How much fly line?

On Mar 21, 10:35 pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

May well be so with the folks you fish with, but I teach people to
avoid trees when casting.

teaching, and actually fishing practice are two different things, especially
on overgrown New England brooks,
and tight mountain streams in the Eastern US. Plus, I was
trying to introduce you to the concept of a sense of humor.

Seems Wolfgang was indeed right about Dickie, just another
pathological ****bag.

actually, I think he was trying to inject a bit of his own brand of humor
into the situation. My recommendation would be to either chuckle or ignore
it. To do otherwise
might make you appear pompous, bitter, or both......
Tom

Good teaching automatically results in good pupils. When it is
possible to give people a set of basic skills before they set off on
their angling/life journey, they tend to enjoy it more and also become
better and better at it, the better they become, the more they enjoy
it. I have taught hundreds, in fact it is certainly thousands now, to
cast and angle, and quite a few to dress flies as well. This also
brings a great deal of satisfaction. Not quite the same as fishing,
but rewarding nonetheless.

Obviously I appear pompous here, quite a few people have said so, and
I have no reason to doubt them. Unfortunately, I have not the
slightest idea what I might do about it.......................

Bitter? I don´t think so.

TL
MC

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
This is supposed to be a fly-fishing group, with not a few self-
declared experts. People who take the trouble to ask a question here,
presumably expect qualified advice, otherwise they would just go to
their local fly-shop, plonk down their plastic, and buy the
apparently obligatory bling to begin with.
That's right, and that's exactly why those who know better should
speak up and point out the ignorance of nonsense posts like this:

"MOST
LINES WHICH ARE RATED AT THE SAME
AFTM# AS YOUR ROD WILL NOT MATCH AT ALL!!!!"

(emphasis yours)

Ken

Obviously, we have stumbled upon a plot by rod manufacturers to
underlabel their rods. It has been going on for at least 15 years. If
you actually do the research, you'll find that manufacturer's of fishing
gear have been secretly shifting their portfolios toward the orthopeadics
industry, knowing that the extra effort of casting underrated rods loaded
with lines that are too light will cause all sorts of joint and muscle
problems, from the shoulder all the way to the fingers.

I think the plot really stems from the Illuminati. After all, the worst
offenders are probably 3 weights and 2 weights --- 32!! Aha-- got them
now.

Just you wait, as soon as Shrub's approval ratings drop another
3 points somebody will confess to this heinous conspiracy.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote in message
s.com...
Furthermore, it is apparently not clear to you and others that I don´t
do anything else. I live, eat, breathe and sleep, fishing, a minimum
of twelve hours a day, and usually seven days a week, 52 weeks a year

.....furthermore, I am unaware that anyone, outside yourself,
cares..........nice of you to keep track of it for us,
though.


I have nothing else worthwhile to do.

keep thinking that way, and you will turn into a one-
sided, pedantic bore..........um, oh, nevermind.

I read about it, think about it,
and discuss it without pause, with some of the greatest experts on the
planet, the same goes for fly-dressing and other related subjects.

how DO you find the time to expound on homosexuality?


As I said, this may be of interest;

http://www.fish-wild.co.uk/index.php...eatures&pid=69

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

On Mar 21, 10:41 pm, Scott Seidman
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:ZlhMh.15217
:



wrote:

This is supposed to be a fly-fishing group, with not a few self-
declared experts. People who take the trouble to ask a question here,
presumably expect qualified advice, otherwise they would just go to
their local fly-shop, plonk down their plastic, and buy the
apparently obligatory bling to begin with.

That's right, and that's exactly why those who know better should
speak up and point out the ignorance of nonsense posts like this:

"MOST
LINES WHICH ARE RATED AT THE SAME
AFTM# AS YOUR ROD WILL NOT MATCH AT ALL!!!!"

(emphasis yours)

Ken

Obviously, we have stumbled upon a plot by rod manufacturers to
underlabel their rods. It has been going on for at least 15 years. If
you actually do the research, you'll find that manufacturer's of fishing
gear have been secretly shifting their portfolios toward the orthopeadics
industry, knowing that the extra effort of casting underrated rods loaded
with lines that are too light will cause all sorts of joint and muscle
problems, from the shoulder all the way to the fingers.

I think the plot really stems from the Illuminati. After all, the worst
offenders are probably 3 weights and 2 weights --- 32!! Aha-- got them
now.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
"John Dillinger Fished For You"

Well, if you ask quite a number of top casters, you will discover that
they think exactly that. The trend to more powerful, faster rods has
continued unabated, so much so, that the vast majority of beginners
and intermediate casters are quite incapable of loading a rod using
the rated line.

