Orcadian pesticide discussions
Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their use increase. I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire, unmoving, conclusion on.
Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.
using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated
Originally Posted by Nellie
...
using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated
Are you arguing for the argument's sake?
I do wonder who this extra line was meant for.
Last edited by Stromnessbees; 01-05-2012 at 02:55 AM.
You slipped up, Nellie!Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their use increase. I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire, unmoving, conclusion on.
Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.
using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated
This message wasn't intended to be posted, it was meant for you mates, wasn't it?
And you slipped up here, too. Again this wasn't meant to be posted but it's all part of your little internal converstion there.
You need to practise more, Nellie!
The boss won't be happy with you, especially as I have photographed all these posts.
No bonus for you, Nellie!
Jon, you obviously slipped up, too, what a shame!
Orcadian pesticide discussions
Warning: there are shills on this forum: please read the following messages carefully, they were meant for an internal conversation that goes on behind the scenes:
Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their use increase. I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire, unmoving, conclusion on.
Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.
using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated
OK Doris, it saddens me to have to do this but really, this is too much. I awoke this morning to eight copies of this message posted on eight sub-fora here. It is insulting to call people shills ("A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.") and both the insult and the spamming is totally out of order. Your accusation of orchestration and behind the scenes connivance is nonsense too, I wasn't consulting before I posted.
I'm now tidying up the mess you've left by deleting seven of the copies of the post and leaving one transferred to here. The other discussion that intervened in the 'Winter Losses' thread is coming here too.
Doris, you know both Jon and myself personally. There is no excuse for this kind of name calling. Please don't do it again. Enthusiastic debate is fine, but this sort of thing isn't.
Gavin
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shill
Last edited by gavin; 01-05-2012 at 08:48 AM.
Hi Doris. Your PMs are full.
Had to look up what shill means.
Hope you are ok. That thing about the capybara is a joke website which suggests that Rafa Nadal has a face like a Capybara!
I posted it to make people laugh, yourself included!
Maybe lost in translation.
Did you not click on my link.
He does actually look a bit like a capybara.
http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/
I think Neil's comment referred to borderbeeman's style of putting stuff in bold or CAPSLOCK
He was being ironic as far as I could see.
Last edited by Jon; 01-05-2012 at 08:40 AM.
Well I went so far as to go and read up on the points that you raised, but as I'd decided for the point of argument that I was going to stick with the emotive subject of pesticides killing otters I had to both discount your points and rubbish them.
Is it just because I simply reworded a few of your counters to fit my argument that's upset that much?
And yes for that post, I'm pretty much arguing in that way for the sake of raising a completely separate point which you seem to have amply made for me which would be isn't it frustrating to [try] and discuss something with someone who has no interest in any view or conclusion that doesn't fit their pre-defined viewpoint/conclusion?
Fine by me, I intended every post, I'll send you a frame for the photos if you like.
Sadly this thread goes the way of every other one, on every other forum where the pro-ban "shill", to use your own description, doesn't get their way.
You don't need to convince me that insecticides are bad for insects. You do need to convince me that we should be banning a class of pesticides that appear to be relatively benign to honey bees when used correctly and are much, much safer to fish and otters (and much else besides).
Especially when the crux of the argument is that these pesticides are killing bees in massive numbers all over the world. I can accept the argument I just want you (generic you) to show me the evidence. I've not seen any so far, I've seen some studies that have drawn some worrying conclusions in lab trials, but nothing in field trials that points to "Bee-mageddon" and much that is either "bad science" or "bad interpretation" to try and fuel what appears, under the surface, to be as much a campaign against big business as anything to do with care for the environment. Beekeepers seem to be just a convenient avenue to garner support.
The making up of issues to support the argument is hiding a serious point, discussion and research that needs to be had. If neonicotinoids generally are causing bee die offs then the first simple graph should be to overlay quantities used on top of bee losses from, say, 1996 onwards. There should be a noticeable correlation and yet there doesn't appear to be, why is that? Why did it take a decade since their introduction for CCD to show up given their apparent rampant toxicity in every other scenario? They can kill at undetectable levels in studies, yet it took a decade of heavy use in US agriculture for them to have an impact on honey bees?
If you want me to pluck what I consider to be the important issue facing honey bees at the moment I'm going to stick with Varroa.
And for the record, I'm perfectly serious about Otters so if you want me to support a ban on Neonicotinoids because they're killing my bees, I want to know what will replace them because I don't want stuff killing my Otters instead.
LOL!! I can't see how anyone could remain serious after clicking that link!
I was at a funeral on Sunday and one of my mates got the website up on his iphone and passed it around.
Some people do not know how to behave! My favourite is the one with the water bottle.
Last edited by Jon; 01-05-2012 at 10:14 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks