Actually I think the atmosphere has improved greatly since the pesticides & environment section went incognito and a few agitators were banned.
For too long that section was used as a soapbox by those wanting to broadcast their views. The danger that I perceived was that a superficial Google search was likely to turn up lots of this biased, unrepresentative material. It felt like a vocal minority were using repetition to attempt to give themselves credibility as spokespersons for beekeeping, bees, and beekeepers.
I for one felt it very important to try to return balance and to dispel the notion that these zealots were speaking for us. Others felt it better to ignore and hope they would go away. My driving concern was the scenario of a novice beekeeper reading the dubious material and, seeing no dissent, assuming that it must be correct.
What poured petrol on the flames was the tone of certain of the prominent antis: either agree with us, or be shouted down as corrupt. Democracy? Debate? More like dictation. Apparently there was no leeway for individuals to make up their own minds, or to inhabit a broad grey area of 'concerned but not convinced'; instead we apparently had to choose black or white, and if we chose white, we would be shouted down. I felt the best way to expose such unpleasantness was to engage and draw out the motivations of this minority. In doing so, my view of them went from "amusing cranks" to "deeply offensive individuals" as I saw that they felt any and all actions were justified by the "higher morals" of their cause, aided no doubt by the anonymity of a keyboard warrior.
Have I contributed to the unpleasant tone of this place? Yes, most definitely. But ask yourself if you'd have been happy with the zealots continuing to style themselves as the voice of beekeepers, whilst bullying and shouting down all dissenters...?
