There are people here with many different circumstances, some of which make moving to treatment-free beekeeping very hard, and with different resources, and needs as far as preserving numbers of working colonies. Many are caught in the trap of needing to treat to maintain a livelihood, while knowing that treating preserves low levels of resistance - the treatment addiction scenario. Others are freer to experiment with strategies that often lead to high failure rates, without that mattering particularly.
These differences in circumstances and side-aims seem to me to be the cause of a lot of cross-talk.
I suspect one major cause of disagreements is born of the of use of the absolutes: 'resistant' and 'non-resistant', where the reality is that most of the time we are dealing with bees that have a little, but not enough resistance. The objective is to raise resistance levels, until treatments are no longer needed in a sufficiently large proportion of our bees, rather than to try to get 100% of colonies 100% varroa-capable.
I wonder: does all of that form an agreeable starting point for all parties to begin a discussion about how we locate principles that can be taylored to all circumstances, taking care to use language that does not mean different things in different places? Or even the basis for a discussion about what would form an agreeable starting point to such ends?
Such a discussion would accept the premise that breeding toward resistance leading to genuine improvement is possible. We don't want to keep fighting that fight again and again.