|
|
line choice for beginner
Jeff wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. snip ... well ok, my name is jeff and i *am* clueless and stupid dammit... but, imo ...and that's all that matters on this issue... it's much more convenient for me to top post and to read new posts at the top... Is it convenient because you're clueless and stupid or are you clueless and stupid because it's convenient ? -- Ken Fortenberry- another chicken/egg conundrum |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
Although you often behave like a child, you can hardly be classed as a beginner, and what you use is your own affair. You seem to be the one who is confused. Whatīs the matter, feeling uncertain in your important niche? You are wasting your time trying to trip me up. Even if I changed my opinions twice a day, which I donīt, I would still be very careful what I said, and how I argued, especially around dumbos bent on malicious intent. "I find it rather surprising that you and others seem to think that I am easily irritated by criticism etc. This is not the case. I just like to try and keep to the facts, thatīs all. If I am wrong about something, ( which has been known to occur!:)), and somebody points this out, then I accept it. It would be quite pointless doing otherwise." - Mike Connor - -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... Mike Connor wrote: SNIP I know what I wrote, and so does everybody else who read it. So far you have not managed to credibly refute a single line. My my, what a foolish man you are. Donīt you ever question your motives for posting here? Or wonder what motivation others have for doing so? You are not in the least interested in helping beginners, or anybody else either, you just want to engage in petty arguments, which you then contrive to think you have in some way "won", in order to boost your obviously severely flagging ego. It is not very intelligent to assume that others have the same motivations as you. Doubtless quite a few people find it pathetic. I really do feel sorry for you. Just as a point of order, I believe that Mr.Curry was quite sincere with his advice, and he meant to help people with it. He was not looking for an argument. You on the other hand have been once again amazingly transparent, and foolish to boot. Does it not worry you what people think about you? Even those you have never met? It would worry me. Oh well, as I said, it is no skin off my nose, and a couple of beginners have saved some time, effort, and money, which was the object of the exercise. MC |
line choice for beginner
Oh, I am not in the least bit irritated either.
I attained my objectives, and apart from trying in a very clumsy fashion to trap and irritate me, in which most singularly noble endeavour you then of course failed miserably, I donīt think you had any. MC |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... Mike Connor wrote: SNIP I know what I wrote, and so does everybody else who read it. So far you have not managed to credibly refute a single line. My my, what a foolish man you are. Donīt you ever question your motives for posting here? Or wonder what motivation others have for doing so? You are not in the least interested in helping beginners, or anybody else either, you just want to engage in petty arguments, which you then contrive to think you have in some way "won", in order to boost your obviously severely flagging ego. It is not very intelligent to assume that others have the same motivations as you. Doubtless quite a few people find it pathetic. I really do feel sorry for you. Golly. I thought I was just saying why I prefer WF lines, and why I think they're just fine for beginners. Along the way, I did question some of your claims that seem to me to be inconsistent at best. For example, there's your claim that DT lines are more economical (we're not talking about shooting heads now), combined with the claim that it isn't practical to turn around a DT after one end wears out. (Why that should be the case, I have absolutely no clue, having done it successfully several times.) There are a number of other inconsistencies and confusions (such as conflating DTs and shooting heads) that I won't go into at the moment. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
In defense of Airflo line choice for beginner
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Mike Connor wrote:
Airflo is the main manufacturer doing this, none of the responsible ones are. I would not even use an airflo line to tie up my tomatoes, ( if I had any tomatoes!). Check out Sci Ang's web site http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...ro_tips2.jhtml where they describe the GPX series as being heavier than "normal." Among southern California surf fly fishers Airflo's integrated shooting heads are very popular. They have the fastest sink rates per grain weight and are consequently very effectinve at keeping the fly close to the bottom in the surf. They also have a 5 year warranty against cracking and have continued to improve their durability. Mu |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag nk.net... SNIP Golly. I thought I was just saying why I prefer WF lines, and why I think they're just fine for beginners. Along the way, I did question some of your claims that seem to me to be inconsistent at best. For example, there's your claim that DT lines are more economical (we're not talking about shooting heads now), combined with the claim that it isn't practical to turn around a DT after one end wears out. (Why that should be the case, I have absolutely no clue, having done it successfully several times.) There are a number of other inconsistencies and confusions (such as conflating DTs and shooting heads) that I won't go into at the moment. