Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught. [Archive]

S Curtiss

February 6th 07, 01:39 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
> wrote:
>
>>J wrote:
>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>
>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>
>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>
> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
> nothing of it.

"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back was
an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and was
reported with skewed language
referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account the
unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.

Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents. Yet
you interject "murder"...?

And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
cause serious injury to human beings...?

PATHETIC!!!!!!

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 01:41 AM

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J wrote:
>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>
>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>> nothing of it.
>
>Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?

I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.

>Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>human, you certainly belong in a padded room.

In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?

>cc
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 01:43 AM

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:57:10 -0500, "Marty" >
wrote:

>Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.net!prodigy .net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.c om!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com! news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:57:08 -0600
>From: "Marty" >
>Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
>References: >
>Subject: Re: Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught.
>Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:57:10 -0500
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>Message-ID: >
>Lines: 16
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.21.136.159
>X-Trace: sv3-CgkGx6oFbEIFvaF+lDNqE0GtzxYyXM3e75RpsYMfNA3HK/wo+lJlQxhcWKles49C9y1J+mtD87gs6Ja!8b1IXoo58wAgt5bW/JoXtobAQPUX/HcrM4lIb1jv/ILsmY5j8Uft6vXYHxsiLyDDFRRsCkPTTYy7!e2N88USIqA8Thw ==
>X-Complaints-To:
>X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Xref: prodigy.net alt.mountain-bike:518129
>X-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:57:09 EST (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
>
>>"TJ" > wrote in message
...
>>http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>
>People like this goober never believe they are vulnerable. They believe they
>can set a trap like stretch a wire and if somebody gets hurt or worse that
>it ends there and they've made a statement in their cause. What they fail to
>understand (and yes this is fair warning) is that if they hurt someone in
>such a way there is a very good chance they will get "hurt back". I can
>guarantee you that if somebody stretches a wire and hurts one my own in such
>a way he's written his own ticket to a bad place.

Yes, we know mountain bikers think VIOLENCE is the answer to all their
problems.

>Marty
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

February 6th 07, 02:39 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J wrote:
>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>> nothing of it.
>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>
> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.

well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
far between. but you knew that.

>
>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>
> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>

you proved my point, you sick ****.

why don't you do yourself and the world a favor. jump off a cliff, and
say a mountain biker did it. i'd tolerate you as a martyr just so you
would STFU.

February 6th 07, 02:42 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:57:10 -0500, "Marty" >
> wrote:
>
>> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.net!prodigy .net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.c om!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com! news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:57:08 -0600
>> From: "Marty" >
>> Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
>> References: >
>> Subject: Re: Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught.
>> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:57:10 -0500
>> X-Priority: 3
>> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
>> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>> Message-ID: >
>> Lines: 16
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.21.136.159
>> X-Trace: sv3-CgkGx6oFbEIFvaF+lDNqE0GtzxYyXM3e75RpsYMfNA3HK/wo+lJlQxhcWKles49C9y1J+mtD87gs6Ja!8b1IXoo58wAgt5bW/JoXtobAQPUX/HcrM4lIb1jv/ILsmY5j8Uft6vXYHxsiLyDDFRRsCkPTTYy7!e2N88USIqA8Thw ==
>> X-Complaints-To:
>> X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
>> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
>> X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>> Xref: prodigy.net alt.mountain-bike:518129
>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:57:09 EST (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>>
>>
>>> "TJ" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>> People like this goober never believe they are vulnerable. They believe they
>> can set a trap like stretch a wire and if somebody gets hurt or worse that
>> it ends there and they've made a statement in their cause. What they fail to
>> understand (and yes this is fair warning) is that if they hurt someone in
>> such a way there is a very good chance they will get "hurt back". I can
>> guarantee you that if somebody stretches a wire and hurts one my own in such
>> a way he's written his own ticket to a bad place.
>
> Yes, we know mountain bikers think VIOLENCE is the answer to all their
> problems.
>

you have any idea how hypocritical AND ironic that statement is? beating
the holy hell out of that toolbox would be hurting someone who is
trying to hurt others (and let me clarify HUMANS to avoid your obvious
retort), rather than someone doing something they have every right to
enjoy.

with the logic that you're doing justice for living things by hurting
the biker, you'd be much better off going after your politicians who are
doing damage on a larger scale. but logic is a foreign language to you.

S Curtiss

February 6th 07, 04:27 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>>>> J wrote:
>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>>> included.
>>>
>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>> nothing of it.
>>
>>Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>
> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
"several..."? Liar. You have two stories on your site. They were both
originally reported as accidents on shared trails. "Murder" is premeditated.
An accident is unfortunate. PATHETIC is your silly assumptions of "murder"
when the news stories list them as accidents.
>
>>Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>
> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
You can't even provide actual and verifiable evidence of a snake killed by a
mountain biker. Anything else you say is already suspect. (Has been for 10
years...)

Besides... All you are doing is further aligning yourself with this
terrorist. No surprise there. either. You have praised trail terrorism and
booby-traps several times in the past. The only thing seperating you from
them is your cowardice to openly advocate it.

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 06:04 AM

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:39:02 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>J wrote:
>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>
>>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>
>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>> nothing of it.
>
>"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back was
>an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and was
>reported with skewed language
>referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
>refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account the
>unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
>
>Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents. Yet
>you interject "murder"...?

By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.

>And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
>cause serious injury to human beings...?
>
>PATHETIC!!!!!!
>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 06:07 AM

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>> nothing of it.
>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>
>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>
>well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>far between. but you knew that.

Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
regardless of who is on the trail.

>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>
>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>
>
>you proved my point, you sick ****.

You didn't answer the question.

>why don't you do yourself and the world a favor. jump off a cliff, and
>say a mountain biker did it. i'd tolerate you as a martyr just so you
>would STFU.

Hold your breath.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 06:09 AM

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:27:01 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>>>> included.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>> nothing of it.
>>>
>>>Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>
>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>"several..."? Liar. You have two stories on your site. They were both
>originally reported as accidents on shared trails. "Murder" is premeditated.

Not necessarily, which you well know, liar.

>An accident is unfortunate. PATHETIC is your silly assumptions of "murder"
>when the news stories list them as accidents.
>>
>>>Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>
>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>You can't even provide actual and verifiable evidence of a snake killed by a
>mountain biker. Anything else you say is already suspect. (Has been for 10
>years...)

Answer the question.

>Besides... All you are doing is further aligning yourself with this
>terrorist. No surprise there. either. You have praised trail terrorism and
>booby-traps several times in the past. The only thing seperating you from
>them is your cowardice to openly advocate it.
>
>
>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Kirk Robertson

February 6th 07, 06:29 AM

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>

If a 1000 lb horse can be forced off a cliff by a 200 lb biker then that
horse should not have been on a steep public trail. My wife has horses and
she would never take one out on a trail that was even marginally dangerous
unless she trusted that horse with her life. Kirk.

Beej

February 6th 07, 07:21 AM

On Feb 5, 5:41 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> >Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
> >human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>
> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?

One of them is covered by California Penal Code section 187, and the
other is not.

That'll be $12, please.

-Beej

GaryG

February 6th 07, 02:16 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:39:02 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>J wrote:
> >>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
> >>>>
> >>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
> >>>
> >>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
included.
> >>
> >> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
> >> nothing of it.
> >
> >"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back
was
> >an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and was
> >reported with skewed language
> >referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
> >refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account the
> >unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
> >
> >Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents. Yet
> >you interject "murder"...?
>
> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.

By driving without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
drivers deliberately kill them. That's murder.

By working without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
workers deliberately kill them. That's murder.

Interesting how your twisted mind sees "murder" where everyone else
(including the legal system) sees "accident".

GG

>
> >And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
> >cause serious injury to human beings...?
> >
> >PATHETIC!!!!!!
> >
> >
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 04:15 PM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 06:29:42 GMT, Kirk Robertson >
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:
>
>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>
>
>
>If a 1000 lb horse can be forced off a cliff by a 200 lb biker then that
>horse should not have been on a steep public trail. My wife has horses and
>she would never take one out on a trail that was even marginally dangerous
>unless she trusted that horse with her life. Kirk.

Idiot. The horses were frightened by the sudden appearance of the
biker. But you know that already, and just choose to LIE about it.
Absolutely typical of a mountain biker.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 04:17 PM

On 5 Feb 2007 23:21:35 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:

>On Feb 5, 5:41 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> >Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>> >human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>
>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>
>One of them is covered by California Penal Code section 187, and the
>other is not.

One of them is covered by the ESA, and the other one is covered by
vermin statutes.

>That'll be $12, please.
>
>-Beej
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 6th 07, 04:18 PM

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:16:24 -0800, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:39:02 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>J wrote:
>> >>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>> >>>
>> >>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>included.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>> >> nothing of it.
>> >
>> >"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back
>was
>> >an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and was
>> >reported with skewed language
>> >referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
>> >refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account the
>> >unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
>> >
>> >Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents. Yet
>> >you interject "murder"...?
>>
>> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>
>By driving without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>drivers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>
>By working without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>workers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>
>Interesting how your twisted mind sees "murder" where everyone else
>(including the legal system) sees "accident".

Reckless riding is not an accident. DUH!

>GG
>
>>
>> >And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
>> >cause serious injury to human beings...?
>> >
>> >PATHETIC!!!!!!
>> >
>> >
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Pete Rissler

February 6th 07, 04:49 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 Feb 2007 23:21:35 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>
>>On Feb 5, 5:41 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>> >Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>> >human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>
>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>
>>One of them is covered by California Penal Code section 187, and the
>>other is not.
>
> One of them is covered by the ESA, and the other one is covered by
> vermin statutes.

Unless the snake is Federally listed as either an Endangered or Threatened
Species then it is not covered under the Endangered Species Act.

S Curtiss

February 6th 07, 04:57 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:39:02 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>J wrote:
>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>
>>>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>>>included.
>>>
>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>> nothing of it.
>>
>>"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back
>>was
>>an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and was
>>reported with skewed language
>>referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
>>refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account the
>>unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
>>
>>Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents. Yet
>>you interject "murder"...?
>
> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
Your subjective and inclusive statement "mountain bikers deliberately kill
them" is simply an extension of your OPINION of off-road cycling and hardly
carries any meaning concerning the riding habits and conservation goals of
the off-road cycling community.
There is absolutely NO evidence gathered by any research that shows cyclists
are riding to deliberately kill anything.

