The upside-down fly pattern

On Feb 7, 11:25 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:23:22 GMT, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
salmobytes wrote:
"Da" wrote:
Today I have read an article about the upside-down fly design. Has any
one ever tied this pattern? Could you please share about your upside-
down fly pattern?

....never heard of an upside down fly before.
What article did you read?
Where was the article?

He could be talking about the Waterwisp.
And in fact, simply tying any ol' fly
upside down can take a decent recipe and **** it up.

If you choose to strictly follow other people's paterns and never try
to push your own creative fly tying ability, that's your loss. the fly
that i tie works just fine (reverse adams), as do many others that i
tie based on variations of other well known flies. If you chose to use
other people's designs thats fine, but don't discourage the
adventurous tier from attempting their own variations, by saying that
their "****ing up a decent recipe". not only is this ignorant, but
without new fly variations, we wouldn't have any fly patterns to begin
with.
jules, see you on the water.

On 8 Feb 2007 06:54:53 -0800, "jules" wrote:

On Feb 7, 11:25 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:23:22 GMT, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
salmobytes wrote:
"Da" wrote:
Today I have read an article about the upside-down fly design. Has any
one ever tied this pattern? Could you please share about your upside-
down fly pattern?

....never heard of an upside down fly before.
What article did you read?
Where was the article?

He could be talking about the Waterwisp.
And in fact, simply tying any ol' fly
upside down can take a decent recipe and **** it up.

If you choose to strictly follow other people's paterns and never try
to push your own creative fly tying ability, that's your loss. the fly
that i tie works just fine (reverse adams), as do many others that i
tie based on variations of other well known flies. If you chose to use
other people's designs thats fine, but don't discourage the
adventurous tier from attempting their own variations, by saying that
their "****ing up a decent recipe". not only is this ignorant, but
without new fly variations, we wouldn't have any fly patterns to begin
with.

First, learn to edit if you're going to snip.

You may be right...since fly fishing and tying were only invented 6 or 8
years ago, how likely could it be that several unconnected someones
haven't already tried what you might and published books about it...why,
heck, I think you ought to try working on square baseballs, carts with
the wheels on the top rather than the bottom (saves wear and tear on the
tires, donchaknow), and a microwave oven that works by simply putting
the zappicure-de-jour on the kitchen counter while the cook gets in a
protective lead box....

Feel free to be as creative as wish, but fixing what isn't broken
doesn't demonstrate much "imagination." There are no "new concepts" in
fly-tying; there's a reason that you don't see more "upside-down" flies,
and the fact that _you_ haven't "adventured" and attempted or imagined
them yet ain't it. Hell, in much of what they tried to do, keel flies
(which weren't a new concept 40 years ago) worked, yet try to go and
find a package of keel hooks (and at one time, Mustad, Eagle Claw, and
3-4 others made them).

And I never said _no_ pattern will work adapted to an "upside-down" or
any other particular variation won't work, only that "tying any ol' fly
upside down can take a decent recipe and **** it up." I was right then,
and I'll be right after another 500-plus years of "modern-style"
flytying.

jules,

see you on the water.

Depends on where you fish.
R
....and come, on - an "adventurous" tyer? Please...unless your tying
consists of hand-ties using fresh black widow silk to lash large, live
raptors to razor-sharp grappling hooks while tiger-hunting from a howdah
on bull elephant that you personally selected for his short temper, you
ain't essactly Francis ****in' Drake-meets-Robert Ruark...

On Feb 9, 8:49 am, wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 06:54:53 -0800, "jules" wrote:



On Feb 7, 11:25 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:23:22 GMT, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
salmobytes wrote:
"Da" wrote:
Today I have read an article about the upside-down fly design. Has any
one ever tied this pattern? Could you please share about your upside-
down fly pattern?

....never heard of an upside down fly before.
What article did you read?
Where was the article?

He could be talking about the Waterwisp.
And in fact, simply tying any ol' fly
upside down can take a decent recipe and **** it up.

If you choose to strictly follow other people's paterns and never try
to push your own creative fly tying ability, that's your loss. the fly
that i tie works just fine (reverse adams), as do many others that i
tie based on variations of other well known flies. If you chose to use
other people's designs thats fine, but don't discourage the
adventurous tier from attempting their own variations, by saying that
their "****ing up a decent recipe". not only is this ignorant, but
without new fly variations, we wouldn't have any fly patterns to begin
with.

First, learn to edit if you're going to snip.

