Tom Patterson wrote in message
...
The City of Aurora Colorado recently had a committee meeting voting to
ban keeping honeybees in residential areas. The crux of the matter
came down to a person who is allergic to honeybee stings convincing 2
of the 3 committee members that allowing honeybees to be kept in
residential areas would endanger her life. Although she lives in fear
of her life she has not sought out desensitization but feels that
banning honeybees is a better safety measure. The local paper printed
an article about the committee meeting.


http://www.zwire.com/site/News.cfm?B...sid=7030971&PA
G=461&rfi=9

I am urging any of you who feel that urban gardeners should have the
availability of pollination for their different fruits and other crops
to read the article and then post your comments at the end.

That really sucks, and is a good example of what's going wrong with our
country today,
however if pollination is your only concern use Bumble Bees.
Also if you have some extra money, sue the city.


--
Emperor Itchy | A little higher,
Lord of all I survey | now alittle to the left,
with my very narrow vision | a little more...
| THAT'S IT!!!!!
| Aaahhhhhhh!!!

In article k.net,
I am urging any of you who feel that urban gardeners should have the
availability of pollination for their different fruits and other crops
to read the article and then post your comments at the end.

Best quote in the article (from a reader comment):

"Removing all bees from the city will not make the city a safe place for that allergic
person. They are still at risk from wasps and wild bees that don't know how to read city
ordinances."

HA

Cheers
KJ
--
---
Gonzo: I had that weird dream again. || http://www.ibiblio.org/kelly
Rizzo: You mean the one with the goat and the dwarf and the jar of peanut butter?

This decision is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen yet, coming
from a city council.

I, for one have decided to start bee keeping in my yard. I heard a woman the
other day on the radio about bee keeping and it sounds simple, and entirely
rewarding. I'm within city limits, but it is all 1/2 to 5 acre zoned around
here.

If anyone is allergic to bees, they should carry around their injection at all
times, regardless whether someone keeps bees or not.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:29:28 GMT, Tom Patterson
wrote:

The City of Aurora Colorado recently had a committee meeting voting to
ban keeping honeybees in residential areas. The crux of the matter
came down to a person who is allergic to honeybee stings convincing 2
of the 3 committee members that allowing honeybees to be kept in
residential areas would endanger her life. Although she lives in fear
of her life she has not sought out desensitization but feels that
banning honeybees is a better safety measure. The local paper printed
an article about the committee meeting.

http://www.zwire.com/site/News.cfm?B...A G=461&rfi=9

I am urging any of you who feel that urban gardeners should have the
availability of pollination for their different fruits and other crops
to read the article and then post your comments at the end.

Thank you.

Tom

In article , Tom Patterson
wrote:

The City of Aurora Colorado recently had a committee meeting voting to
ban keeping honeybees in residential areas. The crux of the matter
came down to a person who is allergic to honeybee stings convincing 2
of the 3 committee members that allowing honeybees to be kept in
residential areas would endanger her life. Although she lives in fear
of her life she has not sought out desensitization but feels that
banning honeybees is a better safety measure. The local paper printed
an article about the committee meeting.


http://www.zwire.com/site/News.cfm?B...A G=461&rfi=9

I am urging any of you who feel that urban gardeners should have the
availability of pollination for their different fruits and other crops
to read the article and then post your comments at the end.

Thank you.

Tom

Honey bees are banned where I live.
I don't mind so much that so many people are just ****ing crazy. The
annoying thing is the craziest ones end up in government wearing
normal-masks as they destroy the world or march our children into war.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article ,
wrote:

On 18 Feb 2003 16:55:49 -0800, (Lee Hall) wrote:


Hey, there, Paghat, my fellow Raindog, long time no see!
Put me down in favor of pollination!
I say we send Michael Jackson after Saddam Hussein thereby solving two
problems at once.

Lee Hall
Zone 6B - Tennessee

You want to kill Michael Jackson for being a harmless eccentric? Wow.

