Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
So I went out tonight just to mess around up at Webster Lake. Started
with a very nice 3 lb largemouth then a 3 lb smallmouth and hit a
beautiful 21" pickerel all on a purple Senko of all things.

At that point I decided to see if I could hit a full cycle of known
fish species in the lake. I had some really awful smelling blood bait
from the last time I went cat fishing at Mashapaug in Union, so I
reset one pole for cat fishing and hit a good size (1 1/2 lb) bulhead
(sometimes known as a horn pout, yellow pout, etc.) and a decent stone
cat off the gravel bed near Webster Memorial Beach. Cats are just
soooo easy. :)

At that point, I felt it just wouldn't be complete without a bluegill,
pumpkin seed and crappie.

Got 'em on ultra light spinning rig with minnow shaped 1/8 ounce jigs.

So, got the cycle.

Now if I could only find those pike that are continuously rumored to
be in the lake.

WHOO HOO!!


Northern?

Any muskie in there?

Both great fighting fish but quite finicky and tough to catch.

If I remember, it takes 1,000 casts to catch a muskie. We went after muskie
at Lake Chautauqua in NY about a dozen years ago. You could see the damn
things warming themselves in 10" of water but they would not go after any
sort of lure. Trying it in deep water was equally nonproductive. I have
yet to catch one.

Northern pike used to populate Lake Erie, in fact my Dad had a nice one he
caught and mounted I don't know if they are still around in the Lake as I
have not heard of anyone catching one in recent years.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:03:35 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @
pffftt.com wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
So I went out tonight just to mess around up at Webster Lake. Started
with a very nice 3 lb largemouth then a 3 lb smallmouth and hit a
beautiful 21" pickerel all on a purple Senko of all things.

At that point I decided to see if I could hit a full cycle of known
fish species in the lake. I had some really awful smelling blood bait
from the last time I went cat fishing at Mashapaug in Union, so I
reset one pole for cat fishing and hit a good size (1 1/2 lb) bulhead
(sometimes known as a horn pout, yellow pout, etc.) and a decent stone
cat off the gravel bed near Webster Memorial Beach. Cats are just
soooo easy. :)

At that point, I felt it just wouldn't be complete without a bluegill,
pumpkin seed and crappie.

Got 'em on ultra light spinning rig with minnow shaped 1/8 ounce jigs.

So, got the cycle.

Now if I could only find those pike that are continuously rumored to
be in the lake.

WHOO HOO!!

Northern?

Supposedly. There are pike in several natural lakes in the area that
are spring fed - decent size to boot, but Webster is very warm and
that's not all that conducive to pike and trout.

Any muskie in there?

Nah - muskie are strictly a cold water fish. I've caught three muskie
in my life time - all on big heavy trolling rigs in Minnesota.

Both great fighting fish but quite finicky and tough to catch.

Pike are easy - catch 'em all the time. Muskie are a tad different -
they are temperature sensitive and minor changes in temp will turn
them off. I know a couple of guides in Minnesota and Wisconsin who
are expert muskie fishermen. It takes a lifetime of experience to
properly know when and how to catch muskie.

And to answer your question ahead of time, largest was 56 pounds.

Northern pike used to populate Lake Erie, in fact my Dad had a nice one he
caught and mounted I don't know if they are still around in the Lake as
I
have not heard of anyone catching one in recent years.

You're probably familiar with blue pike then.


Yep. I have never seen one and only heard stories about them.

But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the Lake
that we did not see in past decades.



Too damn bad they are extinct - them's was good eatin'. :)

Never had one.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 07:39:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JimH wrote:


But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the Lake
that we did not see in past decades.


Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing
almost everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I had no
idea it was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with their
gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of certain
sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I have no idea
what the answers might be.

Another reason to join CBF again:

http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=19243
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:


But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time not
to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the Lake
that we did not see in past decades.


Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing almost
everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I had no idea it
was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with their
gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of certain sections
of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I have no idea what the
answers might be.

Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the catch of 9.5
million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial fishing for walleye in
US waters is banned. There were a series of indictments against commercial
fishing companies for their under reporting catches of yellow perch from
2001 to 2003 by over 100 million pounds.

Canada takes out 3.4 million pounds of yellow perch and 7 million pounds of
walleye annually from Lake Erie.

Commercial fishing in Lake Erie was the result of the blue pike becoming
extinct.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:

But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake
Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time
not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the
Lake
that we did not see in past decades.

Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing
almost everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I had no
idea it was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with their
gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of certain
sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I have no idea
what the answers might be.

Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the catch of
9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial fishing for
walleye in US waters is banned. There were a series of indictments
against commercial fishing companies for their under reporting catches of
yellow perch from 2001 to 2003 by over 100 million pounds.

