Question:

We are approaching critical mass–and a dangerous time–that of sinking poll numbers for Bush, and the revelation of the proofs that the towers were hit by missles from specially outfitted planes, and the proof that the towers came down thru controlled demoliton. That’s more than enough proof.  The website http://www.letsroll911.org is ranked as among the top 25K downloaded sites on the Internet in the past month. But with these two events closing in on the Bush administration, the falling polls, and the complicity of 9/11 getting known, may trigger another attack, and the declaration of martial law, in order to cancel the election, shut down the Internet as we know it, and to clamp down on further discussion of 9/11. Some say we are already in a partial police state,  and some say we now more everything that has been said, the Congress, the military,  the media, does nothing.  Obviously they are persuaded to do nothing. http://www.911sharethetruth.com 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB–OUR NATION IS IN PERIL       – A Call to All True Patriots –    We have actively studied the questionable nature of the official version of what happened to our nation on September 11, 2001. Throughout the first year after 9-11 we ignored and did not believe those who asked us to question the official story. Like millions of Americans we believed America had been attacked by terrorists from abroad. Sadly, we are now convinced that our government committed a vicious criminal act against its own citizens for the larger purpose of swaying us to support both domestic and foreign policies mapped out in the mid and late 1990’s. 9-11 was Hitler’s Reichstag fire of 1933 and Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor masterfully coordinated to achieve the desired ends of an imperialistic role for America in the world, patriotic support at home and the erosion of our constitutional rights. In a nutshell, the war on terrorism is a cruel hoax by a misguided, out-of-democratic control small group of individuals sabotaging the best of American values. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis combined with severe domination from an Orwellian corporate media knowingly or unknowingly being of service to the true powerbrokers behind the curtain. We feel like we are living in the "Matrix" where we can blend in, but knowing something is horribly wrong and must be exposed. The quality of life for all of our loved ones is at stake along with the hopes of millions of people for a world of peace, freedom and ecological sustainability. If just a few of you take the time to study a little more and become involved in the 9-11 truth movement we will be greatly appreciative. We strongly feel that people of all progressive movements should involve themselves in this effort to expose the truth about 9-11 and in the greatest push ever from the grassroots to nonviolently replace our current despotic leadership. It would have tremendous positive consequences to all of our progressive movements if similar to the fall of Nixon over Watergate that the Bush administration was exposed on this and replaced. This outrageous criminal act must be brought to justice and our freedoms restored. We need to reach out now to all those who may be willing to hear and break the silence. Go to site for posters, cassettes, buttons… http://www.911sharethetruth.com

Response:

We are approaching critical mass–and a dangerous time–that of sinking poll numbers for Bush, and the revelation of the proofs that the towers were hit by missles from specially outfitted planes, and the proof that the towers came down thru controlled demoliton. That’s more than enough proof.  The website http://www.letsroll911.org is ranked as among the top 25K downloaded sites on the Internet in the past month.

Yep, it was an inside job….the planes blew up INSIDE the buildings. Gee, you are so smart.  You are right about specially outfitted planes… aircraft slamming into the side of a building would go in just like a missle.  And correct again about the controlled demolition…those terrorists must have been really skilled to be able to CONTROL the way they demolished the buildings. By the way numbnuts, watch the footage again.  The buildings did not collapse starting from the bottom.  A controlled demolition would not have been done in the basement, but would have needed to take out at least a dozen floors with the size of the buildings and taken at least a week to plan, and implement.  I think people would have gotten just a mite suspicious with work crews cutting through the structural pilings, setting shaped charges and running primer cord throughout the buildings. The quality of the steel made back when the towers were constructed was poor compared to today.  The structural tolerance was quite low.  The intense heat would collapse the pilings.  And the weight exerted by the upper floors would and did cause the lower ones to fail, causing a cascade failure.  The only way the building would have toppled is if the lower pilings were strong enough to hold back the collapsing upper floors and deflect the path of the fall.  But, as we all saw, it did not. Cease and decist your trolling.  People are getting sick of your freakish extremist "moveon.orgism". GO AWAY!!!!     *PLONK*

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are approaching critical mass–and a dangerous time–that of sinking poll numbers for Bush, and the revelation of the proofs that the towers were hit by missles from specially outfitted planes, and the proof that the towers came down thru controlled demoliton. That’s more than enough proof.  The website http://www.letsroll911.org is ranked as among the top 25K downloaded sites on the Internet in the past month. But with these two events closing in on the Bush administration, the falling polls, and the complicity of 9/11 getting known, may trigger another attack, and the declaration of martial law, in order to cancel the election, shut down the Internet as we know it, and to clamp down on further discussion of 9/11. Some say we are already in a partial police state,  and some say we now more everything that has been said, the Congress, the military,  the media, does nothing.  Obviously they are persuaded to do nothing. Yup – and yet the media still refuses to even question the wacko bush conspriracy explanation for 9-11.  Thank gof for the net or it would truly be hopeless.

What does gof have to do with anything. — Retired military and damn proud of it.

Response:

Yup – and yet the media still refuses to even question the wacko bush conspriracy explanation for 9-11.  Thank gof for the net or it would truly be hopeless. Indeed.  Being uncensored,

Free press would also be uncensored.                                       the net provides the ideal soapbox for every paranoid conspiracy theorist who knows how to use a keyboard.

