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:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:15:54 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
> I am totally informed. So informed I have opinions that differ
> vastly than yours.

This an interesting claim that, especially after Dean's post this
morning, got me thinking about quality of information.  I even looked up 
the word, "information" and its derivatives like, "informed". After all, 
our list claims to be Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee 
Biology. Sometimes we seem to find ourselves to be the "Misinformed 
Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology", but there seems to be 
a self-correcting mechanism, and that is critical thought and polite 
disagreement.

The factual errors in the rant in question and disregard for objections 
makes me wonder whether "informed" actually means "misinformed".

I've looked at these controversies and go away shaking my head.  The
expression, "bullshit baffles brains" comes to mind.  There is such a
mass of conjecture, misinformation, fantasy, and outright lies muddying
the waters that I, like Dean, check a few "facts:" and give up saying
that maybe there is something there, but the glaring flaws that become 
immediately apparent don't justify wasting more time looking in that 
particular spot for truth.

What I find interesting is that occasionally the cranks turn out to be
right, but often as not, not due to logic or reasoning using the real 
facts available at the time, but due to subsequent unrelated discoveries.

I've looked at the widely distributed and widely believed claims that 
Roundup is insidious and not been able to verify the "evidence" I've 
seen.  My mind is still open on the matter, but I am, from experience, 
much inclined to discount and discard the comments of emotive and 
slanted writers, and that seems to be the main source of the "evidence" 
against the herbicide.

As far as these companies working for the shareholders, if not carried 
to dishonest extremes, that might be a good thing.  Any of us with 
pension plans and even those of us who receive Canada Pension Plan 
benefits are indirectly shareholders or at least beneficiaries of the 
value these firms add.  When we go shopping, we benefit, if we care to, 
from quality foods produced at low cost and we also benefit from the 
social stability that comes from having a plentiful food supply.

Demonizing them does nobody any good.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2