You may be right...since fly fishing and tying were only invented 6 or 8
years ago, how likely could it be that several unconnected someones
haven't already tried what you might and published books about it...why,
heck, I think you ought to try working on square baseballs, carts with
the wheels on the top rather than the bottom (saves wear and tear on the
tires, donchaknow), and a microwave oven that works by simply putting
the zappicure-de-jour on the kitchen counter while the cook gets in a
protective lead box....

Feel free to be as creative as wish, but fixing what isn't broken
doesn't demonstrate much "imagination." There are no "new concepts" in
fly-tying; there's a reason that you don't see more "upside-down" flies,
and the fact that _you_ haven't "adventured" and attempted or imagined
them yet ain't it. Hell, in much of what they tried to do, keel flies
(which weren't a new concept 40 years ago) worked, yet try to go and
find a package of keel hooks (and at one time, Mustad, Eagle Claw, and
3-4 others made them).

And I never said _no_ pattern will work adapted to an "upside-down" or
any other particular variation won't work, only that "tying any ol' fly
upside down can take a decent recipe and **** it up." I was right then,
and I'll be right after another 500-plus years of "modern-style"
flytying.

jules,
see you on the water.

Depends on where you fish.
R
...and come, on - an "adventurous" tyer? Please...unless your tying
consists of hand-ties using fresh black widow silk to lash large, live
raptors to razor-sharp grappling hooks while tiger-hunting from a howdah
on bull elephant that you personally selected for his short temper, you
ain't essactly Francis ****in' Drake-meets-Robert Ruark...

"Fly fishing and tying only started 6 or 8 years ago"????? hopefully
you mean 60 or 80??? either way you need to check your sources, try
uummm a hell of a lot longer ago than that.
"fixing what ain't broken isn't imagination" well, its not a matter of
fixing something thats not broken, rather, taking attributes of a
tried and tested pattern, and adapting them to a new fly to get
similar results with an ulterior specific purpose. there is no messing
up designs involved with this logic, simply referencing anothers ideas
to suit your needs. Besides, in the upside down flies case, i still
keep the exact same fly ("the correct way") in my box anyways.
"there's no new concepts in fly tying", what the hell kind of
statement is that??? tiers have not tied _all_ the types of bugs in
the world (that fish eat), n'or have they developed _all_ the possible
methods to produce any given representation of already existing flies.
Hence, in order to do so, they would have to "invent" new tactics to
accomplish this.
The fact that you would create such a rediculous comparison between a
simple fly variation and "square baseballs" and "widow silk wrapped
raptors", just demeans yourself. The soul purpose of writing my
initial comment, was to illuminate the fact that i had addapted a
pattern to better suit my needs, and that it worked just fine in my
experience, also, that maybe this person should give it a try.
This has turned into a question of whether or not a person can be
creative in their own right. my simple conclusion for you is; if you
don't want to try my fly, fine don't try it. but if you are going to
start discouraging polite people from having a discussion about
something that they might be interested in trying, i say shame on you.
Fishing is a sport which alows an idividual to grow and expand their
knowledge and happiness, not create stress over whether or not a fly
is exact to receipy or if their variation is any good or not.
Variations is how we discover, and is the reason why we continue to
tie.
See you on the water.
Jules.

On 9 Feb 2007 09:33:59 -0800, "jules" wrote:

On Feb 9, 8:49 am, wrote:

If you choose to strictly follow other people's paterns and never try
to push your own creative fly tying ability, that's your loss. the fly
that i tie works just fine (reverse adams), as do many others that i
tie based on variations of other well known flies. If you chose to use
other people's designs thats fine, but don't discourage the
adventurous tier from attempting their own variations, by saying that
their "****ing up a decent recipe". not only is this ignorant, but
without new fly variations, we wouldn't have any fly patterns to begin
with.

First, learn to edit if you're going to snip.

You may be right...since fly fishing and tying were only invented 6 or 8
years ago, how likely could it be that several unconnected someones
haven't already tried what you might and published books about it...why,
heck, I think you ought to try working on square baseballs, carts with
the wheels on the top rather than the bottom (saves wear and tear on the
tires, donchaknow), and a microwave oven that works by simply putting
the zappicure-de-jour on the kitchen counter while the cook gets in a
protective lead box....

