There has been a lot of discussion based on what people thought I said -- rather than what I said. It is amazing how many people read very quickly think they see something, and miss the point. A few did understand, though, and I thank them for their thoughtful contributions. I am concerned about volume on the list and also about the integrity of the archives. I have more to say on this and will post more later after I have had time to re-write the essay on the matter in (probably a vain) hope of not triggering a flood of responses to things I did not say. Anyhow, in the meantime, here is an attempt to clarify the most popular confusions and perhaps salve some wounded feelings: *Newbies*: What I said was that newbies (to our group) asking questions without researching what had already been said on the matter are a causing a problem. It appears that people just subscribe and the next day jump in and ask very basic questions which have been discussed before, simply because they wish to generate live personal discussion -- when they could read a previous one that answers the question. I also said that it was perhaps because they did not know how or where to look (not that they are bad people or not welcome). *Newbees* on the other hand are simply those who are new to bees and many, if not most, newbees and newbies are pretty careful to make sure that they ask questions that count. Of course some newbees are newbies and not all newbies are newbees, if you follow. At any rate I never meant to imply that newbies or newbees are not an essential part of this group. I did indicate though that there needs to be some way to direct them to answers that are already in place . More to follow. Allen