Fly test questions

"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 11:19 pm, Daniel-San wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:27 pm, Giles wrote:

On Feb 23, 7:27 pm, "
3. Are dry flies better than wet flies?

Morally? Yes.

Funniest thing I've read here in I don't know how many years I've been
reading this nuthouse newsgroup.

Intellectually? Hell, they're artificial bugs......who ****in' cares?

Yabbut on a purely intellectual level, we'd best define "better," no?
Really now, what's the goal? If, like me, yer fishin' tends to be
focused on the fishing rather than the catching, well, sure, there is
no empirical difference -- you may as well be casting a bare hook. But
if "better" is a function of fish-in-the-creel (so to speak) rather
than one of pure enjoyment and other maudlin pursuits, this seems an
as yet open question, no?

-Dan
(or not?)

Well, yes.....or no.

The logic is unassailable and leads inexorably to the correct
conclusion, which is to say that the conclusion remains in doubt.
However, we may be able to clear the matter up by taking a look from a
different angle.

Your argument appears to presuppose that the question is whether
fishing with dry flies is intellectually superior (defined,
provisionally, as more effective with regard to achieving whatever the
ultimate goal may be) to fishing with wets....or vice versa. Not
unreasonable. But not the only possible interpretation of the
question. A strict constructionist view would hold that the question
is whether dry flies themselves (as opposed to the use thereof) are
more intelligent than wet flies.....or vice versa. Now, at first
glance, that doesn't appear to help much. Testing the proposition
empirically would doubtless lead one into a morass from which it would
take a lifetime to extricate oneself. Moreover, as stated earlier,
who cares. But.....

But we know that intelligence is, at least in part, a function of
learning; that is to say of time and experience. Ergo, since dry
flies are representations of adult forms, while wets (which we will
here assume to refer to nymphs, else the exercise is an impossible and
pointless cross-species speculation at the get go.....and hey, they're
"wet", right?) are juveniles, dries MUST be smarter. Besides, dry
flies look pretty.....and bright.....while nymphs mostly look like
variations on the theme of rodent turds.

giles

so dry flies are mammals????

john

On Mar 1, 12:25*am, "John B" wrote:


so dry flies are mammals????

Well, they ain't vegetables or minerals, they're neither fish nor
fowl, and many of them sport more mammalian hair than many of the
featherless bipeds who spread them far and wide upon the Earth's
waters.

All of which falls somewhat short of conclusive, I'd say.....but it
hangs together a whole lot better than most of the half-witted ****
posted by most of the ****wits in most of the witless threads around
here, don'tcha think?.

john

John.....yes.....definitely a mammal!

giles
who knows nipples when he sees them.