Feel free to be as creative as wish, but fixing what isn't broken
doesn't demonstrate much "imagination." There are no "new concepts" in
fly-tying; there's a reason that you don't see more "upside-down" flies,
and the fact that _you_ haven't "adventured" and attempted or imagined
them yet ain't it. Hell, in much of what they tried to do, keel flies
(which weren't a new concept 40 years ago) worked, yet try to go and
find a package of keel hooks (and at one time, Mustad, Eagle Claw, and
3-4 others made them).

And I never said _no_ pattern will work adapted to an "upside-down" or
any other particular variation won't work, only that "tying any ol' fly
upside down can take a decent recipe and **** it up." I was right then,
and I'll be right after another 500-plus years of "modern-style"
flytying.

jules,
see you on the water.

Depends on where you fish.
R
...and come, on - an "adventurous" tyer? Please...unless your tying
consists of hand-ties using fresh black widow silk to lash large, live
raptors to razor-sharp grappling hooks while tiger-hunting from a howdah
on bull elephant that you personally selected for his short temper, you
ain't essactly Francis ****in' Drake-meets-Robert Ruark...

Second, learn to edit if you're going to snip...

"Fly fishing and tying only started 6 or 8 years ago"????? hopefully
you mean 60 or 80??? either way you need to check your sources, try
uummm a hell of a lot longer ago than that.

Then why would you hope I meant some other randomly-selected albeit
wrong period of time?

"fixing what ain't broken isn't imagination" well, its not a matter of
fixing something thats not broken, rather, taking attributes of a
tried and tested pattern, and adapting them to a new fly to get
similar results with an ulterior specific purpose. there is no messing
up designs involved with this logic, simply referencing anothers ideas
to suit your needs. Besides, in the upside down flies case, i still
keep the exact same fly ("the correct way") in my box anyways.
"there's no new concepts in fly tying", what the hell kind of
statement is that???

Oh, it probably has something to do with things like taking tried and
tested patterns, adapting them, and referencing another's ideas when one
is inventing totally new things...

tiers have not tied _all_ the types of bugs in
the world (that fish eat), n'or have they developed _all_ the possible
methods to produce any given representation of already existing flies.

Well, gollydamn! I never met anyone who knew what every single flytyer
who has ever lived had done...I must say, I'm impressed! If I may, I've
always wondered what a Mr. Clyde J. Slingass of Numbnuts, NY, tied on
the second Saturday of April, 1934. Could you give me a brief outline?
I'd be ever so grateful. BTW, I mean the father, who lived on Main
Street, not the son, who lived on 2 Ave. He was kind of ass - you know
the type, always thinking his stuff was all new and innovative and
courageous and stuff...

Hence, in order to do so, they would have to "invent" new tactics to
accomplish this.
The fact that you would create such a rediculous comparison between a
simple fly variation and "square baseballs" and "widow silk wrapped
raptors", just demeans yourself. The soul purpose of writing my
initial comment, was to illuminate the fact that i had addapted a
pattern to better suit my needs, and that it worked just fine in my
experience, also, that maybe this person should give it a try.
This has turned into a question of whether or not a person can be
creative in their own right. my simple conclusion for you is; if you
don't want to try my fly, fine don't try it. but if you are going to
start discouraging polite people from having a discussion about
something that they might be interested in trying, i say shame on you.
Fishing is a sport which alows an idividual to grow and expand their
knowledge and happiness, not create stress over whether or not a fly
is exact to receipy or if their variation is any good or not.
Variations is how we discover, and is the reason why we continue to
tie.

Uh-huh...

See you on the water.

...knot if eye seize ewe phirst,
R

wrote in message
...
On 9 Feb 2007 09:33:59 -0800, "jules" wrote:

On Feb 9, 8:49 am, wrote:

If you choose to strictly follow other people's paterns and never try
to push your own creative fly tying ability, that's your loss. the fly
that i tie works just fine (reverse adams), as do many others that i
tie based on variations of other well known flies. If you chose to use
other people's designs thats fine, but don't discourage the
adventurous tier from attempting their own variations, by saying that
their "****ing up a decent recipe". not only is this ignorant, but
without new fly variations, we wouldn't have any fly patterns to begin
with.

First, learn to edit if you're going to snip.

You may be right...since fly fishing and tying were only invented 6 or 8
years ago, how likely could it be that several unconnected someones
haven't already tried what you might and published books about it...why,
heck, I think you ought to try working on square baseballs, carts with
the wheels on the top rather than the bottom (saves wear and tear on the
tires, donchaknow), and a microwave oven that works by simply putting
the zappicure-de-jour on the kitchen counter while the cook gets in a
protective lead box....