Canada takes out 3.4 million pounds of yellow perch and 7 million pounds
of walleye annually from Lake Erie.

Commercial fishing in Lake Erie was the result of the blue pike becoming
extinct.


I'm not sure I understand why non-farm grown fish, which, in reality,
belong to all of us and none of us, should be harvested commercially.
Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days,
although there are many lobstermen who still use individual traps. But
these rugged individuals are NOT hauling up tons and tons of lobsters with
every haul, and their catches are closely regulated.

Commercial fishing in the Great Lakes (US and Canada) nets 64 million pounds
of fish each year. The take from Lake Erie alone is 23.5 million pounds of
fish, even though it is the second smallest of the Great Lakes.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:

But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake
Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time
not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the
Lake
that we did not see in past decades.

Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing
almost everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I had no
idea it was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with their
gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of certain
sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I have no idea
what the answers might be.

Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the catch of
9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial fishing for
walleye in US waters is banned. There were a series of indictments
against commercial fishing companies for their under reporting catches of
yellow perch from 2001 to 2003 by over 100 million pounds.

Canada takes out 3.4 million pounds of yellow perch and 7 million pounds
of walleye annually from Lake Erie.

Commercial fishing in Lake Erie was the result of the blue pike becoming
extinct.


I'm not sure I understand why non-farm grown fish, which, in reality,
belong to all of us and none of us, should be harvested commercially.
Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days,
although there are many lobstermen who still use individual traps. But
these rugged individuals are NOT hauling up tons and tons of lobsters with
every haul, and their catches are closely regulated.

There was 400 million pounds of fish taken by commercial fishermen out of
the port of Reedville, Virginia, second highest of all major US coastal
ports:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARP.RESULTS

New Bedford, Massachusetts ranks number one for total dollar value of the
catch:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARD.RESULTS

An interesting site:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:

But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake
Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time
not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the
Lake
that we did not see in past decades.

Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing
almost everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I had
no idea it was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with
their gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of certain
sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I have no
idea what the answers might be.
Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the catch
of 9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial fishing for
walleye in US waters is banned. There were a series of indictments
against commercial fishing companies for their under reporting catches
of yellow perch from 2001 to 2003 by over 100 million pounds.

Canada takes out 3.4 million pounds of yellow perch and 7 million
pounds of walleye annually from Lake Erie.

Commercial fishing in Lake Erie was the result of the blue pike
becoming extinct.

I'm not sure I understand why non-farm grown fish, which, in reality,
belong to all of us and none of us, should be harvested commercially.
Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these
days, although there are many lobstermen who still use individual traps.
But these rugged individuals are NOT hauling up tons and tons of
lobsters with every haul, and their catches are closely regulated.

There was 400 million pounds of fish taken by commercial fishermen out of
the port of Reedville, Virginia, second highest of all major US coastal
ports:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARP.RESULTS

New Bedford, Massachusetts ranks number one for total dollar value of the
catch:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARD.RESULTS

An interesting site:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/
\

But that's the whole point. Non-farmed fish is not a resource that
"belongs" to the commercial fishermen.

I understand and I agree. That is why I posted the figures and the links.
The tonnage of fish taken by commercial fisherman is unbelievable.

Although we do need them to supply us with fish, both at the market and
restaurants I wonder how much of the catch is exported?

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:

But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on
Lake Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this
time not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on
the Lake
that we did not see in past decades.

Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing
almost everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I
had no idea it was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with
their gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of
certain sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I
have no idea what the answers might be.
Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the
catch of 9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial
fishing for walleye in US waters is banned. There were a series of
indictments against commercial fishing companies for their under
reporting catches of yellow perch from 2001 to 2003 by over 100
million pounds.

Canada takes out 3.4 million pounds of yellow perch and 7 million
pounds of walleye annually from Lake Erie.

Commercial fishing in Lake Erie was the result of the blue pike
becoming extinct.

I'm not sure I understand why non-farm grown fish, which, in reality,
belong to all of us and none of us, should be harvested commercially.
Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these
days, although there are many lobstermen who still use individual
traps. But these rugged individuals are NOT hauling up tons and tons
of lobsters with every haul, and their catches are closely regulated.

There was 400 million pounds of fish taken by commercial fishermen out
of the port of Reedville, Virginia, second highest of all major US
coastal ports:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARP.RESULTS

New Bedford, Massachusetts ranks number one for total dollar value of
the catch:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARD.RESULTS

An interesting site:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

\

But that's the whole point. Non-farmed fish is not a resource that
"belongs" to the commercial fishermen.

Who does it belong to, why does it belong to them and what is the basis
of their claim to ownership?

