From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:29:22 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-93.6 required=2.4 tests=AWL,SPF_HELO_PASS, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CDF4908D for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1SEr0CH013917 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:24:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:24:50 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0606B" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 28207 Lines: 638 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:01:09 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Laying workers or drone-laying queens? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>Besides the obvious (one's a worker and the other is an old or injured queen)... A drone-laying queen is either an unmated virgin that missed her mating window due to bad weather, or a lack of drones, or an old queen that has run out of semen. Laying workers are regular workers that, in the absence of queen scent, developed their ovaries and started laying unfertile eggs. [Un]fortunately, these workers don't mate. Since you put cells in 250 de-queened hives followed by bad weather, you had drone-laying queens unless some virgins turned out badly and hives developed laying workers. A virgin queen only has something like a 2-week window to mate before the door closes. >>horrendous amount of regular worker cells being converted in the middle of two frames to drone... This again points to drone-laying queens. In my experience, a drone-laying queen will keep a fairly tight egg pattern whereas eggs from laying workers tend to be scattered. A drone layer will generally affix the eggs to the bottom of the cells whereas laying workers will attach theirs to the cell wall. >>Requeening yet again solved our problem but can we be sure we didn't have a laying worker laying all those drones? Fairly sure. There are typically several laying workers in a colony. Each occupying a different part of a frame or hive with her own camp of supporters. Supporters of one laying worker will often attack and kill another laying worker. I've seen this. Requeening a hive with laying workers is typically unsuccessful since such hives act as queenright and will attack the new queen. I never tried requeening a hive with a drone-laying queen without first killing her. I suppose a mated queen's scent emitting from a queen cage might win the workers' allegiance to the point where they will kill the drone layer. Or a mated queen typically has the upper hand in her duel with a drone-layer. >>can you have a laying worker in the same colony with an infertile queen? As far as I know the answer is no or rarely. The scent from a drone-laying queen will suppress potential laying workers' development. Waldemar -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 03:37:18 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Japan May Reject Chinese Royal Jelly MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII China's Royal Jelly Suffered Japan's Rejection SinoCast China Business Daily News, 6/7/2006 GO TO: www.apitherapynews.com BEIJING, June 07, SinoCast -- On May 29, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan introduced a Positive List System for agricultural chemicals remaining in foods, a system to prohibit the distribution of foods that contain agricultural chemicals above a certain level. Influenced by this Positive List, China's exports of royal jelly to Japan suffered Japan's rejection. The Positive List System makes some harsh rules about agricultural chemicals remaining in exported food to Japan; this exerts a nearly disastrous influence on China's exports of food and agricultural products. What is worth mentioning, Japan raises the maximum limit of chloromycetin contained in royal jelly from the former 0.05PPM to 0.0005PPM. Presently, above 70% of China's royal jelly is exported to Japan, and companying implementation of the new measure, the Chinese enterprises are easily inclined to suffer Japan's rejection. Another problem bothering the Chinese government is that some enterprises infest China's exports of royal jelly with sub-quality products… -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:05:47 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Laying workers or drone-laying queens? In-Reply-To: <20060607.130140.4551.93833@webmail25.nyc.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Waldemar >> can you have a laying worker in the same colony with an >> infertile queen? > As far as I know the answer is no or rarely. The scent > from a drone-laying queen will suppress potential laying > workers' development. The possibility is higher than you suggest, but I could not give percentages. A drone laying queen can be a drone layer due to inadequate mating and thus produce a normal amount of queen pheromone, but a queen that is laying drones because she is old and has run out of semen, will have been deteriorating in the amount of pheromone as well as laying progressively fewer eggs, so you get the double whammy of low queen pheromone and low amounts of brood pheromone (both of which normally inhibit worker ovary development. Another thing that may contribute to this is that brood pheromone emitted by drone brood, may be different and thus act differently. Mostly laying workers occur in large numbers rather than singularly, if the conditions are right for them to develop at all. Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman or http://www.dave-cushman.net Short FallBack M/c, Build 6.02/3.1 (stable) -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:00:41 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Randy_Oliver?= Subject: laying workers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'd like to get this straight. Do you mean laying workers or drone-laying queens? I had a late season virgin last year that failed to mate and became a drone-layer in February. It was a mess, and difficult to determine each case. Most colonies clearly had laying workers, judging by the piled up eggs in cells, but many also had patterns that looked like they were layed by a queen, but developed into drones--so I'd assume drone layer queens. A very few queens managed to mate, but many later failed. We saw the full spectrum, and it took us months to get everything straightened out! An observation I've made again and again over the years is that laying worker brood is extremely susceptible to chalkbrood infection. Anyone else notice this? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:22:39 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Milt_Lathan?= Subject: Laying workers or drone-laying queens? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In my case, I thought I was being slick. Rarely being able to find the queen anyway, I separated the (3 mediums) brood chamber putting an excluder over the #2 box, a super over that and (former) brood box #3 on top. 11 days later, worker cells were being converted to drones above and below. I thought the old queen may have simply run out of drone juice which has happened to me before. And for all I know that may be the case, But instead of getting a queenless brood chamber to which I could add a queen, I now have boxes filled with bees with no mated queen. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:45:37 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Laying workers or drone-laying queens? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>Rarely being able to find the queen anyway... Was yours a drone layer? Marking queens makes find the queens SO much easier. >>..putting an excluder over the #2 box, a super over that and (former) brood box #3 on top. What was your goal? Why the excluder and a super? >>For all I know that may be the case... It's pertninent to identify the status quo fairly accurately before undertaking any steps. It will save you considerable time and give predictable results. >>instead of getting a queenless brood chamber to which I could add a queen, I now have boxes filled with bees with no mated queen. You don't want to take any chances with laying workers. New queen acceptance becomes a Russian roulette. It's best to find the failing queen and dispatch her. Just in case there are laying workers with a significant following, place the entire hive over a strong, queen-right hive. The laying workers will be disposed of in short time. To introduce a new (valuable) queen, make up a nuc with 3-5 frames of emerging brood some covering bees. Give this nuc about 24 hours for older workers to return to their original hives before introducing your queen. Your acceptance will be almost 100%. In fact, direct queen release works well. I'll watch the queen walk out amongst the bees and watch for possible aggression. If the workers inspect her and seem 'in awe' or surround her in admiration for a couple of minutes, I gently close up the nuc. 2 or 3 days later you can re-establish the old colony by either adding frames of bees or interchanging hive locations. This is extra steps but your success rate will be close to a 100%. Waldemar -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:42:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Michael Palmer Subject: Northeastern Bee Breeders Association Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-28A92665 Awhile ago there was an announcement for the Northeastern Bee Breeders Association. The meeting was to be held on June 24th at Troy NY. I have called the number, but get the message that the number is incorrect for my area...whatever that means. The number I have is: 800-496-2337 Does anyone have another contact number or email address? Mike -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/359 - Release Date: 6/8/2006 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:46:35 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Organization: Fischer Alchemy Subject: Re: Japan May Reject Chinese Royal Jelly > What is worth mentioning, Japan raises the maximum limit of > chloromycetin contained in royal jelly from the former 0.05PPM > to 0.0005PPM. For those playing the home version of the game, Japan LOWERS rather than "raises" the maximum limit. Clearly 0.0005ppm is a much lower limit than 0.05ppm. "0.0005ppm" would be 0.5 parts per BILLION. To visualize just how tiny an impurity this would be, lets walk outside to our imaginary Olympic-sized swimming pool (50m x 25m x 2m) which would hold 660,253 gallons of water. Now 660,253 US gallons equals a slightly over 2.5 billion ml, so 0.5 parts per billion would be 1.25 ml (roughly 1/4 teaspoon) of contaminant in the pool. The "former limit" of 0.05ppm would be 100 times as much, 125 ml or about 4 ounces of contaminant in the same Olympic-sized pool. And Chloromycetin? Another obscure antibiotic, of course. (As an aside, legitimate Olympic-sized pools are very rare. The last one I saw was at the Hotel Renaissance in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and the time constraints of business meant I never got time to take a swim, one of many reasons I quit jetting around and started keeping bees.) -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:11:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Benson Subject: Re: Japan May Reject Chinese Royal Jelly In-Reply-To: <000001c68dd2$cdd16aa0$640fa8c0@gollum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Fischer wrote: >And Chloromycetin? Another obscure antibiotic, of course. > > Chloromycetin = Chloramphenicol Keith -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:47:48 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Brian_Fredericksen?