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. Apparently, quite a remarkable number of things "seem" so to you. If you merely read the posts properly, then you might have considerably fewer problems. That you "have absolutely no clue", and are plagued by "inconsistencies and confusions" is a bad sign. The only person "conflating" anything here is you. Have you considered that you just might be too stupid to understand a lot of things? Or maybe you received bad advice as a beginner? Apart from this, your obvious personal dislike of me is clouding what little judgement you may otherwise possess. The object of the exercise was not to "question peopleīs claims", but to help beginners. This was the only reason I contributed to the thread at all. You have still not posted one single sensible reason why you think WF lines are good for beginners, or better than DTīs, and I donīt suppose you ever will. You will just continue to whine and weasel and bull**** until you convince yourself that you "won" something. Unfortunately for you, there is nothing to win. The "questions" you asked where specifically designed to try and trap me into an inconsistency, and you introduced a whole load of other stuff as well, which had nothing at all to do with this thread. You are also the one who is waffling on about shooting heads, not I. Donīt you find it curious that nobody else has "questioned my claims"? Or offered more than a mild and highly specific refutation to a single point, in any shape or form? Do you think it could possibly be that this is because they agree with what I wrote? The only people who have anything at all to gain are the beginners who follow obviously sensible and well founded advice, which quite a few of them obviously have no difficulty at all in understanding. Which is hardly surprising, as one does not need to be a genius in order to see immediately that it makes sense. As I told you before, you are wasting your time trying to irritate or annoy me. Your submissions are so silly and ill-considered, that no sensible person is going to take any notice of them. The amount of time required before this realisation overtakes you is a matter for considerable conjecture, but once again, is no skin off my nose. I will not reply to any more of your posts in this thread which do not specifically concern the relative advantages or disadvantages of various lines for beginners, as it is a complete waste of time. Either refute the points I made, sensibly, or make some of your own. Otherwise, bugger off and play with somebody else. Maybe, if you try very very hard, you can manage to **** Wolfgang or Ken off enough to take some momentary notice of you, although I would not bank on that either. MC |
line choice for beginner
JR
Jeff wrote: no, thank you, steve... rw wrote: my heart. And thank you, Tim. Tim J. wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... the bottom of Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. ALL of you from I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. would like to thank I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. for one -- Ken Fortenberry Thanks, Ken. I |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
I will not reply to any more of your posts in this thread which do not specifically concern the relative advantages or disadvantages of various lines for beginners, as it is a complete waste of time. Quite so. Let's stick to the facts. To be precise, let's stick to the facts about DTs and WF, and leave shooting heads aside for the moment. I gather from your rather extensive writings that you prefer DTs for several reasons, not the least of which is that they are more economical because they can be reversed when worn out on one end. But, in the past, you've said this isn't possible (for some mysterious reason), and you've recently refused to recant that position, despite having stated, in clear language, the opposite. Please clarify. You've also claimed, correctly, that DTs and WFs of "standard" tapers are identical in the first 30 feet or so, and that as a consequence a DT will cast as well as a WF at short range. All correct. Then, in the next breath (so to speak), you say that "A WF line of the same rating as the DT would be too light to load the rod at short range, Many beginners still have difficulty even when using a WF one rating higher, as this also does not load the rod well at short range." Try as I might, I just cannot reconcile those two claims, and I doubt that you can either -- at least, not to the satisfaction of anyone who can think logically, and who isn't caught up in a pseudo-religious campaign to expunge WFs from the face of the Earth, and who will construct and believe any ludicrous, self-contradictory argument (using the term loosely) to hasten the arrival of that glorious day. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
