Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Jake L, Aug 2, 2008.
What facts haven't I refuted? I called you a liar once in jest in regards to the statement that building your own lines is cheaper. It isn't, just as tying your own flies isn't the cheapest way to get your hands on flies. I have stated you miss the boat on many of your assertions. Like it or not the Fly rod world runs on AFTMA ratings. In order to say that lines don't comply with them you still have to acknowledge the bloody ratings! 11 wt rating isn't 1,100. That's a fact.
So who have you blocked from your site? Me, Richard, anyone else who disagrees? Who still has access? The folks who are still in the learning process? The folks who can't question your "facts". Deleting your prior posts isn't "walking away from an argument with a pig". It's trying to salvage your rep. Too late. As I said, you can't delete what others quoted from your posts. Your brightest gems persist. As do mine. I'm not ashamed of mine. Pity you can't say the same.
Where's the boxing icon? :rofl::rofl::clown::beer1::beer1:
You've seen my teaching method. I've seen yours. All I know is I posted the following "Anybody who understands casting or physics can look at the discussion, your websites, and make their own decision. Your pages are down by the way. Just as well." And what do you do? delete your posts and block your site:rofl: If you were interested in "teaching" you would have left your posts because "the truth will out" and it would have been a testament for all time to the superiority of your knowledge to that of us mere mortals. Action speaks louder than words.
You have launched far more personal insults my way than I have yours. Once again even when you delete your posts the record will be intact because you can't erase other people quotes I'm Ill-mannered, pig, idiotic, stupid, etc. etc. etc. I've just called you liar once in jest, silly I believe, and I have to admit I did say "Now you just need help". So who needs a refresher at Miss Manner's Institute for the Socially Disfunctional?
Just because you're an engineer doesn't mean you're qualified to write about the physics of fly castings. I sense a weakness in the area of kinematics. I make the assumption you're not schooled in that discipline because I've never heard someone who was use the term "crinkle" in the description of a process...
These guys are better than Mumbles and Hooker! I wonder if they would ever share that flask and a nice deep pool? I'm way too much of an intellectual gnat to ever hope to comprehend either of your points, but at least I can still read those by the Philster as opposed to "deleted by author".
Mr. Chris, I second the reqeust for a boxing gloves icon, it would be fitting here.
Check your books. School was a long time ago, but kinematics plays a role in how the line acts. kinetics is concerned with what causes motion, kinematics describes motion without reference to the forces that lead to the motion.
That's another personal insult you logged! Please refrain from such language! I'm makes me blush so!
Yup. I'm an idiot. Plain and tall... Everything I say is the result of a hasty wikipedia search. My advice and experience is fabricated and ignored by all. When people try what I suggest, they often send me emails telling me I let them down and my advice was bullshit. Nobody contacts me in PMs to ask questions or advice. My flies are horrible, my techniques rubbish, my casting advice worthless. I've helped noone and am despised by all. And despite it all I soldier on.
You've taught, what was it, a thousand people to cast and fish? I did it as a full time job for a number of years and have hosted more trips than I can count to tropical and continental locations. I'd say I only truly taught, from first cast to moderate proficiency less than fifty, and only really contributed to the learning of at most a couple hundred in hands on teaching. Your numbers are truly astounding, almost unbelievable...
As much as you protest, you're the only one tossing insults around. I am challenging your assertions, and instead of refutting anything you're just name calling and shouting me down. Who's the thug here? The internet bully?
I'm only responding to your posts. and in a far more civil manner than you.
I remain yours,
Philster, aka "Sunshine" I may actually take that as my user name. I like the irony. Although you did use it in a sardonic fashion... Yet another insult to add to your tally...
Boy, I've been gone for just a while and look what I missed.
Philster (aka Sunshine, now, it appears!), you just make too much sense.
It appears to me that at some time traditionalist became chagrined about the whole AFTMA rating process. One can argue why do we have specific line ratings for rods when lines of different ratings could be used on that rod? Again, because there needs to be a reference. It would be pretty tough to pick up a rod with no line rating or relative measure, wiggle it and pronounce "Gee, I think 200 grains would be appropriate for this rod", then head over to the box of fly and grab a 200 grain line and hope that works.
I think it's Albright that started the approach of rating their rods for grains instead of by weight. Heck, it's the same thing; whether you call a 200 grain line a 7 weight line or 200 grain line, it still has to have a relative measure.
Philster Sunshine and Traditionalist provide good information (if it is still posted to be read). Richard comes in as the voice of reason. Maybe the world is returning to normal.