Produce EVIDENCE from a scientific source showing all mountain bikers are on
the trail to deliberately kill anything, or by not doing so, acknowledge you
are simply lying and spouting an unfounded opinion generated by your own
hatred of the activity.
>
>>And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
>>cause serious injury to human beings...?
>>
>>PATHETIC!!!!!!
>>

S Curtiss

February 6th 07, 05:05 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:27:01 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>>>>> included.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>
>>>>Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>
>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>"several..."? Liar. You have two stories on your site. They were both
>>originally reported as accidents on shared trails. "Murder" is
>>premeditated.
>
> Not necessarily, which you well know, liar.
The term "murder" implies direct and purposefull intent to kill. The matter
of degree is decided through evidence.
The stories you posted on horses report no evidence of intent.
>
An accident is unfortunate. PATHETIC is your silly assumptions of "murder"
when the news stories list them as accidents.
>>>
>>>>Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>
>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>You can't even provide actual and verifiable evidence of a snake killed by
>>a
>>mountain biker. Anything else you say is already suspect. (Has been for 10
>>years...)
>
> Answer the question.
There is no question - merely an assumption on your part that off-road
cycling is destructive.
The existence of a snake, or any beneficial qualities attributed to a snake,
has little to do with any qualities you choose to imply onto off-road
cyclists.
>
>>Besides... All you are doing is further aligning yourself with this
>>terrorist. No surprise there. either. You have praised trail terrorism and
>>booby-traps several times in the past. The only thing seperating you from
>>them is your cowardice to openly advocate it.
>>

February 6th 07, 05:36 PM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>> far between. but you knew that.
>
> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
> regardless of who is on the trail.
>

Mike, this is pretty typical.
Cognitive bias, proof by
example, and proof by
assertion. No wonder you never
published. Looks like the only
thing you learned is how to
string together logical fallacies.

>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>
>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
>

One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
to mention the INTENT of the
murderer stringing booby-traps
for them.

Beej

February 6th 07, 07:54 PM

On Feb 6, 8:49 am, "Pete Rissler" >
wrote:
> Unless the snake is Federally listed as either an Endangered or Threatened
> Species then it is not covered under the Endangered Species Act.

Yes, but if "more than 0" species are covered, it means that it's
"common" for species to be covered.

-Beej

February 6th 07, 08:22 PM

In article >,
Mike Vandeman > wrote:

>
> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>

No MIkey, that is NOT Murder, it is Manslaughter, and that is a Totally
Different Offense.....

Just where did you get you DR of JurASSprudence.... LawSchools R' Us.....

> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond
> of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Me a long time Mikey basher..........

Marty

February 6th 07, 08:49 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:16:24 -0800, "GaryG" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:39:02 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>J wrote:
>>> >>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>included.
>>> >>
>>> >> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>> >> nothing of it.
>>> >
>>> >"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time
>>> >back
>>was
>>> >an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and
>>> >was
>>> >reported with skewed language
>>> >referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
>>> >refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account
>>> >the
>>> >unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
>>> >
>>> >Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents.
>>> >Yet
>>> >you interject "murder"...?
>>>
>>> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>>> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>>
>>By driving without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>>drivers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>>
>>By working without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>>workers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>>
>>Interesting how your twisted mind sees "murder" where everyone else
>>(including the legal system) sees "accident".
>
> Reckless riding is not an accident. DUH!
>
>>GG
>>
>>>
>>> >And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
>>> >cause serious injury to human beings...?
>>> >
>>> >PATHETIC!!!!!!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ===
>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

HA!

You guys keep feeding...................

February 6th 07, 09:38 PM

On Feb 5, 12:57 pm, "Marty" > wrote:
> >"TJ" > wrote in message
> ...
> >http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>
> People like this goober never believe they are vulnerable. They believe they
> can set a trap like stretch a wire and if somebody gets hurt or worse that
> it ends there and they've made a statement in their cause. What they fail to
> understand (and yes this is fair warning) is that if they hurt someone in
> such a way there is a very good chance they will get "hurt back". I can
> guarantee you that if somebody stretches a wire and hurts one my own in such
> a way he's written his own ticket to a bad place.
>
> Marty

Damn Skippy!

JD

Mike Vandeman

February 7th 07, 01:30 AM

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:49:49 -0800, "Pete Rissler"
> wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On 5 Feb 2007 23:21:35 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 5, 5:41 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>> >Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>> >human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>
>>>One of them is covered by California Penal Code section 187, and the
>>>other is not.
>>
>> One of them is covered by the ESA, and the other one is covered by
>> vermin statutes.
>
>Unless the snake is Federally listed as either an Endangered or Threatened
>Species then it is not covered under the Endangered Species Act.

You still haven't answer the question: what's the difference between a
beneficial snake & a destructive mountain biker?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 7th 07, 01:32 AM

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:57:59 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:39:02 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>J wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>
>>>>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>>>>included.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>> nothing of it.
>>>
>>>"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back
>>>was
>>>an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and was
>>>reported with skewed language
>>>referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
>>>refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account the
>>>unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
>>>
>>>Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents. Yet
>>>you interject "murder"...?
>>
>> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>Your subjective and inclusive statement "mountain bikers deliberately kill
>them" is simply an extension of your OPINION of off-road cycling and hardly
>carries any meaning concerning the riding habits and conservation goals of
>the off-road cycling community.
>There is absolutely NO evidence gathered by any research that shows cyclists
>are riding to deliberately kill anything.
>
>Produce EVIDENCE from a scientific source showing all mountain bikers are on
>the trail to deliberately kill anything,

It's IMPOSSIBLE to mountain bike without killing animals & plants,
hence they are murderers: they do it deliberately. They should know
better.

or by not doing so, acknowledge you
>are simply lying and spouting an unfounded opinion generated by your own
>hatred of the activity.
>>
>>>And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
>>>cause serious injury to human beings...?
>>>
>>>PATHETIC!!!!!!
>>>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 7th 07, 01:34 AM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>
>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>
>
>Mike, this is pretty typical.
>Cognitive bias, proof by
>example, and proof by
>assertion. No wonder you never
>published. Looks like the only
>thing you learned is how to
>string together logical fallacies.
>
>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>
>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>>
>
>One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>to mention the INTENT of the
>murderer stringing booby-traps
>for them.

