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. What´s 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 don´t, 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, that´s 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. Don´t 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 don´t 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. Don´t 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 people´s 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 DT´s, and I don´t 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.

Don´t 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 DT´s and WF´s . 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 DT´s. 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 DT´s 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 9´#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 don´t 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