I don't mind pointing out that the only reason why the small cell
beekeepers here continue to talk about small cell is because someone
continues to ask questions. It is not being beaten when information is
requested. I know not all of us are well spoken, and some of us have
poor manners, or not organized enough to produce audit trails of numbers
and statistics (I mean everyone on the list). I also realize some people
are exemplary in their presentations. I am reminded of a friend who
commented on a book and said that he felt the book just shoved certain
ideologies down your throat. However I contended that he continued to
read every page of the book until the end, and therefore he chose to
read the material even if he disagreed with it. I certainly have no
wishes to anger anyone, and I hope that none of the other members has
such sadistic intentions. I do however believe that although one or more
people may not agree with me, that my opinions, thoughts and ideologies
as I put into practice have real value to those who wish to try them. I
don't think that those who disagree with my means and methods have a
right to censure based on their opinions whether those opinions are
ratified by "facts" or not.

It seems that many facts that have stood the tests of time, suddenly
collapse under the weight of continued contention. Once there were 4
elements (earth, air, fire, water), then a 5th (spirit) was added, then
the elemental system was abandoned for elements based on atoms. Atoms
were the smallest divisions of material in the universe for centuries,
however it was believed they could be divided indefinately if one
continued to have something smaller to cut it with. Finally we
discovered that an atom really was an definate indivisable object. Then
we learned there were many types, then we learned there we more types.
However they were still the smallest objects. Then that theory was
literally shattered when an atom was smashed and the resulting objects
were captured on "film". We discovered that atoms were made of two
components, a nucleus and electrons, then we discovered the nucleus was
made up of two different packets, protons and neutrons. Then we smashed
those into smaller bits called quarks. First there were three types, now
we know there are six types. We also learned that although they don't
exist in nature (at least not locally), that each charged atomic
particle had its own counter particle, positrons and negatons. And we
learned about quantum mechanics, which I am sure that many folks here
would have a field day discussing, however it is absolutely provable and
observable that something things which are quite literally IMPOSSIBLE,
are not only possible, but probably and also infinitely repeatable. For
instance, if you shine a light through a pair of slits, you get wave
inteference. Nothing big there, take two water waves and let them
collide at various angles and at places they are negated to zero energy
and other places they are doubled in energy depending on what phase they
collide. However did you know that if you shine a light just long enough
for a single photon of light to be emitted that single photon (which is
a object) will pass through both slits similtaneously AND travel all
possible paths between two points. How is this possible? I know that I
cannot get into my car and drive ONCE from my home to the grocery store
in one trip, and still take multiple routes to get there. I can only
choose one route. The photon particle however travels all possible route
at the same time. Don't believe me if you don't want, however this has
been demonstrated literally millions of times since about 1900 by
scientists and now taught and demonstrated to physics students at all
education institions which teach physics and particularly quantum
mechanics. It is shown that even with a single photon of light, that the
wave interference pattern is still recorded. This is not possible
because there is no 2nd photon to interfere with the one photon, however
it remains repeatable.

Finally, we are learning that nothing that we touch, all objects and
physical matter is not matter at all and has absolutely no substance
whatsoever, we are literally congealed and viscous vergences of loops or
strings of energy with not particulate or physical matter at all. We
simply seem physical because the energy is of such high frequency that
it becomes seemingly solid to form things like quarks, photons, protons,
neutrons, atoms and molecules and all the complexity of matter that make
up the physical universe and life. How do I explain energy seeming like
matter. Take water as an analogy. When still, it is a simple thing to
plunge your finger into the water. Almost zero resistance. However if
that water were moving, the resistance increases. If the water is moving
fast enough, you can't plunge yoru finger into the water at all because
the moving water pushes your finger right back out, and all you make is
a rooster tail with your finger. If the water could, relative to you,
move at such tremendous speed, it is possible that the water becomes so
impenetrable that not only couldn't you plunge your finger into it, but
you wouldn't get a rooster tail, faster still you wouldn't even see a
disturbance on the surface of the water at all (no line drawn by your
finger), and faster still you wouldn't even be able to feel that the
water was moving at all. It literally would from your perspective be a
smooth solid object. The interia of the water would be so great, that
you could not distinguish a change of path of travel and in fact it
would not change. This "string theory" is a current theory being studied
by the likes of Stephen Hawking and his peers, 20 years ago it was
utterly laughable. Today it is seriously being considered and studied
with earnest regard.

What was the point of that whole tirade? Each one of those now provable,
repeatably demonstratable facts were once Pet Theories. Some of the
theories and their creators were literal laughing stocks for years,
decades and centuries even, however we know these facts to be true
facts...and we learn later they weren't facts at all, they just closely
answered questions our best questions of the time. We learn more all the
time, and with each learning we sometimes enhance a theory and ratify,
and sometimes we smash the theory and replace it with a better one,
often with a great deal of resistence from our peers.

I certainly don't have a problem with detraction of small cell, however
I don't mind pointing out that there is a great deal more getting hit in
the head with the bible from the detractors than from the small cell
beekeepers. If you don't want long threads on the topic, then don't
respond with questions or with items we choose to refute the same way
you choose to refute things the small cell group has claimed. Both sides
of the small cell argument have valid points, and many of the argument
from both sides are opinions, based on facts at times other times not.
However let us not forget that we are all beekeepers, and although you
may or may not be a protagonist or antagonist we are all following the
paths we follow because we care about our bees, and we care about the
industry in general. Regardless of how we choose to do it, that
generally is our collective goal. 

As a strong proponent of small cell/natural cell/chemical free/organic
(or whatever you want to call it) beekeeping, I feel very strongly about
how much of my success is due to the management style I have chosen. I
don't have numbers and references to back up my claims and anecdotes,
however since I continue to grow and remain productive, than I can
rightfully believe I must be doing more rightly and less wrongly. If the
scales were tipped and I was doing more wrongly and less rightly, I
don't suspect I would be able to grow as I have nor expect to continue
growing.

Censure (censure here meaning to foster incredulity in order to augment
your credibility and prevent reception by others to what you would like
silenced) is wrong, and so is preventing the innocent from seeing all
sides of our collective thoughts. You may feel strongly about how small
cell is wrong, however understand I feel strongly about why it is part
of my success. As Dee likes to say, "In time there will be beekeepers
who are still here, and beekeepers who aren't". Why don't we just let
the chips fall as they will and stop hating each other because of our
different choices?

Respectfully,

--
Scot McPherson
The McPherson Family Honey Farms
Davenport, Iowa USA

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---