I qualify as a lurker on this site, having only joined it recently. I am a scientist, but not an entomologist or even a biologist (background in hard rock geology). I’ve kept bees, but not very conscientiously or scientifically, for 20 years and have spent a lot more money on my bees than I have made from them.
I do enjoy the back and forth about the biology of bees and of pathogens and of chemical agents both natural and introduced into the environment. Reading these posts have made me a more critical and informed beekeeper and have caused me to become more involved with my bees than I had been previously. That is to my good, and probably to the good of the state of beekeeping in my neighborhood.
Perhaps it is my background in science. I do not expect agreement or even convergence on all topics because there remains a lot that we still don’t know. The careful identification of the problems that bees and beekeepers face and of the logic that beekeepers bring to addressing those problems are all good, to me. I am not reading to get the answers, but rather to get ideas, some of which I may accept and others that I may reject, some of which I will try to act on and others which while I acknowledge their utility are beyond my skill or time or financial abilities.
I will continue to read, and probably not add very much to the discussion, and will always feel free to stop reading a particular thread if it goes beyond my level of interest or becomes too esoteric.
Larry Mutti
> On Nov 10, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I find it more difficult to even read what appears on Bee-L, as I am both
> forced to feed excessively due to warmer and longer Indian Summers each
> year, and I am ramping up for the Christmas season, where we add beeswax
> gift items
>
> James, great thoughts, but get your priorities straight! Reading a bee-l
> post is always more fun than a Holiday fair!
>
>
>
> To this actual topic though, I have given much consideration lately. Even
> several offline discussions. The question is "what is bee-l now and what
> do you want it to be? With a secondary question of who is "the you" in the
> previous statement.
>
> Looking at bee-l there are 5-7 major posters and maybe a dozen minor ones,
> and hundreds (Aaron may chime in) of lurkers. My question is why are they
> lurkers, and the answer to that is simple (based on MANY conversations with
> lurkers who are good friends) the vast majority is intimidation. Most are
> intimidating by the main names here, and scared of looking uninformed.
> I see many of the same friends posting regularly on BS, and joining the
> conversation there, but here they are silent. Sometimes its because they
> don't understand friendly debate, other times our replies, even well
> intentioned ones come off wrong. Such as a recent comment to me. I
> completely understood it, but to a reader I was chided for a dumb comment.
>
> So the question is, should this be a place for casual discussion as well as
> "informed debate" on Science? Where is the line? Should one need a degree
> in Biology to be able to discuss? What is the goal and future for Bee-l?
> I see the number of researchers in the bee field going up, but
> participation here dropping? How do we get researchers to come and ask
> about what beekeepers need and want? How do we get newbies to get involved
> in discussion?
>
> Fully understanding Randy and Peters point about not wanting to be teachers,
> but "informed discussion" but with todays email and communication so easy,
> is that really the point of a bulletin board?
>
> Like it or not, I may be able to argue with Randy and Pete on some level,
> but bee biology at their level is out of the question. Does that mean I am
> not qualified to argue the theory? Those are questions that need to be
> addressed to determine what happens here.
>
> Personally, I am grateful that most of you tolerate and participate in
> discussion, especially when you think I am wrong! Without that debate
> there is no point to reading here. How do we encourage more? Or do we??
> Some may recall Christina and I debating epigenetic at length a while back.
> I learned more in that discussion that I can relate, even though we still
> disagree on some parts of it! Without some of my "dumber" comments, we
> would not have gotten Richards great explanation on partial kill theory and
> resistance. Luckily I have thick skin.....
>
> Right now we come of as argumentive and dismissive to a lot of folks, good
> bad or ugly, its reality. To promote more discussion we need to drag in
> some others inputs and topics... And no, I don't know how to accomplish
> that, or if its even welcome. That's the question that really needs
> addressed in my opinion.
>
> I do realize we don't want some of the nonsense that goes on in BS, but do
> we really want to only be at a doctorate level discussion?
>
>
> Charles
>
> ***********************************************
> 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
***********************************************
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
|