Your answer can open up a can of worms that will lay yourself open to a
charge of being a hypocrite, again.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:

But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on
Lake Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this
time not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on
the Lake
that we did not see in past decades.

Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting
sportfishing almost everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf
coasts, but I had no idea it was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with
their gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of
certain sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and
I have no idea what the answers might be.
Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the
catch of 9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial
fishing for walleye in US waters is banned. There were a series
of indictments against commercial fishing companies for their
under reporting catches of yellow perch from 2001 to 2003 by over
100 million pounds.

Canada takes out 3.4 million pounds of yellow perch and 7 million
pounds of walleye annually from Lake Erie.

Commercial fishing in Lake Erie was the result of the blue pike
becoming extinct.
I'm not sure I understand why non-farm grown fish, which, in
reality, belong to all of us and none of us, should be harvested
commercially.
Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these
days, although there are many lobstermen who still use individual
traps. But these rugged individuals are NOT hauling up tons and
tons of lobsters with every haul, and their catches are closely
regulated.
There was 400 million pounds of fish taken by commercial fishermen
out of the port of Reedville, Virginia, second highest of all major
US coastal ports:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARP.RESULTS

New Bedford, Massachusetts ranks number one for total dollar value
of the catch:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARD.RESULTS

An interesting site:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

\

But that's the whole point. Non-farmed fish is not a resource that
"belongs" to the commercial fishermen.

Who does it belong to, why does it belong to them and what is the
basis of their claim to ownership?

Your answer can open up a can of worms that will lay yourself open to
a charge of being a hypocrite, again.


I started earlier that I believe non-farmed marine resources belong to
everyone and to no one. I have always been opposed to large-scale
"harvesting" of resources such as these, "harvesting" of trees in the
national forests, sale of oil and reserves that are under public lands,
et cetera. I do believe there should be severe limits on the the gross
exploitation of non-farmed marine life.

Do you own your the land around your house?

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:

But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on
Lake Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate,
this time not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems
on the Lake
that we did not see in past decades.

Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting
sportfishing almost everywhere along the US east, west, and
gulf coasts, but I had no idea it was a problem in the inland
lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets
with their gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish
out of certain sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real
problem, and I have no idea what the answers might be.
Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the
catch of 9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually.
Commercial fishing for walleye in US waters is banned. There
were a series of indictments against commercial fishing
companies for their under reporting catches of yellow perch from
2001 to 2003 by over 100 million pounds.

Canada takes out 3.4 million pounds of yellow perch and 7
million pounds of walleye annually from Lake Erie.

Commercial fishing in Lake Erie was the result of the blue pike
becoming extinct.
I'm not sure I understand why non-farm grown fish, which, in
reality, belong to all of us and none of us, should be harvested
commercially.
Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens
these days, although there are many lobstermen who still use
individual traps. But these rugged individuals are NOT hauling up
tons and tons of lobsters with every haul, and their catches are
closely regulated.
There was 400 million pounds of fish taken by commercial fishermen
out of the port of Reedville, Virginia, second highest of all
major US coastal ports:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARP.RESULTS

New Bedford, Massachusetts ranks number one for total dollar value
of the catch:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/MF..._YEARD.RESULTS

An interesting site:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

\

But that's the whole point. Non-farmed fish is not a resource that
"belongs" to the commercial fishermen.
Who does it belong to, why does it belong to them and what is the
basis of their claim to ownership?

Your answer can open up a can of worms that will lay yourself open
to a charge of being a hypocrite, again.

I started earlier that I believe non-farmed marine resources belong
to everyone and to no one. I have always been opposed to large-scale
"harvesting" of resources such as these, "harvesting" of trees in the
national forests, sale of oil and reserves that are under public
lands, et cetera. I do believe there should be severe limits on the
the gross exploitation of non-farmed marine life.

Do you own your the land around your house?


What's your point here, Bert? My house does not sit on public land.

Ownership of the resource determines how the resource can be utilized?

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:23:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these
days

Are you sure about that?

References?

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Bert Robbins wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

What's your point here, Bert? My house does not sit on public land.

Ownership of the resource determines how the resource can be utilized?



To a limited degree, sometimes. For land, zoning is an issue, as is the
availability of water, sewage, roads, et cetera. There are also building
codes and various restrictions. This is for private land, of course.


And more and more often nowadays, strict conservation laws, state and town,
to determine what you can do with "your" land.

Eisboch

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:23:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these
days

I'm sure that Harry's information will come as a complete surprise to the
Maine lobstermen, as they still have thousands of lobster pots set off the
coast of Maine. Or maybe they know, but keep setting traps just to please
the folks from away.

Holding lobsters in pens is common in Canada, but not raising them in pens.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:23:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days

Are you sure about that?
References?



