>I guess I am just allergic to the conjecturing that is associated >with this topic. I find the modern sources to eminently credible, as >having no particular axe to grind. whether they can admit it or not, everyone has their own particular ax to grind, even the modern sources. no one is totally impartial so this should not be used as a mark of credibility over someone else. conjecturing should be challanged, but keep in mind that some conjecturing could very well be true. >I don't see how the theory can be >proved or disproved, given the lack of interest (in proving or >disproving it) on either side. I also don't think it makes any >difference. maybe by following the Nike slogan, "just do it." >My sole objection is that the small size theory is not credible nor >are its proponents. why does it always have degrade to a level where we resort to character name calling? the definition of credible is 1. Capable of being believed; plausible. you acknowledge that it is theory we are discussing. where do you get the assurance that your position is the right one if it is still unproven? both sides are credible and should be given equal standing until theory becomes fact. >The first part, where he says that cell size variation *is there* to >give a varied work force... this is completely speculative. Variation >in cell size is mostly likely due to the fact that bees are not >working with rulers and compasses, they are making cells about the >size they need to be. A little larger, a little smaller, it doesn't >much matter. so if he wrote cell size variation gives a varied work force, leaving out *is there*, what difference does it make? are you not being just as speculative by saying it doesn't much matter? how do you know it doesn't matter? mark _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com