In message <[log in to unmask]>, Dick Allen
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>there is no distiction between facts and the own
> imagination (=it should be that way because I can not think in
> different terms).
non-fact opinion or speculation is indeed fantasy (or imagination).
> This than is taken as a religion. It makes no
> sense for a scientist to respond to such "non-proven pseudo-facts".
The sense is to offer the best information so that we can truly be
better informed. It is a problem for the ordinary beekeeper who tries to
be informed if the relevant information is scattered round the world in
journals difficult to access without huge subscription costs and in many
languages. I hope better informed scientist-beekeepers would be prepared
to share at least a summary of the key findings and a suggestion of a
list of references (web sites?) for those willing and able to follow up.
Obviously we would be relying on the generosity of anyone making such a
contribution and in many subjects there are a few well-informed
beekeepers who do make such a contribution. I am thankful for that. Many
of us can pass on the best information to *many others* via our own
networks.
> This ist best shown by the recent discussion of overwinterung on
> different honey-sugar types. There are numerous scientific papers on
> it at least in my country; and the discussion out there is as if such
> information is non-existent.
see above.
> So the "informed discussion group" in
> reality is a discussion of mostly "non-informed bee keepers" and
> worse of those who do not know that they are "non-informed".
So, help us out please - otherwise such a comment is unhelpful (I know
it *was* private). Are we not worth it?

--
James Kilty