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

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

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

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.

"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

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)

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

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

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

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?