Watching that coverage of the set-upon Michael was very strange. Sometimes
I felt really sorry for him -- but then he whines in a "please feel sorry
for me" manner out of his desire to be perceived as small & helpless & a
child, which he certainly is not. Most of the time watching the interview
& coverage, I had the same "chill" I get from a good horror film, but more
unsettling because there was a legit puzzle-ingredient that if only it
could be solved could not afterward be dismissed as merely a movie. The
moment the reporter in the special about the huge number of facial
surgeries juxtaposed Michael's weird face alongside the wide-eyed upturned
tiny button-nosed Disney version of Peter Pan then cuts to Michael
insisting rather maniacally, "i AM peter pan!" -- a real chill (as well as
an unattended parody of "i AM heathcliff!") because finally the surgeries
made sense -- he's actually trying to look like a two-dimensional cartoon
character which itself has no nose.

Or his insistance that it is harmless beneficial goodness & love to invite
underprivileged children to play in his private park, select "lucky" boys
from among them, & sleep with them in his bed "innocently" with monetarily
enriched parents' permission but no adult supervision other than himself,
though he claims not to be an adult -- another chill of horror. Seeing
that he didn't have a clue how to hold & feed his bought & paid for baby
Blanket (and never mind he named the poor thing his baby blanket) was
quite puzzling, & made it unbelievable even when he claims to be an
involved father. Just as hirelings fed his pet chimpanzee until it got big
& had to be sent away, so too the kids appear to be nothing but another
crew of baby chimpanzees that others take care of & which he never even
learned to hold properly.

Some things are obviously wrong in the public response -- showing his
"baby blanket" off the balcony was stupid but hardly endangering, for
instance. But much else condemns him from his own mouth.

That Michael is persistantly lying is made clear when he says of a face
that has had 40-plus surgeries to the point of destruction was "only two
surgeries," or that his purely Caucasian children are genetically his own
rather than outright purchases -- well, those we know are not true, & if
he'll lie even about the obvious, everything else he claims is up for
grabs. What he admits to is chilling enough. Add to it police & court
documents that are now a matter of public record with testimony that he
sexually molested at least one of the many boys he invited to his bed,
knkowing these remained "only" allegations because Jackson payed the
family millions to shut up thereby stymying the police investigation. One
police investigator described Jackson's bedroom as a lair designed to give
advance warning of anyone coming within twenty feet of the door, so that
even servants would not be able to catch him compromised as more than a 40
year old fellow child with at most a tickling match behind closed doors.

In the Bashir interview, the interviewer is obviously a judgemental
asshole & a mean guy, who did indeed betray Michael. It was not surprising
Barbara Walter's preface was a disclaimer because she personally would
never have shown the same attitude of disdainfulness while hustling for
trust. That Bashir was a manipulative jerk didn't make him likeable, but
what he got Michael to admit to was appalling because of who Michael
really is -- a liar, a manipulator who wishes to be perceived as weak &
helpless, & someone who behaves inappropriately (by his own admission) &
perhaps criminally (by court documentation) when left alone with children.

But kill him for it? Hardly. But I won't feel quite so awfully sorry for
him when his child-baiting empire falls. If the only thing he'd ever done
was destroy his face he'd've merely been a sad-case. That he absolutely
INSISTS on being left alone his bedroom with little boys so as to play
"innocently" in bed makes him a legitimate 21st Century Monster -- the
complete opposite of a harmless eccentric.

-paghat

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:13:24 -0700, (paghat) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On 18 Feb 2003 16:55:49 -0800, (Lee Hall) wrote:


Hey, there, Paghat, my fellow Raindog, long time no see!
Put me down in favor of pollination!
I say we send Michael Jackson after Saddam Hussein thereby solving two
problems at once.

Lee Hall
Zone 6B - Tennessee

You want to kill Michael Jackson for being a harmless eccentric? Wow.

Watching that coverage of the set-upon Michael was very strange. Sometimes
I felt really sorry for him -- but then he whines in a "please feel sorry
for me" manner out of his desire to be perceived as small & helpless & a
child, which he certainly is not. Most of the time watching the interview
& coverage, I had the same "chill" I get from a good horror film, but more
unsettling because there was a legit puzzle-ingredient that if only it
could be solved could not afterward be dismissed as merely a movie. The
moment the reporter in the special about the huge number of facial
surgeries juxtaposed Michael's weird face alongside the wide-eyed upturned
tiny button-nosed Disney version of Peter Pan then cuts to Michael
insisting rather maniacally, "i AM peter pan!" -- a real chill (as well as
an unattended parody of "i AM heathcliff!") because finally the surgeries
made sense -- he's actually trying to look like a two-dimensional cartoon
character which itself has no nose.

