# So what is CCD?



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

Ummmm....what poll?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Sorry Ann, its a two part entry, and i type slow....


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Voters: *2*. You may not vote on this poll


Wow, I guess we need some of those fired federal prosecutors,
as this seems a clear case of voter fraud!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Believe it or not, I don't think that we have enough information to be at the point where we can make anything other than an assumption. And you know what it means to assume. Right?

Seriously, I don't think we can answer this question yet.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Where it may be hard to believe, and perhaps mathematically improbable, what about bad luck. One plans on what one can do in the future according to what one successfully accomplished in the past. What do you get when the weather and nectar flows work against you?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Mark, its a closed poll. You mean if you were at my home for dinner, you would suggest I have no reason to ask you what you "THINK" CCD is? Its like asking "who do you think will be next president?" I can speculate, assume and give my opinion, whether I can see the future or not.

So untill we have the facts and know 100% the answer, we can not ask prior to what peoples thoughts are? Thats what polls do. Its not a poll of "Whats 2 plus 2". Polls are questions asking what people thoughts are, what they use, and other various matter.

Come on. Like you can't say what you "think" CCD is, cause the facts are not all in.....

I believe it....NOT!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Should I just guess Bjorn? I mean I have no idea! You suggest that by now I should have evaluated the evidence and come to a conclusion but golly, there's plenty of speculation and precious little hard evidence to be had. The CCD working group is being tight-lipped regarding what if anything they're coming up with, or even what direction they're leaning. There are rumors.. and there are reports of big-time reticence on the part of affected big-time beekeepers to even admit they're having a problem. On Bee-L there are folks who are claiming CCD is a figment of people's imagination, that there are no "major calamitous colony losses" at all as evidenced by there being plenty of bees in the almonds and that package and queen prices and delivery schedules are "normal".

On the other hand, balancing the naysayers, people with a pet peeve are convinced they know what's causing CCD- GM crops, pesticides, sunspots, what have you. It reminds me of the saying "if all you have is a hammer, all your problems will be nails." Lose a lot of hives to mites last year? Then CCD is caused by mites. 

So I'm still clueless. I voted "other"


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I am truly sorry George to put you through any agonizing thought process. I perhaps should ask those that have not formed any opinion on the matter to not vote. I really did not think asking a simple question as "What do you think CCD is?" would be that big of a deal.

I had planned a follow up question asking "What do you base your opinion on" but see now that this probably would of had people dropping on the floor. Based on the complexity of the first question that some have proposed, I am glad I withheld.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Well Bjorn, my opinion is that I don't know and don't know enough about what is going on in other beekeepers hives to want to venture a guess. 

I talked to David Hackenberg over a month ago and got his perspective. I have known Dave for 15 years or more and respect his observations and believe what he described to me. But I haven't seen first hand what others have, in my own operation. As far as I can tell. 

So, what is causing it? Someone with evidence will have to tell me.

I did vote. I voted for other.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

BjornBee said:


> I am truly sorry George to put you through any agonizing thought process. I perhaps should ask those that have not formed any opinion on the matter to not vote. I really did not think asking a simple question as "What do you think CCD is?" would be that big of a deal.


Oh don't apologize Bjorn, it's a worthwhile question, a reasonable poll, and of course, an important topic. I just haven't got a clue 

Right now, if you put a gun to my head I'd say CCD was caused by complications due to mites complicated by chemical use both in hives and on fields, of course, further complicated, by stress resulting from poor nutrition and excessive splitting, COMPLICATED by being pushed to produce 13 months a year while being carted around the country and forced to live in bee ghettos.

They're demoralized stressed out bees. My name for this syndrome: Beepression 

But you don't have a gun to my head... so I'll just say "I dunno yet" 

George-


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Hey Moderator. How come my dot isn't green, meaning I'm online. Cause I am and it isn't.


----------



## MCQ (May 11, 2005)

*holy !!*

holy flame war batman


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Well I don't know how to vote exactly.

Personally, I think it is multiple factors working together (ie stress, nutrition, chemicals in comb, mgmt practices, etc. etc..) 

BUT... I think those multiple factors work together to limit the colonies ability to ward off or control either a known (but maybe mutated) or an unknown viral/bacterial issue.... 

That puts me wanting to chose up to 3 things. (Maybe I could have and didn't read closely enough)

I still think there is some level of contagious effect. 

An interesting article in one of the latest rags (ABJ I think) mentioned that a soggy wet dead bee was taking from one of the hives affected by CCD. It was placed on a frame of healthy bees and the healthy bees moved back as if repelled by this one dead bee. Strange... but obviously correlates to the known fact that many of these colonies are untouched by SHB, robbers, or wax moths for up to 2 weeks.

I am not edumacated  enough as some other people here to make a scientific guess but just my opinion that there ultimately is some sort of viral/bacteria issue which wreaks havoc as a result of other multiple factors at work.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'll be honest, I haven't tried answering the poll yet because these, IME, usually let you pick just one answer.

Dan Williamson said almost exactly what I've been thinking.

I've eliminated some of the choices in my mind, but I'm still left with three, give or take, of the options in the poll.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I think it works this way. Each of the stressors acts by shortening bee lives. They normally live (say) 6 weeks. High levels of pesticide in the hive= 5 weeks. Poor nutrition due to drought= 4 weeks. A 1500 mile move= 3 weeks. At 3 weeks of life nurse bees will be forced early into foraging. Since the older bees don't die all at once, naturally they die when out and working. Result: an empty hive with a few young bees, not enough to cover the brood, and a queen. 

Of course this wouldn't explain my 15 hives which have never been moved or medicated. (Except O/A.)

dickm


----------



## Baloo (Feb 28, 2006)

I think that it is odd that there are no dead bees in/around the hive. How do you find the cause of death if there are no bodies? I think the problem has something to do with bee navigation. As far as they're telling us the brood left in the hive is "healthy".


----------



## Baloo (Feb 28, 2006)

All of my bees were OK, even though they were pretty weak going into winter. I fed them sugar water 1:1. They seem to be building up right now. ALL of my bees are feral from swarms, cutouts and trapouts. Some are mean, some run like crazy on the comb when you inspect their hive, but they seem to not be suffering from CCD. I also use no foundation in my frames. I am not getting on a high-horse about these methods either. My TBH is REALLY well populated right now and doing the best of all. Last year was tough on my bees because it was so dry (in Blanco), especially for late -acquired hives. The hives are located in Brenham, TX now and are in an area that seems to be too wet. Some of the comb had mold growing on it. When I inspected last I removed it. One last observation: Most of the queens in my hives seemed to only want to lay in new comb. The older brood comb the old timers say queens love so much my queens seem to leave alone in preference of newly drawn brood comb (tan comb, not white or dark brown).
I hope for the best for you and your bees
Cheers


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

You asked for "hot air", so . . . .

The "problems" that we "see" are mite-based. We do not understand V-mites well enough to even raise them in a lab, how can we understand what we see in our hives? There is a lot to learn about what they are doing to our bees. But, what is described as CCD has been recorded many times in the past, long before mites, long before pesticides, GMO, and "sunspots". I'll place my bet on weather/bee management that we haven’t yet mastered. To solve problems like mites and CCD, we first must know more about “normal” bees.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Before sunspots?!?!


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>Before sunspots . . .
Sorry, I should of said "electric cars"


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I witnessed the bees avoiding the corpse of their sister. (Wrote about it too) Stop calling my magazine a "rag."

dickm


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

dickm said:


> I witnessed the bees avoiding the corpse of their sister. (Wrote about it too) Stop calling my magazine a "rag."
> 
> dickm


My deepest and sincerest apologies Dick.  

It was a good article. I forgot you had written it. And I say "rag" with all the kindest and most wonderful thoughts in mind!


