Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:33:43 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
But I also feel that if one does not have a strong grounding in a topic of discussion, than perhaps when he posts he could refrain from calling others wrong in strong terms.
That will likely result in getting one a strong response.
Better to ask questions politely, rather than telling others that they don't know what they're talking about.
Agreed, but if that’s what you read, its more communication issues than anything, I will attempt to reread and figure out where that message got convoluted, and try to do better!
The topic was not the total biology, but our issue of interference, and what I sought was more details on how and why that statement was made. Yes at the moment I do disagree, as we discussed so do many others. My goal is to be smarter thru explanations. I pretty well understand the concept of genetic evolution. Just don't agree yet that the bees would survive and develop restiance faster without us. I strongly suspect they would have perished and become more isolated in pockets, as they did before, which Pete's paper so clearly explains.
Charles
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|