You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
Tw
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 7th 07, 01:35 AM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:22:22 GMT, Me > wrote:

>In article >,
> Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>>
>> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>>
>
>No MIkey, that is NOT Murder, it is Manslaughter,

"Manslaughter" to kill a snake? Boy, you sure are confused....

and that is a Totally
>Different Offense.....
>
>Just where did you get you DR of JurASSprudence.... LawSchools R' Us.....
>
>
>
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond
>> of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
>Me a long time Mikey basher..........
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

February 7th 07, 01:56 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>
>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>> example, and proof by
>> assertion. No wonder you never
>> published. Looks like the only
>> thing you learned is how to
>> string together logical fallacies.
>>
>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>
>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>
>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>> to mention the INTENT of the
>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>> for them.
>
>
> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
> Tw
> ===

Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.

RpJ

February 7th 07, 01:56 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:49:49 -0800, "Pete Rissler"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 5 Feb 2007 23:21:35 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Feb 5, 5:41 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>> >Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and
>>>>> >a
>>>>> >human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>
>>>>One of them is covered by California Penal Code section 187, and the
>>>>other is not.
>>>
>>> One of them is covered by the ESA, and the other one is covered by
>>> vermin statutes.
>>
>>Unless the snake is Federally listed as either an Endangered or Threatened
>>Species then it is not covered under the Endangered Species Act.
>
> You still haven't answer the question: what's the difference between a
> beneficial snake & a destructive mountain biker?

The number of letters? Perhaps the spelling? Your turn, what is the correct
answer.

RpJ

February 7th 07, 02:00 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:57:59 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:39:02 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>J wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>>>>>included.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>
>>>>"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back
>>>>was
>>>>an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and
>>>>was
>>>>reported with skewed language
>>>>referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
>>>>refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account
>>>>the
>>>>unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
>>>>
>>>>Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents.
>>>>Yet
>>>>you interject "murder"...?
>>>
>>> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>>> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>>Your subjective and inclusive statement "mountain bikers deliberately
>>kill
>>them" is simply an extension of your OPINION of off-road cycling and
>>hardly
>>carries any meaning concerning the riding habits and conservation goals of
>>the off-road cycling community.
>>There is absolutely NO evidence gathered by any research that shows
>>cyclists
>>are riding to deliberately kill anything.
>>
>>Produce EVIDENCE from a scientific source showing all mountain bikers are
>>on
>>the trail to deliberately kill anything,
>
> It's IMPOSSIBLE to mountain bike without killing animals & plants,
> hence they are murderers: they do it deliberately. They should know
> better.

It's IMPOSSIBLE (by your standards) to participate in any activity (on road
or off, in the city or country, even while sitting at your computer) without
killing animals & plants,

> hence they are murderers: they do it deliberately. They should know
> better.

>
> or by not doing so, acknowledge you
>>are simply lying and spouting an unfounded opinion generated by your own
>>hatred of the activity.
>>>
>>>>And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
>>>>cause serious injury to human beings...?
>>>>
>>>>PATHETIC!!!!!!
>>>>
>>

S Curtiss

February 7th 07, 06:23 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:57:59 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>>>>>>>J wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder
>>>>>>included.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>
>>>>"Murder"...? Murder is premeditated. One story you posted some time back
>>>>was
>>>>an accident involving equestrians and cyclists meeting on a trail and
>>>>was
>>>>reported with skewed language
>>>>referring to the bicycles as a "strange metal beast". The other openly
>>>>refers to the MAJORITY of cyclists as responsible taking into account
>>>>the
>>>>unjustified categorizing of ALL cyclists.
>>>>
>>>>Both incidents were reported originally as unfortunate and accidents.
>>>>Yet
>>>>you interject "murder"...?
>>>
>>> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>>> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>>Your subjective and inclusive statement "mountain bikers deliberately
>>kill
>>them" is simply an extension of your OPINION of off-road cycling and
>>hardly
>>carries any meaning concerning the riding habits and conservation goals of
>>the off-road cycling community.
>>There is absolutely NO evidence gathered by any research that shows
>>cyclists
>>are riding to deliberately kill anything.
>>
>>Produce EVIDENCE from a scientific source showing all mountain bikers are
>>on
>>the trail to deliberately kill anything,
>
> It's IMPOSSIBLE to mountain bike without killing animals & plants,
> hence they are murderers: they do it deliberately. They should know
> better.
You provide an OPINION. Provide evidence and PROOF that off-road cyclists
deliberately kill anything. The "deliberate" activity of riding is not the
same thing as the "deliberate" activity of killing. You have yet to provide
anything that proves all off-road cyclists ride in such a way that death is
a by-product of any higher incidence than any other activity. You have only
posted extreme instances highlighting unfortunate accidents or a renegade
minority of the whole of the otherwise respectfull majority.
*Either respond to the total context, or by not doing so, acknowledge that
the context is true.

