Talk:Lough Melvin

2007 post

Another example of fish with gizzards is the salt-water fish, mullet. The mullet, like the Gillaroo Trout, is a bottom feeder whose diet is often composed of small shell fish.

The following poem is about Sam Whitaker, a Tampa lawyer know for his courtroom style. In defending fishermen against charges of fishing for mullet out of season, he used the reasoning that since mullet had gizzards and fish didn't, they were not fish and since birds had gizzard's, they and mullet must be of the same species. After all he reasoned, whales aren't fish and yet they are in the briney deep.

A mullet is not a fish??

So said the smart talk back in 1919.
For an out-of-work lawyer pickings were lean.
For clients; some local fishermen
Had their day in court, once again.

Tho th' lawyer served without recompense
He needed to prove to the judge their innocence
. Not guilty was the verdict to be won
Of fishing during the closed season.

These six young commercial fishermen
Were known to sell fish through thick and thin.
They had been caught fair and square
And summoned before the judge to appear.

It could not be disputed
That the fishermen had mullet netted.
And that the season for catching
Had closed before their going fishing.

As an aside. Many's the time they had treated
The lawyer to a fine meal of mullet they had netted.
So it was that the lawyer paid close attention
To cleaning in the mullet's preparation.

To the casual observer, a fish is a fish.
But mullet are not like other fish.
For one, they are mostly caught in seines or nets
As they are difficult to catch on a hooks to be set.

They are bottom feeders mostly on grass and morsels
Such as small oysters, snails, and mussels.
And because of their appetite for what they find,
They have a gizzard; by nature designed to grind.

We return to the courtroom of the Judge
Where the game officers refused to budge.
So in providing his defense,
The Lawyer placed the judge on the fence.

He asked the Judge, a question hard;
"Do other fish have a gizzard?"
And answered his own question;
"Don't think so." Ask anyone.

To the Game Warden's surprise,
On this the case rested, which was most wise.
The Judge considered; Only one other species
To his mind had a gizzard and they aren't fishies.

He recessed the court and went to the grocery store,
Where in the poultry section he found galore,
Fresh chicken; whole and in parts,
Plus chicken livers, gizzards and hearts.

It was obvious that the mullet was a relative
To chickens, turkeys, duck and other avi.
The Judge so ruled that mullet are fowl
And therefore catching mullet he would allow.

"Of course a higher court must decide,
If mullet can be caught on th' tide,
During lent, which is the season
When only fish should be eaten."

"Not guilty of violating Florida's fishing laws."
It was decreed in this Court of Laws.
At the next mullet fry, you can safely bet,
The judge was there with appetite wet.

In a small community,
All are included with impunity
Even Judges; and Game Wardens
Tho, don't have that many friends.

Sidi J. Mahtrow

Florida elected officials often are seen as being without any redeeming value. Some have a talent beyond that of knowing how to get re-elected. And I suppose as they"do no harm", we can afford the luxury of their occasional lapses of good behavior.

The stories of Tampa attorney, Pat Whitaker's ability as a trial lawyer are legend in Florida. He could mesmerize a jury. Other lawyers would crowd around the courtroom whenever Whitaker argued a case, and they watched in amazement.

Whitaker started his law practice in 1916. But his first big case came in Tampa in 1919, when he convinced a judge that a mullet was a fowl and not a fish. While Whitaker enjoyed a highly successful career as a trial lawyer, this may have been his finest hour.

This tale helps to keep the "Old" Florida alive and safe from the reach of those whose vision is limited by the reach of their pocketbook. The article on which this poem is based was published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune November 24, 1998.

Vernon Peeples a historian, long time Charlotte County resident and a former seven-term member of the Florida House of Representatives was given credit as the author of the piece by the newspaper. Vernon Peeples wrote about Sam Whitaker, a Tampa lawyer who was know for his courtroom style. In defending fishermen against charges of fishing for mullet out of season, he used the reasoning that since mullet had gizzards and fish didn't, they were not fish and since birds had gizzard's, they and mullet must be of the same species. After all he reasoned, whales aren't fish and yet they are in the briney deep.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.4.42.240 (talk • contribs) 13:52, August 18, 2007

Basin countries

At Lough Neagh's infobox, we use Republic of Ireland & United Kingdom as the basin countries. This should be adopted for this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For most readers Northern Ireland makes a lot more sense, UK needs further explanation so I think its a bad change. We do need to change Republic of Ireland to Ireland however as here there is no danger of confusion. That said I'm not sure it is really necessary to conclude more than the two countries and say that its in Ireland --Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no probs with deleting the 'basin countries' section. Having a sovereign state & part of another sovereign state listed, isn't quite even. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Which policy would that be then GoodDay? --HighKing (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to bring that up at Lough Neagh, as there appears to be inconsistancies on these loughs. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK doesn't need more explaination so it's not a bad change. The lough is part of the UK-Republic of Ireland border. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I think "It is located in the northwest of Ireland on the border between County Leitrim and County Fermanagh." is the best way forward --Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is hardly the best way forward Snowded as that heavily implies that County Leitrim and Fermanagh are both part of the same country and so such an idea can be considered disruptive. The lough is part of two different states and both are part of its basin, why ignore that fact? Looking through the articles of Category:Lakes of the United Kingdom, either the region or United Kingdom is used with no consistency at all. In regards to this article it would make sense to use "Northern Ireland, United Kingdom" seeing as we wouldn't want to make anyone think that Northern Ireland is a country of the same status as the Republic. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, disruptive? Its a minor lake and it overlaps two counties. What is possibly notable about it cross border status? It needs fewer words not more--Snowded ^TALK 13:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So your proposing removing what states it lies in altogether? Is that not being disruptive? Seeking to remove information to make things more mirkier and less clear and making it appear that two counties in two different states altogether are part of the same? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Its a geographical article isn't it? Is the fact that it is in two countries really notable? Otherwise I really can't see how there is any possible implication that County Leitrim and Fermanagh are a part of the same state. If we have to mention political entities then its a lot clearer to use Northern Ireland in the context of an Irish Lake rather than have to explain the whole UK thing. --Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lough Melvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027041339/http://geocities.com/skrzydla/ to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20080613043301/http://www.loughmelvinprogramme.com/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Declangi (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)