My last trip to Maine, where I spent three weeks on various islands and
in the company of lobstermen. Most of them grow their lobsters in pens,
check on them daily, and harvest them when they reach legal size or larger.

Note that there are many lobstermen who still use individual pots.
Harry,

I was surprised to learn that most of Maine Lobsters are grown in pens,
are you basing this on anything more than your last trip to Maine?

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:46:49 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Note that there are many lobstermen who still use individual pots.

That's for sure.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:23:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these
days
Are you sure about that? References?


My last trip to Maine, where I spent three weeks on various islands
and in the company of lobstermen. Most of them grow their lobsters in
pens, check on them daily, and harvest them when they reach legal
size or larger.

Note that there are many lobstermen who still use individual pots.
Harry,

I was surprised to learn that most of Maine Lobsters are grown in
pens, are you basing this on anything more than your last trip to Maine?



Try reading for content, numnutz. Most of the lobstermen with whom I
visited grow lobsters in pens. Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine
lobsters are grown in pens." These same lobstermen, many of them, also
use traditional pots.

These pens, by the way, are not on land. They're off the shore a ways,
perhaps a mile, typically in coves around the islands. Some of them are
run as cooperatives.


wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these
days

Harry why the anger? When I read the above, I thought you wrote that
statement, and it sounded a little far fetched. If you did write that
statement, doesn't it say Maine lobsters are mostly grown in holding
pens these days?

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
My last trip to Maine, where I spent three weeks on various islands and
in the company of lobstermen. Most of them grow their lobsters in pens,
check on them daily, and harvest them when they reach legal size or
larger.

Note that there are many lobstermen who still use individual pots.
Harry,

Harry needs to learn that when caught in a BS story it's best to just 'fess
up. I'd love to learn just where these massive lobster pens are located.
Let's be clear; no one is raising lobsters in pens in Maine for commercial
use. The only island Harry has visited is Fantasy Island.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:23:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens
these days
Are you sure about that? References?

My last trip to Maine, where I spent three weeks on various islands
and in the company of lobstermen. Most of them grow their lobsters
in pens, check on them daily, and harvest them when they reach
legal size or larger.

Note that there are many lobstermen who still use individual pots.
Harry,

I was surprised to learn that most of Maine Lobsters are grown in
pens, are you basing this on anything more than your last trip to
Maine?


Try reading for content, numnutz. Most of the lobstermen with whom I
visited grow lobsters in pens. Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine
lobsters are grown in pens." These same lobstermen, many of them,
also use traditional pots.

These pens, by the way, are not on land. They're off the shore a
ways, perhaps a mile, typically in coves around the islands. Some of
them are run as cooperatives.


wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens
these
days

Harry why the anger? When I read the above, I thought you wrote that
statement, and it sounded a little far fetched. If you did write that
statement, doesn't it say Maine lobsters are mostly grown in holding
pens these days?






"Reggie," there isn't anything you post here that interests me.
Play your d.f. games with someone else, ok?

I'll be glad to consider taking you seriously when you have a real
identity here.

Good night.

Harry,
When I first read that statement I thought you might have actually knew
something about the Maine lobster industry, based upon your
overreaction to my simple question to your statement, it seems I hit a
sensitive nerve. Sorry.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
As one example, f.w., there are onshore and offshore lobster pounds and on
Swans Island. In fact, there is an institute in Maine for the pounding of
lobsters.

Here is a webpage that shows a Maine lobster pen and pound that has been
operating for more than 100 years.

http://www.riverviewlobsterpoundcott...gmainelob.html


It appears that this is a holding pen, much like that used extensively in
Canada. They are not "raising" lobsters, just holding lobsters over to
maximize profits.

It's not a crime to be wrong Harry, if it were you'd be doing 20-to-life.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry, I'm done with this. Every six months or so I disable my killfile to
see just what BS you're throwing at the moment. You never fail to make the
visit worthwhile. You lie as naturally as others breathe, and conjure up an
amazing amount of indignation when caught. You have provided many hours of
amusement over the years, please don't stop your posts. I'll see you in 6
months.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:


But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time not
to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the Lake
that we did not see in past decades.


Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing almost
everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I had no idea it
was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with their
gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of certain sections
of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I have no idea what the
answers might be.

Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the catch of
9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial fishing for
walleye in US waters is banned. There were a series of indictments
against commercial fishing companies for their under reporting catches of
yellow perch from 2001 to 2003 by over 100 million pounds.

Holy smokes. In a three year period where they were permitted to take just
under 30 million pounds, they under-reported by 100 million pounds? That
means they exceeded their limit by more than 300%?

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days


Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."

I'm not sure how those two statements differ.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days


Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."

I'm not sure how those two statements differ.



