"Toto, I have the feeling we're not in Kansas anymore", so let's lose that subject line and start looking for the man behind the curtain, remembering that some of us lack a heart, some of us lack a brain... Maybe not.  I'm just getting carried away.  

<laugh here>

I'd love to have a new subject line for this topic, but the old one keeps coming back. 

On the question of subject lines, I realize that it is traditional to tag a new one onto an old one -- Re: Chickens (was Turkeys) --when changing subjects, but the result is not really useful, and the subject line just gets longer and less relevant.

New topics need brand new subject lines.  Here is mine.

In all the smoke and dust of recent battle, it seems to me that the details of Stan's situation have again been overlooked, or even  dismissed.  He expressed some anger, and honestly so.  I think anger clouds the issue a bit, but in his shoes I'd be angry, too.

I know all the people in the discussion, and I know Stan.  I've been to his place.  Stan has gone to great lengths and considerable personal expense to document his experience and that documentation has been conveniently ignored and what remains of it today is still ignored or rationalized away.  He trusted the system and the system let him down.

Digressing a bit, it seems to me that sometimes reason can get in the way of seeing an obvious truth.  Additionally, apparent logic is often deliberately deployed to attenuate or dismiss evidence which is material but inconvenient to the flow of ideas.  

Reasonable people are especially prone to this manipulation, since, interestingly, both discussion and hypnosis are accomplished by similar means -- arranging for individuals to suspend their judgement in varying degrees.  Some of us are not particularly susceptible to reason, and IMO, that attribute while being mostly annoying, in some instances can be a good thing.  As they say, it takes all kinds.

Whenever we beekeepers say we think we see damage from neonics, we are asked, "Where is the smoking gun?".

Well, Stan's situation certainly looks like a smoking gun, and there have been rumours of many others.  Why are these reports not more front and centre and appreciated?  Are they wrong or flukes?  Or are they simply inconvenient and hard to fit into a happy story we all want to believe?

Consipracy theorists claim that large interests have 'fire departments' which are charged with locating and putting out small fires before they spread and that they employ many techniques, including FUD, disinformation, stonewalling, bribery, co-option, ridicule, character assassination, promising then delaying, promising then delaying, and more.  There have been reports of convenient accidents, too.  If none of the previous gets rid of the complaint, then quiet settlements are made with gags as part of the deal.  Meantime, most of the honest and earnest employees are totally unaware of the 'special unit' and their total innocence makes a perfect cover.

Most of us have our doubts about this sort of thinking, but sometimes events seem to substantiate such beliefs.

When we hear stories like Stan's we have to ask ourselves, "Are we being played?"

It seems everyone has a different answer.

             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L