Which does not mean that everything on the net or in ng’s that does not conform to your beliefs is conspiracy theory. Expressions like "conspiracy theory" appeal to the irrational side of people, and so serve only to cloud the issues. The official story of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory: several people conspired to execute the attacks; and the story is no more than a theory because there is only precious little evidence to support it. And of all the conspiracy theories so far presented, the official story is among the silliest. Matti P.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Which does not mean that everything on the net or in ng’s that does not conform to your beliefs is conspiracy theory. This is true.  Yet, just because it does not conform to my beliefs does not automatically mean that it is accurate. Expressions like "conspiracy theory" appeal to the irrational side of people, and so serve only to cloud the issues. The official story of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory: several people conspired to execute the attacks; and the story is no more than a theory because there is only precious little evidence to support it. Perhaps then I should have used the full term "paranoid conspiracy theory" – addressing those ideas that attempt to explain facts that have already been explained, but in a far more bizarre and usually convoluted manner that reassures the wannabe Fox Mulder that The Truth Really Is Out There, and that THEY do not want you to know about it.  It is really only a desire on the part of the theorist to demonstrate their ability to outwit THEM, despite all the barriers THEY supposedly put in the theorists’ way.

I understood your point; just wanted to clarify terms. And of all the conspiracy theories so far presented, the official story is among the silliest. Oh, by no means.  In my experience, by far the silliest theory yet put forward is by the Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists (PCTs) themselves.

Please note: I said "among the silliest", not "the silliest". Matti P. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -This is the notion that the attack on the Pentagon was carried out not by a terrorist in a hijacked 767, but by a remote-controlled drone plane or missile, packed with explosives and painted (this is priceless) in American Airlines livery to fool onlookers (who presumably cannot tell the difference between a liner and a missile or fighter), whilst the actual 767 was landed at an airport nearby having been flown OVER the Pentagon in the confusion.  The passengers were later ‘disappeared’ by the CIA. There are more holes in this ludicrous ‘explanation’ than in a standard fishing net – and yet it is passed reverently from PCT to PCT as though it is some holy gospel of truth.  In comparison to that, at least to those who have even the slightest grip on the real world, the official line, whilst perhaps open to question in some areas, seems to make far more sense. — Midjis

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Which does not mean that everything on the net or in ng’s that does not conform to your beliefs is conspiracy theory. This is true.  Yet, just because it does not conform to my beliefs does not automatically mean that it is accurate. Expressions like "conspiracy theory" appeal to the irrational side of people, and so serve only to cloud the issues. The official story of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory: several people conspired to execute the attacks; and the story is no more than a theory because there is only precious little evidence to support it. Perhaps then I should have used the full term "paranoid conspiracy theory" – addressing those ideas that attempt to explain facts that have already been explained, but in a far more bizarre and usually convoluted manner that reassures the wannabe Fox Mulder that The Truth Really Is Out There, and that THEY do not want you to know about it.  It is really only a desire on the part of the theorist to demonstrate their ability to outwit THEM, despite all the barriers THEY supposedly put in the theorists’ way. And of all the conspiracy theories so far presented, the official story is among the silliest. Oh, by no means.  In my experience, by far the silliest theory yet put forward is by the Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists (PCTs) themselves.  This is the notion that the attack on the Pentagon was carried out not by a terrorist in a hijacked 767, but by a remote-controlled drone plane or missile, packed with explosives and painted (this is priceless) in American Airlines livery to fool onlookers (who presumably cannot tell the difference between a liner and a missile or fighter), whilst the actual 767 was landed at an airport nearby having been flown OVER the Pentagon in the confusion.  The passengers were later ‘disappeared’ by the CIA. There are more holes in this ludicrous ‘explanation’ than in a standard fishing net – and yet it is passed reverently from PCT to PCT as though it is some holy gospel of truth.  In comparison to that, at least to those who have even the slightest grip on the real world, the official line, whilst perhaps open to question in some areas, seems to make far more sense. — Midjis

But there is conclusive physical evidence that no 767 hit the Pentagon, in fact no evidence of fusilage of any plane found.. The fact that two, one piece that does not match photographed on the lawn points to conspiracy. There was no American Airlines flight 77 scheduled to fly that day. There is conclusive physical evididence that no  passenger jet plane hit the 1st tower or penetrated it. {The film shown shown the following day  9/12, was  crudely edited.  You can see it by looking for the evidence "first plane")  There is only three small holes in the building, none greater that a few feet. There was no American Airlines flight 11 scheduled to fly that day.  What few eye witnesses say a very small plane, holding no more than 10-12 seats, or "a missle with wings".  Check out the examination of that flight and the photos  on thewebfairy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The sheer volume of web articles devoted to the idea that there is ‘conclusive physical evidence’ of anything of the sort is absolutely staggering.  Particularly since there is no such evidence. Patently false. Yes, it is easy to say that, is it not?  But I would be interested to see you provide some of this supposed evidence – and try to do slightly better than the photos you directed me to in the other thread. — Midjis ~~ ama semper quisquis noces

Blow me.

Response:

The sheer volume of web articles devoted to the idea that there is ‘conclusive physical evidence’ of anything of the sort is absolutely staggering.  Particularly since there is no such evidence. Patently false. Yes, it is easy to say that, is it not?  But I would be interested to see you provide some of this supposed evidence – and try to do slightly better than the photos you directed me to in the other thread.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/sweetdeal_title.jpg This one doesn’t NECCESARILY prove anything, other than that a KC-767 prototype did in fact exist, but it’s very telling nevertheless. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Midjis ~~ ama semper quisquis noces

Response:

Question:

There was a time when I used to bring a portable radio to listen to music.  During all this time, it seemed to me that the fishing was not as good.  So one day, I turned off the radio.  Lo and behold…..the fishing improved.

