I responded to Sol’s question about where it was reported that Dee had had losses. The time reference in the exchange between Dee and Allen indicated current times.
That would be a good conclusion if it were correct....but for the third time, Allen hasn't been to Dee's since 2005. That is the fact. Your interpretation is flawed...probably from looking at things out of context.
A quote from Allen last December why are you down to 'several hundred" hives?
The word ‘are’ indicates a relatively current period…don’t you agree?
So what part of my post is dishonest? And, I suppose you are saying that Allen was dishonest in his message.
Hmmm, "several hundred" seems to me to include the 700-800 hives she is running by herself, with no help. She keeps less bees than she did when her husband was alive to work with her. None of this leads to any conclusion over a specific number of hives, nor a specific production/income....both of which have been cited, based on no reliable data....which is dishonest.
While on the topic of honesty….your assertion that Dee’s bees are not especially defensive strikes a bit of a dishonest tone to anyone who viewed the video of your visit to her apiaries….a video that is now, conveniently, removed from the public domain. I don’t blame you for removing it as it surely undermines your case.
1. Those videos were shot (and posted unedited) while doing about 200 walk away splits...essentially without smoke.
2. On separate occasions, several years apart, in separate yards, both Michael Bush and I have inspected hives (with others around) using a normal amount of smoke...the bees were entirely manageable. On another occasion (3 years ago, I think), Dee asked me to grab a jar of bees for a speaker that was doing an apitheripy talk...I smoked the bees, put on a veil (no gloves), pulled brood frames and rolled bees into a jar.
3. This is the most amusing accusation yet....that I pulled the videos. These videos have never been taken down. When I first wanted to put these online, Youtube had a 5 min. limit to the length of the video. At the time, google had an experimental video service that had no such restriction, so that's where I posted them. Since that time, google bought youtube, and eventually all the google video content was automatically migrated to youtube...where they still live today, with no interruption. Eventually the google video links were discontinued. I'd like to find the time to upload higher rez versions on vimeo (which is what I use for video these days). These videos have been "live" since 2008 with no interruption. When Bee-l was having this "discussion", no one bothered to ask....seems rather familiar a way to arrive at the "truth", eh?
Is it really more productive to say something has been taken down (when it hasn't) or to ask where it might have gone (which happened automatically which I couldn't stop from happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Videos
On April 15, 2011, Google announced via email that after April 29 they would no longer allow playback of content hosted on their service, but reversed the decision one week later in lieu of greater support for migration to YouTube.[4][5] Google Videos was shut on August 20, 2012. The remaining Google Videos content was moved to YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/GoldenRuleHoney?feature=watch
I, ordinarily, believe that a difference of opinion between adults is normal. An interpretation of information can be viewed on opposite poles. I don’t believe that when someone takes a different view that it is the result of dishonesty. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is evidence of projection
Errr, ok, so posters here are making "honest mistakes" because they can't be bothered with the facts? They are "honestly" making things up? I don't think it's dishonest to disagree about something...but in an honest discussion, there is some responsibility for the participants to get their facts straight...and not make up "facts".
deknow