Yellowstone Oil Spill

On Jul 8, 5:43*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry *- roff 87-present including duty as early warning
bull**** detector

Geeze, must be awfully annoying always setting off your own alarm.

Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
...
Ken Fortenberry - roff 87-present including duty as early warning
bull**** detector

Geeze, must be awfully annoying always setting off your own alarm.

Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this
gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****.

"3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus
much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri & the Mississippi and
widely dispersed very soon."
-- Big Mouth Billy Bob

The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant
amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has
*not* washed downstream.

Dumbass.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jul 9, 8:09*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
...
Ken Fortenberry *- roff 87-present including duty as early warning
bull**** detector

Geeze, must be awfully annoying always setting off your own alarm.

Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this
gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****.

"3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus
much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri & the Mississippi and
widely dispersed very soon."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Big Mouth Billy Bob

The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant
amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has
*not* washed downstream.

Dumbass.

--
Ken Fortenberry

And this fact is based on? If you study the pictures of the
Yellowstone in that area you will quickly see that:
1. Due to the high level of flooding, MOST streamside wetlands are
underwater with strong current flowing through them. Undoubtedly there
are a few permanent wetlands away from the normal channel that are
affected. However, that is not at odds with my statement about
" ...MUCH of the oil...".
2 A significant amount of oil has been (though, based on the
pictures, is only a small fraction of the 1000 barrels) pushed up onto
dry land pastures and crop land where it certainly can be a problem,
but is also much easier to clean up there than if it remained in the
river. My original comments never addressed this issue, and regardless
are not at odds with it.

You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore
all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent.

Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this
gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****.

"3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus
much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& the Mississippi and
widely dispersed very soon."
-- Big Mouth Billy Bob

The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant
amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has
*not* washed downstream.

Dumbass.

And this fact is based on?

Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until
proven otherwise.

...
You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore
all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent.

BWAHAHAHAHA !

*THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a
request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of
weasel words ? snicker

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jul 9, 6:01*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this
gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****.

"3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus
much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& *the Mississippi and
widely dispersed very soon."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Big Mouth Billy Bob

The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant
amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has
*not* washed downstream.

Dumbass.

And this fact is based on?

Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until
proven otherwise.

...
You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely,

BWAHAHAHAHA !

*THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a
request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of
weasel words ? snicker

--
Ken Fortenberry

So when someone uses words like MUCH or MOST because that is
precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words,. and, in
your mind they really meant ALL. Thus I am correct in my assessment
that you " choose to ignore
all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent."
How can live live in a world in which everything is either one way or
the other and there are no instances of part this and part that?
You may consider my response superficial, but there are no posts in
this thread besides mine gave any information whatsoever on this event
that wasn't in the national media.

On Jul 9, 6:01*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this
gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****.

"3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus
much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& *the Mississippi and
widely dispersed very soon."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Big Mouth Billy Bob

The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant
amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has
*not* washed downstream.

Dumbass.

And this fact is based on?

Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until
proven otherwise.

...
You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore
all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent.

BWAHAHAHAHA !

*THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a
request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of
weasel words ? snicker

--
Ken Fortenberry

So when someone uses words like MUCH or MOST because that is
precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words, and, in
your mind they really meant ALL. Thus I am correct in my assessment
that you " choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your
response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent."
How can you live live in a world in which everything is either one
way or
the other and there are no instances of part this and part that?
You may consider my response to the original post superficial, but
there are no posts in
this thread besides mine that give any information whatsoever -that
wasn't in the national media - on this event
..

Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this
gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****.

"3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus
much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& the Mississippi and
widely dispersed very soon."
-- Big Mouth Billy Bob

The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant
amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has
*not* washed downstream.

Dumbass.

And this fact is based on?

Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until
proven otherwise.

...
You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore
all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent.

BWAHAHAHAHA !

*THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a
request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of
weasel words ?snicker

So when someone uses words like MUCH or MOST because that is
precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words, and, in
your mind they really meant ALL. Thus I am correct in my assessment
that you " choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your
response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent."
How can you live live in a world in which everything is either one
way or
the other and there are no instances of part this and part that?
You may consider my response to the original post superficial, but
there are no posts in
this thread besides mine that give any information whatsoever -that
wasn't in the national media - on this event

There are no posts in this thread, including yours, which give any
information whatsoever not given in the national media. Further,
your post contained misinformation, that is to say you don't know
what in the hell you're talking about.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jul 10, 4:26*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this
gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****.

"3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus
much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& * *the Mississippi and
widely dispersed very soon."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Big Mouth Billy Bob

The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant
amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has
*not* washed downstream.

Dumbass.

And this fact is based on?

Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until
proven otherwise.

...
You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore
all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent.

BWAHAHAHAHA !

*THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a
request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of
weasel words ?snicker

So when someone uses words like MUCH *or MOST because that is
precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words, and, in
your mind they really meant ALL. *Thus I am correct in my assessment
that you " choose to ignore *all qualifiers in any statement, and your
response is to your skewed
interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the
posters intent."
How can you live *live in a world in which everything is either one
way or
the other and there are no instances of part this and part that?
You may consider my response to the original post superficial, but
there are no posts in
this thread besides mine that give any information whatsoever -that
wasn't in the national media - on this event

There are no posts in this thread, including yours, which give any
information whatsoever not given in the national media. Further,
your post contained misinformation, that is to say you don't know
what in the hell you're talking about.

--
Ken Fortenberry

A careful reader will find no misinformation in my post. There are at
least 3 bits of information in my post that are not to be found in the
national media, though I cannot expect anyone with your mindset (e.g.
there is no Fawn Lake) and limited intellect to find them.
Well time to bail this poke the troll exercise. It looks like the pig
is having too much fun. TaTa