Ever been diving off of a boat that was playing a stereo.  You can hear the music as if it was next to you.  One time I was diving off of my boat and there was a dive boat about 30 yards away.  I could hear Bob Marley shooting the sheriff while I was down there.  It was great,  I was diving and listening to some good tunes…can’t beat that. JAC

Response:

i was in a small tournament one day on the chesapeake bay [maryland]… The tournament was for bragging rights only…and beer/hot dogs… We went to our spot to fish..anchored up with many other hopeful fishermen… I put on some ‘oldies ‘ FM station and passed out the beer as we sat with poles in the rod holders  and sot the bull about nothing…trivial things..  We were loud …and the music was turned up.   At times we  shouted   ‘fish-ON!’ ‘Get the net! ‘ When the day was over our boat landed the fish to win the day and the bragging rights for the whole year! I suppose your idea of quiet is good and best for most fishing [particularly in shallow waters or waters normally without a lot of shipping noise...] But there is some evidence [not in my hands] that noise attracts or gets the attention of fish.   So, if you have some delicious smell there at the same time I suppose there will be some to venture  to your fish hook and grab-it. Fishing is for fun….   Our local fish like rock-and -roll ! As for the sound waves projected from a fish finder…well each transducer is designed with a predetermined ‘frequency’   and it would be devastating to the manufacturer of  a fishfinder that is designed to transmit signals that piss off fish and scatter them away from the boat.   So, they would pay you big bucks to keep your mouth shut and not tell the world that their fish finder scares fish. Over the years [ 30 +  years ] .. manufacturers chose mostly low frequency signals and have increased the power and frequency of their transmitted signals. There was a greater need for clarity and depth of operation and distinction between sizes of fish and underwater structure.    If  you made noise in shallow water , then it is more like heard by a fish than if you were in much deeper water .  Sound dissipates in water as it does in air.   Noise comes from many sources like your engine and adjacent boat engines. THE BOTTOM LINE IS Your Depth Finder Pinging is Not your fishing problem. Although I may have said little to convince you of this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     At 10 feet ….. you can hear the ticking yourself but you don’t feel anything.  However, fish are much more sensitive than we are.  So….when I find the structure I am looking for or a school of fish, I turn off my sonar.  I have tried it and it seems that I have better success.     There was a time when I used to bring a portable radio to listen to music.  During all this time, it seemed to me that the fishing was not as good.  So one day, I turned off the radio.  Lo and behold…..the fishing improved.  I guess the vibrations from the radio sitting directly on the wooden seats of the rowboat were enough to repel a lot of the fish.  Ever since then, I use ear plugs and a walkman.     I have dozens of experiences where noise has affected fish behaviour…..most in a negative way.   But, I have to admit that most of the fishing I do is for brook trout in lakes and ponds.     Walleye do not seem to be bothered by noise or a nearby boat.  Whitefish are extremely shy.  On those late summer evenings with big brook trout sipping on tiny flies in the middle of a lake, the only way I can catch any is by silently sliding up on them with my canoe and then making long delicate fly casts with an extra long (15 to 20 foot) leader with 1 lb test tippet.  No margin for error here.  It also helps to sit tight and wait to see in what direction the fish is feeding, measuring the distances between the rises and then casting the same distance in front of the travelling fish.     Don’t expect to catch many fish this way.  The magic hour only lasts about 30 minutes, therefore you don’t have enough time than for 2 or 3 approaches. Yes the fishfinder pings fish.    For an interesting test, place your hand in the water under the transducer, palm downward.  You will feel small tingling on the back of your hand while the fishfinder is pinging.    In places where many fishermen congregate together and use fish finders, I have noticed that the fishing is usually poor. What do you feel when you are 10 ft. under the transducer?                                 Capt. Bill

Response:

Yes the fishfinder pings fish.

….yeah but, do the fish have an IP address?!? (sorry…  Unix admin joke here, people) Butch Ammon My web page: http://members.aol.com/ammonc/butch.html

Response:

Yes the fishfinder pings fish. ….yeah but, do the fish have an IP address?!? (sorry…  Unix admin joke here, people) Butch Ammon My web page: http://members.aol.com/ammonc/butch.html

Sure…a deep set of sixes… — Harry Krause I practice moderation to excess

Response:

    At 10 feet ….. you can hear the ticking yourself but you don’t feel anything.  However, fish are much more sensitive than we are.  So….when I find the structure I am looking for or a school of fish, I turn off my sonar.  I have tried it and it seems that I have better success.     There was a time when I used to bring a portable radio to listen to music.  During all this time, it seemed to me that the fishing was not as good.  So one day, I turned off the radio.  Lo and behold…..the fishing improved.  I guess the vibrations from the radio sitting directly on the wooden seats of the rowboat were enough to repel a lot of the fish.  Ever since then, I use ear plugs and a walkman.     I have dozens of experiences where noise has affected fish behaviour…..most in a negative way.   But, I have to admit that most of the fishing I do is for brook trout in lakes and ponds.     Walleye do not seem to be bothered by noise or a nearby boat.  Whitefish are extremely shy.  On those late summer evenings with big brook trout sipping on tiny flies in the middle of a lake, the only way I can catch any is by silently sliding up on them with my canoe and then making long delicate fly casts with an extra long (15 to 20 foot) leader with 1 lb test tippet.  No margin for error here.  It also helps to sit tight and wait to see in what direction the fish is feeding, measuring the distances between the rises and then casting the same distance in front of the travelling fish.     Don’t expect to catch many fish this way.  The magic hour only lasts about 30 minutes, therefore you don’t have enough time than for 2 or 3 approaches. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes the fishfinder pings fish.    For an interesting test, place your hand in the water under the transducer, palm downward.  You will feel small tingling on the back of your hand while the fishfinder is pinging.    In places where many fishermen congregate together and use fish finders, I have noticed that the fishing is usually poor. What do you feel when you are 10 ft. under the transducer?                                 Capt. Bill

Response:

Yes the fishfinder pings fish.    For an interesting test, place your hand in the water under the transducer, palm downward.  You will feel small tingling on the back of your hand while the fishfinder is pinging.    In places where many fishermen congregate together and use fish finders, I have noticed that the fishing is usually poor.

What do you feel when you are 10 ft. under the transducer?                                 Capt. Bill

Response:

My 13 year old made a very good observation the other day. he asked me if I had noticed that ever since we got a fish finder we have caught way less fish. It got me to thinking. Could that thing be ‘pinging’ the fish? I know they hunt by sensing electrical fields…. so? Also, I have another theory – that somweher in China a programmer goes to sleep every night laughing at the ‘fish’ he has programmed to appear on my scope. Rob

Response:

Yes the fishfinder pings fish.     For an interesting test, place your hand in the water under the transducer, palm downward.  You will feel small tingling on the back of your hand while the fishfinder is pinging.     In places where many fishermen congregate together and use fish finders, I have noticed that the fishing is usually poor. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My 13 year old made a very good observation the other day. he asked me if I had noticed that ever since we got a fish finder we have caught way less fish. It got me to thinking. Could that thing be ‘pinging’ the fish? I know they hunt by sensing electrical fields…. so? Also, I have another theory – that somweher in China a programmer goes to sleep every night laughing at the ‘fish’ he has programmed to appear on my scope. Rob

Response:

Question:

I just got an old willow creel from a friend. The willow look pretty dry and there is no varnish to protect it. Since i want to use it when i’m fly fishing should i put something on it , if so what should i use; Varnish, linseed oil…….or is there any special product i should know of? Thanks for your help! Before you buy.

Response:

I just got an old willow creel from a friend. The willow look pretty dry and there is no varnish to protect it. Since i want to use it when i’m fly fishing should i put something on it , if so what should i use; Varnish, linseed oil…….or is there any special product i should know of?

Yo Robert.   I’m heading down to the fly shop today.   You get the latest FFA yet? Joe F.

Response:

Willow creels require no maintenance apart from a wash now and again. Line the creel with damp grass before placing fish in it. You may also soak the creel in the stream before placing fish in it.  The evaporation which then ensues helps keep the fish cool.  The grass also prevents too much slime from soaking into the creel itself and producing the most horrendous stink. TL MC — "If you have tried everything you know, and nothing works, then perhaps it is time to accept that you don

Question:

Ok, we are two couples that want to rent a houseboat next May for our vacation.  No kids, 4 careers, all we want to do is a little fishing and a lot of relaxing.  We would like to keep the cost under $1500 for the week. Where’s the best place to go?  Currently we are in Ark and TX but 2 of us commute to NC and Europe.  What’s the best lake to go "houseboating"?   One says Lake of the Woods, one says Lake Mead.  I can’t find but a few web sites.  If you’ve done anything like this or have a recommendation please let me know.

Response:

There are quite a few "houseboating lakes" throughout North America.  It depends on where you want to go.  Some of the top lakes are (in no particular order): Lake Cumberland – KY Lake Powell-AZ Lake of the Ozarks-MO In your area, there is: Lake Ouchita – AR Lake Travis – TX I am sure I am leaving many out, so you can check out this link to find more "houseboating lakes" http://www.houseboatingworld.com/lake2.htm Thanks, Tim Gottschalk http://www.houseboatingworld.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ok, we are two couples that want to rent a houseboat next May for our vacation.  No kids, 4 careers, all we want to do is a little fishing and a lot of relaxing.  We would like to keep the cost under $1500 for the week. Where’s the best place to go?  Currently we are in Ark and TX but 2 of us commute to NC and Europe.  What’s the best lake to go "houseboating"? One says Lake of the Woods, one says Lake Mead.  I can’t find but a few web sites.  If you’ve done anything like this or have a recommendation please let me know.

Response:

I’ve been going to Cumberland Lake in Kentucky for last several years with 10-12 other guys for 4 days and 3 nights. This year took the wives (5 couples) and had best time of all. We rented a 64′ houseboat (they have several different models) and paid $1350 total including the fuel and another $100/couple for food &fuel for 3 speed/ski boats. For about $400/ couple you couldn’t do anything else so much fun and relaxing. Almost no houses in sight, just mountain sides all way around with over 1250 miles of natural shorline. Just so happens I have the brochure here in front of me on my  desk to get one reserved for 2000.  You might want to check them out at http://www.statedock.com  Jerry

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ok, we are two couples that want to rent a houseboat next May for our vacation.  No kids, 4 careers, all we want to do is a little fishing and a lot of relaxing.  We would like to keep the cost under $1500 for the week. Where’s the best place to go?  Currently we are in Ark and TX but 2 of us commute to NC and Europe.  What’s the best lake to go "houseboating"? One says Lake of the Woods, one says Lake Mead.  I can’t find but a few web sites.  If you’ve done anything like this or have a recommendation please let me know.

Response:

Ok, we are two couples that want to rent a houseboat next May for our vacation.  No kids, 4 careers, all we want to do is a little fishing and a lot of relaxing.  We would like to keep the cost under $1500 for the week. Where’s the best place to go?  Currently we are in Ark and TX but 2 of us commute to NC and Europe.  What’s the best lake to go "houseboating"?   One says Lake of the Woods, one says Lake Mead.  I can’t find but a few web sites.  If you’ve done anything like this or have a recommendation please let me know.

Probably one of the premier houseboat rental vacations in the U.S. can be had at Lake Powell.  You mention Lake Mead as a possibility.  Mead is nice, but I would have to give a significant edge to Powell for its overwhelming scenery and top-flight houseboat rental operation.  From your location, you would drive past Lake Powell to get to Mead.  If you intend to fly to your destination, Powell has a nearby airport in Page, but airfare is somewhat expensive, like it is to most small towns. Unfortunately, summer rental rates start May 1.  Heavily discounted rates can be had prior to that date, but $1,536 will rent a 36 footer for 6 days at on-season rates.  The water will be quite chilly in May, but the ambient temperatures will be beautiful and the crowds will not have shown up yet. Go to www.visitlakepowell for an introduction and complete information on the houseboats, including rates. Russ

Response:

Ok, we are two couples that want to rent a houseboat next May for our vacation.  No kids, 4 careers, all we want to do is a little fishing and a lot of relaxing.  We would like to keep the cost under $1500 for the week. Where’s the best place to go?  Currently we are in Ark and TX but 2 of us commute to NC and Europe.  What’s the best lake to go "houseboating"?   One says Lake of the Woods, one says Lake Mead.  I can’t find but a few web sites.  If you’ve done anything like this or have a recommendation please let me know.

Check out State Dock at Lake Cumberland 1-800-234-DOCK.  We went with three couples with kids and had a blast. I know they have a web site, but I don’t remember what it is. A search will do it. — Alan Fishwick

Response:

Do you go to 76 Falls? Not really a place for kids thou.  We go a couple times a year just to be at the Falls. Going to be their again for Memorial Day weekend. Beautiful lake and surroundings. I tell the wife I want to pull up roots and move to Kentucky just to be closer to the lakes. Jerry

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Check out State Dock at Lake Cumberland 1-800-234-DOCK.  We went with three couples with kids and had a blast. I know they have a web site, but I don’t remember what it is. A search will do it. — Alan Fishwick

Response:

All good choices, but no one has mentioned Ireland.  We have cruised the Shannon and the Shannon-Erne waterways (two trips), and enjoyed it very much.  Emerald Star Line is one of the best companies (we rented from them the second time).  We were using kind of "cabin cruiser" type boats, rather than the kind of house boats that would be found on Lake Powell. Of course, cruising the canals and rivers of France is also popular; we know people who have done that several times.  I believe that there are many waterways in Europe suitable for various kind of houseboats, including the long, skinny, and low canal boats. Richard – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ok, we are two couples that want to rent a houseboat next May for our vacation.  No kids, 4 careers, all we want to do is a little fishing and a lot of relaxing.  We would like to keep the cost under $1500 for the week. Where’s the best place to go?  Currently we are in Ark and TX but 2 of us commute to NC and Europe.  What’s the best lake to go "houseboating"?   One says Lake of the Woods, one says Lake Mead.  I can’t find but a few web sites.  If you’ve done anything like this or have a recommendation please let me know.

Response:

I along with 7 others also go to Lake Cumberland fishing for 8 days every year. We go in Oct. NOBODY around. Check out Grider Hill instead of State Dock, really great people, FINE houseboats! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

We always stop in at Grider to get gas and watch the other boats. Seen the pic they have with a canoe going over 76 Falls? Jerry

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I along with 7 others also go to Lake Cumberland fishing for 8 days every year. We go in Oct. NOBODY around. Check out Grider Hill instead of State Dock, really great people, FINE houseboats! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Ok, we are two couples that want to rent a houseboat next May for our vacation.  No kids, 4 careers, all we want to do is a little fishing and a lot of relaxing.  We would like to keep the cost under $1500 for the week. Where’s the best place to go?  Currently we are in Ark and TX but 2 of us commute to NC and Europe.  What’s the best lake to go "houseboating"? One says Lake of the Woods, one says Lake Mead.  I can’t find but a few web sites.  If you’ve done anything like this or have a recommendation please let me know.

I’m located on Lake of the Woods and it is a beautiful fresh water lake about 65 miles long and 35 at it’s widest point. There are several houseboat rental outfits on our Lake. I would be reluctant to recommend a houseboat rental in May on L.O.W for the simple reason that it is too early in the season. The water is very cold . We frequently still have ice on the lake around the 1st week of May. Depending on what part of May you are looking at you may find that fishing season is not open due to spawning. Temps. in the day may be nice however the evenings are still quite cold. Nope, if I was you I would stick to Lake Powell. Now if you can come up our way later in June you would have excellent fishing and warmer weather although the water temps are still quite cold. I have been on Lake of the Woods all my life. Feel free to e-mail me if your interested in any further info. on L.O.W. Rick

Response:

I have been on Lake of the Woods all my life. Feel free to e-mail me if your interested in any further info. on L.O.W.

