So I guess all those bastids.....
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

So there were either 8 or 9 people at the so-called
Fawn Lake but you can't actually remember how many
people were there.

This oughta be good. Let me get the popcorn and settle
into my recliner, I've always been fond of fairy tales.

--
Ken Fortenberry

There was a second group a folks at the loaction in question that AFAIK had
no connection to ROFF or ROFFIANS that Warren, Jeff, and possibly Chas spoke
to briefly. I remember 2 kids, and 2 or 3 adults, I didn't pay them much
attention- maybe Warren will have the detail if its important to you.

jh

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

rw wrote:
Wayne Harrison wrote:
this is one of the very few post-modern roff ****ing contests that
i find truly humorous. one of its charming attributes is that the
truth is actually capable of being discerned. all it would take is
the agreement by both you and jeffie to meet on the ground in
yellowstone, accompanied by a few trustworthy witnesses (ah, now
there's a potential problem), and each walk together to the claimed
"fawn lake" site.
if i had the money, and i don't, i would finance the entire
undertaking just to watch and listen as the "loser" rationalized his
mistake.

yfitons
wayno(well, how 'bout it, louie, or richard, or rw...)

Why should I waste my money? I can clearly see Fawn Lake on satellite
imagery in Google. Fortenberry is obviously full of ****. What makes it
funny is that he knows he's full of ****, but will refuse to admit it no
matter what.

It's an unfishable mass of weeds no matter what it looks like
from outer space. And that's all I'll admit to regarding the
so-called Fawn Lake.

But I am looking forward to this year's TR.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:45:57 GMT, "Wayne Harrison" wrote:

if i had the money, and i don't, i would finance the entire undertaking
just to watch and listen as the "loser" rationalized his mistake.

You can read 40's rationalizations here for free. Usenet is as close as he ever
was, and ever will be, to Fawn Lake.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Why should I waste my money? I can clearly see Fawn Lake on satellite
imagery in Google. Fortenberry is obviously full of ****. What makes
it funny is that he knows he's full of ****, but will refuse to admit
it no matter what.


It's an unfishable mass of weeds no matter what it looks like
from outer space. And that's all I'll admit to regarding the
so-called Fawn Lake.

It sure looks like water in the satellite photo.

But I am looking forward to this year's TR.

Me, too.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. com...
rw wrote:
Wayne Harrison wrote:
this is one of the very few post-modern roff ****ing contests that i
find truly humorous. one of its charming attributes is that the truth
is actually capable of being discerned. all it would take is the
agreement by both you and jeffie to meet on the ground in yellowstone,
accompanied by a few trustworthy witnesses (ah, now there's a potential
problem), and each walk together to the claimed "fawn lake" site.
if i had the money, and i don't, i would finance the entire
undertaking just to watch and listen as the "loser" rationalized his
mistake.

yfitons
wayno(well, how 'bout it, louie, or richard, or rw...)

Why should I waste my money? I can clearly see Fawn Lake on satellite
imagery in Google. Fortenberry is obviously full of ****. What makes it
funny is that he knows he's full of ****, but will refuse to admit it no
matter what.

It's an unfishable mass of weeds no matter what it looks like
from outer space. And that's all I'll admit to regarding the
so-called Fawn Lake.

Progress. Not so very long ago, it didn't exist.

Wolfgang
who figures that if jeff can create a lake by sheer force of will, he
probably won't break a sweat making whatever he wishes of it.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

"Wayne Harrison" wrote in message
m...

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote

It's a two-hour hike in and a two-hour hike out and when you
get there all you'll find is an unfishable mass of weeds.
Only pertinacious morons would waste a day trying to fish
up there when there's so many other, better, closer, less
griz-infested places to fish. There is no Fawn Lake, just a
wet spot full of weeds.

this is one of the very few post-modern roff ****ing contests that i
find truly humorous. one of its charming attributes is that the truth is
actually capable of being discerned. all it would take is the agreement
by both you and jeffie to meet on the ground in yellowstone, accompanied
by a few trustworthy witnesses (ah, now there's a potential problem), and
each walk together to the claimed "fawn lake" site.
if i had the money, and i don't, i would finance the entire undertaking
just to watch and listen as the "loser" rationalized his mistake.

yfitons
wayno(well, how 'bout it, louie, or richard, or rw...)

