> Add that some "alternative" beekeepers (who knows what that means) have 
> websites or have books that do not reflect the reality of their apiaries, 
> but they are quoted as successful beekeepers with new approaches to 
> beekeeping.

Thanks for pointing that out, Bill.  It is an extremely important point.

As one who has been on the Internet and before that, dial-up bulletin 
boards, like Andy Nachaur's (long distance dial-up at 200 baud) and 
CompuServe, and who has followed technology some of these individuals and 
their stories from the start and before, albeit with lapses and inattention, 
and as one who has maintained a public web diary since before blogging was 
invented, that resonates strongly with me.

I'll ramble on here and try to illustrate the difficulty of observing 
oneself and reporting back.  Some may not be interested, in which case, just 
ignore the rest, please.

Let me first say that it is not just the "Alternative" folks, but I, myself, 
have a very difficult time reflecting the reality of my apiary and will be 
the first to admit it.  Don't believe what I tell you.  Use it for what it 
is worth and think for yourself, is advice I try to repeat often.

I also often point out that what we see in research reports may resemble 
only slightly what we would have thought we saw if we had been there 
throughout.  I have chronicled my scale hive experience -- a very simple 
'experiment' --and frankly what I see mystifies me, but if I wrote it up, 
the report would probably be neat and believable because we write more about 
what we understand or think we do than what we cannot get a handle on.

My first rule in writing a public web diary has been to never go back and 
re-write what I posted after a month or more has lapsed.  That was 
originally nothing more than laziness when faced with the impossibility of 
going through it all.  I hardly have time to read it all without even 
thinking of re-writing.  Some assure me that they have read every word.  I 
have one word for that : Astounding!

I do sometimes add an insert and re-edit application details when a topic 
becomes a repeat topic of current and continuing interest like oxalic and 
formic application. In the recent instance, bringing the oxalic pages up to 
date, I mostly added new, but left the old , going right back to 2002 and 
the original presentation by Cor of his machine to the ABA meeting, a 
presentation which was met by surprise, and considerable doubt -- and the 
usual cries of "oxalic is dangerous".

On my site, I still have material about grease patties and menthol towels 
and the Fairview College bee course (which the college at one time tried to 
get me to remove since many people did not notice the course was cancelled 
and tried to enroll :).  FWIW, there is serious talk about setting up such a 
course again.  Anyone interested, please write.

I do re-write reasonably current material to add and further explain, 
especially as people point out that some thing or another is CIPU -- Clear 
If Previously Understood or I read it and realize that maybe I was a bit 
indiscreet -- or I see that I made an error.  That is why some prefer the 
hot poop and read as it is posted live, I guess.  They get to laugh at me or 
with me.

At any rate, there are some web 'gurus' who have recreated their sites from 
scratch several times and each website incarnation in no way resembles what 
I recall from the previous site or have stored away on some old hard drive. 
Others rationalize a lot of things in ways that soon take over their 
thinking.

As has been the case from back when magazines were the main medium for 
propagating ideas and before, many writers are something like about 50% to 
95% on the money and credible, but it is that remaining 50 to 5% that we 
have to watch.  Popularity is powerful drug and the temptation to achieve 
notoriety can take over a person's reason.

It is a simple fact that it is harder to achieve notoriety by being 
mainstream than by being off-beat.  It is a tradition for bee writers of the 
pop sort to be quirky and invent new words (jargon), 'new' manipulations, or 
convoluted explanations, rituals and shibboleths to distinguish and isolate 
their followers from the masses.

That percentage of questionable content in almost any writer's work can be 
harmless misunderstanding and oversight or a virulent evangelical ideology 
or agenda, and that payload rides along and often passes through the 
critical faculties of readers along with the obvious truth.

The problem is that people recognize the obvious truths and assume the rest 
is probably true, too.  If it is all couched in a good story or analogy, the 
hook often goes down with the bait.

In my experience, these Pied Pipers are usually quite innocent victims of 
their own misunderstandings and beliefs and that makes them even more 
convincing.  Most do not even realize that they are misreporting their 
present and past.  Of course, we have all met bare-faced liars.  Then there 
are the astounding people who will lie right to your face, like the mechanic 
in PEI who told us the air filter was filthy and needed replacing, then when 
forced to show to to us said, "See, I told you it is perfect and we don't 
need to change it".  There are a few of those out there, too.

At one time, in the magazine days we had editors to do at least a little 
filtering, but with the Internet, anyone can say anything anywhere (almost) 
and critical reading and disbelief become even more important.  Just as 
there viruses that go around perverting the functioning of cells in 
organisms, there are thought viruses which go around perverting the thought 
processes of people and societies.  They are invisible, infectious and 
self-replicating.

 

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