Bsc Psychology is absolutely practical and useful.... I've an MA in Philosophy....
Anyhow, agree that some beeks blame losses on anything at all, so long as it isn't them. And some do have an inordinate number of losses each year when face a similar circumstance to others w.r.t weather/ pesticides/forage. But unless you've kept a few colonies / for a few years then tallying a % loss is meaningless.
Ok. Let's try again.
I will admit that I had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction after noticing messages popping up out of order, and maybe I shouldn't have posted my suspicions on other fora.
But I will insist that the forum etiquette here is very poor and if people here decide to behave as if they were shills they should not be surprised if somebody eventually does call them shills
- or in the terms it was discussed here previously:
If you don't want to be mistaken for a duck, then don't quack like a duck!
Just to be clear what type of behaviour I am talking about - here's a list of typical strategies that internet shills would apply (eg on the topics of pesticides and GM):
Strategy No. 1: They write nonsensical or distractive posts in order to make a thread that is critical about pesticides or GM boring and uninteresting to any genuine beekeeper. - Please notice that shills usually work as a team, boosting each other and driving the thread away from its original intention.
A second strategy is to make the pesticide or GM sceptic look ridiculous, foolish, fanatical, an outsider or - a favourite - calling him a conspiracy theorist. They will also try to associate him with unpopular persons or movements.
A third strategy is to baffle the genuine reader with science: they claim that if you haven't read certain scientific papers from beginning to end you can't take part in the discussion, they make you feel inferior. - Not-so-subtle psychology being used here in order to frustrate you and to scare you away from the real issues.
Typically, posts sent by shills appear very quickly after any concerns about pesticides or GM are raised as they are using the search facility all the time just to track these topics!
If I notice this kind of behaviour here again I will not hesitate to point it out and initiate steps to curtail it.
I am very interested to continue our debate about pesticides, but it has to be done in a civil way. I will start a new thread shortly, to which all concerned beekeepers will be encouraged to contribute.
Best wishes, Doris
Last edited by Stromnessbees; 06-05-2012 at 11:49 AM.
As everybody seems to be laying out their qualifications I maybe should own up, too.
I studied Biology at Innsbruck University, specializing in ecology and entomology.
I did a 2 year research project on amphibians and took part in a pollination study and a study on black redstarts.
For a short time I worked for WWF, and after coming to Orkney I started running my own organic sheep farm. Since then I have helped my partner to improve the productivity of his organic farm by learning about various agricultural concepts and improving the soil and plant communities.
I started beekeeping in Austria at age 20, but stopped for several years while my children were young. Bees have helped me a great deal to understand Biology and I am glad that I had the opportunity to learn in great depth about them.
Last edited by Stromnessbees; 06-05-2012 at 12:03 PM.
One more recommendation about trying to make this forum a fairer place:
Gavin, I think you have to decide whether you want to be main contributor or administrator.
It's not good if the administrator of a forum takes part in discussions as often as you do, especially as you have certain topics where your opinion is completely one-sided.
Please make up your mind.
Doris
Hi Doris
I'm going to be frank:
- your accusations of people here being 'shills' is outrageous and you need to apologise properly. The term usually comes with the implication of taking the 'Kings Shilling'.
- you *definitely* should not have behaved in the way you did, not 'maybe'. It was childish, counter-productive (for you) and utterly mistaken. The reception you received on Beesource was appropriate and I would define it as ridicule.
- your 'quack like a duck' comment comes from Borderbeeman on other fora. He comes across as an angry, humourless character with a complete inability to have an open mind. Linking yourself with him will do yourself no favours whatsoever.
- your accusations of connivance and conspiracy ('strategy no. 1') are ridiculous. You are dealing with individuals who are thinking independently and have read the science for themselves
- if people look ridiculous (your 'strategy no.2') they are doing it for themselves
- science is at the heart of this. There is a large amount out there, and the highly selective quoting and propagating of the small amount of it that backs up a particular case is misleading. If you are prepared to be open minded and pay attention to the detail, and to debate in a curteous way without insulting people, you will learn from the experience. I have. Again, it is insulting to imply that there are people here trying to baffle you with science. No-one here has tried to do so, instead people have shared with you a broader vision of what the science is saying. That broader view is hidden from most beekeepers because of the one-sided reporting going on. The science should not be hard for someone with your background - you have no excuse for being baffled by it.
- 'typically posts sent by shills ... search facility ... track these topics' Doris! Get real! There is NO conspiracy, just individuals posting their views on an internet forum!
You threaten to 'initiate steps to curtail' the behaviour of people on here?! I'm sorry Doris, if that is the way you are thinking you will very quickly be the second person to receive a ban on this forum. You were close to it when you spammed across the forum at 4 in the morning the other day (see below) and you are very close to it now with that threat. I doubt that any other forum would have tolerated you this far - and I'm only doing so because you have been a valued contributor in the past. To remain welcome here you *have* to change that attitude, issue any more threats or spam across the sub-fora as you did before, or post any more of your ridiculous conspiracy theory rubbish about this forum elsewhere, and you'll be history.Originally Posted by Stromnessbees
Gavin
This was the scene at breakfast time last Thursday or Friday (OK, it was Wednesday) after Doris' posting spree at 4 in the morning when the forum was accused of harbouring shills, conspiracies, and the other things she claimed. One copy of that post survives in the 'Beekeeping and the Environment' area.
