> Here is a link to the entire 14 page paper for those who would like 
to read the entire paper before commenting:

I don't think I could make it through the whole paper, but from the 
sampling I did, I tend to concur with what I saw and find it explains 
more clearly and in far more words some of my own criticisms regarding 
the slant and management of current investigations.

What I saw did not go nearly as far as I, (and Bob, plus others who 
won't comment publicly) think that someone academic should indeed turn 
the entire CCD investigation over  and look at the underside.

In plain English, I think that most of the players have been co-opted, 
most of them without knowing it by their social context, and a 
sociological approach is just what is needed to reveal how and why we 
manage to misdiagnose the malady, then miss the mark over and over -- at 
great expense -- and punish those who step out of the box to see if the 
answer lies outside the conventional thinking.

I think that in this, as in many problems, we are constrained and 
steered by legacy thinking and legacy commitments, and  a totally new 
approach is needed.  As someone said, the kind of thinking (and people) 
that got us into this mess of environmental stressors most likely won't 
get us out.

Disregarding the sprinkle of seemingly meaningless but obligatory jargon 
and bafflegab that Pete pointed out so merrily, the piece generally 
seems to ask questions that really need asking.

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