Charles
I do not claim to be a great communicator.  It takes me a whole bunch of words while doing my very best, to try and say what I want to say in an understandable way and I still fail lots of times.

Peter puts lots of referances in his post to back his positions and thinking.  I have read enough to come up with some of my thoughts that I could reference more then I do but am challanged onmy orginization skills or just lazy.  I find it almost immpossible to find things back a second time when using search engines and have not saved to my computer all the studies and experments I have read.  Even on randys site, there are things that I have read that I would like to reference but can not navigate his site well enough to get it done.  Peter, MY hat is off to your skill in this.

As far as the mention of names.  I did not mention michael bush, kirk webster, solomon parker.  I mentioned a survey that said half of all bee keepers don't treat and somewhere along the line I mentioned square peg from bee scorce.  My point in doing so was that if names can be threw around to disprove a survey that said a survey result means nothing then a name could also be thrown around to make it mean more.  So if in a discussion, the type of evidence is set at the standard of looking at a couple of bee keepers is good enough to disprove, then the same standard of evidence should be acceptable when showing the other side.  

You layed out what you expect to be acceptable to be considered for success.  When I mention squarepeg, he has layed out metrics that he considers as success and they are not based on hive loss, they are based on income, honey and nuc prodution.  He has went one step furture and tried to get scientist interested in studying his bees so they can come up with the why he gets what he gets also.  What he is doing is not a put down of the experiance here.  What I said is not a put down of experiance here or telling anyone they are wrong.  It is just a bringing up of evidence that is as high of a standard in its use as what the previous paticipate that were using kirt, michael and solomon which was being accepted for making a point.  Sorta what is good for the goose aught to be good for the gander.

It is a privalige to be here?  You have no ideal the enjoyment I got when discussing the way they did surveys of hive loss and what those numbers mean and you pointed out how you run your actual buisness as it relates to that question.  It was your many years experiance that could break down the question in an understandable fassion.  I looked up to it not down on it.  I am keeping bees more in line with how Peter is now but with out the years of experiance behind me.  This is by choice by me but does not mean that I do not look up to you and randy who put much more work behind it.  Making the choice of what work load I take on does not make me not serious about what I do take on and takes nothing away from respect I have for those doing more.  

I do wonder about the attitude that when I ask a question or bring up a point that those with all that experiance seem to be thinking that a novice is trying to discount years of experiance when the truth of the matter is that I have eyes, read alot and question things that don't make sense to me now.  

It can not be said that my evidence is only antidoltal but if I had lots of proven years it would not be antidotol.  

If two studies come out on neonicotinoids effect on bees and one says it does not hurt bees and the other indicates it does, How does a layman come to any conclution of which might be right with out questioning.  He can not say that he has more experiance then either of the participates that ran the studies.  If he wants to try and know the answer of which has most merit, he has to look closer.  I am not looking into neonicotinoids but am using the ideal of the contradiction in studies to make a point.  It does not have to take away from work that was done to know that a further look is needed to get a more rounded picture.   I do not disregaurd the experiance of those here.  Expecially the ones you mentioned.  I relie heavily on the ones that have published works like randy.  I do have a brain and can read the studies that are done like seeley, the usda, fries,etc and old book by lanstroth, miller, doolittle.  I like seeing Peter question Randy and randy question you and all with the hope to getting closer to the truth.

I don't set the level of evidence that others have to put creadence in but also know when evidence I offer at least meets the standards being used at the time.  If I use it, it is just that, using it and not putting down anyone.

I have not paid the dues as some and have picked the level of dues I am willing to pay but I am putting my money where my mouth is and it is what it is.  Next year, I will have paid a few more dues and so that is how it goes.  Just so you know, I will never pay 40 years worth of dues an may be lucky to get 10 or 15 years in before I die.  I am old enough that I won't be able to compete if 40 years is the criteria and so it is a crash course.

Thanks
gww

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html