Or his insistance that it is harmless beneficial goodness & love to invite
underprivileged children to play in his private park, select "lucky" boys
from among them, & sleep with them in his bed "innocently" with monetarily
enriched parents' permission but no adult supervision other than himself,
though he claims not to be an adult -- another chill of horror. Seeing
that he didn't have a clue how to hold & feed his bought & paid for baby
Blanket (and never mind he named the poor thing his baby blanket) was
quite puzzling, & made it unbelievable even when he claims to be an
involved father. Just as hirelings fed his pet chimpanzee until it got big
& had to be sent away, so too the kids appear to be nothing but another
crew of baby chimpanzees that others take care of & which he never even
learned to hold properly.

Some things are obviously wrong in the public response -- showing his
"baby blanket" off the balcony was stupid but hardly endangering, for
instance. But much else condemns him from his own mouth.

That Michael is persistantly lying is made clear when he says of a face
that has had 40-plus surgeries to the point of destruction was "only two
surgeries," or that his purely Caucasian children are genetically his own
rather than outright purchases -- well, those we know are not true, & if
he'll lie even about the obvious, everything else he claims is up for
grabs. What he admits to is chilling enough. Add to it police & court
documents that are now a matter of public record with testimony that he
sexually molested at least one of the many boys he invited to his bed,
knkowing these remained "only" allegations because Jackson payed the
family millions to shut up thereby stymying the police investigation. One
police investigator described Jackson's bedroom as a lair designed to give
advance warning of anyone coming within twenty feet of the door, so that
even servants would not be able to catch him compromised as more than a 40
year old fellow child with at most a tickling match behind closed doors.

In the Bashir interview, the interviewer is obviously a judgemental
asshole & a mean guy, who did indeed betray Michael. It was not surprising
Barbara Walter's preface was a disclaimer because she personally would
never have shown the same attitude of disdainfulness while hustling for
trust. That Bashir was a manipulative jerk didn't make him likeable, but
what he got Michael to admit to was appalling because of who Michael
really is -- a liar, a manipulator who wishes to be perceived as weak &
helpless, & someone who behaves inappropriately (by his own admission) &
perhaps criminally (by court documentation) when left alone with children.

But kill him for it? Hardly. But I won't feel quite so awfully sorry for
him when his child-baiting empire falls. If the only thing he'd ever done
was destroy his face he'd've merely been a sad-case. That he absolutely
INSISTS on being left alone his bedroom with little boys so as to play
"innocently" in bed makes him a legitimate 21st Century Monster -- the
complete opposite of a harmless eccentric.

-paghat

Hmmm, have you ever written or thought of these many words of hate and judgement
about anything you've done? Ever think your own appearance may be that of a
horror film? That you are paste and greasy looking? Your hair straggled and
unkempt? That you are an obnoxious flame bait enterprise who loves to hold the
title of being the most hateful, come back queen of an individual on Usenet?
Did it ever occur to you, you don't know everything about everything, as you
would have everyone believe? You, my dear, are a big fat bore and have no
business making a judgement of anyone unless you are perfect, which clearly you
are not. Neither am I. I do, however, reserve my judgement for making myself a
better person, not slamming the shit of any other person I don't know, never
met, never will meet.

Let's read what you think of yourself, the only real thing you could possibly
know. Nobody knows Michael Jackson based on that interview.

I saw a completely eccentric man who said "IN MY HEART I am Peter Pan." He
corrected himself, or should I say explained himself after his first statement
of "I AM Peter Pan. He didn't mean he was the Disney character. He meant he
won't grow up.

To be honest, it's none of our business how many surgeries he's had. I found
the plastic surgeons who came on to point that out Jackson's surgeries to be
woefully inappropriate, particularly the surgeon who shares a practice with
Jackson's physician. It's simply none of your or my business. It definitely
was not professional for those surgeons to say what they did.

As for your accusations regarding his inappropriate (in your mind) behavior with
boys; there has not been a prosecution, but if there was one shred of evidence
regardless whether he paid off the boy in question or not, the State of
California would have prosecuted him. There wasn't a shred of physical evidence
sans the boy's testimony.

