Re: orange flies
- From: rw <rw56_to_the_chase@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:43:07 -0600
rdean3REMOVE@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
That's not related to my point. You're now adding specialty chemicals
into the mix - a human can tell the difference in a flat (non-gloss) red
and red DOT tape, but that is as immaterial as a trout seeing reflected
UV light from a material separate and apart from the (base) color. What
I am saying is that regardless of how trout or humans see a color, a
slight difference in color will cause a slight difference in perception.
Nature already provides such differences between individual insects (and
trout and humans), so an _exact_ match to a single, particular insect
wouldn't _exactly_ match others of the same type anyway. Since there's
not a natural _exact_ match, there seems to be no need for an imitation
to do so.
Now, if we are talking about trying to get this close match to an orange
(as humans see it) insect that doesn't reflect much UV with an imitation
tied with a material that either naturally reflects or has been treated
in such a way to reflect (intentionally or not) UV, that's a different
matter and has nothing to do with how humans or trout see the color of
the material.
Congratulations, Dean. You've finally developed a style of satire that isn't derivative of Hunter S. Thompson. At long last you've found your own, authentic comedic voice, and it has me in stitches.
--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
.
- References:
- Re: orange flies
- From: rdean3REMOVE
- Re: orange flies
- From: Scott Seidman
- Re: orange flies
- From: Scott Seidman
- Re: orange flies
- From: Tom Nakashima
- Re: orange flies
- From: Scott Seidman
- Re: orange flies
- From: rdean3REMOVE
- Re: orange flies
- From: Scott Seidman
- Re: orange flies
- From: Scott Seidman
- Re: orange flies
- Prev by Date: Re: OT - Newly Married
- Next by Date: Re: UPYERS '06
- Previous by thread: Re: orange flies
- Next by thread: Re: orange flies
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|