> I was only sharing information I received directly from a member of the
> CCD team! Take it for what it is. I also said I had a hard time believing
> OA caused the tubule damage. I still do.
What you shared was speculation, AFAIK, not information. There is a
difference. An important difference.
> Medhat i believe (there I go again using a name ) I believe (in my
> opinion) understood the issue and is going to take a look at some M.
> tubules.
Medhat is heavily involved in research into OA delivery methods and has to
look at anything that comes up. I took his response as being highly
skeptical. Nonetheless, he and all of us have to consider any and every
idea, no matter how unlikely. Therefore the fact that the idea is getting
some consideration does not indicate anything more than that it is not
totally implausible.
Maybe you are right, and have some early info, but who knows ? What we all
do know is that it had nothing to do with Marion.
>> "Hi Marion, Bob has a habit of misquoting people.
> I don't think most on the list would agree with the above.
You might be surprised, then. People are polite, and, besides, we
understand that when you attribute ideas to others you may be a bit of, and
we either politley ignore that attribution and consider the idea on its own
merits, or contact the person named, if we think it is important. Out of
good manners, we don't usually challenge you unless a person's reputation is
at stake, but I can assure you that there is a lot said off-list.
> After the huge number of posts only two or three instances have happened
> and they were challenged by the same person.
I have challenged you numerous times, especially when I was a moderator and
felt some responsibility to the people being implicated, but I thought
that -- contrary to what you just claimed -- another person just stepped
forward to challenge you, leading to this discussion.
> BEE_L does know I will share what those researchers have said in
> presentations. I have NEVER had a researcher ever approach me by email,
> phone or at a national meeting about what I have said on BEE_L concerning
> their work and many do *read* BEE-L.
Trust me, they keep their heads down and hope you won't notice them any more
than you have.
> Some on this list try to fight every new idea that comes out (except their
> own).
This list gives every and any new idea a good workout. Any objections I
ever hear are as to the presentation of the idea, the attribution, or the
claims made for the idea. The ideas themselves are well appreciated, well
discussed, and, if discredited, even then brought up again and again for
(usually respectful) reconsideration.
Nobody objects to your mentioning OA or formic as being candidates for
scrutiny where bee damage is concerned. In fact, this has been a constant
source of concern, and also wonder, since none has been obvious. This has
been particularly of interest, since we know we could not administer OA or
formic to ourselves the way we do to bees with impunity.
> When you travel to national meetings you hear the bee labs give their
> reports on what they are working on. The virus work at Penn state was eye
> opening this year. SMR research was when first presented. Hygienic was.
This is very true. We get a glimpse into what is going on, and get to talk
face to face with the people doing the work.
Let me go on record here as appreciating the work you do to spread the ideas
around. I have no problem with that. My main bone of contention with you
has to do with repeated unnecessary namedropping, offering quotes that the
person supposedly being quoted won't confirm, and claiming to know people
better than they will admit to, when asked.
> If you look in archives many fight all but the old ways. News of new
> discoveries and problems in bees are always fought at first.
I prefer to think that the new ideas are examined and debated and examined
on their merits, which is how it should be, especially on a
university-sponsored list. Of course, given the wide range of
personalities, education and experience on the list, misunderstandings often
occur, but, nonetheless, the discussion is usually civil and respectful
especially if the rules are folowed. There are some who occasionally enjoy
indulging in hyperbole, rhetoric, pettifogging or bombast, but that is
seldom, and usually curbed by moderation.
> What is causing the m. tubule damage in CCD bees?
I guess we will have to wait to find out.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
