I wonder how many people have yet taken the time to verify that the "Housel Positioning" exists
as it has been described in the article.  I have not yet had time to do it.  This would also imply
that one understands the description.  It is obvious to me that many people who have responded
on this issue did not understand the original article and description.

Another comment:  it makes perfect sense to me that bees would be "creatures of habit"  just like
most of the animal kingdom are, and would have regular ways of doing things governed by
instinct, with a certain amount of variation from the norm, but would pretty much always do things
the same way if "given their head" on the matter.  This line of reasoning makes very good sense
to me, so it is engendering a desire in me to find out more on the subject under discussion.  I am
now going to take the time to make observations because I want to know if what the article
describes is what I also observe.  Although I have no good reason to doubt what has been
reported, I do not always believe everthing I hear or see in print on first exposure.  If my
experience bears it out, then that's a different matter.  It seems that it should not be too difficult
to verify these observations.  Is there anyone else who has taken the time to do it?  I am
particularly fascinated by the idea that there is a "center comb" where each side is a mirror image
of the other.  Who woudda thunk it?  I don't remember ever reading about this before, but it
makes sense.  My two cents' worth.

Layne Westover, College Station, Texas