>
> or by not doing so, acknowledge you
>>are simply lying and spouting an unfounded opinion generated by your own
>>hatred of the activity.
No evidence from a scientific source. Only split context to spout your
opinion. Therefore it is taken as fact you can not provide scientific
foundation for your statements.
>>>
>>>>And this to justify a terrorist whose actions could have killed and did
>>>>cause serious injury to human beings...?
>>>>
>>>>PATHETIC!!!!!!
>>>>

Marty

February 7th 07, 02:48 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:57:10 -0500, "Marty" >
> wrote:
>
> Yes, we know mountain bikers think VIOLENCE is the answer to all their
> problems.
>

We? You have a mouse in your pocket? You make me laugh.

It's really not that complicated.

BTW, I'm not a mountain biker right now. I'm riding a chair. So that makes
me a violent chair rider. In a minute I'm getting more coffee...............

Marty

Mike Vandeman

February 8th 07, 04:33 PM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>
>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>> example, and proof by
>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>> published. Looks like the only
>>> thing you learned is how to
>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>
>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>
>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>
>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>> for them.
>>
>>
>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>> Tw
>> ===
>
>Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.

So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 8th 07, 04:34 PM

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:56:43 GMT, "RpJ" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:49:49 -0800, "Pete Rissler"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 5 Feb 2007 23:21:35 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Feb 5, 5:41 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>>> >Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and
>>>>>> >a
>>>>>> >human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>
>>>>>One of them is covered by California Penal Code section 187, and the
>>>>>other is not.
>>>>
>>>> One of them is covered by the ESA, and the other one is covered by
>>>> vermin statutes.
>>>
>>>Unless the snake is Federally listed as either an Endangered or Threatened
>>>Species then it is not covered under the Endangered Species Act.
>>
>> You still haven't answer the question: what's the difference between a
>> beneficial snake & a destructive mountain biker?
>
>The number of letters? Perhaps the spelling? Your turn, what is the correct
>answer.

A snake is beneficial. A mountain biker is only destructive. DUH!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

February 8th 07, 09:45 PM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>
>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>> example, and proof by
>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>> Tw
>>> ===
>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>
> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!

Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
one is HUMAN.

Beej

February 8th 07, 09:47 PM

On Feb 8, 8:34 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> A mountain biker is only destructive.

What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?

-Beej

Mike Vandeman

February 9th 07, 02:06 AM

On 8 Feb 2007 13:47:00 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:

>On Feb 8, 8:34 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> A mountain biker is only destructive.
>
>What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?

Then they are probably destrroying somehting else, equally selfishly.

>-Beej
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 9th 07, 02:07 AM

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>>> example, and proof by
>>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>> for them.
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>> Tw
>>>> ===
>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>
>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>
>Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>one is HUMAN.

That is a category, not a difference.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

February 9th 07, 02:56 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>>>> example, and proof by
>>>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>> for them.
>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>> Tw
>>>>> ===
>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>> one is HUMAN.
>
> That is a category, not a difference.

Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.

S Curtiss

February 9th 07, 07:20 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
onto "mountain bikers".
The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a statement
made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem to
care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact is
obvious and nonsense.
Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
obvious.
It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
cause injury.
It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
It is FACT he was breaking the law.

Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
has no weight in the matter

>>>>> ===
>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>
>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>
>>Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>one is HUMAN.
>
> That is a category, not a difference.

Using the Vandeman Dictionary for your definitions again, I see....

S Curtiss

February 9th 07, 07:25 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:22:22 GMT, Me > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> By riding without regard to the safety of wildlife and other people,
>>> mountain bikers deliberately kill them. That's murder.
>>>
>>
>>No MIkey, that is NOT Murder, it is Manslaughter,
>
> "Manslaughter" to kill a snake? Boy, you sure are confused....

"Murder"...? To kill a snake....? Boy, you sure are confused....
It is the same line of logic, Mikey. You said "murder" when referring to
killing something (that you can't even prove) when the term "murder" refers
to the killing of another person.
>

Beej

February 10th 07, 12:17 AM

On Feb 8, 6:06 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> >> A mountain biker is only destructive.
>
> >What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?
>
> Then they are probably destrroying somehting else, equally selfishly.

And yet, despite this, you're not interested in banning bikers. I'm
starting to seriously question your motivations.

-Beej

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 01:28 AM

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>>>>> example, and proof by
>>>>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>> ===
>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>> one is HUMAN.
>>
>> That is a category, not a difference.
>
>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.

So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 01:30 AM

On 9 Feb 2007 16:17:52 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:

>On Feb 8, 6:06 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> >> A mountain biker is only destructive.
>>
>> >What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?
>>
>> Then they are probably destrroying somehting else, equally selfishly.
>
>And yet, despite this, you're not interested in banning bikers. I'm
>starting to seriously question your motivations.

It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?

>-Beej
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

February 10th 07, 01:39 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>>>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>>>>>> example, and proof by
>>>>>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>>>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>>>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>>>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>> Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>
> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?

You are truly unbelievable. If it is in a different category, e.g.
species, it is by definition different.

February 10th 07, 02:31 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2007 16:17:52 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 6:06 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>> A mountain biker is only destructive.
>>>> What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?
>>> Then they are probably destrroying somehting else, equally selfishly.
>> And yet, despite this, you're not interested in banning bikers. I'm
>> starting to seriously question your motivations.
>
> It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?
>

You try first. We're waiting ...

February 10th 07, 03:26 AM

--
No Signature. Read on.
"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murder included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding
>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely
>>>>>>>>>> few and
>>>>>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>>>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>>>>>> example, and proof by
>>>>>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>>>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>>>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>>>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a
>>>>>>>>>>>> snake and a
>>>>>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just
>>>>>>>>>>> destructive?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>
>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>
>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>
> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Here is the difference mike. A Human is capable of curing disease,
intelligent thought, and social interaction.