"rw" schrieb im Newsbeitrag nk.net... Mike Connor wrote: I will not reply to any more of your posts in this thread which do not specifically concern the relative advantages or disadvantages of various lines for beginners, as it is a complete waste of time. Quite so. Let's stick to the facts. To be precise, let's stick to the facts about DTs and WF, and leave shooting heads aside for the moment. The point was to give beginners advice on line choice, not to discuss the facts about DTīs and WFīs . It only became necessary to do so, in order to illustrate why the advice was given. But as you seem incapable of sticking to the point, I will humour you this last time. I gather from your rather extensive writings that you prefer DTs for several reasons, not the least of which is that they are more economical because they can be reversed when worn out on one end. But, in the past, you've said this isn't possible (for some mysterious reason), and you've recently refused to recant that position, despite having stated, in clear language, the opposite. Please clarify. You gather rather a lot it seems, you would be better advised to simply read what is there. As it happens, most of my fishing is done with shooting heads, and I prefer these for the fishing I do. On rivers and streams, I will use half DTīs. I am not suggesting that beginners should use shooting heads, they would then be even worse off to start with. I have never said that it is not possible to reverse a DT, of course it is possible, people do it all the time. You said that I said it was not possible. I have no idea why you said so, it is completely untrue. I saw no reason to contradict you. It was irrelevant at the time. I use half lines to start with. I see no point in carrying a fairly useless and bulky weight around with me, merely on the assumption that I will be able to turn it around and use the other end some day, maybe years in the future. Thus also requiring me to use a larger and heavier reel. Using a half line on a nine foot rod, I can cast ( and I mean "cast" not shoot) my fly to a distance of 63 feet ( or even more with a longer leader), with no trouble at all. If I aerialise the whole half line, then I can double haul it, and cast a great deal further. I have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. Also, I said that DTīs were more economical because I get two lines for the price of one. Two perfectly good 45 feet single taper lines. I can also use smaller and lighter reels as a result. If you buy a WF you are paying for thirty feet of flyline spliced to cheap running line. I get ninety feet of flyline for about the same price. You've also claimed, correctly, that DTs and WFs of "standard" tapers are identical in the first 30 feet or so, and that as a consequence a DT will cast as well as a WF at short range. All correct. Then, in the next breath (so to speak), you say that "A WF line of the same rating as the DT would be too light to load the rod at short range, Many beginners still have difficulty even when using a WF one rating higher, as this also does not load the rod well at short range." Try as I might, I just cannot reconcile those two claims, and I doubt that you can either It is quite simple, 30 feet of #6 line weighs 160 grains. Short range is up to sixty feet, or two thirds of a standard DT fly line. 60 feet of flyline weighs ( ca) 160*2 = 320 grains. This will normally be about the optimal loading for most #6 rods, and is also about the practical limit for most casters on rivers etc. Some rods ( and casters,can cast a whole line, and in fact most modern rods are built to do this). This actually means that a #6 rod will cast 90 feet of #6 line = 480 grains. A #6 WF line only has thirty feet of actual flyline, the rest is running line, and weighs very considerably less. This will not load the rod properly at any range.Especially as the running line can not be cast, only shot. A #7 WF line weighs 185 grains. This will load the rod a little better, but will still be a long way under the optimal loading. A #8 WF line weighs 210 grains. This will also load the rod a little better, but will still be a long way under the optimal loading Before you even get close to properly loading a #6 rated rod with a WF line, you would have to use a #11WF which weighs 330 grains. The presentation is not likely to be very good with such a line, even though it is a lot easier to cast. This is nevertheless why many distance casters use a 300 grain head on #6 rated rods. They can not load it properly otherwise. If you use a full #6DT, the rod is optimally loaded at about sixty feet of #6 line. You can cast more, but it is difficult and cumbersome. Shooting is also much harder. If you use a half #6 DT and cast the whole line then the rod is loaded with 480/2 = 240 grains which is the equivalent of a #9WF line. This is still not optimal, but better than actually using such a heavy WF line. I do use such combinations, quite often as it happens. But I would not normally use a #6 rod for delicate presentation, and so in such a case, I would simply make up a head which was close to the optimal loading weight. In this case, 30 feet of #11 DT. If I wanted more delicate presentation at distance, then I would indeed use half or more of a DT line. One of the reasons I