Feel free to be as creative as wish, but fixing what isn't broken
doesn't demonstrate much "imagination." There are no "new concepts" in
fly-tying; there's a reason that you don't see more "upside-down" flies,
and the fact that _you_ haven't "adventured" and attempted or imagined
them yet ain't it. Hell, in much of what they tried to do, keel flies
(which weren't a new concept 40 years ago) worked, yet try to go and
find a package of keel hooks (and at one time, Mustad, Eagle Claw, and
3-4 others made them).

And I never said _no_ pattern will work adapted to an "upside-down" or
any other particular variation won't work, only that "tying any ol' fly
upside down can take a decent recipe and **** it up." I was right then,
and I'll be right after another 500-plus years of "modern-style"
flytying.

jules,
see you on the water.

Depends on where you fish.
R
...and come, on - an "adventurous" tyer? Please...unless your tying
consists of hand-ties using fresh black widow silk to lash large, live
raptors to razor-sharp grappling hooks while tiger-hunting from a howdah
on bull elephant that you personally selected for his short temper, you
ain't essactly Francis ****in' Drake-meets-Robert Ruark...

Second, learn to edit if you're going to snip...

"Fly fishing and tying only started 6 or 8 years ago"????? hopefully
you mean 60 or 80??? either way you need to check your sources, try
uummm a hell of a lot longer ago than that.

Then why would you hope I meant some other randomly-selected albeit
wrong period of time?

"fixing what ain't broken isn't imagination" well, its not a matter of
fixing something thats not broken, rather, taking attributes of a
tried and tested pattern, and adapting them to a new fly to get
similar results with an ulterior specific purpose. there is no messing
up designs involved with this logic, simply referencing anothers ideas
to suit your needs. Besides, in the upside down flies case, i still
keep the exact same fly ("the correct way") in my box anyways.
"there's no new concepts in fly tying", what the hell kind of
statement is that???

Oh, it probably has something to do with things like taking tried and
tested patterns, adapting them, and referencing another's ideas when one
is inventing totally new things...

tiers have not tied _all_ the types of bugs in
the world (that fish eat), n'or have they developed _all_ the possible
methods to produce any given representation of already existing flies.

Well, gollydamn! I never met anyone who knew what every single flytyer
who has ever lived had done...I must say, I'm impressed! If I may, I've
always wondered what a Mr. Clyde J. Slingass of Numbnuts, NY, tied on
the second Saturday of April, 1934. Could you give me a brief outline?
I'd be ever so grateful. BTW, I mean the father, who lived on Main
Street, not the son, who lived on 2 Ave. He was kind of ass - you know
the type, always thinking his stuff was all new and innovative and
courageous and stuff...

Hence, in order to do so, they would have to "invent" new tactics to
accomplish this.
The fact that you would create such a rediculous comparison between a
simple fly variation and "square baseballs" and "widow silk wrapped
raptors", just demeans yourself. The soul purpose of writing my
initial comment, was to illuminate the fact that i had addapted a
pattern to better suit my needs, and that it worked just fine in my
experience, also, that maybe this person should give it a try.
This has turned into a question of whether or not a person can be
creative in their own right. my simple conclusion for you is; if you
don't want to try my fly, fine don't try it. but if you are going to
start discouraging polite people from having a discussion about
something that they might be interested in trying, i say shame on you.
Fishing is a sport which alows an idividual to grow and expand their
knowledge and happiness, not create stress over whether or not a fly
is exact to receipy or if their variation is any good or not.
Variations is how we discover, and is the reason why we continue to
tie.

Uh-huh...

See you on the water.

..knot if eye seize ewe phirst,

God, how it must hurt to be you!

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang

On 9 Feb 2007 09:33:59 -0800, "jules" wrote:


R
...and come, on - an "adventurous" tyer? Please...unless your tying
consists of hand-ties using fresh black widow silk to lash large, live
raptors to razor-sharp grappling hooks while tiger-hunting from a howdah
on bull elephant that you personally selected for his short temper, you
ain't essactly Francis ****in' Drake-meets-Robert Ruark...

"Fly fishing and tying only started 6 or 8 years ago"????? hopefully
you mean 60 or 80??? either way you need to check your sources, try
uummm a hell of a lot longer ago than that.


He was being sarcastic.

Many of the users and posters here tend to sarcasm at certain times.
--

r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess.Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli