New publication from RP

[user 20297]

say wHoT you watT?!!

I use bad grammar consistently; there are places to which I go where I go to.

 

[madasafish]

Our local facebook forum had a picture of a falcon eating a pigeon.
A lady complained saying it was "disgusting and should be banned"

I stated it was normal nature in action - and posted a picture of a sparrowhawk on our lawn ---- eating a sparrow!
She kept quiet.

I wonder which universe these people come from .

 

[oxnatbees]

I think we are on post #101 on this thread and none of us have actually read the book yet.

My copy arrived today but was interceptef by my better half saying something about "never know what to get you for Christmas" so I'm no help either.

 

[Moobee]

I think there should be a special area to where posters with consistently bad grammar, spelling and miss-use of apostrophes are restricted.

Especially for those who can’t even spell varroa….

 

[understanding_bees]

I think we are on post #101 on this thread and none of us have actually read the book yet.

My copy arrived today but was interceptef by my better half saying something about "never know what to get you for Christmas" so I'm no help either.

May I please offer my tuppence worth?

This discussion thread started with information about a new book, “Beekeeping: Challenge what you are told”. Very quickly there were a range of comments, ranging from approval to derision of Roger Patterson who authored this book.

The late Dave Cushman was the author of a huge resource that is considered by many to be the world's most comprehensive and authoritative beekeeping website, and before his death Dave bequeathed that website to Roger Patterson. I have formed the impression, following a search of contributions to this forum, that Dave Cushman’s website has been well respected by readers of this forum.

I also found that there have been a variety of opinions about Roger Patterson, but many of them have seemed to be affirmative of most of his advice. The following letter to the forum is an example:

“Roger Patterson has kept bees for about 55 years, grew up with a farming background and was an engineer by trade. At one time he ran 130 colonies and now manages the teaching apiary at Wisborough Green BKA, a division of West Sussex BKA.

Roger is a practical beekeeper and I like his thorough style very much, though his strong views on aspects of beekeeping don't always find favour with others.

Truth is that if we all agreed with each other we wouldn't be beekeepers; I reckon Roger fits in well.”

One of the moderators of this forum (Pargyle) wrote about one of Roger’s presentations:

If you watch nothing else in this series of talks everyone should watch the talk on getting bees through winter ... so much good advice.

The only thing I disagree with is Roger's dismissive comments on insulation . . .

Virtually everything else is bang on the money and a masterclass in getting bees ready for winter.

One of the contributors to this discussion thread was “frustrated at his apparent inability to string err umm err a err sentence together umm in a oh that reminds me err umm coherent way umm.”

It was this comment which triggered me to listen to Roger’s video presentation, which is referenced in posting #12. I formed the impression that Roger does not have the flow of eloquent speech that some people have, but he was not reading a prepared speech, and the hesitation in his voice was not nearly as much as was inferred by the insulting comment I have just quoted. Roger may not be the most eloquent speaker, but I wonder how many of us might have similar hesitancy in our speech?

In a recent comment on another thread, Dani (Erichalfbee) said, “This is indeed The Beekeeping Forum . . . .” On far too many occasions it has seemed to be more like a Dissenter’s Forum. I for one would like to see it used for its intended purpose, so that it might live up to its name.

 

[Sayle]

In a recent comment on another thread, Dani (Erichalfbee) said, “This is indeed The Beekeeping Forum . . . .” On far too many occasions it has seemed to be more like a Dissenter’s Forum. I for one would like to see it used for its intended purpose, so that it might live up to its name.

It's a frustrating theme that if you provide an opinion based on data (or basic physics) you can generally rely on someone coming out of the woodwork to insult you and disagree - which isn't a problem, because if you're willing to discuss why you think that in good faith you can either come to consensus or concession. The problem is that the disagreement is prefaced by insult. Let me have a look at the last one - ah yes, "fairly dim thinking - if any at all". Then a suggestion to do some math "if you are capable of doing those simple sums." This is usually accompanied by an inclination not to quote the person you are insulting so that you can get in your drive-by snipe. It means that said poster is fundamentally acting in bad faith.

Which isn't a problem in itself. You can ignore people. The problem is that moderators who are participating in these discussions seem unwilling to issue even a reminder to be civil. Simply put, it makes the forum an unwelcoming environment where individuals who have a long presence here are able to behave however they like. That's certainly the perception I've taken away and I toned down my participation to a minimum. What's the point if I feel any contribution I make will not be valued? What is the point of moderation if it isn't to maintain a basic level of civility?

 

[pargyle]

And I stand by what I said ... Roger has his flaws but he's been keeping bees for many years and like some of the people on here he has much to offer in the way of practical based advice .... I don't agree with everything he has put forward over the years ... but that's true of a lot of others from whom I have taken advice. You pick up those things you like and find useful and leave behind those you don't - such is beekeeping as it is in life.

I feel sure that Roger is bemused about some of the comments made about him ... some justified, some not justified. He's a forum member and dips in here quite regularly although he never posts - perhaps maintaining a dignified silence ?

His contributions would be welcome if he chose to break cover ....

 

[pargyle]

Which isn't a problem in itself. You can ignore people. The problem is that moderators who are participating in these discussions seem unwilling to issue even a reminder to be civil. Simply put, it makes the forum an unwelcoming environment where individuals who have a long presence here are able to behave however they like. That's certainly the perception I've taken away and I toned down my participation to a minimum. What's the point if I feel any contribution I make will not be valued? What is the point of moderation if it isn't to maintain a basic level of civility?

Well, I'm sorry if that's your perception of the forum and the moderation ... it's always been a lightly moderated forum and (by comparison to other forums I see on the net) one where excessive moderation is unnecessary. We try and keep an even keel ... act upon posts that are inflammatory, personally derogatory or abusive or people kicking the person not the ball.

On the whole it is a friendly and welcoming forum (in my view) and I can't see any bias towards people who have been members for a long time. If you feel that a post does not meet your ideals then you can always hit the report button and your complaint will receive attention from the moderators. We mods are always prepared to receive justified criticism if you feel we have not acted appropriately - unlike some forums where criticising a moderator results in an instant permanent ban.

It's an open forum - within the ethos of free speech - you may find the language or style of some posters not to your liking but, as you say, there is always the sanction of ignroring their contributions.

 

[Swarm]

It's a frustrating theme that if you provide an opinion based on data (or basic physics) you can generally rely on someone coming out of the woodwork to insult you and disagree - which isn't a problem, because if you're willing to discuss why you think that in good faith you can either come to consensus or concession. The problem is that the disagreement is prefaced by insult. Let me have a look at the last one - ah yes, "fairly dim thinking - if any at all". Then a suggestion to do some math "if you are capable of doing those simple sums." This is usually accompanied by an inclination not to quote the person you are insulting so that you can get in your drive-by snipe. It means that said poster is fundamentally acting in bad faith.

Which isn't a problem in itself. You can ignore people. The problem is that moderators who are participating in these discussions seem unwilling to issue even a reminder to be civil. Simply put, it makes the forum an unwelcoming environment where individuals who have a long presence here are able to behave however they like. That's certainly the perception I've taken away and I toned down my participation to a minimum. What's the point if I feel any contribution I make will not be valued? What is the point of moderation if it isn't to maintain a basic level of civility?

I understand your point, the machismo is tiring, as are the subtle (or could that be not so subtle? ) passive aggressive digs you mention (I get quite a few of those) but nowadays you are a 'snowflake' if you complain.
I've asked that people be courteous a number of times.
The highlighted part of your quote concerns me.

 

[Wilco]

May I please offer my tuppence worth?

This discussion thread started with information about a new book, “Beekeeping: Challenge what you are told”. Very quickly there were a range of comments, ranging from approval to derision of Roger Patterson who authored this book.

The late Dave Cushman was the author of a huge resource that is considered by many to be the world's most comprehensive and authoritative beekeeping website, and before his death Dave bequeathed that website to Roger Patterson. I have formed the impression, following a search of contributions to this forum, that Dave Cushman’s website has been well respected by readers of this forum.

I also found that there have been a variety of opinions about Roger Patterson, but many of them have seemed to be affirmative of most of his advice. The following letter to the forum is an example:

“Roger Patterson has kept bees for about 55 years, grew up with a farming background and was an engineer by trade. At one time he ran 130 colonies and now manages the teaching apiary at Wisborough Green BKA, a division of West Sussex BKA.

Roger is a practical beekeeper and I like his thorough style very much, though his strong views on aspects of beekeeping don't always find favour with others.

Truth is that if we all agreed with each other we wouldn't be beekeepers; I reckon Roger fits in well.”

One of the moderators of this forum (Pargyle) wrote about one of Roger’s presentations:

If you watch nothing else in this series of talks everyone should watch the talk on getting bees through winter ... so much good advice.

The only thing I disagree with is Roger's dismissive comments on insulation . . .

Virtually everything else is bang on the money and a masterclass in getting bees ready for winter.

One of the contributors to this discussion thread was “frustrated at his apparent inability to string err umm err a err sentence together umm in a oh that reminds me err umm coherent way umm.”

It was this comment which triggered me to listen to Roger’s video presentation, which is referenced in posting #12. I formed the impression that Roger does not have the flow of eloquent speech that some people have, but he was not reading a prepared speech, and the hesitation in his voice was not nearly as much as was inferred by the insulting comment I have just quoted. Roger may not be the most eloquent speaker, but I wonder how many of us might have similar hesitancy in our speech?

In a recent comment on another thread, Dani (Erichalfbee) said, “This is indeed The Beekeeping Forum . . . .” On far too many occasions it has seemed to be more like a Dissenter’s Forum. I for one would like to see it used for its intended purpose, so that it might live up to its name.

I agree until the last paragraph. I believe this literally is the dissenter's forum and, if I understand correctly, was set up in response to censorship of the BBKA forum. On the most part, I think beekeeping is discussed but I personally enjoy a lot of the cameraderie on here and we're all not just beekeepers.

 

[user 20297]

It's a frustrating theme that if you provide an opinion based on data (or basic physics) you can generally rely on someone coming out of the woodwork to insult you and disagree - which isn't a problem, because if you're willing to discuss why you think that in good faith you can either come to consensus or concession. The problem is that the disagreement is prefaced by insult. Let me have a look at the last one - ah yes, "fairly dim thinking - if any at all". Then a suggestion to do some math "if you are capable of doing those simple sums." This is usually accompanied by an inclination not to quote the person you are insulting so that you can get in your drive-by snipe. It means that said poster is fundamentally acting in bad faith.

Which isn't a problem in itself. You can ignore people. The problem is that moderators who are participating in these discussions seem unwilling to issue even a reminder to be civil. Simply put, it makes the forum an unwelcoming environment where individuals who have a long presence here are able to behave however they like. That's certainly the perception I've taken away and I toned down my participation to a minimum. What's the point if I feel any contribution I make will not be valued? What is the point of moderation if it isn't to maintain a basic level of civility?

Nailed it!

 

[Erichalfbee]

And on that nail it’s time to give it a rest. Like Swarm says he’s asked folk be polite. Perhaps it’s time for a fatter blue pencil?