Last time I was up there, the (what you guys call a) road going to the lake was sooo bad that I had to abandon my pop-up camper trailer along the side and come back for it later.  Beautiful area though… Steve — / / / / / /

Response:

I have been on Lake of the Woods all my life. Feel free to e-mail me if your interested in any further info. on L.O.W. Last time I was up there, the (what you guys call a) road going to the lake was sooo bad that I had to abandon my pop-up camper trailer along the side and come back for it later.  Beautiful area though… Steve — / / /

Seems like road construction, especially on Hwy 17 (International Fall MN to Kenora Ontario) is always under construction . You make a good point though for anyone towing a boat in this area. It is not unusual to have to travel miles and miles on what used to be a paved Highway and is now gravel while under going resurfacing. Rick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – / / /

Response:

Oh, yes, I’ve seen the pic!! When we go, in Oct. the lake is down so that when we put our bass boats in, the RAMP is a quarter mile long!! I really like Grider Hill, very pretty place, the guy that runs it is very nice, and helpful. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Question:

<snip That kinda defeats the purpose.  It’s just not the same giving a boxed gift as opposed to something handmade especially for an individual.

  I would definitely agree with this comment! I know my son cherishes his rod I made for him! Especially if he gets to help you make it. Gary

Response:

Another way to go is to find a suitable spinning rod blank and make it into a fly rod. I did this for my son when he was about 6. We went down to Shoff’s Tackle (http://www.shofftackle.com/) and found a 6′ 2 piece blank that seemed to have a nice light action. Once I made the rod up it took a 5wt and cast like a dream.

Anyone else try this, I would be interested in hearing your results. Tim Apple

Response:

I have to agree with this.  I started my 9 year old son this year, thinking that a 7′6" rod would be better since he is smaller.  We tried several rods, and he had an easier time with an 8′6" rod. The extra length helps him keep the line off the ground and helps to generate a little more line speed. I have built three rods on the PacBay blanks from H&H, 9′ 3wt, 7′9" 3wt, and 9′ 7wt.  The 9′ 3wt is REALLY nice.  The 7′9" rod could stand a 4wt line easily.  I haven’t had enough time with the 7wt to form much of an opinion yet, haven’t had it on water yet. The PacBay and H&H brand blanks are identical except for color. Ted – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know nothing about building rods. But as to going shorter and lighter because its a kid . . . I wouldn’t. The requirements of the stream and fish don’t change with the size of the fisher.  So, I’d go for an 8, 8.5, 4 to 6 weight, assuming a mix of bass, trout, occasional searun and silvers, plus that big old carp he will eventually staulk one summer. Id go for sturdy and full size. Besides, kids tend to look on stuff scaled for them as "kid stuff". "Real stuff" is adult sized. Dave

Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

I would advise against a 2 weight for a beginner. I have a 2 weight and I love it, I  use it more than all my other rods combined, but, as my brother puts it "takes forever to cast line out using light rods". Two weeks ago a guide described my brother to a fellow as "the guy that casts 50 ft with a 1 weight rod in THAT wind" (it was a very windy day in Paradise Valley). IMHO, a short 4 weight would be a much better choice for a young beginner. There are numerous very light, short 4 weight rods that ought to do the trick. -Vittorio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : have a 6′6" 2wt blank that with web discount sells for $36. I have no experience, but doesn’t everyone say that a kid shouldn’t be started on very light-weight rods, like a 2wt? Don’t know, I’ve heard conflicting opinions.  My gut feeling tells me that for a little kid, a short lightweight rod will be easier to handle. If you really want a light-weight rod, many people will second my on saying: just buy him the Cabela’s 3forks 3wt combo. Rod, reel, line, leader, no hassle, $49 or so. BTW, it’s a 7′6" rod. That kinda defeats the purpose.  It’s just not the same giving a boxed gift as opposed to something handmade especially for an individual. Thanks,      - Ken — "Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish  they are after."    - Henry David Thoreau

Response:

Ken I’ve casted a number of 6′ 6" rods and I’ve only ever liked one as they transmitted very little feel to the hand. Personally, I’d prefer a slower rod, but it doesn’t seem like anyone produces shorter rods with slow actions.  Anyone have a suggestion? Try a fibatube deluxe carbon fly rod (this company produces the

blanks for Hardys).As you may know an equivalent rod thru Hardy will cost you double. You can buy a completed rod in England FIBATUBE 7 ft 2pc for

Question:

Hello all,

[much snipped] Years ago I read, "Smoke is only smoke to me, now that I am old."  So, Fishing is fishing.  Like the Water Rat said in The Wind in the Willows: Come along over some time.  We’ll drop down to the river and make a day of it. Jess Thompson

Jesse Debate is healthy and often fun, providing it doesn’t degenerate into the slinging about of low grade insults.  I wouldn’t sweat it too much.  Fishing is about fun, especially shared fun.  Hopefully, some of that fun gets shared in ROFF too.  But I’ve noticed that it’s the contentious issues that get all the ink.  I post a couple of flyfishing stories and they’re barely noticed, but my whining about rod prices generated about 200 repsonses when you count in the derivatives.  I guess it’s just human nature.   Anyway. I had a great year of fishing, and I hope everyone else that reads this ng, did too.  Hopefully, in the new year, we’ll catch that big brown that spurned all our offerings last summer. Peter

Response:

Well Peter, perhaps you whine better than you write. Just kidding, I enjoyed your stories. — Remove NOSPAM to send E-mail Ernie Harrison <snip I’ve noticed that it’s the contentious issues that get all the ink.  I

post a couple of flyfishing stories and  they’re barely noticed, but my whining about rod prices generated about 200 repsonses when you count in the derivatives.  I guess it’s just human nature.   <snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Peter

