Shad flies

Wolfgang wrote:

I learned a long time ago that there is an enormous surplus of fools in this
world.

That's quite apparent, Wolfgang, because you treat just about everyone
on ROFF as though you believed they were fools.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
. ..
Wolfgang wrote:

I learned a long time ago that there is an enormous surplus of fools in
this
world.

That's quite apparent, Wolfgang, because you treat just about everyone
on ROFF as though you believed they were fools.

Not true. But I understand that it must look that way to some people.
Take, for example, someone who persists in responding to messages that he
doesn't read.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

I learned a long time ago that there is an enormous surplus of
fools in
this
world.

That's quite apparent, Wolfgang, because you treat just about
everyone
on ROFF as though you believed they were fools.

Not true. But I understand that it must look that way to some people.
Take, for example, someone who persists in responding to messages that
he
doesn't read.


You're the fool. If you'd read my message before you responded to it,
you'd have seen that I've been looking for statistics and haven't found
them. When they show up I'll look at them and then make my decision.
I have a lot of faith in Mr. McPhee, so I'm disapointed that he didn't
back up his position. Since he chose anecdotal support instead of
scientific support on this issue when he's fetteted out so much good
scientific support for other parts of this book and many other books
he's written, I suspect he has no scientific information to back his
position.

Even given that opinion, I didn't accuse him of being a fool or an
ashole or a peta idiot. I left it that I doubted that he found any
data, rather than accusing him of dishonesty. I hold to that position.

Go back to your sandbox.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

"Chas Wade" wrote in message
newsJhSb.179035$I06.1852208@attbi_s01...


You're the fool.

The difference is that for me it's a job.......not a way of life.

If you'd read my message before you responded to it,
you'd have seen that I've been looking for statistics and haven't found
them.

Well, that's just plain stupid. You have no way of knowing whether or not I
read what you wrote. As a matter of fact, I did.....but you still don't
know that.

When they show up I'll look at them and then make my decision.

Bull****. You made your decision.....or, to state it more accurately,
someone made it for you......a long time ago.

I have a lot of faith in Mr. McPhee,

Of course you do, else what is a simulacrum of authority for?

so I'm disapointed that he didn't back up his position.

McPhee probably doesn't have a position. In the unlikely event that he
does, you would be well advised to consult with whoever told him what it is.

Since he chose anecdotal support instead of
scientific support on this issue when he's fetteted out so much good
scientific support for other parts of this book and many other books
he's written, I suspect he has no scientific information to back his
position.

As I stated earlier, you would have no trouble at all in dismissing whatever
staistics he might have put forward to support his "position". Ironically,
such a dismissal would be the only justifiable action you'd be likely to
take in this exhibition of inane drivel. The simple fact is that
"scientific support" and statistics have absolutely nothing to contribute to
the sham debate between the advocates of catch and release on the one hand
and catch and kill on the other. To anyone but an abject fool the
usefulness of both as management tools is self evident. Which, or what
combination, to use in a particular situation is the only problem to which
science and statistics are applicable and then only for purely pragmatic
reasons. None of this goes to the core issue. The concerns of
organizations like PETA most emphatically DO address the core issue. The
fact that such organizations are populated primarily by disingenuous idiots
does no more to diminish this truth than does their opposition's pigheaded
and equally dishonest refusal to address it.

Even given that opinion, I didn't accuse him of being a fool or an
ashole or a peta idiot.

True, but if you had read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I didn't
say anything about custard being a better building material than blue fog.

I left it that I doubted that he found any
data, rather than accusing him of dishonesty.

Beyond your own memory and interpretation of whatever he may have presented
in his book, you have no way of knowing what data he found. And you DID
accuse him of dishonesty. Remember, "I'm just as sure that McPhee chose to
include the data that met with his opinion and ignored some other stuff."?
Reminds me of somebody. Anyway, your own little lie notwithstanding, I
agree that McPhee is certainly a facile liar.......he's a prefessional (in
the sense that he gets paid for it) writer......that's his job.

I hold to that position.

Actually, as demonstrated above, you don't. But that's o.k., you just go
ahead and pretend.

Go back to your sandbox.

Go **** yourself.

Wolfgang
hey, if it feels good, do it......right?

"Wolfgang" wrote:

"Chas Wade" wrote in message
newsJhSb.179035$I06.1852208@attbi_s01...


You're the fool.

The difference is that for me it's a job.......not a way of life.


If you'd read my message before you responded to it,
you'd have seen that I've been looking for statistics and haven't
found
them.

Well, that's just plain stupid. You have no way of knowing whether or
not I
read what you wrote. As a matter of fact, I did.....but you still
don't
know that.

And there's my big mistake. I presumed that if you'd read it you would
have understood it.
Silly of me.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

Wolfgang wrote:

"Chas Wade" wrote

If you'd read my message before you responded to it,
you'd have seen that I've been looking for statistics and haven't found
them.

Well, that's just plain stupid. You have no way of knowing whether or not I
read what you wrote. As a matter of fact, I did.....but you still don't
know that.

snippage

Even given that opinion, I didn't accuse him of being a fool or an
ashole or a peta idiot.

True, but if you had read what I wrote, you would have noticed .......


TTYROR.

JR
(thinking the minutes I spent reading what both wrote are minutes gone
for good)

"Chas Wade" wrote in message
news:EinSb.142138$sv6.781715@attbi_s52...
"Wolfgang" wrote:

"Chas Wade" wrote in message
newsJhSb.179035$I06.1852208@attbi_s01...


You're the fool.

The difference is that for me it's a job.......not a way of life.


If you'd read my message before you responded to it,
you'd have seen that I've been looking for statistics and haven't
found
them.

Well, that's just plain stupid. You have no way of knowing whether
or
not I
read what you wrote. As a matter of fact, I did.....but you still
don't
know that.

And there's my big mistake. I presumed that if you'd read it you
would
have understood it.
Silly of me.

Ah, the rec.irony.unintended welcoming committee! Thanks. It's nice
to be here.

Wolfgang

"JR" wrote in message
...

TTYROR.

JR
(thinking the minutes I spent reading what both wrote are minutes
gone
for good)

It's just possible that there's a lesson lurking in there somewhere.

Wolfgang
who is not so presumptuous as to speculate on what it might be.