Hey John,

I really do have respect for the members and this Board and I wish to remain 'unbanned'. Thus the acronyms and brevity of my comment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You could find excellent arguments about what evokes trout strikes. Hey, Marinaro believed wings were key. Other renown fly fishers don't agree. Many fly fishers believe in 'imitation' while others opt for 'impression' and while others believe a fly should 'attract' the fish. Still others hold 'presentation' of the fly highest in the scale of importance. There are fly fishers who believe the tippet should float while others are of the opinion that it should be below the surface (less of a shadow or impression on the water?). How about the varied opinions regarding short versus long rods? And certainly there are other points of contention with fly fishers with varying degrees of "opinions".
Byron's opinion, even when supported by illuminary fly fishers, is no more valid then someone else who may or may not have a renown tyer/fisher who shares that opinion. I did not say that we cannot learn from a renown fly fisher such as Harrop. We never stop learning. I'm just saying that any opinion is just that - an opinion. And until someone figures out how to speak to the trout and also have a lie detector machine to rate the trout's answers since they are not likely to give up accurate information(lol), we can have all the opinions we care to express. The opinion that's accurate at any given time is the one whose implementation actually is used to catch the trout. Even then, there may be others in the same area who use another method and catch trout. Thus dual opinions having the same result.
Maybe my answer now has more validity and I've not used any acronyms. OKay, Byrons opinion about using 'flies that closely represent ...' is just his SWAG!

My posts respect this Board and the posters.

Allan