A mike vandeman is a species that is incapable of thought. He/She is only
worried about the next cricket dinner, and reproduction. The mike vandeman
species hatches it's eggs from a nest. The vandelings crawl out into the
world with all the survival instinct they need. The vandespecies is like a
reptile, only lower on the food chain.

Here is an interesting fact for you Mike: of the top ten Global Fortune 500
companies 9 are either auto industry, or oil industry. What does that mean
to you? Are really that dumb. Tourism causes global warming, and habitat
destruction, not bicycles.

Now back to bashing bicycles. You ignorant twit. Shut up before I verbally
whup your tail.......again.

Beej

February 10th 07, 03:40 AM

On Feb 9, 5:30 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?

That you're not really as pro-environment as you claim, when you're
not interested in banning these people you say are so destructive.

-Beej

S Curtiss

February 10th 07, 08:27 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>
>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>
>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>
> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
onto "mountain bikers".
The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a statement
made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem to
care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact is
obvious and nonsense.
Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
obvious.
It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
cause injury.
It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
It is FACT he was breaking the law.

Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
has no weight in the matter

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 05:16 PM

On 9 Feb 2007 19:40:35 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:

>On Feb 9, 5:30 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?
>
>That you're not really as pro-environment as you claim, when you're
>not interested in banning these people you say are so destructive.

Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!

>-Beej
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 05:17 PM

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:39:20 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>>>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>>>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>>>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>>>>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>>>>>>> example, and proof by
>>>>>>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>>>>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>>>>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>>>>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>> Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>>
>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>
>You are truly unbelievable. If it is in a different category, e.g.
>species, it is by definition different.

That doesn't explain HOW they are different.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 05:18 PM

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 20:26:50 -0700, "TJ" > wrote:

\0

Did you say something?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 05:19 PM

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>
>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>
>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>>
>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>onto "mountain bikers".
>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a statement
>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem to
>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact is
>obvious and nonsense.
>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>obvious.
>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>cause injury.
>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>
>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>has no weight in the matter

Did you say somehting?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Beej

February 10th 07, 07:22 PM

On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!

You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
something, and that you are not interested in banning them.

They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.

-Beej

RpJ

February 10th 07, 08:27 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 20:26:50 -0700, "TJ" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Did you say something?

Yes, you are a cyclophobic troll. It sucks to be you.

> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

S Curtiss

February 10th 07, 08:45 PM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is
>>>>>>>>> beneficial,
>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>
>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>dictionary.
>>>
>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>statement
>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem
>>to
>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact
>>is
>>obvious and nonsense.
>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>obvious.
>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>cause injury.
>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>
>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>>has no weight in the matter
>
> Did you say somehting?
> ===
Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of off-road
cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for a
mall or development.

[email protected]

February 10th 07, 09:12 PM

On Feb 10, 12:19 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:

> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat").

Why?

Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Why?

> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

Why?

February 10th 07, 10:21 PM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:39:20 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:45:44 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:56:09 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:36:45 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:37 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:40:11 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain bikers murder horses every day? Do you smoke crack?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know of several that were killed by mountain bikers speeding around
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blind turns and forcing them off a cliff.
>>>>>>>>>>>> well, besides the obvious skew here, these events are extremely few and
>>>>>>>>>>>> far between. but you knew that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not due to any concern of mountain bikers. They ride recklessly
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of who is on the trail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike, this is pretty typical.
>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive bias, proof by
>>>>>>>>>> example, and proof by
>>>>>>>>>> assertion. No wonder you never
>>>>>>>>>> published. Looks like the only
>>>>>>>>>> thing you learned is how to
>>>>>>>>>> string together logical fallacies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, if you can't see the difference between killing a snake and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human, you certainly belong in a padded room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of mountain bikers, what IS the difference, except that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the snake is beneficial, and the mountain biker is just destructive?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you proved my point, you sick ****.
>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>> Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>> You are truly unbelievable. If it is in a different category, e.g.
>> species, it is by definition different.
>
> That doesn't explain HOW they are different.

I'm sorry, but you must speak
a different English than I do.

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 11:25 PM

On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:

>On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>
>You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>
>They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.

There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.

>-Beej
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 11:26 PM

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:45:30 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is
>>>>>>>>>> beneficial,
>>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>>statement
>>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem
>>>to
>>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact
>>>is
>>>obvious and nonsense.
>>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>>obvious.
>>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>>cause injury.
>>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>>
>>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>>>has no weight in the matter
>>
>> Did you say somehting?
>> ===
>Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
>substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
>environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
>discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
>rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of off-road
>cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
>resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
>looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for a
>mall or development.
>

Did you say somehting?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 10th 07, 11:27 PM

On 10 Feb 2007 13:12:14 -0800, wrote:

>On Feb 10, 12:19 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat").
>
>Why?

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.

>Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.

>Why?
>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>
>Why?

Do you put your head in the microwave?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

February 11th 07, 03:38 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:45:30 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is
>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial,
>>>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>>> Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>>> dictionary.
>>>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>>> There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>>>> imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>>> onto "mountain bikers".
>>>> The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>>> measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>>> surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>>> Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>>> statement
>>>> made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem
>>>> to
>>>> care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact
>>>> is
>>>> obvious and nonsense.
>>>> Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>>> obvious.
>>>> It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>>> cause injury.
>>>> It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>>> It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>>>
>>>> Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>>>> are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>>>> has no weight in the matter
>>> Did you say somehting?
>>> ===
>> Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
>> substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
>> environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
>> discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
>> rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of off-road
>> cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
>> resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
>> looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for a
>> mall or development.
>>
>
> Did you say somehting?

yes, but you did not.