also use very light rods on rivers and streams, is because if I want delicate presentation at reasonable distances, then I need to use a lighter line. The only way to achieve this is to use a lighter rod in the first place, as otherwise I can not load the rod in question without using a much heavier line. For normal stream fishing, I use a fast 9ī#3 rod, with half of a silk #4 DT on a light carbon fibre reel. The half #4 silk line weighs 180 grains, a #3 rod is rated for about sixty feet of #3 line = 200 grains. I am as close as possible to the optimal loading, and still have delicate presentation, and all the other advantages. If I used a WF for this, then I would have to use a #7 WF on a #3 weight rod to get close to the optimal loading, and have all the disadvantages a WF brings with it to boot. If I want to cast #6 weighted woolly buggers on my #3 weight, then I actually use a thirty foot piece of #7 line to do so. It is impossible to cast such things any distance with a #3 weight line, indeed one could only then really lob the fly. -- at least, not to the satisfaction of anyone who can think logically, and who isn't caught up in a pseudo-religious campaign to expunge WFs from the face of the Earth, and who will construct and believe any ludicrous, self-contradictory argument (using the term loosely) to hasten the arrival of that glorious day. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. I could not care less how many people use WF lines, or even if everybody does. I do not use them, or recommend them, for the reasons outlined. For those reasons, they are also generally unsuitable for beginners. They are difficult to cast, and they have all the other disadvantages as well. Seems a bit pointless to me, and I hate wasting time and money on pointless endeavours. Lastly, all the above is quite easy to test and prove, should you so wish, but it would be absolutely pointless bombarding beginners with it, which is why I stuck to the salient points in the first place. They are more than sufficient anyway. Most of the people on here are not beginners, and will know much of this in any case. I know the facts about these things. I donīt think anybody will seriously doubt that. I also believe that my conclusions based on these facts are correct. This is easily tested by anybody who wishes to do so. What I am interested in hearing, are your reasons for recommending a WF line to a beginner. Doubtless the beginners would like to hear it as well. Failing that, you could try to use the known facts to refute the points I made. I doubt you will find any convincing arguments, simply because there are none. What you "gather", or "assume", or whatever terms you use "loosely", or whatever else you do is quite irrelevant to me, this thread, and doubtless the world in general. MC |
line choice for beginner
Hi Mike! Mike It is quite simple, 30 feet of #6 line weighs 160 grains. Mike Short range is up to sixty feet, or two thirds of a standard DT Mike fly line. 60 feet of flyline weighs ( ca) 160*2 = 320 grains. Mike This will normally be about the optimal loading for most #6 Mike rods, and is also about the practical limit for most casters on Mike rivers etc. [snip] Mike Before you even get close to properly loading a #6 rated rod Mike with a WF line, you would have to use a #11WF which weighs 330 Mike grains. The presentation is not likely to be very good with such Mike a line, even though it is a lot easier to cast. This is a topic that I've given some thought to. What worries me is whether rod builders nowadays in fact _design their rods for WF lines_. I think that almost all rod manufacturers recommend WF lines for the higher weight classes, that is, 7wt and beyond. But a similar mentality seems to be spreading to the lower weight classes as well. Sage, for example, sells its own brand of lines specially tailored for Sage rods. Their "Performance Taper" line, available in line classes 2-9, is a WF line. In addition, the lines designed for the lightest line weights (0-2) and the SLT rod series are WF lines too (Quiet Taper II). Let's take as an example the 6wt rod / WF line combo, because in this relatively high weight class (for trout fishing) one could very well be casting 2/3 of the line. If a company sells a 6wt rod, and a specially designed 6wt forward line for that rod, I wonder whether the decision to specially design a 6wt WF line has also had an affect on the design of the rod. That is, is it in fact the case that the 6wt rod was designed to load optimally with a 6wt WF line. This might very well be true. Assuming that the specially designed 6wt WF line is truly a 6wt line, it wouldn't make much sense to design the rod to load optimally with 2/3 of the DT line outside rod tip. If more and more people are starting to use WF lines in their trout fishing, does this lead to the phenomenon that more and more rods will in fact be designed to load optimally for WF lines in that line weight? -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
line choice for beginner
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:13:53 GMT, rw
wrote: Quite so. Let's stick to the facts. So, what kind of computer would you recommend for a beginner - Mac or PC? g -- Charlie... |
line choice for beginner
i'd like to think i've got all the bases covered on this one.
