On Mar 21, 11:03 pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

and, as I thought when I first read your link, and passed
on responding......WHY? If anything, it spotlights why people respond here
the way they do. Geez, Mike, an article wherein the Great Man Himself deigns
to define for us, the unwashed freaking masses, what constitutes an angler.
May I please be the first of many to respond:
Bull****!

Tom

Well, I must admit that response puzzles me somewhat, but I can accept
it as your opinion. There was no intention to "define" anything at
all, it was in fact an actual attempt to explain what an angler is, in
response to a question on a private UK board. It elicited considerable
response, and the Editor of that magazine asked if he could use it. I
had no objections.

Once again, whatever.......................

TL
MC