I have no desire to discuss this or anything with you, but putting Jackson in
the same light or dark as Hussein is simply ass hole material.

I mostly feel sad for you, that your parents didn't teach you Buddhist ways.
Sad, really.

Ian wrote:

Anyhow, another extremly efficient pollinating non stinging insect is
the Orchard Bee. They are very easy to keep and just about as good at
pollinating as the honey bee.


So, if I build a mason bee condo, will they come? Or do I have to buy bee
cocoons from a dealer the first year?

Best regards,
Bob, in South East Minnesota

In article , zxcvbob wrote:

So, if I build a mason bee condo, will they come? Or do I have to buy bee
cocoons from a dealer the first year?

Best regards,
Bob, in South East Minnesota

From my limited experience, they find the little condos all by themselves,
though they're notoriously lazy about distances so it probably does depend
on the density of the population that already exists in your neighborhood.
Your query reminded me I have to quick make or buy a second bee condo so
they'll be on both sides of the house instead of just on one side like
last year.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

(paghat) wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:

On 18 Feb 2003 16:55:49 -0800, (Lee Hall) wrote:


Hey, there, Paghat, my fellow Raindog, long time no see!
Put me down in favor of pollination!
I say we send Michael Jackson after Saddam Hussein thereby solving two
problems at once.

Lee Hall
Zone 6B - Tennessee

You want to kill Michael Jackson for being a harmless eccentric? Wow.

Perhaps I should preface my feeble attempts at humor with "THIS IS A JOKE".
I concur with Paghat, however, that he is anything but harmless.

major snippage

Wasp stings are probably far more common (from personal experiece I'd
agree), but I'm not sure what you mean when you say that wasps are
"independent". 'Social' doesn't describe the insect's disposition; it
refers to the fact that they live in a colony and most of the common
wasps that people worry about (hornets, yellowjackets, etc.) are also
"social". The solitary or "independent" wasps (and solitary bees, too)
are far less aggressive (except to their prey!). You sort of leave the
impression that wasps go out of their way to attack people, but my
experience has been that it's typically the result of accidental
encounters, such as stepping on/near a nest in the ground, tucked
into a shrub near a house, etc., or else in the fall when people
encounter them around picnic tables, trashcans and recycle bins.

Also, Orchard bees are "non-stinging" by virtue of their mellow
dispostions, but they have stingers and can sting if provoked for some
reason.




Ian wrote:
"Removing all bees from the city will not make the city a safe place for that allergic
person. They are still at risk from wasps and wild bees that don't know how to read city
ordinances."


Funny thing is that 9 times out of 10 it is a wasp that has stung
someone, not a bee. Bee's usually don't sting unless they are
panniced or they are defending their colony. Bees are a social insect
instinctually flea from danger, where a wasp is an independent insect
instinctually attacking danger. I'm a beekeeper and am sick and
tiered of people always blaming bees for there sting. Wasps are the
aggressors, and if people actually payed attention, they could very
easily tell what stung them. A bee leaves her barbed stinger venom
sack, a wasp leaves only a welt b/c she has no barb. It seems the
hives that tend to bother people are the ones that aren't hidden from
sight.
Anyhow, another extremly efficient pollinating non stinging insect is
the Orchard Bee. They are very easy to keep and just about as good at
pollinating as the honey bee.


--
================================================== =============
Mike Waldvogel, PhD
Extension Specialist, Residential & Industrial Pests
Dept. of Entomology, NCSU-Box 7613, Raleigh, NC USA 27695-7613
Ph: (919) 515-8881 Fax: (919) 515-7746
Email:
http://entomology.ncsu.edu/DIRECTORY/waldvogel.html
================================================== =============

The message
from zhanataya contains these words:

On 21 Feb 2003 17:47:54 -0800, (Lee Hall) wrote:

Perhaps I should preface my feeble attempts at humor with "THIS IS A JOKE".
I concur with Paghat, however, that he is anything but harmless.

Mebbe so. But I sure hope that thing I saw on ABC isn't what passes
for a typical documentary in the UK.

It was what we in the UK call an interview, Zhan. One of the
differences between a documentary and a voluntary face to face recorded
interview, is that the first can be made without the knowledge, consent
or active participation of its subject.An interview can only happen with
the full co-operation of its subject.