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Jeff wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. snip ... well ok, my name is jeff and i *am* clueless and stupid dammit... but, imo ...and that's all that matters on this issue... it's much more convenient for me to top post and to read new posts at the top... Is it convenient because you're clueless and stupid or are you clueless and stupid because it's convenient ? i'm sure you'll agree. jeff |
line choice for beginner
Jeff Miller wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Jeff wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. snip ... well ok, my name is jeff and i *am* clueless and stupid dammit... but, imo ...and that's all that matters on this issue... it's much more convenient for me to top post and to read new posts at the top... Is it convenient because you're clueless and stupid or are you clueless and stupid because it's convenient ? i'd like to think i've got all the bases covered on this one. i'm sure you'll agree. No, not really. While the typical top-poster is clueless and stupid and you seem eager to describe yourself in those terms I would say that you are better described as lazy, inconsiderate and pertinacious. -- Ken Fortenberry |
line choice for beginner
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Ken wrote: Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. (stuff snipped) Hi Jeff and Ken, I usually think about snipping too much, or not enough. But I certainly excelled in the latter category yesterday. :) In my defense, heck there is no defense, I'm apparently clueless and stupid. (on many different levels also) DaveMohnsen |
line choice for beginner
"DaveMohnsen" wrote... "Ken Fortenberry" wrote... Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Ken wrote: Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. (stuff snipped) Hi Jeff and Ken, I usually think about snipping too much, or not enough. But I certainly excelled in the latter category yesterday. :) In my defense, heck there is no defense, I'm apparently clueless and stupid. (on many different levels also) At least you didn't apologize. You know what they say about apologizing on roff. .. . -- TL, Tim ------------------------ http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
line choice for beginner
"Jarmo Hurri" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... SNIP Hi Mike! If more and more people are starting to use WF lines in their trout fishing, does this lead to the phenomenon that more and more rods will in fact be designed to load optimally for WF lines in that line weight? -- Jarmo Hurri Hi Jarmo, There is a great deal of jiggery pokery going on with rod and line design. You may be right with some of these ideas. I donīt really know. However this may be, even extreme designs still need to work and fish reasonably well, or experienced flyfishers simply will not use them. Some modern rods are extremely tip-actioned in order to load at very low line weights. This makes it easier to get some loading on a rod using a light WF, and seems easier at first, especially if one is not a very good caster, but has disadvantages in other areas. The best rods are still progressive, and simple physics dictates what they can or can not do. Regarding the trend towards WF lines, I think you are right, but I have never seen any point to it. In my opinion it is mainly marketing and profit oriented thinking which causes manufacturers to sell so many in the first place. Advertising, and a large number of misconceptions does the rest. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
"Greg Pavlov" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:32:18 +0200, "Mike Connor" wrote: Donīt you find it curious that nobody else has "questioned my claims"? Well, I did, because I also believe that you were inconsistent, which I suppose makes me stupid as well. But your response to me was a paternalistic lecture on line basics rather than a response to my question. Was I inconsistent? Or do you merely believe so? Which is it? Where was I inconsistent? Or offered more than a mild and highly specific refutation to a single point, in any shape or form? Do you think it could possibly be that this is because they agree with what I wrote? I think that the bottom line is that most people appear to agree with the basic premise that a DT is probably better for a beginner. How or why you argued that conclusion was, perhaps, unimportant to most of them. It is not a "basic premise", there are reasons why DTīs are better for beginners, or for many other people. If you accept "such things as "basic premises" then you will never learn much at all. Such groundless "basic premises" are the reason for many problems. A premise is a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. I agree with the basic premise that a DT is better for a beginner, tho "better" in the sense that spinach may be better for you than ice cream, because I can fully understand why dealers will offer WF lines to beginners: it makes better sense in the actual world of people wishing to cast farther, regardless of whether it is "good" for them. No, it does not make much sense there either. I have never yet met a beginner who could cast a WF properly. Some not even after quite a long time, when of course they are no longer beginners, just poor casters. Paternalistic? Oh well, could have been worse I suppose. TL MC |
line choice for beginner
At least you didn't apologize. You know what they say about apologizing on
roff. Its good for what assails you? -- Frank Reid Reverse email to reply |
line choice for beginner
Mike Connor wrote:
Short range is up to sixty feet Short range is up to 60 feet? Whoa! -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
Ken Fortenberry wrote: No, not really. While the typical top-poster is clueless and stupid and you seem eager to describe yourself in those terms I would say that you are better described as lazy, inconsiderate and pertinacious. yup...excellent. and you haven't even met rachel yet. she agrees, except for that pertinacious thing...she was unsure of its meaning initially, but once i read the definition to her, she said, and i quote: "damn, he nailed your ass." btw...is bush's tie vibrating on anybody else's tv screen... talk about a pertinacious prick. actually, i agree i'm stupid and clueless, perhaps lazy, rarely inconsiderate, definitely pertinacious. your scale of lazy and inconsiderate is very different than mine...but, it does make for interesting reading... jeff (do not look at shrub's tie...aaiieeeee!!! it's hypnotic...i...i... i'm gonna re-enlist, stop using empty words that embolden, my country tis of thee, unscom, hiding...hiding...afraid of being caught...he was a danger...uh, what was the question?...the oilfields... aaarrghhh...i wouldn't be happy if i were occupied either...my blood wasn't boiling...i was angry and sad...i grieve for...you know) |
line choice for beginner
hi dave...welcome...i'm jeff and i'm clueless and stupid...
but...top post. don't allow convention or bottom posting cliques to influence you. btw...have you understood anything shrub has said to this point? jeff DaveMohnsen wrote: Hi Jeff and Ken, I usually think about snipping too much, or not enough. But I certainly excelled in the latter category yesterday. :) In my defense, heck there is no defense, I'm apparently clueless and stupid. (on many different levels also) DaveMohnsen |
line choice for beginner
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:02:45 -0400, Jeff Miller
wrote: hi dave...welcome...i'm jeff and i'm clueless and stupid... but...top post. don't allow convention or bottom posting cliques to influence you. btw...have you understood anything shrub has said to this point? must....not.....respond.... |
line choice for beginner
did he just say:
"i'm sure...um...um...something will pop up in my head in just a minute" jeezus... please let something...anything...pop in his head... jeff (and "let the discussions begin"... daytripper wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:02:45 -0400, Jeff Miller wrote: hi dave...welcome...i'm jeff and i'm clueless and stupid... but...top post. don't allow convention or bottom posting cliques to influence you. btw...have you understood anything shrub has said to this point? must....not.....respond.... |
line choice for beginner
"daytripper" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:02:45 -0400, Jeff Miller wrote: hi dave...welcome...i'm jeff and i'm clueless and stupid... but...top post. don't allow convention or bottom posting cliques to influence you. btw...have you understood anything shrub has said to this point? must....not.....respond.... Personally I thought the President's Q&A was quite informative (in a totally humiliating way). Bob C. Idahoan for ABB |
line choice for beginner
Jeff Miller wrote:
snip btw...is bush's tie vibrating on anybody else's tv screen... talk about a pertinacious prick. ... He was as scary tonight as I've ever seen him. He is obviously distraught, disoriented and fearful. Poor thing, he means well, and I truly believe that, but he is in WAY over his head and he's finally beginning to realize it. When the Commander in Chief is discombobulated, be afraid. -- Ken Fortenberry |
line choice for beginner
