Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:03:35 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dee Lusby wrote:
>Reply:
>Nah, this cannot be! This was the Golden Age of Beekeeping
>and honey production was at it highest, especially for the
>war effort.
>
Ahhh the Golden Age. "Golden Ages" exist purely in the mind of the
sentimental. They can only be perceived with a retrospectroscope tuned
to maximum subjectivity. I belevie Jim F can do the calculations
necessary to provide the settings to at least the thrid decimel point. .
. . ;) If you had the ability to travel back in time to the so called
"Golden Age" of anything, and asked around - the vast majority would
fail to perceive how good they have it.
>The trend was to keep going bigger and bigger for more
>production.Don't do that if things are bad.
>
If, as is often suggested, cells were upsized to enhance honey
production, there was apparently an active effort to improve a perceived
problem, not that life was sweet and golden and carefree. It suggests,
to the careful observer that someone perceived things to be less than
idea, and was looking for a remidy.
Keith
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
|
|