> David Eyre wrote.
> >> > It would appear that this list is
> >> > becoming just a question service. By that I mean people ask a
> >> > question of the list, then arrange the answers to go back to
> >> > the originator and not to the list as a whole.
>
> Allen Dick wrote
> >Actually, this behaviour is quite proper etiquette -- and de rigeur
> >-- especially on larger lists than this.
>
> >(For a number of reason(s) BEE-L never seems to grow much.
> >Ironically , one of the reasons that many give for leaving the list
> >is the amount of 'chatter' that gets going periodically.  Others
> >tire of the same basic  questions arising repeatedly.  Some get
> >their feelings or sensitivities hurt when controversy or bad
> >emanners break out).
>
> Once again my message has been misconstrued. My observation, once
> again, is that more and more folks are setting the 'reply to'
> heading back to themselves and not the Bee-L. Allen does it every
> time! So if you don't have the experience to note this you don't get
> your point across to the whole Bee-L.  Is this not a rather
> insidious method of censorship?
 
Well, actually, I don't think i misconstrued what you said.  I just
think that maybe you did not say exactly what you meant on your first
try.
 
Setting the reply default in one's mail program to one's self is a
reasonable and correct thing to do. The reason it is necessary is
that the return path method of source determination on the net is
flawed and unreliable.
 
To set it to any address but one's own would be improper.  When this
header line is  left blank, perhaps then the return path method will
be used be used and returns will go to the re-mailer. (LISTSERV)
Franlkly I don't know.
 
At any rate, I recall having remarked to the list on this very matter
when it seemed to me that BEE-L started to set the return address to
the sender rather than the list --  some year or so ago. at that time
I started to get mail meant for the list when people replied to my
posts.  I'm not sure exactly what happened at that time.
 
Nonetheless, this is proper and of course the real answer is that
people should check their headers before sending.  If they don't,
it is much better that their comments go to an individual than the
list. (You may recall a particular occasion where you would much
have preffered that that had happened, David ;))
 
I  personally make a habit of returning posts that appear to meant
for 'all' rather than just me, so that they can be sent to all their
intended recipients.  I know how long I spend grinding out a reply
and polishing it so that it is clear and so that I don't accidently
offend someone I don't wish to.   I expect that if others work as
hard on their posts as I do, that they surely deserve to have them
posted.
 
> >I hope it really does work, because an uncritical beekeeping
> >public has swallowed the idea whole.
>
> This last is really to close to the knuckle. To call us all
> "uncritical and have swallowed the whole idea", you are implying
> that there is something drastically wrong with us and the whole
> idea. Perhaps you would condescend to share your research with us
> that shows flaws in the method.
 
1.  well, I suspect we do not speak the same language, because what
I said is not what you got out of it.  It is the very lack of
research -- for or against -- that caused me to write what I did.
(If you choose to identify yourself with the 'uncritical beekeeping
public' rather than the elite and informed group <G> that populates
BEE-l, then you have *chosen* to be insulted, since I asumed that you
would know better than fall for untested 'cures').
 
2.  You'll notice that I do try to avoid inflammatory words such as
'drastically wrong' and ' condescend' and ' insidious', in favour of
more neutral words where possible.  I don't think 'uncritical' is a
particularly hard word.
 
But... if so, well, then I'm sorry, but that's the way it is:   to my
knowledge there is simply insufficient evidence on hand _yet_ for any
educated person  to be able to responsibly recommend a safe, certain
and effective treatment methodfor routinely  using oils in a
commercial beekeeping setting.
 
Maybe (hopefully)  you'll prove me wrong by publishing a bibliograpy
of studies by resepected researches at well known bee research
institutions that somehow slipped by me.  I'd love to be proven wrong.
 
There are hopeful signs, and some semi-scientific studies that point
the way, but at present it appears these substances have little
scientific legitimacy (even if they seem to sometimes work).
Correct me if I am wrong.
 
I truly hope oils prove to work.  I intend to watch closely, and test
them where i have opportunity.  But, speaking as a realist (read
cynic, perhaps) , it does seem entirely too fortuitous that
wintergreen, peppermint, tea tree, and even our old hippy favourite,
Patchouli oil, all work comparable miracles.
 
from what I have read, the methods of application are somewhat
indirect and difficult, and errors in application are blamed for cases
where failure occurs -- so it's hardly foolproof.
 
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying I can do any better, or that i do
not appreciate all the work being done in backyards and what has been
received from Europe.
 
All I did say  -- and am saying  -- is that the matter is not
sufficiently researched and that the answers arecurrently  only
promising.  At this point in time religious fervour in favour of
oils is premature.
 
Regards
 
Allen
 
W. Allen Dick, Beekeeper                                         VE6CFK
RR#1, Swalwell, Alberta  Canada T0M 1Y0
Internet:[log in to unmask] & [log in to unmask]
Honey. Bees, & Art <http://www.internode.net/~allend/>