Jackson's defenders might ask themselves why he deliberately chose to be
interviewed by a UK TV journalist who is most famous for his TV
interview with Princess Diana about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and
deliberately publicity-seeking.

Janet.

(Ian) writes:
Funny thing is that 9 times out of 10 it is a wasp that has stung
someone, not a bee. Bee's usually don't sting unless they are
panniced or they are defending their colony. Bees are a social insect
instinctually flea from danger, where a wasp is an independent insect
instinctually attacking danger. I'm a beekeeper and am sick and
tiered of people always blaming bees for there sting. Wasps are the
aggressors, and if people actually payed attention, they could very
easily tell what stung them. A bee leaves her barbed stinger venom
sack, a wasp leaves only a welt b/c she has no barb. It seems the
hives that tend to bother people are the ones that aren't hidden from
sight.
Anyhow, another extremly efficient pollinating non stinging insect is
the Orchard Bee. They are very easy to keep and just about as good at
pollinating as the honey bee.

Even people living in an apartment block can keep a hive of bees.
An organic food store near me used to have a hive of bees inside the
store, with a plastic plumbers pipe winding up along the wall to exit
via a hole in the brickwork. A small platform made it easier for the
heavily laden incoming bees to land. I can't remember whether the pipe
was transparent or not (I guess it probably was, for the hive was a
display exhibit to interest the store's customers).

I can picture a determined apartment dweller might use his balcony as
the exit point for his bees to better diffuse their flight paths to
keep the hive from the notice of potential troublemakers. (Bees dump
their dead at the hive entrance, so arrange for this to be on your
balcony rather than have spent carcasses drop down to the balcony or
open window of residents below!). It would be a good idea to cap the
hive exit at night to stop a few curious bees from being attracted to
your lights (and, more crucially, those of your neighbours), but make
sure you remove the block before sunrise to allow the workers to go
about their business. Bees are early risers.

Just see and make sure that you secure the hive components so that it
can withstand a good jolt (even an earthquake) without coming apart!
You don't ever want to have to contend with a roomful of angry bees.
One last point: avoid the use of fly sprays, strong perfumes,
smouldering mosquito coils, and roach bombs! Bees understand that
persistent smoke means a bushfire is approaching, so they start packing
their bags ready to move out. Bees perform their own airconditioning,
so they probably would fare better where the apartment has none.

I think there is a sci.agriculture.beekeeping newsgroup, too.
--
John Savage (for email, replace "ks" with "k" and delete "n")

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:43:32 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

It was what we in the UK call an interview, Zhan. One of the
differences between a documentary and a voluntary face to face recorded
interview, is that the first can be made without the knowledge, consent
or active participation of its subject.An interview can only happen with
the full co-operation of its subject.

Jackson's defenders might ask themselves why he deliberately chose to be
interviewed by a UK TV journalist who is most famous for his TV
interview with Princess Diana about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and
deliberately publicity-seeking.

Janet.

When it aired here it was billed as a documentary. It was clear the
journalist had preconceived convictions. Following the tape was an
interview with the journalist. I didn't watch that part feeling it
would be too biased. I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson simply because
I don't care for his music. But after watching that show I'm
convinced he's a most naive person and incredibly dumb. After what it
has already cost him for being alone with boys and then take the
chance to be sued again!!!!!!!!

The reason he granted the 8 month interview is because he was paid 5
million dollars. Maybe Michael is like me never heard of the fellow or
the interview with Princess Diana.

As far as him being a pedophile, I have my doubts. Because if a
parent truly believes their son has been abused they wouldn't settle
out of court. Nothing less than emasculation and dismemberment would
be satisfactory justice.

zhan

zhanataya expounded:

The reason he granted the 8 month interview is because he was paid 5
million dollars. Maybe Michael is like me never heard of the fellow or
the interview with Princess Diana.

Actualy, I heard he agreed to the interview because he felt the
interview with Diana had been sympathetic.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:57:05 -0500, Ann wrote:

zhanataya expounded:

The reason he granted the 8 month interview is because he was paid 5
million dollars. Maybe Michael is like me never heard of the fellow or
the interview with Princess Diana.

Actualy, I heard he agreed to the interview because he felt the
interview with Diana had been sympathetic.

Boy! He sure got fooled, huh?