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Thanks. I would have liked a conclusion somewhere. The bee corpse that was avoided was not that dramatic. Perhaps a half inch. Still, a lot of experts thought it was quite unusual. But how often do you plop a dead bee down in a bunch of bees? I heard a long time ago there are "undertaker bees" that hold themselves apart and just do the one thing. This controls the spread of disease. In this light it doesn't seem so unusual.

dickm


----------



## John Seets (Jan 9, 2003)

Here's one possible causal factor that seem viable - no hard evidence though.

http://www.rense.com/general75/HONEY.HTM


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

John Seets said:


> Here's one possible causal factor that seem viable - no hard evidence though.
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general75/HONEY.HTM


Oh boy, I hope you've got your kevlar skivvies on


----------



## sanders36051 (Mar 16, 2007)

*What is it?*

It must be the aliens, all the missing bees can likly be found in Area 51.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

A few cats die, and the whole country is running around in panic. A few bees...well I can understand the lack of concern. What does baffle me is HOW FREAKIN FAST they can tell me what caused the death of a few cats. But ask the bee industry to confirm a pesticide or two inside a hive, and its 6 months and counting.

Seems as if the pace of information, and thus research(?) has slowed to snails pace. Right on cue, since I figured as much with the pending checks around the corner....


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

They should have hired veterinarians to do the work. Many of us have done residencies and additional doctorates in things like epidemiology, infectious diseases/parasitology, large scale food production, pathology, virology and toxicology.


----------



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

Aspera, with some of the leading experts in the same backyard as you, you should contact them and volunteer your services! I would hope they would appreciate it, especially based upon your academic background... I know that those of us that are patiently waiting for the diagnosis would welcome your help.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Excellent idea Jeff! Maybe thats whats needed. A volunteer with no personal motive, no ego, and no personal agenda. A volunteer to just get something rolling without the politics, without the "Secure my job for the next umpteen years", and no personal grandios ideas of research papers with highlighted and bold authors names.

Not sure about the volunteer thing. That would be up to Aspera. But I guess compared to the "paid" people, this volunteer idea may actually be a step in the right direction.

Are you up for it Aspera? If of course they let you in the door....


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Sure, I would love to help, although I'm a bit hesitant because people often view such offers as an annoyance. To be honest, money may also be a limiting factor. I know that Dr. Cox-Foster runs her lab based on fruit fly grants, and is probably not going to gain much for her efforts (other than our thanks).

I'll send an email on Tuesday after I get this ^?&%@#!!! training grant done.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> A volunteer with no personal motive, no ego, and no personal agenda. 
> A volunteer to just get something rolling without the politics, without 
> the "Secure my job for the next umpteen years", and no personal 
> grandios ideas of research papers with highlighted and bold authors names.

Have you any idea how insulting that comment is to people who have
dropped their work on things that will result in published papers, ego
enhancing rewards, and spent weeks doing nothing but trying to
puzzle out what killed the affected yards?

Have you any idea that these folks are risking their futures, spending
money that was budget for other purposes doing this work, knowing
full well that they may not have *anything *to show for their hard work
except a list of things that CCD is NOT?

It is easy to sit back and make paranoid critical comments from a 
comfy chair in front of a computer, but it is much harder to _*
bet one's job *_on the chance of adding some value to a group effort
that may or may not even yield a tangible result.

Why do so many beekeepers hold such disdain for the exact same
science that makes it possible for them to keep bees?

Why do so many beekeepers hold such disdain for the exact same
researchers that are risking a minimum of a very poor performance
review for daring to help on what could turn out to be a serious
problem for beekeepers? 

Wouldn't it have been easier for them to have stuck to their
knitting, and kept working on whatever they were supposed to be
working on?


----------



## snowglobe (Mar 22, 2007)

*It is easy to sit back and make paranoid critical comments from a
comfy chair in front of a computer, but it is much harder to
bet one's job on the chance of adding some value to a group effort
that may or may not even yield a tangible result.*

Who's parole are you on? 

*Why do so many beekeepers hold such disdain for the exact same
science that makes it possible for them to keep bees?*

...because the reigns are held by those with power, money and profit margins to fill.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Jim,
If its insulting Jim, thats your opinion. I offered my opinion. An opinion that points out the positives of having someone outside the group with no set agenda. A person from the "field" so to speak. A place where many good ideas and results come from. Its no secret I have been critical of the bee industry in the past. Probably will continue to do so in the future.