= Subject: Minnesota Apiary Statute Repealed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In a letter dated June 5th, 2006 the director of Plant Protection Division announced the repeal of the MN apiary statute. Here is a quotation from the letter. "With the repeal of the apiary statute, the Mn Dept Ag will no longer conduct routine apiary inspections, distribute newsletters, nor mantain a publicly available database of apiary locations" Also in my mailbox is the summer 2006 newsletter from the MN Honey Producers Association. The president had a 2 page description of his experience succesfully lobbying the state legislature for the repeal of the apiary statute. In addition mention was made in the newsletter how the organizations vice president was forced to resign because during the "legislature mission" he had promoted "an agenda contrary to the motion and vote of the executive board" concerning the repeal of the apiary statute. Here are some facts and figures from the fall 2005 Apiary Program Report published by the MDA. Of 446 registered beekeeprs in 2005, 66 were commercial (300 or more colonies), 34 were sideliners (50-299 colonies) and 346 hobbyists. Minnesota is the 6th largest producer of honey in the USA. During 2005, 62 colonies were found by MDA inspections to contain small hive beetle. This was a large increase from 2004 the first year SHB was found in Mn. All of these colonies were from migratory commercial beekeepers. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:28:43 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Michael Palmer Subject: Re: Minnesota Apiary Statute Repealed In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4FA54291 > "With the repeal of the apiary statute.... Why?? It's usually the gov't that ends such programs, by removing the funding. Why would the MN Honey Producers want to end the inspection program? Mike -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/359 - Release Date: 6/8/2006 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:46:02 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Organization: Fischer Alchemy Subject: Re: Minnesota Apiary Statute Repealed > ...the summer 2006 newsletter from the MN Honey Producers Association. > The president had a 2 page description of his experience successfully > lobbying the state legislature for the repeal of the apiary statute. > "With the repeal of the apiary statute, the Mn Dept Ag will no longer > conduct routine apiary inspections, distribute newsletters, nor maintain > a publicly available database of apiary locations" A classic self-inflicted shotgun wound to the foot. Astute readers will recall that the MN State Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that any landowner who KNOWS that honey bees are foraging on his property must exercise reasonable care in the application of pesticides. http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/08_03_05.htm http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/SandBar/4.1bees.htm If there will be no database in the future, landowners can claim that they had no way to even know if there were any beekeepers anywhere near their land, and can (once again, as they always seem to do) claim that they did not see any honey bees flying around on the land at issue prior to pesticide application. As an aside there seems to be a very disturbing direct correlation between pesticide application and very poor vision, something that prompts latent concern about the risks posed by handling pesticides on the health of the applicator. :) So, while MN beekeepers have a clear and compelling legal ruling to protect their bees, it has been eviscerated by a group of "Honey Producers" who apparently don't want their hives inspected. > During 2005, 62 colonies were found by MDA inspections to contain > small hive beetle... All of these colonies were from migratory > commercial beekeepers. It seems that these businessmen want to externalize the risk and costs inherent in a migratory operation on other beekeepers while, of course, internalizing their profits. I wish I could say that I was "shocked, shocked" at this. This is what happens when unmitigated avarice puts on a suit and tie, fraudulently pretending to represent "all beekeepers". Short-term greed creates scorched earth for everyone, and after a period of time, there are no pest-free areas. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:22:24 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Brian_Fredericksen?= Subject: Re: Minnesota Apiary Statute Repealed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:28:43 -0400, Michael Palmer wrote: >Why?? It's usually the gov't that ends such programs, by removing the >funding. Why would the MN Honey Producers want to end the inspection program? >Mike In my original post I tried to stick with the published facts. Here is my understanding of what and why..... The troubles started with the poplar plantation/Sevin case Jim Fisher referenced in his last post on this subject. The Mn dept of Ag (MDA) and DNR really showed a lack of leadership and perhaps did not undertand the scope and seriousness of the issue. I have been told that the "state " had grant monies involved in the poplar program and job security may have played a role in the foot dragging. This essentially started a war between MDA and Mn Honey Producers. ( MHPA). The first casualty in the war was Blaine White who after doing a superb job of running the state apiary program was suddenly moved into a new "career building" position. My contacts said Blaine had lobbied for the beekeepers and was moved into the back 40 for his lack of solidarity. Then in 2005 a series of unfreindly changes to the apiary statute including a stiff increase in colony registration fees was imposed by MDA. Throughout the winter as the war drums were being pounded by both sides, MDA insisted through their spokesperson that they wanted to keep the statutue intact. Intertestingly the spring 2006 registration forms never went out at all to beekeepers so I detect some complicity in the MDA's actions. I think MDA figures this will come back to bite MHPA and went along with it. During 2005 some sort of poll was taken of MPHA members at a biannual meeting and the result was a membership vote to ask the state to repeal the apiary statute. Using this bogus "mandate" the powers at large in MHPA carried the battle forward to the state capitol and onward to Victory!!!!!! yeah keep those nasty un-bee friendly state employees away from our bees!!!!! My own opinion is that the non commercial beekeepers were shafted on this deal and many are hobbyists who really do not understand the risks of having migratory beekeepers operating in the state. Conversely beekeepers who make a living from their hives do not have the state looking after the little guys who may be spreading mites or FB around through lack of knowledge. The sad thing is that we had some pretty industry friendly reg's on the books and my guess is when (not if) the state apiary statue returns the next time around may not be so industry friendly. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:36:53 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Minnesota Apiary Statute Repealed In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "With the repeal of the apiary statute, the Mn Dept Ag will no longer conduct routine apiary inspections, distribute newsletters, nor mantain a publicly available database of apiary locations" Reply: Sounds like a replay of what we did in Arizona back in the mid-1990s. You don't defund, you wipe the books so the dust can settle. Then in the future, nothing can haunt you should you decide to restart again, for the books are begun new. Respectfully submitted, Dee A. Lusby Small Cell Commercial Beekeeper Moyza, Arizona http://groups.yahoo.com/group/organicbeekeepers/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:44:41 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Study: Honeydew, Thyme Honey Contain High Levels of Phenol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Honey – There’s More to It Than You Think GO TO: www.apitherapynews.com While honey has the reputation of being a healthy food to consume, nevertheless, some people choose not to eat it because they consider it to be only a source of sugars that give no special health benefits. Researchers in the Agriculture and Life Sciences Division at Lincoln University have recently completed the first study of the health promoting compounds of a range of honeys and honeydew produced in New Zealand. They discovered that some honeys contain health promoting compounds such as antioxidants and that the colour of the darker honeys may be an indication that they also contain high levels of minerals… The honey studied all came from single varieties of flowers (mono-floral) and included: manuka, clover, rata, vipers bugloss, kamahi, nodding thistle, honeydew, rewarewa, tawari and thyme provided by Airborne Honey Limited of Canterbury… Honeydew and thyme honey contained the highest levels of phenol compared to the other honeys, while thyme and rewarewa had the highest antioxidant activity of the ten honeys giving them the potential to play an important role in providing antioxidants to humans in a pleasant from… -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:20:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Adrian M. Wenner" Subject: Honey article in New York Times In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20060523063133.020c7208@pop.together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To BEE-L subscribers, This morning's New York Times' Dining and Wine section has an article on honey: "Blossom to Table: Honey Grows Up." Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:26:46 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Adrian M. Wenner" Subject: Honey article in the New York Times In-Reply-To: <20060614043653.56249.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear BEE-L subscribers: In my last post about today's New York Times' article about honey, I forgot to mention that I have that article as a file on my computer (sans photographs). I can sent it as an attachment to any individuals who request it and provide an e-mail address. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm “The more persuasive the evidence against a belief, the more virtuous it is deemed to persist in it.” Robert Park — 2000 (Voodoo Science) -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---