The line is drawn where there is no data/studies/logic to support the argument. I think that it is ok to talk about any flaky ideas - better to debunk them than ban the idea of discussing ideas.
No as a group we should talk to each other and treat each other with the respect and politeness we would like others to treats us with. If someone chooses to slander insult or belittle other people, thats the way they would like to be treated themselves.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
~Edmund Burke
Last edited by Calum; 11-06-2012 at 11:05 AM.
I'm fairly new to this site, not an SBA member, but I hope you don't mind me adding what I think - which is that I think it should be SBA-related, and a place where poeple can discuss their bee-keeping problems and successes as well as having a bit of a chuckle or a moan now and then.
I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing any, or all, of those things. Discussion and freely exchanging ideas being the key. People don't always agree with each other, but there's always something to be learned if things are presented rationally, without rancour, and without belittling those who disagree with whatever the current new idea might be.
It's never reasonable to do that. There's also the 'if you disagree with me you're wrong, or an idiot, or in the pay of x-company'. There's no answer to that sort of discussion-killing stuff.
Some internet forums just disappear unwelcome 'guests'. No discussion, no debate. They, and their posts, just vanish if the site owners and moderators don't want them there. The piper and the tune, sort of thing - the one who pays the bills and runs the site has the right to choose what happens on their site.
Nobody should think they can use somebody else's site as a personal soapbox and expect to be able to do, or say, whatever they want without being challenged. It's bad manners. The only way that can happen is to have your own site, where you set your own rules and the parameters of any discussion and do your own work to raise the search engine rankings. Blogger, for example, is free and it's dead easy to use.
Last edited by gavin; 11-06-2012 at 05:47 PM. Reason: I don't know where the thumbs down came from, and I can't change it. [I've sorted that thumb of yours! G.]
Thanks everyone.
Just to be clear - don't expect any real change in the way the forum operates. We're still friendly, open folk who appreciate that a light touch is the best way to manage a forum like this one.
But you've all seen what has been happening here, and I hope that you appreciate that some moving of posts and a little restricting here and there will make it a better place.
I think that within this unreferenced, speculative, stream of consciousness garbage which is being posted, perhaps the most ridiculous assertion is this one, and I quote:
Let me get that straight then, asking someone to back up their claims with proof is part of a strategy to derail the argument and makes you a shill and part of the 'Big Ag' lickspittle 50 cent army.Shills use mainly the following strategies...
A third strategy is to continually ask for proof.....
The problem here is we have two diametrically opposed ways of thinking.
It is a mirror of science vs religion.
One camp is interested in sifting through all the available evidence and taking a position based upon that evidence. The other camp has had a 'calling' and will use science when it appears to support the preconceived notion about pesticide carnage, but will accuse genuine researchers of being fully paid up members of team Bayer when the results suggest otherwise.
I think Calum hit the nail on the head twice, once with the flow chart and a second time with the talk about chess strategies.
Last edited by Jon; 11-06-2012 at 06:23 PM.
oooh thanks, that was like a big electronic hug.
So we are all in agreement. Rosie works for Bayer, pesticides are responsible for global warming and (as they were invented by Bayer in Germany) through release in drinking water caused the personality cult in Germany and Austria that lead to the second world war. (there I did it, finally the final defense in any online argument). Oh and some forum members have been touched, presumably by Jesus or any other deity of your choice.
All those in agreement say 'bovine flatulence on a stick'
Bovine flatulence on a stick.
The agreement was particularly with the big electronic hug.
1. I'm fairly confident, even without a qualification in taxonomy, that termites are 'closer' to bees than me, but yes,closer to cockroaches than bees.O.K.
2. I have looked at several of R.Schmuck's papers, and not one is critical of his employer's products.
3. When Bayer launched' Premise+Nature' Tm. on the grounds that its most effective mode of action was not high-toxicity/ kill on contact, which would only kill the individual termite, but instead the lower,chronic effects on termites returning to their colony who then were unable to do grooming , thereby allowing parasitic dominance, did they (Bayer) make sure ,by trials, research etc that the same thing would not happen to bees?
Last edited by Johnthefarmer; 12-06-2012 at 09:31 PM.
Bookmarks