Not sure who's "sitting around in front of a computor" as you say. As soon as its published, I'll point out the latest contribution from my part. I had given(donated) 50 hives for research. Thats 50 hives I did not "super" due to the testing. Thats 50 hives I did not move into pollination. I figured I reached into my families pocket for about $3,000 dollars. May not sound like much to you. But I made that decision regardless of it being alot to me. Funny thing is, the paper was rejected by one of the major bee mags as not being what the readers wanted. They felt it was too "research" oriented, and not entertaining enough. So we are trying to have it published in a Entomology/Science publication. It had to do with side by side comparisions of mite products on the market, among other items. But I guess "entertainment" is valued more, as the mag said, "thats what the readers expect."

I also have made information known as soon as I have come across it, heard about it, or thought of it. I had much information early on in regards to nutrition, stress, and other posible angles. I made the information known here on beesource. It was only after I posted such ramblings and thoughts, that I heard from others with comments such as "I have been researching this angle also, my information is being published in the April ABJ" and so on. I have a bitter taste in my mouth Jim, when so much is on the line and people are losing everything, and we have to wait 2 or 3 months for someone to add to the pot of information becuase the primary focus is getting a paper published. That may be the way the ball bounces, but I'll be critical just the same.

Jim, Not really 100% sure of your comment. The "knitting" part throws me off. You say others are sticking their necks out. Thats what I do also. I know some will be critical of my words. Some will hold it against me in the future. My business may even see an impact. I would never allow myself to change to be more "PC" correct if it came to making an extra dollar, or if it meant changing my way I see it or tell it.

I don't want to single people out. My comments are from a broad base of comments in regards to the bee industry as a whole. I think this industry is fractured, behind the times, we get little bang for the buck in past research efforts, we are far behind other countries in many key areas, with areas of research being personally driven, etc. I see little help sitting back and not voicing opinions, no matter what they are. Mine just happens to be critical. Thats "critical" from a beekeeper who's not afraid of standing up an helping though.

I know much in research comes from private efforts and people in the field. I made a comment that maybe adding some effort such as Aspera, as an "outsider" would be a good thing. As snowglobe has commented, Those with power, money, and profit margins will benefit the most. But I feel its everyone elses responsibility to hold their feet to the fire and demand more from this industry.

As a side note Jim, perhaps you know of the grant money used to help get drone comb up and running. Its a shame that any testing on the product came to a screaching halt once the grant money was handed out. If you don't know the story, let me know. I'll take the time to type it out. I'll withhold doing so here, as again, my point is not to single out individuals. But this example is a good illustration of how the money effects the end results and how we are getting far less results than we should.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

There is *no* reason for acrimony here. Its a tough problem, and I'm sure that we all have different ideas as to how it should be solved. I don't think that there is any planned slow-down or major wastage of resources here. Nor are vast sums of money (for the researchers) or power at stake. However I would also add that my brief stint working with large scale agriculture (2,000-8,000 head dairies) taught me that producers are often skeptical of research, and usually with good reason. They have financial, labor and real world constraints that are eliminated from research *out of necessity*. Science is slow, expensive, and not always correct (by statistical definition, 10% of the best published results are bull***t). These are limitations that we are all up against and I think that everyone can appreciate that healthy bees, honeybee profits, and quality research are three distinct goals and none will ever fully be met.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Bjorn,

What Jim said

>>>and we have to wait 2 or 3 months for someone to add to the pot of information becuase the primary focus is getting a paper published.<<<<

Where in hades did you get this idea? You are the one who's trying to gat a paper published aren't you? 

Dickm


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

For the latest, read Jerry Bromenshenk on Bee-l today. Also has a few comments on money.

Dickm


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Please Dick, I have no intentions of writing a paper or getting published. Please do not confuse my willingness to participate in studies and help in whatever way I can, without mixing up any comment I make with others who are motivated by being published. Trying to get a paper published with results of equipment options and chemical use is one thing. Holding imformation that could perhaps shed light and help those in need at the moment, is a different matter. 

