Why would you get banned for any of those comments? There's a difference between crapping on someones work, and asking if there's not a way to improve it.

Example...this is crapping on someones work.

"What's next, are you going to start counting how many wraps on each guide of a steelhead rod, or count the scales on a fish ?"

Example....this is asking if there's a way to improve things

"I think there is a possibility that a FISH could see different kinds of mono at different diameters in the same water conditions."

If you read the entire paper I wrote to start the thread, or some of my other comments, you'd noticed that I wondered why some lines appear to do well in on the water, yet test mediocre in the lab. There are probably poorly defined characteristics of lines that contribute to their "catchability". Asking what those characteristics are, trying to define them, and measure them, are parts of the scientific process.

If you think what I did in the kitchen over the course of a couple of rained out days was excessive and mundane, than I assume you have no science background past high school. Real labwork is grossly boring, and far far more time consuming. Neither of which negates its value in making our lives longer, and easier.

Now, how do you propose testing 'catchability'?