A unique website dedicated to fishing information from Florida's Northern Big Bend. This includes the area from the Econfina River west to the Apalachicola River
Use this area to post inshore fishing reports from the area. Please try to include relevant information such as:
Location, date, time, water conditions, weather conditions, baits, techniques, species caught, etc.
My Humble Opinion: That's a bunch of Bull, I've applied more pressure than that and expected it to shatter, and it has never happenned. Remember we talking 2" SCH 40 PVC and nothing less.
Easy there fellow... I know there's a bunch of foolishness that goes on here but our moderator generally has offered pretty good information.
If you go back and read the posts prior to Chalks post...they're talk'n 3/4 inch PVC not 2".
"Good Judgement" comes from experience, ... and a lot of that..... results from "Bad Judgement".
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”
I not going to lower myself down to chalks level to express my opinion.....
But I will agree that if you use 2" SCH 40 one that is over 12' it's gonna bend and flex, but I seriously doubt it will shatter, or snap as suggested. I've put mine to the test and have never had a problem. Anything less than 2" SCH 40 PVC ,and your taking unnecessary chances. And I'll leave it at that.
Don't give specifics on the pipe but just so the fire don't go out....
Jordan v. Hickman, 899 So.2d 830, 39,519 (La. App. 2 Cir. 04/06/05), writ denied, 2005 WL 1643683, 05-1066 (La. 06/17/05)
Plaintiff.s thirteen year old son, Paul, and two of his friends found a length of PVC pipe, which they stuck into the ground vertically and began swinging at it with a stick. The pipe shattered, and a shard flew into Paul.s right eye, causing him to lose sight in that eye.
The plaintiff sued the owners of the property where the injury occurred and the owners of the property where the pipe was located, arguing that both were liable under 2317 and 2317.1 for her son.s injuries. To determine whether the PVC pipe presented an unreasonable risk of harm, the court held that the alleged defect must constitute a dangerous condition which would reasonably be expected to cause injury to a prudent person using ordinary care under the circumstances. The court determined that PVC pipe was not intended for the use that gave rise to the injury and found that, while the boys. behavior was not surprising, it was not that of a reasonably prudent person, and therefore the pipe did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. The court also considered the doctrine of attractive nuisance and determined that it did not apply unless
there was an inherently dangerous instrumentality that was peculiarly attractive to children or unless there was a hidden trap presented. The court found that PVC pipe did not constitute an unknown hazard and that it was the boys. activity that created the risk and affirmed the granting of summary judgment.
"Good Judgement" comes from experience, ... and a lot of that..... results from "Bad Judgement".
guess that would constitute laying off the drugs in your case...
Don't kid yourself, drugs cause serious problems and are nothing to kid about. Besides I value my life and enjoy my life too much to mess it up with drugs.
How'd we get on this topic? Help--- It's a run-away thread---
I did not mean to start a fight 
Besides I value my life and enjoy my life too much to mess it up with drugs. 
