Someone contributed:
… I seem to have been subjected to a vitriolic attack from Jim -
>which I have to admit I almost enjoy in a sort of masochistic way - but 
feel
>that I do not deserve it for asking such a simple question!

Lurking here, I am enjoying this thread!
But I agree with the above contributor that some responses 
lately have been a bit harsh. 

For lurkers reading, here is something to consider
when evaluating EACH contributors presented letter.

An inability of any person to respond to a question 
in a kind and factual manner, is something they, as well 
as the reader should be concerned about.  For aggressive 
rhetoric type responses, even if presented with skill 
and wit, that attack the person OR have nothing to do 
with the question posed, is in itself, a public admission 
of failure of that person to support his or her position
with facts ‘knowns’ and or citations as supporting evidence,
as one might expect should occur on a list dedicated to 
informed discussion.

 A short motto I use is:
“Facts lacking, resorts to rhetoric attacking”  

Someone contributed:
>I am bemused by the focus on this minor point,

I would propose that no scientist would let his opinion
mitigate anything to ‘minor points’.  Let science, and
the facts dictate which points need mitigated to minor 
status.  

Sometimes minor points hold the most weight in the scientific 
methodry,  for the best way to prove something, is to try and 
disprove it by seeing if it holds up against all minor points. 

Please continue with this great discussion!  

Best Wishes,
Joe Waggle
Historical Honeybee Articles
Floriferis ut apes In saltibus omnla libant
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************