Re: Conflicting view of definitions

On May 3, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Mark Surtees wrote:

Again? What for ?
The key players here already know what the objections are, and plainly don't agree that there is any merit in them. In the public arena people don't know what it is you/we are objecting to. I think that the terms need to be published first ,there's no point in publishing objections to a set of terms no one has seen.
I think, however, that if these terms are endorsed by the CBOG, I would be very happy to debate their merits with any member of the FFF definitions committee in public. I would offer to do it at this years Conclave but that would be a pricey option for me. Perhaps the euroconclave next year is an option 20mins each, questions from the floor, 5mins to sum up and a for or against vote....anyone, even Frank, ......That would be fun.

:-)

From: Paul Arden
Sent: 03 May 2011 12:45
To: Mark Surtees
Cc: Gordy; Bruce Richards; Guy Manning; charles easterling; gordy hill; <thegammelfamily@xxxxxxxxx>; <dksimo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <timr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <flycast90@xxxxxxx>; <stefan.siikavaara@xxxxxxxxx>; <simbirsw@xxxxxxx>; <grunde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Conflicting view of definitions

I'll put together a comprehensive explanation as to why I/we don't think your definitions work over the next week. I also would like to see a completion of this matter so we can move forward.

After all we are all in the same boat.

Cheers Paul

Sent from my iPhone

On 3 May 2011, at 19:14, "Mark Surtees" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Gordy

Well, “Winter Arm” might have had a say in it but I suspect it had more to do with chucking Clousers on a stiff 8 weight with a 20 knot wind coming onto my casting shoulder. I’m used to using 4 weights in the gentle pollen heavy puffs of pastoral English zephyrs, a size 14 is a big fly for me…..it was definitely demanding…..it most definitely wasn’t pretty…. J

Mark

[The entire original message is not included.]