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:
Judy & Dave <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 8 May 2002 19:58:25 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
Allen Dick wrote:

> Moreover, the obvious lack of truth in such numbers << as they are stated >>
> has  never, in the least, discouraged others from repeating such tomfoolery
> as absolute truth to an appreciative and gullible audience.

Allen and other friends:

You betcha!  I have to agree with you  (surprise to all - ;o} ), but only to an
extent.  Perhaps your use of the term "as absolute truth",  may assume a  lack
of professionalism and or maybe even  honor by the presenter.  To this
discussion, I would respectfully offer:

 As a beekeeper, and a profound collector of tidbits and trivia, I would
suggest to you that the use of sensationalism may be appropriate in some
instances.  (Is she daft?)

As beekeepers, we are aware that the statistic stated could be misconstrued as
an all encompassing fact.  We, most of us, have learned that most everything,
in nature, is dependant upon many things.  I don't think the "statistic" would
ever be used at any beekeeper's meeting or seminar.  If it was, I am sure that
it would quickly be de-bunked or, at least, qualified.

However, in this time, in this state, in this county, we need more beekeepers,
and many more bees.  If we continue to lose our bees due to indiscriminate
insect spraying, or even just a lack of information about their benefits, we
will have lost, for our children, those memories we so cherish. Especially, we
need more people, neighbors, citizenry, children, pastors, ..., to be concerned
about our bees and the other pollinators.  If the only way I can grab their
attention is to repeat a "questionable statistic", which may cause their
eyebrows to raise, I will definitely use it.  Of course, I would always include
any appropriate qualifiers, but I would not hesitate to use it.  As a retired
paralegal of 25 years whose specialty was research and writing, I am
well-versed in the use of may, perhaps, could, and should as opposed to will,
shall, and other absolute words.

We have been doing school presentations for the past month, with about 6 more
left to do this school year.  I am so very proud of the questions posed by the
children (we offer a simple bee-related souvenir to any child who can stump us
with a question.  The qualifier on the question is that it must be related to
something we have said during the presentation).  It would be easy to cheat and
answer every question, including those we don't know, because none of those
present would know any different.  Except us.  Honesty in bee presentations is
essential.  Caring about the bees is apparent.  I believe the use of
sensationalistic type quasi-statistics is acceptable IN THE CONTEXT.

As with the jack-ass, first you have to get his attention.

As George, and even Andy, are known - get their attention, make them angry,
make them think, but, above all, make them care.

As an aside, I still believe my Dave when he says ..there are no snakes in
there, or .. that those bugs never bite, or .. it's not that high.. perhaps
gullible, but appreciating that I would never have gone in there, or looked at
that bug, or climbed that tower, had he not "stretched the truth".  I am always
ready to smile and laugh at my own stupidity, but will never forgive those who
refuse me the opportunity to discover my own "real" fact.  If I were not told
the "unreal fact" I would never have done the research to disprove it.

Judy in Kentucky

ATOM RSS1 RSS2