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Jeff Miller wrote: snip btw...is bush's tie vibrating on anybody else's tv screen... talk about a pertinacious prick. ... He was as scary tonight as I've ever seen him. He is obviously distraught, disoriented and fearful. Poor thing, he means well, and I truly believe that, but he is in WAY over his head and he's finally beginning to realize it. When the Commander in Chief is discombobulated, be afraid. Fox News thought he did great. :-) I didn't watch the press conference because I can't bear to listen to him, much less watch him. I did read the text on the Web. He doesn't mean well for the country as a whole. He means well for the plutocracy he represents. He's an evil liar. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
line choice for beginner
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:11:29 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Jeff Miller wrote: snip btw...is bush's tie vibrating on anybody else's tv screen... talk about a pertinacious prick. ... He was as scary tonight as I've ever seen him. He is obviously distraught, disoriented and fearful. Poor thing, he means well, and I truly believe that, but he is in WAY over his head and he's finally beginning to realize it. When the Commander in Chief is discombobulated, be afraid. I never felt sorry for his father, as I thought he was a conniving CIA head type even as president, but I credited him with intelligence, if not with any understanding of Americans who earn less than $200,000 to $2,000,000 a year. The past couple of years, my sympathy for him has increased enormously. What must it be like to produce a child so publicly ignorant? So dedicated to continuing in paths proven to lead to further destruction? I'd bet he sometimes sits around the house with Barbara and says, "Damn, why didn't we just give that boy all the cocaine his nose could stand and lock him in his room?" -- rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing. Often taunted by trout. Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
line choice for beginner
"JR" wrote in message ... JR Jeff wrote: no, thank you, steve... rw wrote: my heart. nO, THANK YOU dAVE sUCKS iDEOLOGY, DOES iT? And thank you, Tim. Tim J. wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... the bottom of Jeff wrote: ... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers fortenberry G. Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster. My mentioning this should not be construed as being "bothered" by it. ALL of you from I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread, but since my name has been invoked I will. would like to thank I lived on the Lamar River, have fished every friggin' foot of it from the Mirror Plateau to the confluence of the Yellowstone and, stories from Canuckian guides notwithstanding, I have NEVER found it necessary to make a 65' cast to catch a fish. That's silly. Having said that, I can cast a 5WF farther than a 5DT with the same fly rod and I think that's why some recommend WF lines to beginners. I no longer buy anything but DT. for one -- Ken Fortenberry Thanks, Ken. I |
line choice for beginner
Mike Regarding the trend towards WF lines, I think you are right, but Mike I have never seen any point to it. In my opinion it is mainly Mike marketing and profit oriented thinking which causes Mike manufacturers to sell so many in the first place. Advertising, Mike and a large number of misconceptions does the rest. Using a WF is a fast and easy solution for people who don't want to play around with shooting heads (and attaching them to running lines). -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
line choice for beginner
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
He was as scary tonight as I've ever seen him. He is obviously distraught, disoriented and fearful. Poor thing, he means well, and I truly believe that, but he is in WAY over his head and he's finally beginning to realize it. When the Commander in Chief is discombobulated, be afraid. When he made a couple of slips of the tongue within the first minute of his *prepared* *speech*, I knew it was going to get ugly. I've always felt that he knows he's in over his head. It's as if he went to sleep as a rich little frat boy and woke up to find himself as the prez of the fricking uninety states. It's obvious that he enjoys playing the prez (especially when you get to dress up in a fighter pilot's suit), but when it comes to actually making decisions or having to stray from his script, he's totally lost. And after his "performance" last night, I can't imagine anyone doesn't know who's really running the country (i.e., Daddy's henchmen). I wish I had been keeping a tally of the number