Beano,
Let me respond to your post: Hi Oliver,
You may have read all the books, done all the courses, know all the theory, but applying your knowledge in a real life situation is a different ball game altogether. It's a skill in itself. The kids can't answer the question very often because they don't understand it! Also, some people find it easier to learn from doing and I think we should bear that in mind on the forum.
Look at this thread progression.
Queen AWOL on the 23rd.
Forum members answered the question of her likely return, but seemingly did not spell out the time frame for that return. Nobody whatsoever said the queen returned after a week on the tiles.
At post #16 it is likely that the poster has been told by others (not the forum replies) that the queen may well return a week after going on fly-about.
Post 17. I offered the opportunity of finding these 'so-called sources of information' after posting the bare simple facts - she would have returned long ago or was lost. This was late on the 26th.
His response was not particularly polite - informing me that I had obviously not read the thread.
To be honest, it mattered not a jot whether I had read the thread stream or not. My advice was the simple facts of the situation.
Secondly, the poster simply ignored my post #16 advice and glibly carried on spouting about the queen's return after a week.
Fair enough, if they want to ignore my advice that is their choice and I could not care a jot if they choose to do so - it is usually their loss, not mine; however to continue to advance the completely wrong information (that others would read, lap up, remember and further spread the mis-information) is reprehensible. It would be downright dishonest for me to let that happen.
NOW, if the OP had come back at post #18 and had not been so belligerent (like a reply to my question would have been good), my next progressive response would have been to point out the error in his reading skills (possibly quite politely) but after that very negative response to my post, I simply made it very clear what the situation was, regarding the queen and reinforced that with a few very basic learning points.
In fact my response at post #19 was quite restrained; I simply stated that I had read the posts and suggested directly that he should do that, too.
Post #20 was my reponse to the clear ignorance of my post #17. It was worded to demonstrate to all new beeks, lapping up this mis-information, that there was something seriously amiss here - had anyone done as the post indicated, they would have learned the truth instead of the plain mis-truths being inferred. I also explained how I had improved the wording of my earlier post to put much more emphasis on the short time scale.
Now at post #20, the OP changes tack and now speaks of the queen returning, not the time scale - a subtle trick to change the emphasis of the argument which makes it appear that I suggested she would not return from the AWOL flight?
Post #23 was a robust response to that, reinforcing the true facts and showing justification which could so easily be (and should have been) found in the texts over a three year period or more.
By this time, yes, I was getting a little hissed off by the attitude of the OP - not reading, accusing me of not reading and not knowing, ignoring my post, not bothering to think about the situation, not bothering to post again (even though having been on the forum prior to my post of close to 11:00h).
Further posts have, I hope described the abysmal dissemination of rubbish information on the forum.
New beeks should not even read this sort of rubbish about queens returning after a week or more. Overall, a thoroughly useless end to a thread which simply started out as a goof by a third season(?) beek.
However, the new beeks should, by now fully understand that this just does not happen. Queens do not return after more than a week. At least some may have learned something, even if the OP has not.
Perhaps the OP needs to change his spots, or maybe get (and use) a good pair of reading spectacles, because he started all this.
Baby goats don't just need bottle feeding with isolated facts, they need to be able to work out what is happening and why. They need to build on what they already know.
Beekeeping is actually simple. It may appear complicated to new beeks because the learning curve happens to be so steep (people just jump in at the deep end). The complicated bits are the add-ons which can come later, as experience increases.
Try me with a basic newbie problem and there will be a simple solution (probably several options, actually) - I can assure you of that. Most topics are complicated by responses which appear dogmatic, or have no basis for belief. (read that sentence very carefully - it has been worded that way very specifically)
Try it and see for yourself. In fact if you would like to post a string of questions, I would answer them with simple alternatives (some would be better and not quite as basic and some may not be appropriate to all situations).
At this point, I will rest my case.
RAB