It looks very similar to me.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:58:12 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

If there's a tougher way for a small businessman to make an everyday
living, I'm not aware of it. Working on these small lobsterboats is
brutal, backbreaking, dangerous and not really renumerative.

That's contrary to what we've been told in Maine. Just from our
observation, many of them are driving new heavy duty trucks, and party
hearty on week ends. Not saying it's an easy job, but it does look
rewarding for those who work at it. And I don't think you could pay
them enough to take an office job.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:15:15 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Here is a webpage that shows a Maine lobster pen and pound that has been
operating for more than 100 years.

http://www.riverviewlobsterpoundcott...gmainelob.html

My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that lobster pounds in Maine
are used for holding lobster that are caught by conventional means,
until ready for market. Sometimes that means waiting for better
seasonal pricing.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:15:15 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Here is a webpage that shows a Maine lobster pen and pound that has been
operating for more than 100 years.

http://www.riverviewlobsterpoundcott...gmainelob.html

My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that lobster pounds in Maine
are used for holding lobster that are caught by conventional means,
until ready for market. Sometimes that means waiting for better
seasonal pricing.


The lobster pound in the link Harry provided is exactly that, as they
say on the web page it allows them to "buy low and sell high".

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:23:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens
these days
Are you sure about that? References?

My last trip to Maine, where I spent three weeks on various islands
and in the company of lobstermen. Most of them grow their lobsters
in pens, check on them daily, and harvest them when they reach
legal size or larger.

Note that there are many lobstermen who still use individual pots.
Harry,

I was surprised to learn that most of Maine Lobsters are grown in
pens, are you basing this on anything more than your last trip to
Maine?


Try reading for content, numnutz. Most of the lobstermen with whom I
visited grow lobsters in pens. Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine
lobsters are grown in pens." These same lobstermen, many of them,
also use traditional pots.

These pens, by the way, are not on land. They're off the shore a
ways, perhaps a mile, typically in coves around the islands. Some of
them are run as cooperatives.


wrote:

Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens
these
days

Harry why the anger? When I read the above, I thought you wrote that
statement, and it sounded a little far fetched. If you did write that
statement, doesn't it say Maine lobsters are mostly grown in holding
pens these days?






"Reggie," there isn't anything you post here that interests me.
Play your d.f. games with someone else, ok?

I'll be glad to consider taking you seriously when you have a real
identity here.

Good night.

Harry, didn't your mother tell you that telling lies is a like spiraling
down a pit with no ladder to get you out.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
John Wentworth wrote:
Harry, I'm done with this. Every six months or so I disable my
killfile to see just what BS you're throwing at the moment.

A. You're not done.
B. You're lying.
C. It doesn't matter what you do, here or elsewhere.
D. You remind me of a little boy with a peashooter who, after firing off
a shot, shoves the tube down his pants pocket and says, "Who, me?"
and then runs and hides.

Harry, you can keep denying that you didn't know what you were talking
about or you can continue to try and deflect all criticism and proof
that you were wrong again. Either way you go you have still stepped into
a pile of crap and refuse to believe that you stink.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:


But thanks to the excessive catches by commercial fisherman on Lake
Erie
walleye and yellow perch may also soon face the same fate, this time
not to
pollution, although we are seeing new water quality problems on the
Lake
that we did not see in past decades.


Excessive catches by commercial fishermen are hurting sportfishing
almost everywhere along the US east, west, and gulf coasts, but I had no
idea it was a problem in the inland lakes, too.

A big part of the problem for us: the foreign fishing fleets with their
gargantuan ships that literally suck all the fish out of certain
sections of the ocean. Overfishing is a real problem, and I have no idea
what the answers might be.

Commercial fishing in the US waters of Lake Erie results in the catch of
9.5 million pounds of yellow perch annually. Commercial fishing for
walleye in US waters is banned. There were a series of indictments
against commercial fishing companies for their under reporting catches of
yellow perch from 2001 to 2003 by over 100 million pounds.

Holy smokes. In a three year period where they were permitted to take
just under 30 million pounds, they under-reported by 100 million pounds?
That means they exceeded their limit by more than 300%?




Yep. The estimates ranged from 70 million to 150 million. I chose
something in between.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:


As a matter of absolute fact, aquaculture of lobsters in Maine and
elsewhere is a substantial and growing business. It's not a year-round
business in Maine, but there is no question that there are lobster pens
and pounds that operate similarly to cattle feedlots, and it wouldn't
surprise me to learn that someone somewhere is "growing" lobsters from
hatchlings to fingerlings to whatever the "correct" terminology is for
commerical exploitation.