This also causes physical problems. Using a heavier line also slows
things down quite a bit, and makes everything easier.

TL
MC

"Tom Littleton" wrote in news:xShMh.12188$zx.6014
@trndny05:


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Burma Shave, Tom.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

I stand corrected by one with a functional memory!!
.....and, you did see my analogy, did you not?
Tom




As we get older, we learn to take those lucid moments when we can get them!

Well, now that I have clarification of the shaving cream ads, I can look
toward the analogy

I think, now, that it's apt.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Mar 21, 10:48 pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid
unthinking dumbos who can´t cast, and know virtually nothing about
their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish.

You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that
95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant
as this lot.

MC

wrong, very much so.......95% simply don't understand the quarry, and don't
put the time into learning. I have lobbed flies at trout and bass for a few
decades now, and can assure you, and any other damned soul that will listen,
that "casting skill" accounts for a VERY small percentage of angling
success. Presentation involves so much more than distance casting or show
casting. Mostly, it involves getting to the sweet spot where the actual cast
is EASY, and avoiding being seen or heard by the fish. Stream fisherman(and
I am very aware that other skill-sets come into play for flats fishing,
float-tube fishing, lake fishing,etc)
would be very well served by Tim's advice.
Tom

Oh I agree with that entirely. The point is, using matched heads
makes casting a lot easier, not more difficult. Nor is it necessary
to know anything at all about it.My pupils are not given any casting
theory at all until after they have passed their mandatory casting
tests. And even then only if they ask for it. I am the only
instructor who has never had a pupil fail the test, in over twenty
years.

I did not mention distance casting here. I concentrated on specific
techniques which specifically do not require distance.

Whatever..............

TL
MC

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

s.com...

Furthermore, it is apparently not clear to you and others that I don´t
do anything else. I live, eat, breathe and sleep, fishing, a minimum
of twelve hours a day, and usually seven days a week, 52 weeks a year

....furthermore, I am unaware that anyone, outside yourself,
cares..........nice of you to keep track of it for us,
though.

I have nothing else worthwhile to do.

keep thinking that way, and you will turn into a one-
sided, pedantic bore..........um, oh, nevermind.

I read about it, think about it,
and discuss it without pause, with some of the greatest experts on the
planet, the same goes for fly-dressing and other related subjects.

how DO you find the time to expound on homosexuality?

As I said, this may be of interest;

http://www.fish-wild.co.uk/index.php...eatures&pid=69

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

Oh I did not imagine that anybody cared, I was merely pointing out
that it is indeed so.

I don´t expound on homosexuality at all.

An interesting response. Quite different to many others

As I already wrote, whatever.............................

TL
MC

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

It is quite impossible to hand somebody here a rod with a matched head
and let him cast it, and so the only reasonable alternative is to
explain as carefully as possible what is involved and why.

Simply stating that it is as it is would be quite pointless, as nobody
would believe it. This is the result of many things, not least
industry propaganda, and the constant drive to sell "new improved"
rods etc etc. This is not a "conspiracy", but the result is the same.
Loads of extremely fast powerful rods which hardly anybody can load
using the rated line. Certainly not at close range.

The whole thing with a matched head is designed to make casting
easier. It has nothing to do with distance per se.

My pupils don´t know anything at all about casting as a rule. I give
them a rod set up with a matched head, and simply show them how to
cast it. Most are casting reasonably within an hour. After a maximum
six hours communal tuition, they can easily perform the accuracy and
distance tests required for the mandatory casting test with the set-up
I have given them.

Other instructors, using different methods and different set-ups
always have trouble. Indeed, I often get sent "hopeless" pupils from
other courses. I never have any trouble, and neither do they.

Quite a few take my "build-on" courses, after passing the test,
usually dependent on what type of fishing they want to do, and whether
they need to learn a double haul or not.

Lastly, if you don´t want information about fly-fishing on a fly-
fishing newsgroup, what is the point of it?

TL
MC

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:34:18 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote:
typed:
snip
The more you post, the more people learn to detest you. It beats me
why anybody would want to make such a complete prat of himself, and
be disliked by everybody, but please feel free.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If
you'd come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruins our roff
would be suffering this very day. And if by chance an honest man like
yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And
then they would fear you.

I suppose this means I get to kiss the ring. ;-)

Nope. I ain't gonna say it - wouldn't be prudent - not even with a
straight-line opener like that one, Tim ;-)

/daytripper (who swore he'd stay well away from this cluster ****....)