Hi Murray, PO and Everyone,
>Classic small cell debating tactic............who did I hear make a
claim there? Allen asked a reasonable question and got no acceptable
type of answer. If you don't make a claim why should you have to stand
scrutiny....
Oh...but lots of claims HAVE BEEN MADE!!!
>All this twaddle.... create an environment in their mind... but of course
this is rubbish as...
>Of course the best would be that the small cell natural advocates told
us the truth and put facts up for all to see...
>( My conclusion, based on no evidence at all except
their own reticence, is that, Dee Lusby apart, they do not add up to a
lot.)
>Its nothing really to do with that. I feel that it is fair to examine
the credentials and agenda of a person making a claim before giving
their statements the appropriate weighting in how it relates to my
situation and practices. Do not turn this into any kind of a war. I and
others doing the questioning are not those making a claim so do not turn
the heat on the questioner....
It's no war with me. But I do resent it. It's one thing to have differing
opinions about some aspect of bee management. That's just about bees in a
box. But both you and PO have made some serious claims concerning the
integrity and honesty of some on this list. I don't know what has transpired
before I signed on a few days ago. But I think I've been included in the
small cell camp, much to their consternation I'll bet.
But you both sit in judgment, mainly as I ascertain, because you run a few
hundreds of hives commercially, if you have a typical European pattern. In
my area a thousand hives are considered a sideline operation and a few
hundreds of hives wouldn't 'add up to a lot'. And I know of beekeepers who
run tens of thousands and manage their operation from a private biz jet.
I'll bet they consider those little family operations with thousands of
hives, like I've run, as inconsequential. And I bet one of them produces
more honey than most small countries. So, adding them up doesn't count for
much. I've always been just a small operator no matter how many hives I've
run by real standards.
>To evaluate requires knowing something about the substance of the person
giving the info....
It's one thing to evaluate someone else's management style for suitability.
And almost all of my beekeeping skills have been borrowed from someone else
willing to share. Else I'd still be catching them in glass jars:>) But it's
quite another to plug ones ears and publically degrade someone else while
claiming to be so scientifically enlightened.
I feel it's fair to examine credentials and agendas as well. Claims have
been made. So........were's your figures? What's your agenda. What kind of
substance do you have. If it's fair for you to require it for your
examination. It is certainly fair for me to require it of you for my
examination. And that's not some small cell tactic or trick. That's just
human decency. And if you guys won't provide it, then why do you demand it
from someone else?
Have I joined Bee-L at a bad time? I'd come back because I missed reading
Murrays, LLoyds and a few others posts, who only post here. I'd been gone so
long that I didn't even know Murray had left. I thought the informed part of
the list was the result of what we share with each other. Not what someone
does to another. And if scientific credentials are required for credibility,
then we'd all better sign out, as the only real beekeeping credentials I've
seen on this list, are wornout shoe and glove leather. And there's not a
sheep skin hanging on anyones wall.
Well, I'll shut up for now. Recede to lurker status and see how things go.
I've always wondered why such small things like differing bee management
practices cause so much consternation. Maybe because, in the larger scheme
of things, it just so inconsequential!
Regards
Dennis
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