This has been an interesting thread, until I read your link to Riverview
Lobster Pound I had no idea they used holding pens for lobsters
to "buy low and sell high", but since Lobsters must be kept alive, it
really does make sense. As they said on your link:

Riverview Lobster Pound was built in 1888 by Freeman Grover.
The design uses the tide to clean and refresh the holding area.
The area of this pound is two acres of surface and can accommodate
over 50,000 pounds of lobsters comfortably. The tidal lobster pound
works like a cattle feedlot. Buy low and sell high !!! In the past
120 years it has worked a few times

But this is much different than most lobsters in Maine are grown in
holding pens. They are held in the holding pens waiting for market
prices to rise. So you can understand why I was amazed when you
described your 3 week trip working with lobstermen illegally harversting
lobsters.

"My last trip to Maine, where I spent three weeks on various islands
and in the company of lobstermen. Most of them grow their lobsters
in pens, check on them daily, and harvest them when they reach legal
size or larger."

What you were describing illegal harvesting of lobsters, and I could not
believe that most of the lobsters from Maine are harvested illegally.
The lobster can not be harversted from the sea unless they are legal
size. As soon as the traps are raised, any lobsters that are not market
size are throw back into the water. The logic in this, is your want the
lobsters to reproduce where they live, not in a holding pen or pound.
Lobsters are very territorial and become cannibalistic when held in a
pen or pound, which is why they have bands on their claws. Lobstermen
can not catch them, and then place them in the pen or pound waiting for
them to become legal size.

Now you might have spent 3 weeks with lobstermen who grew illegal caught
lobsters in pens before sending them to market, but I just didn't think
it could represent the majority of Maine Lobsters sold in the US.

I tried to find some info on agri-farming of lobsters in the US but I
too could not find any info.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

As a matter of absolute fact, aquaculture of lobsters in Maine and
elsewhere is a substantial and growing business. It's not a
year-round business in Maine, but there is no question that there are
lobster pens and pounds that operate similarly to cattle feedlots,
and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that someone somewhere is
"growing" lobsters from hatchlings to fingerlings to whatever the
"correct" terminology is for commerical exploitation.


This has been an interesting thread, until I read your link to
Riverview Lobster Pound I had no idea they used holding pens for lobsters
to "buy low and sell high", but since Lobsters must be kept alive, it
really does make sense. As they said on your link:

Riverview Lobster Pound was built in 1888 by Freeman Grover.
The design uses the tide to clean and refresh the holding area.
The area of this pound is two acres of surface and can accommodate
over 50,000 pounds of lobsters comfortably. The tidal lobster pound
works like a cattle feedlot. Buy low and sell high !!! In the past
120 years it has worked a few times

But this is much different than most lobsters in Maine are grown in
holding pens. They are held in the holding pens waiting for market
prices to rise. So you can understand why I was amazed when you
described your 3 week trip working with lobstermen illegally
harversting lobsters.

"My last trip to Maine, where I spent three weeks on various islands
and in the company of lobstermen. Most of them grow their lobsters
in pens, check on them daily, and harvest them when they reach legal
size or larger."

What you were describing illegal harvesting of lobsters, and I could
not believe that most of the lobsters from Maine are harvested illegally.
The lobster can not be harversted from the sea unless they are legal
size. As soon as the traps are raised, any lobsters that are not
market size are throw back into the water. The logic in this, is your
want the lobsters to reproduce where they live, not in a holding pen
or pound. Lobsters are very territorial and become cannibalistic when
held in a pen or pound, which is why they have bands on their claws.
Lobstermen can not catch them, and then place them in the pen or pound
waiting for them to become legal size.

Now you might have spent 3 weeks with lobstermen who grew illegal
caught lobsters in pens before sending them to market, but I just
didn't think it could represent the majority of Maine Lobsters sold in
the US.

I tried to find some info on agri-farming of lobsters in the US but I
too could not find any info.




Yes, Reggie, I can read web pages, too. Report back when you actually
know something first hand, eh? And have a real name.

Until then...hasta.

I think we all have learned more than we knew about Lobsters before this
thread started, isn't that what the NG is all about, learning something
new, sharing that info. If you had asked any of the Lobster men or even
the locals about the Lobster Pounds they would have told you they were
holding pens, not "growing pens". Sometimes you learn much more by
asking questions and listening. I had a college professor tell me you
never learn anything when you are talking. His point was to get us to
learn how to ask probing questions and then shut up. It is amazing how
much you can learn when you are not talking.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

I think we all have learned more than we knew about Lobsters before
this thread started, isn't that what the NG is all about, learning
something new, sharing that info. If you had asked any of the Lobster
men or even the locals about the Lobster Pounds they would have told
you they were holding pens, not "growing pens". Sometimes you learn
much more by asking questions and listening. I had a college
professor tell me you never learn anything when you are talking. His
point was to get us to learn how to ask probing questions and then
shut up. It is amazing how much you can learn when you are not talking.