Response:

Hello all, Please believe that I stumbled quite innocently into the fracus of C & E versus C & R.  And quite tardily.  Believe me also when I say that though I am old, I am not to old to learn, and to re-learn.  I should retract the statement  that I "slanted {the article Catch and Eat} purposely to arouse debate."   Talking over the pros and cons of a question, in a friendly fashion, I enjoy, but not dispute and name-calling.   It’s more correct to say that I wrote it rather, partly, in defense of those who received venomous messages for their positions.  And, because I had seen at times, on TV, what appeared to be careless C & R; and, because I think it’s okay to eat a fish now and then.  And surely, in the heat of reaction, I got a bit carried away.  If I had let the article cool longer, I would have toned down some of the more inflammatory passages.   The kind of fishing that’s done, C & E, C & R, fly, spoon, plug, bait–it all depends on who when what where and why.  The conditions, the fishing pressure, the fish populations, the locale. . . . But no matter what, we all like to fish; we all want to protect fish and fishing.   Mark Kelly, Steve Dsrt Traveler, Peter Charles, Moe, Ralph, Ernie, others (I don’t have all the names in front of me) have made good points–but it comes down to what Mark said–we all like to fish, we ought all,  finally, to support each other, and that’s exactly what I want to come back to. I’ve eaten  fish, I’ve  released fish, I’ve caught ‘em through the long years on worms, eggs, spoons, plugs, flies, treble hooks, barbless hooks, tiny hooks, big hooks, wild fish, hatchery fish, in pretty places, mucky places, and all of it,  any of it, well, "if it ain’t fun" I don’t know what is.  And the older you get, the more pleasant the memories of it all are.  Like all of us, I just wish we could all do more of it.   It’s fun if you catch fish or don’t catch fish, fun to watch others fish, to watch others catch fish.  I think it was Mark who fetched me up, properly, to remember that if we fight among ourselves, we don’t do the fishing world any good at all, but rather harm.   So I don’t want to rub sores, nor much care any more to wander off into the realms of mythology or animalism or primitivism or anthropology or philosophy. . .fishin’ is fishin’.   When we come down to earth, we know that.  In our better selves, we all know it:   Fishin’ is fishin’.   Exactly that. Years ago I read, "Smoke is only smoke to me, now that I am old."  So, Fishing is fishing.  Like the Water Rat said in The Wind in the Willows: Come along over some time.  We’ll drop down to the river and make a day of it. Jess Thompson

Response:

Hello all, Please believe that I stumbled quite innocently into the fracus of C & E versus C & R.  And quite tardily.  Believe me also when I say that though I am old, I am not to old to learn, and to re-learn.  I should retract the statement  that I "slanted {the article Catch and Eat} purposely to arouse debate."   Talking over the pros and cons of a question, in a friendly fashion, I enjoy, but not dispute and name-calling.

Well Jess, that whole subject is something of a sore spot around here. You can’t even mention it without starting a huge rucus. It’s more correct to say that I wrote it rather, partly, in defense of those who received venomous messages for their positions.  And, because I had seen at times, on TV, what appeared to be careless C & R; and, because I think it’s okay to eat a fish now and then.  And surely, in the heat of reaction, I got a bit carried away.  If I had let the article cool longer, I would have toned down some of the more inflammatory passages.

Ah!  Not to worry. <snip So I don’t want to rub sores, nor much care any more to wander off into the realms of mythology or animalism or primitivism or anthropology or philosophy. . .fishin’ is fishin’.   When we come down to earth, we know that.  In our better selves, we all know it:   Fishin’ is fishin’. Exactly that.

I agree whole-heartedly.  I seems though, that there is a rather curious factor involved.  It seems that FFing is taking on a religious quality complete with orthodoxy, traditions, dogma, and theology.  It schmecks of fundamentalism with the "our way or no way" attitude you see on our trout streams.  A blinkered ideology that leaves little or no room for ideas outside strict adherance to the status quo. But you sir are right.  Fishin’ is Fishin’.  No more no less.  I can’t save the world, hell it won’t even save the rivers.  Better to enjoy it for what it is, rather than what we may want it to be. Years ago I read, "Smoke is only smoke to me, now that I am old."  So, Fishing is fishing.  Like the Water Rat said in The Wind in the Willows: Come along over some time.  We’ll drop down to the river and make a day of it. Jess Thompson

Well said sir. </c — </chaz Chaz Clover The Paved Earth Society http://www.rmi.net/~clover/pave_the_earth   "Why Not Just Get On With It?"

Response:

Question:

I am going to visit my daughter in Lansdale, PA over March 8 for a few days. I have fished the Little LeHigh a couple of times but would like the names of other streams which are open this time of the year and fairly close to Lansdale since I have use of her car between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. while she is working. What patterns might be useful at this time of year.  Thanks in advance.   Jim

Response:

I am going to visit my daughter in Lansdale, PA over March 8 for a few days. I have fished the Little LeHigh a couple of times but would like the names of other streams which are open this time of the year and fairly close to Lansdale since I have use of her car between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. while she is working. What patterns might be useful at this time of year.  Thanks in advance.   Jim

Jim, the trout season will not be open here at that time of year.  Your only bet for flyfishing at that time of year is to try some of the many special regulation areas that are open year-round.  These will be listed in your fishing regulation summary that you get when you buy your license.  I’d try to stick to the spring creeks that time of year, (Little Lehigh, Valley, and Monocacy), as the freestoners are not at their best yet.

