Posted by e-shark on December 22, 2001 at 16:50:11:
In Reply to: Re: This photo posted by Bob (never touchin another almost short again guy) on December 22, 2001 at 16:06:38:
Bob wrote: "Surely even e-shark would have to admit that the photo is missing both ends of the guage."
Well, yes, but one can still reach a valid conclusion based on what is there. I guess it's the difference between "any doubt" (no matter how far-fetched) and a "reasonable doubt." Here's my thinking, feel free to jump in and point out where I'm wrong.
1 - Every lobster gauge I've seen is symmetrical. In other words, if you've seen one end of the gauge, you know that the other end is a mirror image. There are probably practical reasons for this. It can be hard enough to measure bugs underwater without having to worry about which end of the gauge to put where.
2 - The photo clearly shows the tail end of the gauge. I assume the eye end would look just the same as the tail end.
3 - Based on what we can see in the photo, the tip of the eye end of the gauge is either (a) down in the slot between the eyes or (b) sawn-off short (i.e., not symmetrical). I don't think option (b) is reasonable, at least in the absence of information to suggest that there are odd-shaped gauges out there.
4 - If the inside edge of the eye end of the gauge is tight against the shell in the notch between the eyes, then the gap at the tail end means the bug is short.
5 - If the inside edge of the eye end of the gauge is not tight against the shell in the notch between the eyes, then there are gaps at both ends and the bug is even shorter than it appears at first glance.
BTW, I don't think Bob intended to get a short bug.