Yawn. Think this through, college graduate. You put 100 1 pound lobsters
in a pound or pen located in an enclosed area in salt water, pretty much
their natural environment. You tend the pen carefully, and you feed the
lobsters regularly. The ocean waves, currents and flow flush in fresh
water and flush out wastes and scraps.

You pull the lobsters out after X amount of time.

The lobsters now weigh:

1 pound
less than 1 pound
more than 1 pound


Now, if the lobsters you pull out weigh more than 1 pound,
did they grow?

If not, please explain the weight gain.

Thank you.

See it is amazing how much you learned from reading the web pages, that
is the same thing I learned when I read the web pages, except the pens
are used waiting for Market Pricing not waiting for the Lobsters to grow
to legal size. I really didn't know much about the Lobster Industry,
and I don't pretend to know much, but I do know they are not allowed to
harvest undersized Lobsters and keep them in "growing pens" waiting for
them to become legal size. Anyone who had seen a Lobster Man raise one
Lobster trap would have known they NEVER HOLD A LOBSTER WAITING FOR IT
TO GROW TO LEGAL SIZE. Lobster Men are smart enough to know their
industry depends upon the lobsters reproducing, they are not going to be
illegally harvesting illegal sized lobsters and "growing them in
pounds". Even if they looked at everything short sited they are not
risk the heavy fines by illegally harvesting undersized Lobsters.

As I said, since we had this discussion, you know much more about the
Lobster Industry and how Lobster Men harvest their traps and how they
utilize pounds, then you did after your 3 weeks in Maine. That is one
of the great things about NG discussions is how much one can learn from
others.

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:15:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days


Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."

I'm not sure how those two statements differ.



The difference has to do with the placement of the adverb 'mostly'. Harry
did not say, "Lobsters are grown mostly in holding pens these days." The
difference is subtle, but, in Harry's defense, it does exist.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:11:03 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


As I said, since we had this discussion, you know much more about the
Lobster Industry and how Lobster Men harvest their traps and how they
utilize pounds, then you did after your 3 weeks in Maine. That is one
of the great things about NG discussions is how much one can learn from
others.

I disagree entirely with your interpretation here. We are not talking
about the same things. And you wonder out loud from time to time why I
think you are a flaming ass?

Do yourself a favor. Play your little games with someone else. I've been
sitting on a surprise for you for a long, long time now. "reggie."


Harry...I think it would have been easier for you to just admit you
misplaced an adverb.

This was an enlightening thread, however. Without your initial misplaced
modifier, I'd never have learned so much about the lobster business.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:39:52 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:15:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days

Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."
I'm not sure how those two statements differ.



The difference has to do with the placement of the adverb 'mostly'. Harry
did not say, "Lobsters are grown mostly in holding pens these days." The
difference is subtle, but, in Harry's defense, it does exist.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John


I didn't "misplace" anything. I put the word precisely where I wanted it
to be. It isn't my problem if some readers haven't the basic skills
necessary to decode ordinary English sentence. It also is not my problem
that "reggie" is a snarky a'hole.


Some people just admit a small mistake and drive on. Others get bent out of
shape and attack the one making the correction.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:51:03 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:39:52 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:15:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days
Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."
I'm not sure how those two statements differ.


The difference has to do with the placement of the adverb 'mostly'. Harry
did not say, "Lobsters are grown mostly in holding pens these days." The
difference is subtle, but, in Harry's defense, it does exist.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

I didn't "misplace" anything. I put the word precisely where I wanted it
to be. It isn't my problem if some readers haven't the basic skills
necessary to decode ordinary English sentence. It also is not my problem
that "reggie" is a snarky a'hole.


Some people just admit a small mistake and drive on. Others get bent out of
shape and attack the one making the correction.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Please indicate what rule stipulates word placement in the example under
discussion.

11a

"Be Sure That Adverbs Such as 'almost, even, hardly, just, merely, only,
nearly, scarcely' Refer Clearly and Logically to the Words They Modify"

Prentice Hall, "Handbook for Writers", Legget, Meade, Charvat, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1974
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:15:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:51:03 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:39:52 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:15:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days
Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."
I'm not sure how those two statements differ.


The difference has to do with the placement of the adverb 'mostly'. Harry
did not say, "Lobsters are grown mostly in holding pens these days." The
difference is subtle, but, in Harry's defense, it does exist.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
I didn't "misplace" anything. I put the word precisely where I wanted it
to be. It isn't my problem if some readers haven't the basic skills
necessary to decode ordinary English sentence. It also is not my problem
that "reggie" is a snarky a'hole.

Some people just admit a small mistake and drive on. Others get bent out of
shape and attack the one making the correction.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
Please indicate what rule stipulates word placement in the example under
discussion.