Last edited by gavin; 06-05-2012 at 01:49 PM. Reason: It's been a busy week, it was Wed
Wow there, lets hear everybody's side of things is my opinion. I dont think Gavin tries to steer threads in any undue way, and even if you dissagree with some of what he posts, the disscusions would lose something without the posts.
That's unacceptable Doris. To claim one-sidedness you have to have a reasonably dispassionate view in the first place. I pride myself on broad views, open-mindedness and the ability to reassess the evidence. That is why I have stopped believing (as I once did) that bees were dying in large numbers in France due to pesticides, or that pesticides have much of a role in Amercian CCD.
This forum is a very fair place and is valued for being open-minded and tolerant. I also value the humour brought to the debate by some of the participants. If you don't understand that I'm sorry - but it is one of the great things about this forum. Its humour and its reputation for perceptive debate.
If you want unquestioning acceptance of propaganda, you'll have to go elsewhere.
Last edited by gavin; 06-05-2012 at 01:19 PM. Reason: mush?! much
Hi Doris. You were out of order for making false allegations which you compounded by posting all over the internet.
You maybe need to apologize on Beesource and Biobees as well for the slur on the character of people who were not in any conspiracy and were merely taking a different point of view from your own. Throwing mud then running away is not a very winningb strategy.
I think this says more about stuff going on inside your own head than anything else.
Did you notice on your biobees conspiracy thread Phil Chandler inferred that he was banned on this forum yet when he was challenged about that there was a deafening silence.
I for one do not hold grudges and I am glad to see you back.
You have possibly been misled by the tone of some of the most vocal anti pesticide campaigners who prefer to shout and sling mud rather than enter into intelligent debate.
Most of this stuff is crude propaganda and the people who post it frequently seem to misunderstand what they are posting.
Someone with third level education like yourself should not be stooping to the level of some of those who are extremely vocal but quite ignorant.
The arguments are not black and white and need careful consideration.
I would have no problem accepting a ban of certain pesticides on certain crops under certain conditions if the science demonstrates a genuine risk. Not all the products carry equal risks.
But you quoted two recent studies to me and I was replying, The Henry et al and the Harvard study which has not been published yet. I had read them both carefully and I gave you my opinion regarding why I think they are poor studies. If you quote science in support of your argument am I not allowed to highlight areas where I think the design of the study is weak. From my point of view that is healthy debate.A third strategy is to baffle the genuine reader with science
Posts did not appear out of order on the thread you took offense at. Give people some credit for being able to think for themselves.
The sheep here are those who blindly accept that bee problems and ccd are mainly caused by pesticides. That is the tabloid position but the science at the moment tends not to support that view. All the non beekeepers I know ask me why the bees are dying and I have to explain that in the UK they are doing very well and that my own bees are also very healthy. This always causes surprise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After this point Doris returned the argument to her concerns over pesticides and the continuation of the thread can be found here. G.
Last edited by gavin; 31-05-2012 at 08:34 AM. Reason: Administrative tidying up
I am hardly a beekeeper at all. There are currently 2 colonies on my west coast farm and I have made a couple of top-bar hives....
In thirtyodd years farming here I have never used a pesticide.
Most of my neighbours use them against 'grub'-leatherjackets, as advised by 'the college '- S.A.C. Over that time I have had some damage to 1/4 acre of barley.
There are management practices that work better than spraying:rotational cropping and grazing management.etc.
We have the Great Yellow Bumblebee here,also Orkney Voles, Hen Harriers and Corncrakes.
Our cereal yields are equal to most, and sheep and cattle performance better than almost anybody's.
My partner and advisor can be over-zealous in her mission to clean up the world, and occasionally misinterprets the odd bit of blether. Nevertheless, I share her lack of trust in the benevolence of multinational companies and in the problematic analysis of scientific trials, given the funding souces and non-publication of 'unhelpful results'.
I trust that most members on this forum support the sharing of well-intended thoughts and careful observations to do with bees and their environment.
we
Hi John
I'm very glad to hear from you and delighted to hear more of your farming practices. I don't think that anyone on here - me included - would do anything other than applaud what you are doing to preserve the biodiversity around you.
What you are seeing here is a clash between cultures. As a scientist, I'm wedded to the idea that to arrive at a true understanding of any such issue, you need to free your mind from biases and take an impartial look at all the evidence. Doris isn't doing that, and - to repeat a phrase used here before - cherry-picking to support an argument she wants to make. Perhaps that's unfair. It seems more likely that she has just picked up on other people's cherry-picking. It doesn't matter whether or not you distrust multinationals. Neither does it matter whether or not you distrust scientists like Dr Lu who seem to be out to prove that multinationals and regulators got it wrong. To make sense in this morass of technical confusion you need to take a step back, to look at the data, consider whether or not realistic situations are being described, and come to a sensible conclusion. Doris hasn't been doing this. She is capable of doing so, and really ought to try again. Why not encourage her to look at the link Jon just posted to the Bee-L review by Randy Oliver on the Harvard research she'd been mentioning lately?
Some of us involved in this spat have met Doris and like her. I think that I'm probably speaking for everyone when I say that her internet outbursts in the middle of last week were wrong and inappropriate, but we are still willing to forgive her for it. I certainly am.
best wishes
Gavin
PS Oh, do tell her that bees do actually metabolise these compounds and in a fairly short timescale of a few hours.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks