Contrary Opinions

[Ben Framed]

😁

[sc-bee]

Bill,
Thanks for the explanation.
As to, ?Feel free to remove the message - bees won't care.?
Why would I?  We share our thoughts and ideas here. If that is what you really think, then say it.
Jim Altmiller

So does that mean you understand it now  

[Skeggley]

We share our thoughts and ideas here. If that is what you really think, then say it.

And get bible bashed by the purple circle? No thanks. I'd rather talk about bees on a bee forum even if it is with someone whose post I have to read 5 times before I get it.
Just my contrary opinion....

[BeeMaster2]

We share our thoughts and ideas here. If that is what you really think, then say it.

And get bible bashed by the purple circle? No thanks. I'd rather talk about bees on a bee forum even if it is with someone whose post I have to read 5 times before I get it.
Just my contrary opinion....

Ben,
Are your ears burning? 

[Ben Framed]

We share our thoughts and ideas here. If that is what you really think, then say it.

And get bible bashed by the purple circle? No thanks. I'd rather talk about bees on a bee forum even if it is with someone whose post I have to read 5 times before I get it.
Just my contrary opinion....

Langston was a well known beekeeper. Well respected I would suppose in the beekeepers world? So is Michale Bush. I don?t know much about Langston. I can?t speak for van or Jim but I don?t think they meant any harm to anyone of non faith, or what they said was harmful, hurtful, disrespectful, nor intended to start an uproar, for their innocent comments quoting or concerning Langston about bees or his belief in God. As a person of faith myself, I agree with all four .
If we are only allowed to talk about bees and bees alone, that would eliminate a lot of comments here? I realize that the coffee house is the place for discussion of other subjects but I really don?t believe that Van and Jims comments were intended to upset or ruffle feathers. But since it apparently did. Other comments were made in response. And other comments to that. So here we are. Do we have enough respect for one another to drop it or does it go to the coffee house? No harm meant to any party involved in the conversation from me or my part and I hope all here can say honestly say the same.

[eltalia]

Bill,
Thanks for the explanation.

No worries Jim, happy to oblige like. ;-))

As to, ?Feel free to remove the message - bees won't care.?
Why would I?  We share our thoughts and ideas here. If that is what you really think, then say it.
Jim Altmiller

Now that there is true inclusion and very refreshing to read.
Mind you... as I 'talk' to b'keeps from all over the Planet that
landscape demands any form structure is sensitive to differing
audiences so as to not abuse the privilage. Reactions do not
faze me, at all, for as Michael has tried to install one has to
expect the contrary.

Cheers...

Bill

[van from Arkansas]

M. Bush: Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping, the odds are both sides are wrong.

This does not appear correct to me: ANY ISSUE and BOTH SIDES WRONG.  I hear frequently beeks that possess differing opinions in which both are correct as applied to their specific parameters.  Location, Apiary size, specific environment, hive configuration, hive size, hobbyist vrs commerical, treat vrs no treat etc. can afford a specific learning trait that may or may not be interpreted the same by two individuals.  On this site, I have witnessed mature conclusions OK WE AGREE TO DISAGREE.  That is it, friendly, mature, professional solution.  This example focus on your word ANY yet contrary to your statement.

I have an efriend in Canada that has experience negative results from Cordovan queens whereas I have had positive experiences.  In this example climate is a major factor as well as hobbyist, me, and commercial, my efriend.  My efriend and I are not both WRONG, to the contrary, we are both correct.

The statement appears bias against beekeepers as if we argue ANY opposing topic and concludes beeks are WRONG with words like: WHENEVER, ANY, WRONG.

The beeks on this forum are a good bunch of folks.  I have many favorites that I look for their responses.  I don?t have a twitter account, nor FaceBook or any public account with the exception of BeeMaster.  There are some impressive folks here with opposing views that each is correct with respect to their specifics named above: hive size, environment......

So I don?t agree with your sentence above so let us agree to disagree.

[Ben Framed]

M. Bush: Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping, the odds are both sides are wrong.

This does not appear correct to me: ANY ISSUE and BOTH SIDES WRONG.  I hear frequently beeks that possess differing opinions in which both are correct as applied to their specific parameters.  Location, Apiary size, specific environment, hive configuration, hive size, hobbyist vrs commerical, treat vrs no treat etc. can afford a specific learning trait that may or may not be interpreted the same by two individuals.  On this site, I have witnessed mature conclusions OK WE AGREE TO DISAGREE.  That is it, friendly, mature, professional solution.  This example focus on your word ANY yet contrary to your statement.

I have an efriend in Canada that has experience negative results from Cordovan queens whereas I have had positive experiences.  In this example climate is a major factor as well as hobbyist, me, and commercial, my efriend.  My efriend and I are not both WRONG, to the contrary, we are both correct.

The statement appears bias against beekeepers as if we argue ANY opposing topic and concludes beeks are WRONG with words like: WHENEVER, ANY, WRONG.

The beeks on this forum are a good bunch of folks.  I have many favorites that I look for their responses.  I don?t have a twitter account, nor FaceBook or any public account with the exception of BeeMaster.  There are some impressive folks here with opposing views that each is correct with respect to their specifics named above: hive size, environment......

So I don?t agree with your sentence above so let us agree to disagree.

Immediately after that sentence he wrote the following, a follow up sentence if you will. "Especially if both are telling you there is no other way that works except theirs and they are doing opposite things."  Mr Bushs' article seemed pretty accurate to me when looking into the whole of it. I am thinking he is trying to help a new, or even an old school beekeeper, all beekeepers, to think for themselves. Consider the information given, what is the basis of the information provided by the presenter, from whom the information is presented, the location of the presenter,  and the circumstances of the situation of the beekeeper in which the information is presented from?  A very well thought out article in my opinion.
Phillip

[Ben Framed]

PS Mr Van, I'm not trying to be (contrary), as in contrary opinions, thus the title of this thread.   
Phillip

[eltalia]

M. Bush: Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping, the odds are both sides are wrong.

This does not appear correct to me: ANY ISSUE and BOTH SIDES WRONG.

Immediately after that sentence he wrote the following, a follow up sentence if you will.

Michael wrote in part;
"Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping, the odds are both sides are wrong.
Especially if both are telling you there is no other way that works except theirs and they are doing opposite
things. And especially if the beekeeping world is very divided on the issue. "

Not even when you consider the whole of the statement in full context (as above) does the message
change Ben - a grandiose message designed to confuse those who do not know and not so subtley
introduce a vehicle for contradiction, or if you like... polarise some tribal urge.

Another olde adage amongst b'keeps of note in longevity is "you have to know first to know", Ben.

For myself only I am well tooled up to recognise the message in the post, a message I disagree with
as I have seen these efforts in forums before today, posts made to discredit information given freely
for which the (opposite) promotor has no answer for in logical disection.
Another method is "Please provide translation for your post" - many variations on that one, some
not so mature nor polite.
Michael is well known for his dogma style posting, usually with a text wall of quotes from olde Masters
- that or oversimplified single line responses.
Fine where such helps or is completely relevant.
Do note Michael's reluctance to build on the post, or clarify the intent for folks such as yourself...
... leaving you to flounder on your own suppostion(s).
I have witnessed many a sole left so stranded above the low water mark, believe.

Bringing us (royal) back to bees I will point to the consequences of "both sides are wrong" - I have
many but a very recent outcome as anecdotal evidence of actual financial loss, death of a queen
and a degree of unecessary pain experienced by the new to beekeeping enthusiast is the real life
actuality of fostering doubt amongst those who do not know when instructed by those who do know
yet are contradicted with "that advice does not apply here"... and frankly, contradiction from the
keyboard of a total waste of space who's only claim to credibilty is a fluffy website.
I'd write the story up if it made a difference, yet lesson learnt it is enough for myself to know I know.

Cheers.

Bill

[iddee]

Any statement is going to be correct under certain circumstances, and wrong under others. That's why reply #1 was stated. If it works for one person today, it is correct. If it doesn't work for another tomorrow, it is wrong.

With bees, the only "TRUE" statement is, "They will do different next time?.

[Michael Bush]

>"Everyone is brilliant in a bull market."

Les Crowder said his teacher said "A flow makes us all better beekeepers."

>This does not appear correct to me: ANY ISSUE and BOTH SIDES WRONG.

I was making the point of issues where both sides think the other way cannot work.  In that they are obviously wrong or half the beekeepers would have to be hallucinating.

[Ben Framed]

@ eltilia
Mr. Bill,
  I know, that you are a well seasoned, lifetime beekeeper. There is no doubt in my mind that what you have learned, not only by studying, and researching , but what you have learned by first hand knowledge, and experience through your many years of beekeeping, a knowledge that has been built upon year after year, a knowledge that has been proven through the test of time. When you share that knowledge, you have full confidence in what you are saying, and full confidence, said knowledge is correct.  Other wise, I am confident you would not pass it on.  I am sure that the same can be said by others here as yourself.
The things that I said in my post number 27, I believe to be accurate. Not just from the one paragraph that you quoted or the line that Van quoted, or even the line that I quoted, I took the whole of Mr. Bush?s first post, each paragraph in whole, put together to arrive to the conclusion of the big picture of his post, as I attempted to communicate in my post twenty-seven after getting the full picture of his intentioned digestion.
Let me give you an example. The honey pump, Mr. Claude, is another well seasoned beekeeper, (and I hope He will not be offended by my using his name and example), whom I have the upmost respect for his knowledge, teaching, and advise. I am thinking he told me he comes from a 7th generation beekeeping family. This mans family also runs thousands of hives, producing many many gallons of honey and many thousands of pounds of wax each year. A man in his family and position had better KNOW what he is talking about or his family?s livelihood can be at risk! This is something that I am  sure that you fully understand yourself. Who better to receive advise from than Mr Claude? Or some other expert as yourself? Even so, in his graciousness Mr Claude gave advise to a keeper here in the Southern United States.  Iddee reminded Mr Claude the southern beekeeper was in small hive beetle territory.  So wrong advise was given even though advise given by Mr Claude was right in his own circumstances. For his own area. Does my respect for Mr Claude dwindle? I dare say not one bit! I still have full confidence in his knowledge and teaching! 💯 percent.
We, especially less seasoned beekeepers, as myself, can and do learn much from you seasoned beekeepers, you are our (professors), so to speak, and we are your students.!Even still we must and should also think for ourselves when receiving advise for very reason of the above stated examples and my post number 27.  This does not only pertain to beekeeping, but life in general. Wouldn?t you agree? Just because someone tells us something, even from childhood, doesn?t mean we should swallow it hook line and sinker. Same with faith. Just because I am a person of faith, you shouldn?t believe it just because Phillip said so, but because perhaps if you was interested enough, you would research it for yourself by The Word. I can?t convince you or anyone else to have faith or believe. The Word says faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by The Word.
Kind Regards,
Phillip
 

[Acebird]

"It is when the tide goes out that you see who has been swimming naked."

Gees that is funny.  If I were swimming with someone naked, I know it before the tide goes out.

[eltalia]

@Ben Framed:
Ben, the OP is not at all about Life so broadening the discussion is not helpfull.
The statement is on beekeeping issues - I quote again;
"Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping,
the odds are both sides are wrong"
Now, using that statement - as declared -  *and* now seeing clearly we are AC-DC
on the issue *and* we are both beekeepers does this statement not then say
literally the odds are we are both wrong?

Cheers...

Bill

[van from Arkansas]

M. Bush: Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping, the odds are both sides are wrong.

Mr. Ben.  The above is the introductary sentence.  To me, not correct,, , condescending to beeks on this forum.  So I address, as did Mr. Bush address and clarified his meaning.

[Ben Framed]

@Ben Framed:
Ben, the OP is not at all about Life so broadening the discussion is not helpfull.
The statement is on beekeeping issues - I quote again;
"Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping,
the odds are both sides are wrong"
Now, using that statement - as declared -  *and* now seeing clearly we are AC-DC
on the issue *and* we are both beekeepers does this statement not then say
literally the odds are we are both wrong?

Cheers...

Bill

Yes if we pick out the one sentence as the whole jest of what he is trying to get across in his article, he would indeed be wrong. Is is easy to pick out certain things said by someone, not considering the whole jest, and change the prospective of the whole picture to lean toward a complete other meaning or meanings.  The news media does this very thing all the time. They take a sentence of a person or a comment of a statement or speech, totally disregarding the rest of the speech or statement which fully explains the true intent of what someone was saying or trying to communicate in the first place, the true meaning or intent of the speaker, on that by that one sentence, is lost in the shuffle; commented on, twisted and turned until the meaning as was intended by the speaker, has been lost, and they, the public believe the report of the news instead of the completed statement of the speaker. As i said, I am looking at the whole article before reading a total conclusion of the one controversial sentence taken form it. If that was the only sentence, I would be right there with you and Mr Van completely.  Mr Bush explained his intent of this sentence, in his post number 31 just before I posted my last post to you,(32), I trust that he was telling the truth in his explanation, and not lying to us. I have no reason to believe he is not a man of integrity. And I do believe that the point that Mr Bush made and is trying to make is still accurate as I explained in my post number 27. Now I can not speak for Mr Bush. He must do that for himself.

[Ben Framed]

M. Bush: Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping, the odds are both sides are wrong.

Mr. Ben.  The above is the introductary sentence.  To me, not correct,, , condescending to beeks on this forum.  So I address, as did Mr. Bush address and clarified his meaning.

Thanks Mr Van. You posted as I was writing my last post. 

[Ben Framed]

@Ben Framed:
Ben, the OP is not at all about Life so broadening the discussion is not helpfull.
The statement is on beekeeping issues - I quote again;
"Whenever you see contrary opinions about any issue in beekeeping,
the odds are both sides are wrong"
Now, using that statement - as declared -  *and* now seeing clearly we are AC-DC
on the issue *and* we are both beekeepers does this statement not then say
literally the odds are we are both wrong?

Cheers...

Bill

Yes if we pick out the one sentence as the whole jest of what he is trying to get across in his article, he would indeed be wrong. Is is easy to pick out certain things said by someone, not considering the whole jest, and change the prospective of the whole picture to lean toward a complete other meaning or meanings.  The news media does this very thing all the time. They take a sentence of a person or a comment of a statement or speech, totally disregarding the rest of the speech or statement which fully explains the true intent of what someone was saying or trying to communicate in the first place, the true meaning or intent of the speaker, on that by that one sentence, is lost in the shuffle; commented on, twisted and turned until the meaning as was intended by the speaker, has been lost, and they, the public believe the report of the news instead of the completed statement of the speaker. As i said, I am looking at the whole article before reading a total conclusion of the one controversial sentence taken form it. If that was the only sentence, I would be right there with you and Mr Van completely.  Mr Bush explained his intent of this sentence, in his post number 31 just before I posted my last post to you,(32), I trust that he was telling the truth in his explanation, and not lying to us. I have no reason to believe he is not a man of integrity. And I do believe that the point that Mr Bush made and is trying to make is still accurate as I explained in my post number 27. Now I can not speak for Mr Bush. He must do that for himself.

Let me add Mr Bill, at least that seems to be the way the news operates here in America, I hope your news in Australia is more dependable.   
Phillip

[salvo]

Hi Folks,

My best takeaway from this thread was the term CEMENT HONEY.

I had not heard the term before. I googled it. I,ve experienced it. I'll remember it! CEMENT HONEY. Thanks again, BFB.

But YIKES! Who else,... what other newbees will study this thread to arrive at a conclusion or read it for entertaining, useful information. Maybe philosophers, malcontents and lonely people.

One does not have to believe in God to benefit from God's work. (zing)

Gotta laugh, folks. Gotta laugh. Oh! "The Purple Circle". I liked that too. LOL

Sal