> The lengths that Mr. Dick is going to in an attempt to discredit my
> findings is bordering on ridiculous, and incidently a waste of time.

Gee, David, and here I was thinking we were having an intelligent discussion.  I
was taught in school that science proceeds by people challenging ideas and
developing rigourous truths.

Obviously you are taking this personally.  I'm sorry to see that, because it
wasn't meant that way.  I've found debating here very informative and
worthwhile, and to me a good idea is a good idea, no matter the source.  I get
lots of notes from people who think the same.

> I also conducted a search of a number of libraries during my
> research, nothing. I am not so naive that I can believe for a moment
> that it's being done to prove me correct. So go ahead, knock yourself
> out, waste your time!

Well, I think that sharing ideas, examining and challenging ideas, and learning
is seldom a waste of time.  FWIW, I think was the only one to comment on your
regressive queen idea, and to try to think of a mechanism that would justify
your rather surprising conclusions.  Moreover, I have sitting in my 'drafts' box
a rather long and involved post that I'm working on excoriating your critics and
justifying your actions in the Apistan over winter matter.  Since it is a
complex  question, I have not had the time to polish the argument in it.

> If Mr. Dick had bothered to read my original post correctly and I quote
> "We have been raising queens commercially for some 7-8 years now, and
> part of this has been the following of pedigrees, where the queens
> came from and how they were made and an evaluation of their final
> traits". Hardly "based on opinion and hearsay,not scientific
> experiment and/or observation",

Well, I think I did read it correctly, several times, and I also temper what I
read with other information.  I have several times tried fairly seriously to
locate your advertised premises, since my family owns land near Orillia and I am
near there often.  So far no luck.  And I have enquired about your reputation as
a breeder -- after all I do buy queens once in a while.

> but then a few strokes on a keyboard can quickly destroy 8 years of effort and
leave the writer feeling very righteous and smug.

If it works for you, go for it, but I do not think I can destroy anything that
is real by asking questions and carefully reporting facts.

>         That original post of mine ' regressive queens' is original thought,
> not a copy from a book nor plagiarized from other's writings. I was
> hoping that it would provide food for thought and elicite discussion
> from a few enlightened beekeepers. I'm beginning to suggest that it
> was a total waste of time and just gave opening to quite massive
> ridicule and criticism.

Well, thank you, I know one enlightened beekeeper did comment on the idea, so I
can't account for the lack of interest in others.  I do appreciate your sharing
the idea with us, and I am sure that over time we will 'test everything...".

>         This year I have conducted experiments in FGMO, essential oil, and
> tobacco treatments ref. to Varroa, but I am certainly not going to
> post it and wait for the snide remarks to start again.

Well, if it is science it can stand some criticism.  If not, then you are wise
to keep it hidden.

> Only if one or two can refrain from being 'Net Gods' and trying to
> dictate policy to everyone,

"Fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preached..." (Robert
Zimmerman)

> leave it to Aaron, it is his list and we are just visitors.

Not exactly true, but close.  There are things behind the scenes that keep this
running.

allen

-----
See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions.
BEE-L archives & more: http://listserv.albany.edu/archives/bee-l.html
Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/
or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page.