I am amazed at the response to my criticism in general terms. I made a few comments without names or personal attacks. I hope nobody felt a personal attack from my ramblings, unless they feel it was based on truth. But if the shoe fits, then wear it you may.....


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Bjorn, You wrote:

>>>>>Funny thing is, the paper was rejected by one of the major bee mags as not being what the readers wanted. They felt it was too "research" oriented, and not entertaining enough. So we are trying to have it published in a Entomology/Science publication. It had to do with side by side comparisions of mite products on the market, among other items. But I guess "entertainment" is valued more, as the mag said, "thats what the readers expect."<<<<<

Then you wrote:
>>>>>I have no intentions of writing a paper or getting published.<<<

??


Dickm


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Yes Dick, as I stated, I have no intentions of getting anything published myself. Let me be clear, it was not my grant, it was not my study, it was not my writing, it was not my intentions of participating in a study to make an article to attach my name.

Does that mean I am not willing to put up or shut up? Thats right. I am more than willing to help out when needed. I am also more than willing to work behind the scenes when I can without the "primary" reason of being published.

I mainly pointed out the comment about the article and the failure to get it published due to reasons of it not being entertainment. That research and ongoing studies will be ignored by mainstrean magazines if the information is not "entertaining". The mag stated that readers want entertainment, not research, answers to questions, or studies with results. I was making those comments to show where the industry is when it comes to such matters.

My comment on "some" holding out perhaps information till papers and articles are published, even in times when some are being wiped out, was two paragraphs down from my comments on the rejected research paper. They are seperate issues Dick. I have come forward with information, and even skirted the issue of making suggestions of other ongoing research (Of those who want information published first) in attempts to get information out to the public. To get it in as many hands as possible, as soon as possible, with the hopes that the information pool can benefit and grow as we all can add our experiences.

Dick, Since your so willing to nitpick my comments...Was it not you that commented along the lines of "I'll be coming out with information in the next couple months in ABJ"...after others were making comments about nutrition, stress, and other areas of thoughts concerning CCD? I wonder how willing you would of been to get involved in letting anyone know what you found or knew, if not for the fact others had been sniffing down that road also. As it was, you added little beyond letting others know you were writing a paper and covering your story(butt) by indicating you had already been on the case.

Let me know if you want to carry this further. I can post the actual comments by you Dick, and the lack of any real information on your part til I can only assume after your article is published.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>A few cats die, and the whole country is running around in panic. A few bees...well I can understand the lack of concern. What does baffle me is HOW FREAKIN FAST they can tell me what caused the death of a few cats. But ask the bee industry to confirm a pesticide or two inside a hive, and its 6 months and counting.

>>Seems as if the pace of information, and thus research(?) has slowed to snails pace. Right on cue, since I figured as much with the pending checks around the corner....


Isnt that the truth. I suspect it was made clear QUICk mainly because of major law suits building up,.

So what is really going on here. Is there anything definite yet? I have been quite busy this last while and haven't really seen anything new on this problem. Well, other than hearing and reading media coverage of CCD, and the confusion is sure getting things spinning!

The guys have got to get out and start eliminating some of the causes, or at least getting word out of possible leads.


Maybe someone can help me out here.
I have been told time and time again, from people learning of CCD from the media, that it is devastating hives across Canada,.?
Last time I talked to my provincial apiarist, 2 weeks ago, he had not mentioned this problem, in fact he was saying our Provence is experiencing about average wintering losses.
So what the hell? Who is broadcasting that CCD is being found in Canada, AND causing large scale losses?
Or is there losses being identified up here now, with symptoms closely associated to the losses in the US?

You dont know how many people has either stopped me or phoned me about CCD they heard, watched or read about from the media. I am glad for this forum and many beekeepers who are investigating into these losses. It has allowed me to actively dispel some of the "buzz" word media spin stories. 

