Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jim Donofrio

Who is the common man?

Rate this topic

47 posts in this topic

Jimmy D:

 

Not sure where you're going with this one...what context do you think Diogenes characterizes the "common man?" Please clarify.

 

Since I talk such good English, biggrin.gif following is excerpted from dictionary.com.

 

1. "Not distinguished by superior or noteworthy characteristics; average"

 

2. "Of no special quality; standard"

 

3. "Of mediocre or inferior quality; second-rate."

 

4. "Unrefined or coarse in manner; vulgar"

 

5. "Those barbarians who do not flyfish and who do not release everything they catch" (just kidding biggrin.gif)

 

This doesn't sound like anyone posting on SOL (well, definition #4 describes me perfectly biggrin.gif ), does it?

 

-FWW

 

 

[This message has been edited by fishweewee (edited 08-01-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointment that this is the type of topic an RFA leader chooses to post on a public forum.

 

I vastly prefer the type of work you (we) are trying to accomplish w/ the bunker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim- I'm not sure where yer going with this idea... I've paid some attention to the posts you're referring to, and I feel this is turning into an 'us' VS 'them' in an ongoing personal fight w/ Dio. I truly hope you're right about the state of the fishery and I'm banking on a positive, forceful response from the RFA when the management plan gets amended (been a member for approx. 5 yrs, and just renewed for another three--) Please prove me wrong that yer not just taking shots at the CCA due to your own preferences... thanks Bob Burger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why focus on petty bickering? Let's work constructively to define and discuss important issues at hand. Open discussion and exchange of ideas and information....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The common man has been defined and exploited over the years by various groups wishing to promote a certain point of view. The definition remains nebulous. I suppose that the motive of this topic is to paint someone with a certain viewpoint a certain shade.

 

[This message has been edited by Jim B (edited 08-01-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a honest shot at answering this. Now I can't speak for Diogenes, so I'll just give ya my perspective on the "common man".

 

The "common man", at least in the fishing lingo/eviron we are discussing him, is someone who takes no real interest in the fishing or all that it involves. He is the 2 time/year party boat angler. He doesn't concern himself with buying fancy tackle, researching the best rods, or even gearing up for his 2 trips on the party boats each year. He uses the rental rods and lures/rigs/bait that that the boat supplies. He may very well enjoy the fishing that he is doing, but he can't justify the trip if he doesn't get to bring back something dead. He has no interest in what F=, no interest in conservation because he believes in his heart that the gov't will take care of it..just like he believes the government will take care of everything else. He works hard at his job and would just assume not worry about population models, he's never heard of the RFA or the CCA and he could care less. He's a good guy, middle class, who's real love is his wife and children. If it rains the day he was going to go out on the party boat, he and his buddies just as happily spend the afternoon at the racetrack. Being that he's only superficially involved with fishing, he keeps whatever is legal because that's what the mates tell him to do. If he's bluefishing and only want to take two home, the mates show him where to put the extra ones so they can sell them...he doesn't even wonder if this is legal or ethical or if the bluefish are in and up cycle or down cycle. The mate told him to do it and that's good enough for him, the mate must know better, he fishes all the time.

 

RFA members are not the "common man".

 

CCA members are not the "common man".

 

Members in these groups make up a tiny minority of the entire recreational fishing public. Therefore, any RFA member or CCA member is an uncommon man, a person who cares enough about the fish to spend their hard earned money so that they can sleep at night trusting that their money is going to be put to good use in making sure the fish populations are always healthy and diverse. They give their money to help fight the "boogey man" (commercial fisherman) CCA and RFA members probably fish 20-30 times more frequently than the common man. This, technically, would make them elitists in their sport.

 

My question Jim would be exactly when did the "common man" put you in charge of managing his fish? If he's not a member of the RFA or the CCA, how do you know, given all the information we have, that the "common man" might not want to take a conservative approach to fishery management instead of harvesting the maximum number the law allows and more?

 

See, the "common man" isn't the one who fights for what he thinks is the best direction for fishery management to take...he hasn't considered it. It's pompous and presumptuous for me, you, the RFA, the CCA, the JCAA, or the commercial fishermen to pretend to speak for a group that has not spoken for itself. In this day and age you must fight for those things you care about. Not fighting for them is to give someone else the power to decide for you. The "common man" having not spoken for himself is allowing you, me, the RFA, the CCA, and the commercial fishermen speak for him by default. He didn't ask anyone to do it, that's what makes him "common".

 

Just my thoughts, not meant to anger, not meant to instigate, just there to think about....

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,

The question was "common man"...should have been the "common person" (men, women and children.)

Not "common fishing man".

The "common person" more than likely does not nor has he/she ever been saltwater fishing. Whether he/she has or hasn't fished doesn't give anyone or any person the right to claim he/she as a "vote" for a side and to be automatically included in anydispute or argument ON EITHER SIDE as to who desrves what and how much.

The common person these days need to sleep, eat food, drink water. They need jobs, cars and money to survive as well nowdays.

The common person craves freedom... of choice, religion, thought and expression.

They are probably a mix of democratic and republican principles and votes a split ticket.

They are not type A personalities. (The world would have been completely destroyed long ago.)

Yhey prefer company to being alone and chose mates for companionship and love and security and chilren and so on.....

The common person does not post on SOL..nor whould they believe All of what is said here on either side of any argument.

The common person is a good measuring tool in a very, very complicated world of competing interests and philosophies.

I am sure there is more...

 

Rhodester

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm the common man is in whose name most things are done. No one knows who the common man is really. Its just a convientant way to make folks think yer looking out for them, when all yer really doing is looking out for your own interests. This is what governemnt is all about.........frown.gif

 

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

John M

johnm@stripersonline.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again Semantics on the internet starts trouble between to perfectly reasonable individuals one of whom percieves a written statement to be offensive.:bonktongue.giferhaps the more appropriate way of saying it should have been the "average guy out fishing".

On the other hand I think your making mountains out of mole hills here.

Ain't got nuthin to do wit da fishin!

(spoken in my best commonese)HappyWave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie Witek aka Diogenes has put certain qualifications for the common man. What are your thoughts?

 

Hello Jim,

Please call me and let's discuss this! I know where you are going with this (legit question) but I think this could be handled differently. Your question is easily misconstrued and if this is continues... it could be really ugly!

 

You know where I am - Thanks!

"Crazy" Alberto

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.