards of computer operating systems) that "the bee" in question
was not just ANY OLD BEE: it was, of course . . . . a BUMBLE BEE!!
  Furthermore, we have it on equally excellent authority that those
"other sort of bees" were actually invented in the 1930's by a gentle-
man named Mr. Henry Ford, who figured that if you could mass-produce
them in large enough numbers (albeit at some sacrifice in body size)
then you could convince a gullible (farming) public that they could do
as good a job as the real McCoy.
  But we know better, don't we Liz--and (moreover) WE sure as heck ain't
gonna be fooled by them optical delusions in Brasil . . .
  Best regards, Chris Plowright.
 
--
Chris Plowright - via the University of Ottawa
Return addresses: via INTERNET: [log in to unmask]
                  via UUCP    : ...uunet!mitel!cunews!csi2!uplow!chris

ATOM RSS1 RSS2