This is a perfect opportunity for the spin artists to work!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Funny thing is, the paper was rejected by one of the major bee mags as not being what the readers wanted. 
> They felt it was too "research" oriented, and not entertaining enough. So we are trying to have it 
> published in a Entomology/Science publication. It had to do with side by side comparisons of mite products 
> on the market, among other items. But I guess "entertainment" is valued more, as the mag said, "thats what 
> the readers expect."

I think you are mixing issues here.

BeeCulture simply does not publish things written in the form of "papers", 
they publish articles. Think "The New Yorker". ABJ will publish things 
written in the form of "papers" often, but will expect something written 
like a paper to be an actual paper, and may do a "peer review" of sorts 
on them, offering comments that must be considered and result in changes 
in the "paper" before the publish it.

Neither magazine would reject an article merely on the grounds that it was 
not "entertaining enough", but either might if the thing were poorly
written in turgid language.

If it is a serious paper, it would be better to have the work published in an 
"Entomology/Science publication" as then it would become part of the legitimate 
scientific literature, where anything printed only in the bee magazines could be 
deliberately ignored by some who think that work worthy of publication in a 
journal would be published only in an actual journal. 

There is nothing preventing you from publishing a re-written version of the paper 
in one of the bee mags, but this would have to come after the publication in the 
"Entomology publication", as all the science journals want to be the first to print 
a paper. If you need help in creating a more article-like version of the "paper",
I'd be happy to help. I can guarantee publication of any such article in either of the 
bee mags.

> Its a shame that any testing on the product came to a screaching halt once the grant 
> money was handed out. If you don't know the story, let me know. 

No, I don't know the story. What would require extensive testing in regard to drone
comb anyway? Is there anything in doubt about the use of drone comb? It has multiple
applications, all fairly well understood.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

> What does baffle me is HOW FREAKIN FAST they can tell me what caused the death of a few cats


The apparatus to do just that already exists. Just think about it, there are 27 vet schools in NA (at my last count) - I may be off by 1 or 2, and there is a huge research wing to almost all of them. There is also years of research into pet foods and toxins and such on which to draw. Heck there are a slew of specialist veterinarians that do nothing but toxicology. I don't think you can say that about perhaps more than a handful of bee researcher's if that. Jerry B is the only one that comes to my mind (thought there must be more) Personally I thought the pet food thing was a bit slow, but that is just me and when it comes to diagnostics I have all the patience of a boiling teakettle.

The honeybee research establishment is tiny compared to the veterinary machine (which is tiny compared to the human medical machine) and much honeybee research is not about disease. Dance anyone?

Keith


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Seems as if the pace of information, and thus research(?) has slowed to snails pace. Right on cue, since I figured as much with the pending checks around the corner....}

This seems to always be the case. With problems, with controls, with solid timely answers. As always there will be a great deal of short lived media hype, researchers will return to academia and beekeepers will continue to work through the problems, losing yet a few more of an ever dwindling number of beekeepers. Those left will eventually deal with this looming threat as we did trachs, varroa, resistances and chinese honey. 

I'm thankful for the early information that was published, the considerable input from many knowlegable beekeepers here and on Bee-L. It's time to move on, scan the horizon for the next storm.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I have been a junior in both product and research sides of agriculture. Its hard both ways and nobody wants anything but lightening pace advancements, cheeeeeaaap food, healthy environments, high worker wages etc. Nothing is perfect and we can all do our part. If you have some crazy solution and are worried that someone will riducule it as unscientific, stupid or toxic.....post it anyway. That's the beauty of the web. Someone will read it and someone will try it. All great innovations were crazy just before they were great innovations (not my words, but I wish they were).


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Bjorn wrote:

>>>> As it was, you added little beyond letting others know you were writing a paper and covering your story(butt) by indicating you had already been on the case.<<<

>>>Let me know if you want to carry this further. I can post the actual comments by you Dick, and the lack of any real information on your part til I can only assume after your article is published.<<<<

This is unfair and if I gave your opinion the credence I did in the past, it would hurt my feelings. I don't want to elevate this bit of unreality to the level of arguement. 

Dickm


----------