S Curtiss

February 11th 07, 06:13 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:45:30 -0500, "S Curtiss" >
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose
>>>>to
>>>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>>>statement
>>>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you
>>>>seem
>>>>to
>>>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple
>>>>fact
>>>>is
>>>>obvious and nonsense.
>>>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>>>obvious.
>>>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>>>cause injury.
>>>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>>>
>>>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while
>>>>riding
>>>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your
>>>>OPINION
>>>>has no weight in the matter
>>>
>>> Did you say somehting?
>>> ===
>>Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
>>substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
>>environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
>>discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
>>rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of
>>off-road
>>cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
>>resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
>>looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for
>>a
>>mall or development.
>>
>
> Did you say somehting?
> ===
That's about what I would expect. With no integrity in your "reviews" or
your "papers" there can obviously be no honesty in your support of the
statements you make.

Beej

February 11th 07, 07:41 AM

On Feb 10, 3:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
> activities, not people.

Whee! Hehe! Ah, Mike... I don't care what anyone says. You're
awesome.

-Beej

Mike Vandeman

February 11th 07, 10:01 PM

On 10 Feb 2007 23:41:01 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:

>On Feb 10, 3:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>> activities, not people.
>
>Whee! Hehe! Ah, Mike... I don't care what anyone says. You're
>awesome.

I just LOVE the smell of insight. :)

>-Beej
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Jimster

February 13th 07, 03:45 PM

On Feb 4, 11:47 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" >
> wrote:
>
> >J wrote:
> >>http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>
> >> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>
> >The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>
> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
> nothing of it.

What? Mtn Bikers murder horse and wildlife? - man you are such an
asshole!

Jimster

February 13th 07, 03:51 PM

On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>
> >On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> >> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
> >> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>
> >You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
> >they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
> >something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>
> >They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
> >inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>
> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.

Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?

Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!

Mike Vandeman

February 15th 07, 05:01 AM

On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" >
wrote:

>On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> >> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>> >> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>
>> >You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>> >they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>> >something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>
>> >They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>> >inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>
>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>
>
>Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>
>Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!

Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Beej

February 15th 07, 05:50 PM

On Feb 14, 9:01 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!

Not true; mountain bikers and hikers tend to move at the same rate and
can both step over things.

And the statement is especially not true in the case where the hiker
is riding a mountain bike and the mountain biker is on foot.

It's tricky semantic differences like these that make nature such a
complicated issue.

-Beej

February 15th 07, 06:10 PM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>>
>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>>
>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
>
> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!

You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.

My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.

cc

Mike Vandeman

February 16th 07, 05:12 AM

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>>>
>>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>>>
>>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
>>
>> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
>> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
>> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
>> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
>
>You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
>One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>
>My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>
>cc

Did you say something?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

rick

February 16th 07, 05:29 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case
>>>>>>>>> of mountain
>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake
>>>>>>>>> is beneficial,
>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it:
>>>>>>>>> you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is
>>>>>> a REPTILE and
>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>
>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>dictionary.
>>>
>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that
>>you choose to
>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose
>>to imply
>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How
>>do you
>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to
>>it's
>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is
>>a statement
>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY
>>difference you seem to
>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that
>>simple fact is
>>obvious and nonsense.
>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the
>>case is also
>>obvious.
>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a
>>way as to
>>cause injury.
>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as
>>terrorism.
>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>
>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists
>>while riding
>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized.
>>Your OPINION
>>has no weight in the matter
>
> Did you say somehting?

Translation: Mickey got caught with his pants down, again.
What a hoot!!

PS Mickey, Bob jumped just to get away from you...

RpJ

February 16th 07, 06:43 AM

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>I am a cyclophobic sociophobe (paraphrasing)

What else is new

February 16th 07, 07:26 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>>>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>>>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>>>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>>>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>>>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>>>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>>>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>>>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>>>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>>>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>>>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>>>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
>>> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
>>> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
>>> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
>>> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
>> You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
>> One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>> that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>> trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>> the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>> tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>>
>> My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>> as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>> basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>>
>> cc
>
> Did you say something?

Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
keep trying . .

Ed Pirrero

February 16th 07, 08:31 PM

On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc > wrote:
>
> >> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >>> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> >>>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
> >>>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
> >>>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
> >>>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
> >>>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
> >>>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
> >>>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
> >>>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
> >>>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
> >>>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
> >>>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>
> >>>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
> >>>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
> >>>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
> >>>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
> >>>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
> >>>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
> >>> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
> >>> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
> >>> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
> >>> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
> >> You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
> >> One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
> >> that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
> >> trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
> >> the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
> >> tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>
> >> My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
> >> as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
> >> basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>
> >> cc
>
> > Did you say something?
>
> Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
> keep trying .

Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?

Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...

If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
thread list!

This ain't rocket science, boys.

E.P.