11a

"Be Sure That Adverbs Such as 'almost, even, hardly, just, merely, only,
nearly, scarcely' Refer Clearly and Logically to the Words They Modify"

Prentice Hall, "Handbook for Writers", Legget, Meade, Charvat, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1974
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John


That's your cite for a rule? It's a good thing you teach math.

I guess you're well above the Prentice Hall handbook.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:29:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:15:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:51:03 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:39:52 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:15:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days
Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."
I'm not sure how those two statements differ.


The difference has to do with the placement of the adverb 'mostly'. Harry
did not say, "Lobsters are grown mostly in holding pens these days." The
difference is subtle, but, in Harry's defense, it does exist.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
I didn't "misplace" anything. I put the word precisely where I wanted it
to be. It isn't my problem if some readers haven't the basic skills
necessary to decode ordinary English sentence. It also is not my problem
that "reggie" is a snarky a'hole.

Some people just admit a small mistake and drive on. Others get bent out of
shape and attack the one making the correction.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
Please indicate what rule stipulates word placement in the example under
discussion.
11a

"Be Sure That Adverbs Such as 'almost, even, hardly, just, merely, only,
nearly, scarcely' Refer Clearly and Logically to the Words They Modify"

Prentice Hall, "Handbook for Writers", Legget, Meade, Charvat, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1974
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

That's your cite for a rule? It's a good thing you teach math.

I guess you're well above the Prentice Hall handbook.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John


You see, John? Those who are sloppy with language...

I asked you for a rule. You responded with a "Be sure..."

That's not a rule.

Like I say, you know better than the Prentice-Hall folks. All I did was
give you the rule. If you don't like the format, you could substitute "Thou
Shalt" for "Be Sure".

BTW, Nikon is putting on a class for the D200 on October 7th. It will cover
more advanced Nikon camera operations along with the basics of the D200
system. This would be a good way to enhance your photo knowledge from a
Nikon expert.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:03:04 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:29:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:15:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:51:03 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:39:52 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:15:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Maine lobsters, for example, are mostly grown in holding pens these days
Nowhere did I say that "most of Maine lobsters are grown in pens."
I'm not sure how those two statements differ.


The difference has to do with the placement of the adverb 'mostly'. Harry
did not say, "Lobsters are grown mostly in holding pens these days." The
difference is subtle, but, in Harry's defense, it does exist.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
I didn't "misplace" anything. I put the word precisely where I wanted it
to be. It isn't my problem if some readers haven't the basic skills
necessary to decode ordinary English sentence. It also is not my problem
that "reggie" is a snarky a'hole.

Some people just admit a small mistake and drive on. Others get bent out of
shape and attack the one making the correction.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
Please indicate what rule stipulates word placement in the example under
discussion.
11a

"Be Sure That Adverbs Such as 'almost, even, hardly, just, merely, only,
nearly, scarcely' Refer Clearly and Logically to the Words They Modify"

Prentice Hall, "Handbook for Writers", Legget, Meade, Charvat, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1974
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John
That's your cite for a rule? It's a good thing you teach math.
I guess you're well above the Prentice Hall handbook.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

You see, John? Those who are sloppy with language...

I asked you for a rule. You responded with a "Be sure..."

That's not a rule.

Like I say, you know better than the Prentice-Hall folks. All I did was
give you the rule. If you don't like the format, you could substitute "Thou
Shalt" for "Be Sure".


John: It's not a matter of knowing better than the Prentice-Hall folks.
What you quoted is NOT a rule.

*This* is a rule of English:

"Words such as concerned, located, situated, married, divorced, allowed,
permitted and other forms of adjectives must have a verb-to-BE
connecting them to their subjects." (Abd that form of the verb *to be*
can be implied.}

Do you see the difference between "be sure" and "must have"? The latter
is a rule.



BTW, Nikon is putting on a class for the D200 on October 7th. It will cover
more advanced Nikon camera operations along with the basics of the D200
system. This would be a good way to enhance your photo knowledge from a
Nikon expert.


Well, John, take lots of notes and be sure to share them with "reggie."

I gave you a rule for adverbs, not adjectives. Perhaps that is where your
misunderstanding is taking place.

Actually, I was hoping you might be going to the Nikon presentation and
would give me some pointers on how better to use the D200. Reggie and Russ
both seem to know much more than either of us already.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Fishing for the cycle...
 

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:16:41 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:


Actually, I was hoping you might be going to the Nikon presentation and
would give me some pointers on how better to use the D200. Reggie and Russ
both seem to know much more than either of us already.


The only things "reggie" seems to know are the opinions of others he
clips and reposts here. Russ who?

The guy who keeps coming up with the correct information on the pictures
you post.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John