of times he repeated the same mantras when asked a question ("historic opportunity" ... "It's hard ... hard ... not easy" ... "no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm" ... "he was a threat ... threat" ... "war footing ... war footing ... war footing" ... "console the family members who have lost their life" ... "make America more secure ... the world more free ... the world more peaceful", etc.) And the way he dissembled and started to ramble whenever there was a reasonably tough question. It was truly pitiful, and I am genuinely curious how people from other countries view us when they see him representing us. Of course, now we should keep an eye out for the spinmeisters on the right to see how they are going to make him out to be "presidential". Chuck Vance (who doesn't dislike Dubya, and admits that he was a decent governor of Texas) |
line choice for beginner
Conan the Librarian wrote in news:c5jh8a$3qpi$1
@news.swt.edu: he repeated the same mantras w My favorite was "Mustard gas at the turkey farm." I can't believe he's still holding on to this WMD pipe dream. It makes him look crazy. Scott |
line choice for beginner
"Scott Seidman" wrote... Conan the Librarian wrote: he repeated the same mantras My favorite was "Mustard gas at the turkey farm." From what I've heard, it sounds like barley stew night at Penns. -- TL, Tim ------------------------ http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
In defense of Airflo line choice for beginner
"Mu Young Lee" schrieb im Newsbeitrag cc.itd.umich.edu... SNIP). Check out Sci Ang's web site http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...ro_tips2.jhtml where they describe the GPX series as being heavier than "normal." Among southern California surf fly fishers Airflo's integrated shooting heads are very popular. They have the fastest sink rates per grain weight and are consequently very effectinve at keeping the fly close to the bottom in the surf. They also have a 5 year warranty against cracking and have continued to improve their durability. Mu Seems fair enough. I donīt like Airflo. I could go into why not, but it would not get us anywhere. If people like the lines, then I have no problem with that. It is unfortunate that manufacturers deviate from accepted standards on some of these things, it makes the whole matter more complex. On the other hand, if somebody does come up with a dveiation which is better per se, then that is a good thing. Simply making some lines heavier will indeed make them seem to cast better, ( or more easily at least) especially for beginners. However, a #4WF line which weighs the same as a #6 WF line is a #6 line, and no longer a #4 line. There is no point in having standards at all in such a case, and we might as well use the pure intrinsic weight to describe lines. You pays your money ................ TL MC |
In defense of Airflo line choice for beginner
Greg Pavlov wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:16:53 -0400, Mu Young Lee wrote: On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Mike Connor wrote: Airflo is the main manufacturer doing this, none of the responsible ones are. I would not even use an airflo line to tie up my tomatoes, ( if I had any tomatoes!). Check out Sci Ang's web site http://www.3m.com/us/home_leisure/sc...ro_tips2.jhtml where they describe the GPX series as being heavier than "normal." Rio's Rio Grande lines are also heavier than their AFTMA ratings allow. What's with that. I find it irritating. It just makes line weight designations meaningless. If I want to over line a rod, I'll do it purposefully but I don't want a five weight line sold to me as a four. Willi |
In defense of Airflo line choice for beginner
"Greg Pavlov" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:20:46 +0200, "Mike Connor" wrote: SNIP It is unfortunate that manufacturers deviate from accepted standards on some of these things, it makes the whole matter more complex. ... I agree with you. A look at what's happened to spey line and rod ratings shows how messy - and potentially expensive - things can get. But I think that the heavier lines are a response to very "fast" rods that are very popular but often not easy to cast with lines they are ostensibly rated for. Yes, this is most probably the reason, or at least the main one. It makes the whole matter much more difficult though, and not only for beginners. I have just cast several "long belly" WF lines which a friend brought round.These are defintely better than the "standard" lines, but still not as good as a matched DT or shooting head. All this just causes more confusion. TL MC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter