BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chuck Norton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:17:24 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
I thought that both Allen and Bob as well as myself, in
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0510&L=bee-
l&D=1&O=A&P=36644, have been quite clear in supporting the continued
evidence and existence of SMR; and it was done with the same documented
and published work that had been represented by the dissenting poster
saying that ““……The SMR bees do not exist”.  Contrary thoughts and ideas
are welcome when given as such; but when a poster stipulates as fact such
statements as “……The SMR bees do not exist” without substantiated
documentation and minces words contrary to fact and without a direct quote
when giving creditability to his own work; yet, refuting that what has
been carefully researched and submitted is beyond me.  I truly do not know
the motives of such posts; my thoughts are given here alone as I realize
that there are many reading BEE-L fairly new to serious beekeeping and the
war against the Varroa. These folks may know very little about such things
as SMR, hygienic behavior, and other such matters that have been presented
and discussed; (IMO) they are open to harm to such adulterations. IMHO to
corrupt the work of Harbo and Harris, and Ibrahim and Spivak as recently
presented within USDA and private publications by these extremely
knowledgeable world renown scientists with such narcissistic nonsense that
has lately been demonstrated is clearly reproachable.

Perhaps I may have missed something, I suggest that if you are able to
present quoted published evidence supporting your theory please do so, I
would welcome the read as I know would others. However, if you are going
to present your own words as a paraphrase as those written in published
papers please be accurate to the letter that they are indeed your words
and your ideas and not of the published credible writer, as you could be
open to slander.  One’s creditability as based solely on the acceptance of
others; genuine mistakes can be forgiven; however, when crying “wolf,
wolf!” there better be a real wolf and not some ship shod anecdotal
evidence.

Chuck Norton

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2