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