A reminder about posting guidelines

[ryc72]

I’m not a super active poster but I do enjoy this forum and appreciate the wealth of knowledge of many of the participants. I have a lot of respect and gratitude for the work the moderators and others put in to this resource.

On a separate note, can anyone help me with my inquiry in the Pennsylvania traveller section of the forum? For the life of me I can’t remember the place and can’t find it again!!!

http://www.paflyfish.com/forums/Member-Forums/The-Pennsylvania-Fly-Fishing-Traveler/Burger-shack-off-rte-80---/32,50340.html


Burger Shack

 

[drakeking412]

good mods. Thank you for everything you do.

 

[FarmerDave]

BOTTLED WATER!

I just found this thread while waiting to go to the Dentist. After reading it, the dentist appointment doesn't seem so bad.

I've been on here on and of for around 25 years.

This is DK's site and not a democracy. What DK says, goes. We don't have to like it. But we do have to accept it, or go elsewhere. Or at least post the questionable stuff elsewhere.

NO REBUTTAL!

;-)

I support the work that the mods have done. Well, except for Maurice, but only because he won't share his salsa recipe with me. ;-)

 

[gulfgreyhound]

I agree with Farmer Dave. I also don't have the Salsa Recipe,whats up with that, Mo?
GG

 

[greenghost]

FarmerDave wrote:

This is DK's site and not a democracy. What DK says, goes. We don't have to like it. But we do have to accept it, or go elsewhere. Or at least post the questionable stuff elsewhere.

What he said.

 

[greenghost]

Here’s an example of what can happen to a site if it gets too political and angry, even as topics directly apply to fly fishing. Years ago, there was a flyfishing site based in central PA. It was a VERY popular site with every fly angler who ever fished central PA waters contributing. But it wasn’t well moderated.

Then along came Donny Beaver, his exclusive fishing club, and the controversary of his posting the river itself, not just the access. The website ignited with the politics of the situation. In essence it became the rallying site to fight against Beaver. I suspect there was an element of surveillance on the site from Beaver’s cohorts. It became actionable. Threats were common. “Discussions” became out of hand.

One thing led to another and the creator of the site—who initially wanted nothing more than a place for anglers to discuss how to tie a elk hair comp dun or properly fish a midge pupae—had to shut the whole thing down. It was truly a shame.

 

[PennypackFlyer]

MODERATOR LIFE'S MATTER

I greatly appreciate all the moderators do for this great forum. Keep up the great work.

Stay Safe, Stay Healthy everyone. And hopefully we can all get together, party, Flyfish and share memories soon.

 

[linwood]

jifigz wrote:

I'm a serious note, I am grateful for this site and I really appreciate it. It has put me in touch with new people, allowed me to meet new friends, and hopefully I'll meet many more of you over the years. If next summer is "normal" y'all can come back to the Juniata and camp in my yard.

Sounds good, jifigz. Great time.

 

[wgmiller]

To me it seems pretty simple: follow board rules or get moderated/banned. For all intents and purposes, this site belongs to Dave and if those are the rules Dave wants to enact and enforce, as posters we either abide them or we don't. I've always found it entertaining when it comes to people who want "free speech" on privately owned sites (social media, forums, etc.). Their site, their rules!

 

I think that if we are to take the idea of discussing conservation and fisheries even remotely seriously, we must acknowledge that there are virtually no conservation and/or fisheries discussions, save for perhaps those at the single creek or TU chapter level that can be had without wading into politics. And that's because it doesn't matter whether you're talking about permitting for industrial projects that affect waterways, fish and game departments, state and municipal funding for restoration projects, hatchery issues, regulations and their impact on conservation, etc ... it's all politically tied.

 

[DaveKile]

qb1grevz wrote:
I think that if we are to take the idea of discussing conservation and fisheries even remotely seriously, we must acknowledge that there are virtually no conservation and/or fisheries discussions, save for perhaps those at the single creek or TU chapter level that can be had without wading into politics. And that's because it doesn't matter whether you're talking about permitting for industrial projects that affect waterways, fish and game departments, state and municipal funding for restoration projects, hatchery issues, regulations and their impact on conservation, etc ... it's all politically tied.

Agree and conversations about conservation likely would include some form of politics. I'm for those kind of conversations, especially at the state and local levels. Everytime we get to the national level politics it devolves into a red vs blue thing and it gets nasty. If we can talk about those topics without mud being thrown it will be welcome.