Response:

Question:

I have figured out how to use fiberoptics to backlight a chest pack.  It has no direct light to scare trout, used red light, and only needs a couple of AAA batteries.

Well done ! Do you all think that this is marketable?  I could retrofit most chest packs for under $35, which is chump change to fly fishing (or so Orvis seems to think)….

Of course it’s marketable.  I won’t buy one though.  What fun would night fishing be if you had a reliable light ? TimW

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have figured out how to use fiberoptics to backlight a chest pack.  It has no direct light to scare trout, used red light, and only needs a couple of AAA batteries. Do you all think that this is marketable?  I could retrofit most chest packs for under $35, which is chump change to fly fishing (or so Orvis seems to think)…. No, it’s too cheap and inconspicuous.  What’s the fun of buying flyfishing stuff if every yahoo can afford it and no one can see it?  I’d rather ostentatiously pull the Honda generator out of my Orvis Jeep Cherokee, crank her up so that all can hear me and run the power out to me while I’m in the stream.  That way I can use a halogen lamp to read the faxes coming in from my broker in Japan over my handheld cellular fax machine. Plus, without a direct light, who’ll be able to see me?  And even if they could, won’t a red light throw off my color coordinated vest and hat?  Sounds like a bad idea to me. Musconet

Great stuff, I love off-season :-

Response:

Question:

To all interested;      I posted about a new web page that I had created, on flyfishing, but forgot to give the address.  No one said you had to be bright to work with a computer but it sometimes help.  So here is the address "http://infoave.net/~bptrav1" it might be a liitle easier to find this way.  The page is new so any suggestions will be appreciated.  In the near future I am going to make this sight into an online flyfishing magezine with help,how to and advice for the flyfishing advocates out there.  So please take a look and E-mail me any suggestions or something you would like to post on the page.                               Thanks                               Ben Powell

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | | I just saw Sinead Oconner on Letterman and I liked her better without | hair, at least that way you could use your imagination and THINK she MIGHT | be cute.  Now that I’ve seen her with hair I know for sure she’s ugly. | | Man, that’s so fucking rude.  Who gives a FUCK what you fucking think | of what the performer LOOKS like?  Was the performance good?  A | resounding "yes" is the answer.  So fuck off and go back to the | chauvanistic bozo-zone you came from.  (You must be male, because | only a broken chromosomed piece of shit would even bother to | think–and I use that term loosely–this way.) | | Heidi wow      /;    ;                                             /{__/   `’____               ___   (o)  (o  }                                           __/          :–’                                                 _    `__      Moo                       ___(o’o)                                                   (  `====’                                                     !                                      /     |    /  

OOOOO LOOK  AN INSPIRAL CARPETS FAN!!!!

Response:

chauvanistic bozo-zone you came from.  (You must be male, because only a broken chromosomed piece of shit would even bother to think–and I use that term loosely–this way.)

Oooo…a male basher….I really hate it when some two bit cunt assaults me for being male because of the stupidity of one other male…beleive me, there are a lot of stupid females in this world too. -(CJW)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just saw Sinead Oconner on Letterman and I liked her better without hair, at least that way you could use your imagination and THINK she MIGHT be cute.  Now that I’ve seen her with hair I know for sure she’s ugly. Man, that’s so fucking rude.  Who gives a FUCK what you fucking think of what the performer LOOKS like?  Was the performance good?  A resounding "yes" is the answer.  So fuck off and go back to the chauvanistic bozo-zone you came from.  (You must be male, because only a broken chromosomed piece of shit would even bother to think–and I use that term loosely–this way.) Heidi —      So what about KEANU REEVES?  Choosing one of today’s least able (but

Anyone who’s seen Hush a Bye Baby (film) in which Sinead wears a long wig, knows that she is visually attractive. Do people always swear as much on this newsgroup. Andrew in Belfast.

Response:

I just saw Sinead Oconner on Letterman and I liked her better without hair, at least that way you could use your imagination and THINK she MIGHT be cute.  Now that I’ve seen her with hair I know for sure she’s ugly.

Man, that’s so fucking rude.  Who gives a FUCK what you fucking think of what the performer LOOKS like?  Was the performance good?  A resounding "yes" is the answer.  So fuck off and go back to the chauvanistic bozo-zone you came from.  (You must be male, because only a broken chromosomed piece of shit would even bother to think–and I use that term loosely–this way.) Heidi —      So what about KEANU REEVES?  Choosing one of today’s least able (but

Response:

I just saw Sinead Oconner on Letterman and I liked her better without hair, at least that way you could use your imagination and THINK she MIGHT be cute.  Now that I’ve seen her with hair I know for sure she’s ugly. Man, that’s so fucking rude.  Who gives a FUCK what you fucking think of what the performer LOOKS like?  Was the performance good?  A resounding "yes" is the answer.  So fuck off and go back to the chauvanistic bozo-zone you came from.  (You must be male, because only a broken chromosomed piece of shit would even bother to think–and I use that term loosely–this way.) Heidi

I thought she looked great.  she put on a good show.  I wish dave would have talked to her though. ryan http://www.xmission.com/~ryshaw snowboarding/NIN/flyfishing/The Jeffersons

Response:

I just saw Sinead Oconner on Letterman and I liked her better without hair, at least that way you could use your imagination and THINK she MIGHT be cute.  Now that I’ve seen her with hair I know for sure she’s ugly.

Response: