> In the past few days on this List, several cheap shots or innuendos have
> been made against people who I personally know.
> One researcher was charged with being busted by the Feds.

I know nothing about that.

> Another researcher's detailed data collection was called "superficial" and
> his data was implied to be suspect.

If you think I did that, please go back and read the entire discussion over 
calmly and carefully.

In no way did I discuss "data collection and his data", and I do not recall 
anyone else doing so.

Neither did I name anyone, since I have no idea who did what in the study.

I had some specific criticisms and caveats.

Any personal background information which I may know was carefully kept out 
of the discussion and I stuck to what is before us.  Maybe you are aware of 
some of that chatter and thought it was brought up?  I like to think I am 
more discreet than that.

> A corporate scientist suffered from innuendos that he was party to
> withholding data.

Don't know anything about that.

> The growers on the Almond Board were accused of promoting the import of
> Aussie packages.

That either.  What would it matter?  And did you ask them all?   Who cares 
anyway unless it was strong interference?  If I were on the Almond Board, I 
would probably say some positive things about it.  beekeepers don't seem to 
hesitate to tell the almond growers what and when to spray if they can get 
away with it.

> In each of these cases, I contacted the slighted person, and found no
> support for the disparaging accusations.

That is commendable.  I hope you reported correctly, since in the one case I 
do know, you are reading things that were never there and -- IMO -- also 
adding your own impressions of what was said.

> I deplore this kind of trash talk on this List, which is supposed to be
> "informed."

I agree and hope we can minimize misunderstandings and embellishments on the 
facts.

Calling honest discussion "Cheap shots and innuendo" is really not worthy, 
too, IMO.

It is obvious that some people are blinded by gossip and pursuing their own 
interests.  There is a lot of FUD, particularly about imports and I have 
gotten into trouble here before for pointing out apparent lack of 
objectivity and selective use of facts on  the part of a prominent 
researcher in pushing an agenda  -- again without naming names.  If the shoe 
fits, the owner knows whose it is.

Personally, I would like to see a little less shooting from the hip, less 
association of names with ideas,  and more careful presentation of fact, but 
we have to deal with the lies that are out there too, and that means they 
have to be presented.  Who better to present them than a person who believes 
them?

I was once told there are three levels of conversation

The lowest is about people
The next is about things
The highest is about ideas.

I like to think that BEE-L is about ideas.

We don't win debates by rhetoric here.  Most of us can see right through it. 
Lets stay critical and objective.  Love it or hate it, that is what makes 
BEE-L special.

No sacred cows. 

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