Sounds like it might be fun, but the truth of the original assertion has
already been tested and found wanting:

"I am somewhat knowledgeable about Yellowstone and I don't post false info
here on roff."--Ken Fortenberry from the thread "Jackson Hole Hike/Fish
backcountry suggestions?" Tues, Aug 17, 2004, 9:43 pm.

"There is no Fawn Lake in Yellowstone you insufferable moron."--Ken
Fortenberry from the thread "Jackson Hole Hike/Fish backcountry
suggestions?" Wed, Aug 18, 2004, 7:19 am.

I won't bother listing the wealth of conclusive evidence offered in
refutation.

What has kept this particular issue alive (in typical ROFFian fashion) is
that the proposition under consideration keeps changing. Thus far, sundry
efforts to temporize and obfuscate have met the same fate as the original
bit of barstool fieldwork and scholarship.

Wolfgang
who's got a shiny new nickel says that this time is not the time to buck the
trend. :)

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:17:11 -0700, JR wrote:


who hopes they haven't got lost looking for the *other* Fawn Lake...)


Actually there are two Fawn Lakes, and they aren't that far apart
(according to the Montana Atlas/Gazateer). Fortenberry was correct in
that *his* Fawn is little more than a patch of weed; and Jeff is
correect in his description of *his* Fawn Lake. But, it was fun
seeing all those swords and sabers come out.


actually dave, though there may well be two fawn lakes, forty and i were
"discussing" the same fawn lake. your attempt to resolve the disputed
positions and claims about the lake is kind, but i'd be surprised if
even fortenberry agreed with your assessment or that he will dispute our
disagreement involved the "fawn lake" in the gardner hole/fawn pass
trail/fawn lake campground/fawn creek area of yellowstone.

it's not "little more than a patch of weed." it's a full and deep body
of water, with big brook trout in it. the other fawn lake is outside
ynp...and neither of us were talking about it. and, i suspect the fun
isn't over yet.

jeff

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

jeff wrote:

it's not "little more than a patch of weed." it's a full and deep body
of water, with big brook trout in it. the other fawn lake is outside
ynp...and neither of us were talking about it. and, i suspect the fun
isn't over yet.

Stop teasing us, goddamn it! Photos, man. Photos!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Wayne Harrison wrote:

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


It's a two-hour hike in and a two-hour hike out and when you
get there all you'll find is an unfishable mass of weeds.
Only pertinacious morons would waste a day trying to fish
up there when there's so many other, better, closer, less
griz-infested places to fish. There is no Fawn Lake, just a
wet spot full of weeds.


this is one of the very few post-modern roff ****ing contests that i
find truly humorous. one of its charming attributes is that the truth is
actually capable of being discerned. all it would take is the agreement by
both you and jeffie to meet on the ground in yellowstone, accompanied by a
few trustworthy witnesses (ah, now there's a potential problem), and each
walk together to the claimed "fawn lake" site.
if i had the money, and i don't, i would finance the entire undertaking
just to watch and listen as the "loser" rationalized his mistake.

yfitons
wayno(well, how 'bout it, louie, or richard, or rw...)



it seems folks simply will have to choose sides on this one wayno. i
made that offer to ken...he declined. you may recall the small wager i
made to ken some months ago...loser paid the other's costs. i offered to
pay for ken's cost of airfare, lodging, and the outfitter horse ride to
the lake if he'd come to montana during july 8-18 and prove me wrong. i
think my only requirement was he pay for the horse ride and pay for a
meal if i was right about my description of the lake.

here's a new offer for ken (or anyone who chooses to believe ken's spew
about the lake being "an unfishable mass of weeds"). i'll wager $10,000
that the fawn lake ken and i are disputing is substantially more than
"an unfishable mass of weeds" and that it contains worthy fish. any takers?

jeff

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

jeff wrote:
(snip)

Just post the freaking pictures somewhere where we can see them
already! A few Montana and Wyoming pictures and a few words about the
fishing would be nice.

bruce h

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

"jeff" wrote in message
news:YEBvg.30902$8q.27371@dukeread08...

