Robert Writes:
"Of course. The rest of the article is fine, but dodgy assumptions deserve
to be questioned!"
Hello Robert,
I agree that assumptions deserve to be questioned.
Thank You for sending the 'off list' letter, but I’d rather cc. the list
if that’s ok.
BUT in defense of what IS 'written in the actual content of the
document’. I fail to see the existence of ANY assumptions that you say
exist in the portion of the article that so troubles you.
An ‘assumption’ is by definition:
“Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a
supposition”
‘Possibilities’ is by definition:
“Something that is possible.” (not stated as fact)
An expression of a “possibility” (as stated several times in the document)
is NOT an assumption, because they are NOT claiming (OR assuming) it to be
a FACT, only that it is a “possibility".
You may however question the claims of “possibilities” that are made in
the document, as they do suggest a few.
Best Wishes,
Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA
‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries'
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles
FeralBeeProject.com
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************