On Sat, 03 May 2008 10:41:13 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Sat, 03 May 2008 00:19:17 -0500, wrote:

Put up or shut up,

It would be a waste of precious time, Richard. NO ONE can cast sixty
feet of line with a conventional fly rod - say a 9 ft 5 weight -
without using a false cast and thereby a back cast.

Uh-huh...sounds a whole lot like the wiggling of a loud-mouthed coward.
You never said anything about "conventional" or "a 9 ft. 5 weight" or no
back cast when you were running your mouth about "big bucks" and how it
couldn't be done without a false cast:

"I would still pay big bucks to see you cast 60 feet of line *without* a
false cast (which would require a back cast), eh?"

It's becoming obvious that you don't have anywhere near the stones to
actually follow through with what you ran your mouth about OR have the
stones to admit that you popped off a bit quick, but just to finish it -
I'll do it as you offered, and do it with a conventional fly rod - heck,
some special rod isn't necessary anyway. What's your idea of "big
bucks" - $50,000.00 US dollars? $10,000.00 US dollars? How many US
dollars do you consider "big bucks?"

We're gonna hafta call you Lefty Dean before long.

And "we're" gonna have to call you a loud-mouthed puss right here and
now...

Put up or shut up,
R

tagh

d;o)