In message <5F21D70CC80C427BABE0D8450E613808@Aristotle>, allen 
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>One of the conditions of posting on this list is acceptance that 
>anything presented is going to be inspected and dissected by a diverse 
>and critical international group of participants, some of whom are 
>bound to disagree -- and very explicitly.

Quite so Allen. It seems a sad characteristic of this movement that a 
sharp scrutiny of the method, and in particular the interpretation of 
the results of the method, is in itself interpreted as a personal 
attack.

We are supposed to accept it is a success. Why? Because we are told it 
is. ( I guess we all have differing interpretations of what success 
actually is as it can be a conceptual entity rather than an empirical 
one with fixed measures.)

To be blunt, I have NEVER seen these people attacked personally, but 
have seen acute sensitivity to criticism and scrutiny.

>> i don't have an answer for the whole industry...but the fact that a 
>>few "hobby/sideline" beekeepers pointing these things out, doing 
>>things a different way, and talking about it are so threatening that 
>>the level of personal attack has reached the point it has here is very 
>>telling.

I cannot see what deknow is getting at here. No way does anyone I know 
feel threatened by it or and I don't see the personal attacks either.

>Please understand that everyone here very much respects Dee, she has 
>paid her dues.  But, since she has set herself up as a paragon, she is 
>going to have to stand scrutiny of her affairs and methods.

I have always agreed with this. I have watched deknows videos. I know 
what I think about what I see, and that my interpretation varies from 
the unquestionable success suggested in the narrative. But that can wait 
for another day. I am wary of saying what I think being taken personally 
and resolved myself never to get 'into it' with this group again.

>Those who make no claims should not have to.

This is one of the most irritating qualities of the small cell movement. 
Has been since day 1 when I got involved when Peter Borst came under 
attack several years back. Ask a relevant question (after all we are 
being instructed that this is the future) which gets to a difficult 
point and the tables get turned on you and the one making the claims 
demands that you prove your contrary point of view, even if you never 
held it,  and just wanted sound information.

>That is the sort of statement that demands someone knock the chip off, 
>so if you keep saying such things, expect more of the same.  Not from 
>me, but there are many who consider such poppycock to be permission to 
>knock you about.

I agree. I thought it an impudent and sarcastic remark. However there is 
a tone in some posts recently that read a bit that way, and several 
members are culpable and I do not blame anyone for responding in kind. 
If its a flame war then its one of the most polite flame wars I have 
seen.

>>and a beekeeping couple with good research skills,  good reasoning 
>>skills, a good understanding of the importance of the  microbial 
>>culture to the health of the bees, just over a dozen hives, and  a 
>>willingness to speak out have a solid basis for what they do and say.

Fear? What fear? If I have any its for the fate of the bees of those who 
may be easily lead down a path that could be quite murderous for their 
colonies. Its their choice if they follow of course and I hope you make 
that abundantly clear. If I got such advice backed by impressive 
sounding credentials and my bees died I would be seeking legal redress. 
I would have to, I need to keep a roof over my family and food on the 
table.

>That says it all.  You have it wrong and don't know it.

Have felt that for quite some time but never felt like getting involved. 
Its probably futile anyway and I guess all it proves is that its the 
quiet time of the year again and I don't have enough work to do.

>After all, why bring up and idea here, if the intent is not to get a 
>critical review?

Informed discussion. That's the term. Not ' this is THE way and no 
debate please.' All ideas here come under scrutiny. FGMO got it, and it 
had its 'this is the ultimate truth' adherants too to whom the developer 
was an unquestionable saviour. Without scrutiny where would it be now? 
How many colonies would have died needlessly? Scrutiny and direct 
surgical questioning are good. Its for the good of all, even for the 
person who may be way up the wrong street and although they don't know 
it then may actually be the better for it.

Me? I am not proud and steal good ideas from anyone. Some things I have 
learned from fellow Bee-L members, about excellent equipment to go out 
and buy, about some management practices, and about a lot of bee health 
issues. The good stuff is out there to be picked up and run with, but 
its immersed in a sea of chaff. Two things seem apparent about all the 
good ideas that were worth adopting (I have tried some of the left field 
things too btw) is that they all came from mainstream beekeepers or from 
experienced scientists with no hidden agenda, and ALL suffered sharp 
scrutiny at some stage in their history.

-- 
Murray McGregor

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************