ladyfisher.

Sorry, it looks as if I have kicked a sleeping dog. Your picture of Chico Creek reminded me of the fun we had fishing there. I stopped by your house last month when in Poulsbo, but no one was home. Still thinking of you.

For the record, let me say something to your newer members.
I believe it is important for me here to recognize the fact that if it were not for the aid and encouragement of Ladyfisher and Castwell, the ?dreaded? CCS would never have seen the light of day. Just when I was a the point of chucking the whole thing out, I asked them for their opinion as to whether or not it had any merits. They thought it had some and pointed me in the direction of Tom Kirkman and RodMaker Magazine. The rest is history.

Each online chat group has a character of it?s own, which is usually set by the personal interests of a few of the most vociferous participants. At the time the CCS was first introduced to FAOL, it appeared as if it were a challenge to someone?s manhood. I suppose anyone interested could check the old records. In any event, I moved my efforts to other venues which were deemed to be more receptive or more civil.
Today, the CCS has been established and I am not in the least bit inclined to feel any need to ?defend? it to anyone. It is there. Take it. If you find it useful, use it. If you don?t, then don?t use it.
--------------------------------------------
John Scott--I am speaking for myself.
--------------------------------------------
kbbroctor-- In the light of your later comments, this may be irrelevant, but since I wrote it, here goes--

You say ?While the term may not be correct, it is the one in most common use. I do not hear anyone saying he has a #7 rod. He or she always says they have a 7 weight rod.? I will not argue with what you say. However, until the day all rod makers agree on what a 7 weight rod is, the term has no meaning. On the other hand the Rosetta Stone defines precisely what an ERN=7 rod is.

I really don?t care if the whole world wants to use the meaningless term 7-weight when speaking to each other. However, if they wish to convey some meaningful information to me or to anyone else, they cannot use that term, because the only reason a rod is a 7-weight is because it has the number 7 written on it. Without any standards, any rod can be a 7-weight rod.

The only standards in fly fishing are for tippet diameter (e.g. 5X), AFTMA Line Numbers (weight/30ft), and those defined by the Rosetta Stone. I recognize it offends a number of people to think I would have the audacity to set such standards, but, hell, someone had to do it or we?ll never get anywhere.

You also stated, ? I also understand that this has nothing to do with the forward cast. It is all with loading the rod on the back cast. I need 30 feet of line behind me to load the rod properly. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I routinely have more or less line on my back cast, your Rosetta Stone is useless as it is based on the 30 foot figure.?
For this we have to go back to basics.

The ERN value is determined by the weight (force)required to flex (bend) a rod a distance equal to one third of its length. By definition a rod flexed that distance is called a ?fully loaded? rod relative to an ?underloaded? or ?overloaded? rod. This value is simply a defined standard, but it also correlates with the deflection generated in ?average? casts by ?normal? anglers.

If you look at Figure 6 in my first article you will see the relationship between the ERN and AFTMA Line Number which will produce such a deflection. AFTMA Line Numbers are then converted into ELN values. Again By definition a CCS ?Balanced outfit? is one where ERN=ELN.

Remember, in fly casting one is casting a weight of line. Figure 2 in part 3 shows the relationships among ELN, Weight of line, and Length of line. This again is for a ?balanced outfit.? These are simply reference standards.

Above all, fly fishing is supposed to be a pleasurable activity. Therefore there is no reason one must fish with a CCS Balanced outfit. Fish with an outfit which [b]feels good[/]. You are not going to always cast 30 ft. of line. The CCS simply gives you the tools to be able to predict or define what it is that you like.

Finally, you wrote, ?However, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would refrain from telling me what to discuss and where to discuss it.?
This is one of the problems I have with this forum. Instead of simply discussing matters in objective terms, there is a tendency to take comments too personally. If you will reread my initial post, I believe you will find I asked you to do something and used the word ?please?. How you can construe that to be telling you what to discuss and where to discuss it eludes me. I am too much a curmudgeon to apologize for something I didn?t do.
----------------
Bass_Bug

?And um....30 posts in 6 years? Obvisulsy NOT an (active) particapant on 'this board'!!!!!
And your point is?

----------------

No-tye-much

Very good advice. I did not feel free to mention other venues.
----------------
Buddy Sanders ? It's a shame that he's not more open to discussing it here.?

O.K. you win. Bring on your discussion. Please just remember, it takes a whole lot more time for me to answer a question than for you to ask one.