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 . . .


:)