$10,000 that the fawn lake ken and i are disputing is substantially more
than "an unfishable mass of weeds" and that it contains worthy fish. any
takers?

On August 13th or 14th I'll visit the said disputed lake, make sure you have
your checkbook when I pick you up at the airport in September. Your credit
is good with me :)

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

bruiser typed:
jeff wrote:
(snip)

Just post the freaking pictures somewhere where we can see them
already! A few Montana and Wyoming pictures and a few words about the
fishing would be nice.

As always, Jeff, my offer of posting your photos on my website stands.
Just email them to timj at sbcma dot com. For those new here, these are
some previous photo essays: http://css.sbcma.com/timj/roffpics/
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:



Mums the word, yeah right. It must take no small amount of
effort to doctor digital photos and concoct a phony TR.


pathetic...but i guess you've got to maintain your facade and claim in
some way. in this statement you are calling chas, john, choc, warren,
me, and joe liars, cheats, and conspirators about fawn lake.

tell you what, i'll put all of my boats and all of my fishing rods and
reels...including the sal****er rods and reels... up against your canoes
and all of your rods and reels. i say the fawn lake in dispute exists
(the one we both have been talking about in yellowstone), that it is not
an unfishable mass of weeds, that it is a fishable lake, and that it
holds brook trout over 15 inches that can be caught on a fly. you say it
is an unfishable mass of weeds. whoever is telling the truth takes all.
we'll let wayno, tim j., stan gula, willi (and any other impartial,
objective person you find acceptable) determine who's telling the truth
based on all of the facts, photos, and witnesses. what say kenny? or
are you all hat and no cattle?

jeff

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

bruiser wrote:

jeff wrote:
(snip)

Just post the freaking pictures somewhere where we can see them
already! A few Montana and Wyoming pictures and a few words about the
fishing would be nice.

bruce h


patience grasshopper...there's fun brewing.

jeff

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Wayne Knight wrote:

"jeff" wrote in message
news:YEBvg.30902$8q.27371@dukeread08...


$10,000 that the fawn lake ken and i are disputing is substantially more
than "an unfishable mass of weeds" and that it contains worthy fish. any
takers?


On August 13th or 14th I'll visit the said disputed lake, make sure you have
your checkbook when I pick you up at the airport in September. Your credit
is good with me :)



....no problem. take pictures.

jeff

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

rw wrote:

jeff wrote:


it's not "little more than a patch of weed." it's a full and deep body
of water, with big brook trout in it. the other fawn lake is outside
ynp...and neither of us were talking about it. and, i suspect the fun
isn't over yet.


Stop teasing us, goddamn it! Photos, man. Photos!


gotta get the bets right first. g

jeff

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

jeff wrote:
rw wrote:

jeff wrote:


it's not "little more than a patch of weed." it's a full and deep
body of water, with big brook trout in it. the other fawn lake is
outside ynp...and neither of us were talking about it. and, i suspect
the fun isn't over yet.



Stop teasing us, goddamn it! Photos, man. Photos!


gotta get the bets right first. g

Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF

(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit

(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again

(d) none of the above

(e) all of the above

(f) admit he's wrong

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

rw wrote:

Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF

(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit

(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again

(d) none of the above

(e) all of the above

(f) admit he's wrong

I'm gonna guess (d).

--
Ken Fortenberry

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:36:00 -0600, rw wrote:

jeff wrote:
rw wrote:

jeff wrote:


it's not "little more than a patch of weed." it's a full and deep
body of water, with big brook trout in it. the other fawn lake is
outside ynp...and neither of us were talking about it. and, i suspect
the fun isn't over yet.



Stop teasing us, goddamn it! Photos, man. Photos!


gotta get the bets right first. g

Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF

(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit

(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again

(d) none of the above

(e) all of the above

(f) admit he's wrong

He's already (a), but he'll try (b) - again.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:


Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF

(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit

(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again

(d) none of the above

(e) all of the above

(f) admit he's wrong


I'm gonna guess (d).


I figure (b), but the honest thing would be (f).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry typed:
rw wrote:
Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF
(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit
(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again
(d) none of the above
(e) all of the above
(f) admit he's wrong

I'm gonna guess (d).

.. . . and I would expect nothing less. What is probably most interesting (to
me) is that Ken has proven himself to be one of the most powerful people on
Usenet. With merely a few flicks of the wrist, he has caused many people to
travel to a spot that they probably otherwise would not have gone. It was
proven last year, at least to my satisfaction, that Fawn Lake does indeed
exist and is a nice looking spot. I'm anxious to see the fish photos, and
I'd like to get out there myself. But. . .

This said, I'm looking forward to next year's trip report, whereupon five
more witnesses will hike to and fish this nice looking spot, and Ken will
again state Fawn Lake is nothing but a soggy patch of weeds despite all
evidence to the contrary.

We now return to your regularly scheduled debate. . .
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed:
rw wrote:
Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF
(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit
(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again
(d) none of the above
(e) all of the above
(f) admit he's wrong
I'm gonna guess (d).

. . . and I would expect nothing less. What is probably most interesting (to
me) is that Ken has proven himself to be one of the most powerful people on
Usenet. With merely a few flicks of the wrist, he has caused many people to
travel to a spot that they probably otherwise would not have gone. ...

This said, I'm looking forward to next year's trip report, ...

If Jeffie really wanted to convince someone he wouldn't rely
on digital photos. I mean, c'mon.

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:59:48 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed:
rw wrote:
Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF
(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit
(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again
(d) none of the above
(e) all of the above
(f) admit he's wrong
I'm gonna guess (d).

. . . and I would expect nothing less. What is probably most interesting (to
me) is that Ken has proven himself to be one of the most powerful people on
Usenet. With merely a few flicks of the wrist, he has caused many people to
travel to a spot that they probably otherwise would not have gone. ...

This said, I'm looking forward to next year's trip report, ...

If Jeffie really wanted to convince someone he wouldn't rely
on digital photos. I mean, c'mon.

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

So the answer is (a) and (b).
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

If Jeffie really wanted to convince someone he wouldn't rely
on digital photos. I mean, c'mon.

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

You wouldn't admit the truth if someone bound and gagged you, dragged
you to Fawn Lake behind a horse, and shoved a live 14" brook trout up
your ass.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

"Ken Fortenberry"

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

--
Ken Fortenberry

well, there were 3 GPS units there. Mine, Chas's, and Warren's. I
breadcrumbed the trails in and out and set user points at our trailhead and
the lake. My unit is an older magellan 315 and it isn't compatible with any
mapping software I know of. But the NAD27 UTM coords were spot on with the
maps. Chas and Warren both had Garmin etrex units with downloadable mapping
and waypoint info I believe.

john

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

jeff wrote:
whoever is telling the truth takes all. we'll let wayno, tim j., stan
gula, willi (and any other impartial, objective person you find
acceptable) determine who's telling the truth based on all of the
facts, photos, and witnesses. what say kenny? or are you all hat and
no cattle?

jeff

I hereby decree that the excellent people who have given reports that they
have visited Fawn Lake and even fished it and photographed big brookies
caught in it are all being truthful.
--
Stan Gula
(not easily bought - it takes a bottle of vintage port)

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed:
rw wrote:
Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF
(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit
(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again
(d) none of the above
(e) all of the above
(f) admit he's wrong
I'm gonna guess (d).

. . . and I would expect nothing less. What is probably most
interesting (to me) is that Ken has proven himself to be one of the
most powerful people on Usenet. With merely a few flicks of the
wrist, he has caused many people to travel to a spot that they
probably otherwise would not have gone. ... This said, I'm looking
forward to next year's trip report, ...

If Jeffie really wanted to convince someone he wouldn't rely
on digital photos. I mean, c'mon.

Next year . . .

:)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Stan Gula wrote:
jeff wrote:
whoever is telling the truth takes all. we'll let wayno, tim j., stan
gula, willi (and any other impartial, objective person you find
acceptable) determine who's telling the truth based on all of the
facts, photos, and witnesses. what say kenny? or are you all hat and
no cattle?

I hereby decree that the excellent people who have given reports that they
have visited Fawn Lake and even fished it and photographed big brookies
caught in it are all being truthful.

Yeah, if all I had to go on were the reports posted here
I'd probably lean the same way.

But then Warren is the guy who said, "Hand me my beer",
and then took a digital photo of me "drinking" a friggin'
Moose Drool or some other western swill. He is *not* to
be trusted.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

John Hightower wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

well, there were 3 GPS units there. ...

You don't understand. Anybody can walk up to a bed of unfishable
weeds, record the coordinates and then post digital photos of
someplace else.

Better luck next year.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

What? No sodium pentathol?

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

JR typed:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

What? No sodium pentathol?

That's the requirement in 2008. You're ahead of your time, JR.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Tim J. wrote:
JR typed:

What? No sodium pentathol?

That's the requirement in 2008. You're ahead of your time, JR.

Too soon, then, to assume we've definitively ruled out torture?

:)

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:08:50 -0600, rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

If Jeffie really wanted to convince someone he wouldn't rely
on digital photos. I mean, c'mon.

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

You wouldn't admit the truth if someone bound and gagged you, dragged
you to Fawn Lake behind a horse, and shoved a live 14" brook trout up
your ass.

Interesting that YNP has special fishing regs for a non-existent un-fishable
patch of weeds: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/to...g/arearegs.htm.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. com...
Stan Gula wrote:
jeff wrote:
whoever is telling the truth takes all. we'll let wayno, tim j., stan
gula, willi (and any other impartial, objective person you find
acceptable) determine who's telling the truth based on all of the
facts, photos, and witnesses. what say kenny? or are you all hat and
no cattle?

I hereby decree that the excellent people who have given reports that
they
have visited Fawn Lake and even fished it and photographed big brookies
caught in it are all being truthful.

Yeah, if all I had to go on were the reports posted here
I'd probably lean the same way.

But then Warren is the guy who said, "Hand me my beer",
and then took a digital photo of me "drinking" a friggin'
Moose Drool or some other western swill. He is *not* to
be trusted.

--
Ken Fortenberry

MMMMMMMMMMMM,

Moose Drool... just another day of drudgery, and then Moose Drool, here I
come.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Charlie Choc wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:08:50 -0600, rw wrote:


Ken Fortenberry wrote:

If Jeffie really wanted to convince someone he wouldn't rely
on digital photos. I mean, c'mon.

Next year he should go armed with a real film camera and a GPS
unit. If the GPS unit isn't doctored and the negative of the
photo is unretouched that should prove that the photo of both
the readout on the GPS unit and the so-called Fawn Lake are
where he says it is. Naturally, I'd want to inspect both the
GPS unit and the negative.

You wouldn't admit the truth if someone bound and gagged you, dragged
you to Fawn Lake behind a horse, and shoved a live 14" brook trout up
your ass.


Interesting that YNP has special fishing regs for a non-existent un-fishable
patch of weeds: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/to...g/arearegs.htm.

Right. Make it a 12" brook trout. It will go in (nose-first) easier but
still have a hard time coming out. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

rw wrote:
Charlie Choc wrote:
rw wrote:
You wouldn't admit the truth if someone bound and gagged you, dragged
you to Fawn Lake behind a horse, and shoved a live 14" brook trout up
your ass.

Interesting that YNP has special fishing regs for a non-existent
un-fishable
patch of weeds:
http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/to...g/arearegs.htm.

Right. Make it a 12" brook trout. It will go in (nose-first) easier but
still have a hard time coming out. :-)

Oh hell, fishing regs don't prove a damn thing. If there was
a puddle on the sidewalk that might possibly contain a tadpole
during a monsoon the Park Service would have a special fishing
reg.

And uh, rw ... You seem to be inordinately preoccupied with
putting things up my arse. Not that there's anything wrong with
that I suppose, but I don't swing that way, big guy.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:07:24 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Oh hell, fishing regs don't prove a damn thing. If there was
a puddle on the sidewalk that might possibly contain a tadpole
during a monsoon the Park Service would have a special fishing
reg.

Hmmm, I don't see any like that on the web page. Got an example? Maybe Lacourse
can help you out with his gazetteer.

The fact remains that I (and a number of other people) have been to Fawn Lake,
and you haven't. In addition, there's no proof you were ever even on the Fawn
Pass Trail, and it wouldn't surprise me if your whole 'hike' was yet another bar
stool story you have 'borrowed' and claimed as your own.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
m...
rw wrote:
Charlie Choc wrote:
rw wrote:
You wouldn't admit the truth if someone bound and gagged you, dragged
you to Fawn Lake behind a horse, and shoved a live 14" brook trout up
your ass.

Interesting that YNP has special fishing regs for a non-existent
un-fishable
patch of weeds:
http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/to...g/arearegs.htm.

Right. Make it a 12" brook trout. It will go in (nose-first) easier but
still have a hard time coming out. :-)

Oh hell, fishing regs don't prove a damn thing. If there was
a puddle on the sidewalk that might possibly contain a tadpole
during a monsoon the Park Service would have a special fishing
reg.

And uh, rw ... You seem to be inordinately preoccupied with
putting things up my arse. Not that there's anything wrong with
that I suppose, but I don't swing that way, big guy.

Hee, hee, hee.

He said "arse."

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang
oh, by the way, you should watch the bitchiness in other threads. it really
will make it much more difficult to maintain the fiction that everything is
going EXACTLY according to plan in this one. :)

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Stan Gula wrote:

jeff wrote:

whoever is telling the truth takes all. we'll let wayno, tim j., stan
gula, willi (and any other impartial, objective person you find
acceptable) determine who's telling the truth based on all of the
facts, photos, and witnesses. what say kenny? or are you all hat and
no cattle?


I hereby decree that the excellent people who have given reports that
they
have visited Fawn Lake and even fished it and photographed big brookies
caught in it are all being truthful.


Yeah, if all I had to go on were the reports posted here
I'd probably lean the same way.

But then Warren is the guy who said, "Hand me my beer",
and then took a digital photo of me "drinking" a friggin'
Moose Drool or some other western swill. He is *not* to
be trusted.


oh brother...just when i thought you couldn't get any more pathetic.
Now, um, what are the flaws/lack of integrity you think exist with
regard to Chas, Choc, and John Hightower? ...oh, and while you're at
it, tell us why Craig Matthews is a liar and untrustworthy too.

jeff

So I guess all those bastids.....
 

hey...i actually like fawn lake and the hike. i can catch brookies in
the gardner and fawn creek without any crowds and by hiking less
distance than to middle falls on snowbird (of course forty probably
thinks i doctored the middle falls pictures too). the scenery is great.
we came upon a huge number of shed elk antlers this year...i'll post
pictures this evening.

i'll be happy to show fawn lake to any number of people that want to tag
along next year, including anyone whose word yellowstone kenny will
accept as truthful. to be sure there is one among y'all that is near
and dear enough to fortenberry to be believed by him. hell, after wayne
knight pays me my 10 grand wayno, i'll arrange a special photo session
for you (the horse ride will be sporting).

jeff

Tim J. wrote:

Ken Fortenberry typed:

Tim J. wrote:

Ken Fortenberry typed:

rw wrote:

Multiple choice -- Will Fortenberry:

(a) be the laughingstock of ROFF
(b) pretend nothing happened and that he's right, goddamnit
(c) disappear in shame, never to be heard from again
(d) none of the above
(e) all of the above
(f) admit he's wrong

I'm gonna guess (d).

. . . and I would expect nothing less. What is probably most
interesting (to me) is that Ken has proven himself to be one of the
most powerful people on Usenet. With merely a few flicks of the
wrist, he has caused many people to travel to a spot that they
probably otherwise would not have gone. ... This said, I'm looking
forward to next year's trip report, ...

If Jeffie really wanted to convince someone he wouldn't rely
on digital photos. I mean, c'mon.

Next year . . .


:)