RpJ

February 16th 07, 11:30 PM

"Ed Pirrero" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:

Tripe Trimmed

>> Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
>> keep trying .
>
> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>
> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>
> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> thread list!
>
> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>
> E.P.
>

And if you and I stopped, ...., especially when we remember to trim the crap
when we can't control ourselves :>)

February 19th 07, 03:41 AM

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>>>>>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>>>>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>>>>>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>>>>>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>>>>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>>>>>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>>>>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>>>>>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>>>>>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>>>>>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>>>>>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>>>>>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>>>>>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>>>>>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>>>>>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>>>>>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
>>>>> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
>>>>> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
>>>>> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
>>>>> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
>>>> You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
>>>> One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>>>> that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>>>> trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>>>> the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>>>> tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>>>> My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>>>> as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>>>> basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>>>> cc
>>> Did you say something?
>> Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
>> keep trying .
>
> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>
> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>
> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> thread list!
>
> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>

Yes, but thank you for lending
your willingness to point out
the idiotically obvious for
the sheer lack of something
meaningful to say.

HAND.

cc

Ed Pirrero

February 19th 07, 04:05 AM

On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>
> > Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>
> > Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>
> > If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> > less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> > posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> > thread list!
>
> > This ain't rocket science, boys.
>
> Yes, but thank you for lending
> your willingness to point out
> the idiotically obvious for
> the sheer lack of something
> meaningful to say.

How hilariously ironic.

E.P.

February 19th 07, 07:50 PM

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>>> thread list!
>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>> your willingness to point out
>> the idiotically obvious for
>> the sheer lack of something
>> meaningful to say.
>
> How hilariously ironic.
>

Yeah, I guess you're right. It
is pretty idiotically obvious
that you have nothing
meaningful to say.

cc

Ed Pirrero

February 19th 07, 08:51 PM

On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
> >>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
> >>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
> >>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> >>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> >>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> >>> thread list!
> >>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
> >> Yes, but thank you for lending
> >> your willingness to point out
> >> the idiotically obvious for
> >> the sheer lack of something
> >> meaningful to say.
>
> > How hilariously ironic.
>
> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
> is pretty idiotically obvious
> that you have nothing
> meaningful to say.

LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.

Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:

Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.

HTH, HAND,

E.P.

February 19th 07, 09:38 PM

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>>>>> thread list!
>>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>>>> your willingness to point out
>>>> the idiotically obvious for
>>>> the sheer lack of something
>>>> meaningful to say.
>>> How hilariously ironic.
>> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
>> is pretty idiotically obvious
>> that you have nothing
>> meaningful to say.
>
> LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>
> Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>
> Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>
> HTH, HAND,
>
> E.P.
>

I knew what you meant, douchebag. If you read my last post and *that*
irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
speak-and-spell.

As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.

Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
nothing but defeat your purpose. Just crawl back under your rock.

cc

Ed Pirrero

February 19th 07, 10:15 PM

On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
> >>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
> >>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
> >>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> >>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> >>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> >>>>> thread list!
> >>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
> >>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
> >>>> your willingness to point out
> >>>> the idiotically obvious for
> >>>> the sheer lack of something
> >>>> meaningful to say.
> >>> How hilariously ironic.
> >> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
> >> is pretty idiotically obvious
> >> that you have nothing
> >> meaningful to say.
>
> > LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>
> > Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>
> > Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>
> > HTH, HAND,
>
> > E.P.
>
> I knew what you meant, douchebag.

I doubt it. That's what makes it so funny.

> If you read my last post and *that*
> irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
> speak-and-spell.

Oh, I got the irony - but not in the way you're imagining. LMAO.

> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.

Well, let's look at results, shall we?

Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
yup - no meaning.

> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
> nothing but defeat your purpose.

Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
else.

> Just crawl back under your rock.

You first, crabby.

E.P.

February 19th 07, 10:21 PM

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>>>>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>>>>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>>>>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>>>>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>>>>>>> thread list!
>>>>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>>>>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>>>>>> your willingness to point out
>>>>>> the idiotically obvious for
>>>>>> the sheer lack of something
>>>>>> meaningful to say.
>>>>> How hilariously ironic.
>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
>>>> is pretty idiotically obvious
>>>> that you have nothing
>>>> meaningful to say.
>>> LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>>> Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>>> Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>>> HTH, HAND,
>>> E.P.
>> I knew what you meant, douchebag.
>
> I doubt it. That's what makes it so funny.

Uh-huh.

>
>> If you read my last post and *that*
>> irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
>> speak-and-spell.
>
> Oh, I got the irony - but not in the way you're imagining. LMAO.

Uh-huh.

>
>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>
> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>
> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
> yup - no meaning.

Again, all your opinion. Like assholes, buddy. Sometimes a little closer
for some than others. Yours smells a little funny, but it's still yours.

>
>> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
>> nothing but defeat your purpose.
>
> Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
> what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
> respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
> else.

So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever? I kind
of doubt that. Still waiting ....

>
>> Just crawl back under your rock.
>
> You first, crabby.
>
> E.P.
>

Ed Pirrero

February 19th 07, 11:25 PM

On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc > wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>
> > Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>
> > Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
> > generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
> > yup - no meaning.
>
> Again, all your opinion.

No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.

But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.

> >> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
> >> nothing but defeat your purpose.
>
> > Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
> > what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
> > respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
> > else.
>
> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?

Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.

> Still waiting ....

For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.

E.P.

February 19th 07, 11:41 PM

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>>> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>>> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
>>> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
>>> yup - no meaning.
>> Again, all your opinion.
>
> No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.
>
> But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
> has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.

No effect on MJV != no meaning. Again, your definition reflects your
opinion.

>
>>>> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
>>>> nothing but defeat your purpose.
>>> Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
>>> what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
>>> respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
>>> else.
>> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?
>
> Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.

So please illuminate us as to the point of any of your posts?

This portion of this thread is less than useless, as it pertains to a
point that has yet to be made (by you) ! Get to it, or get lost. I mean,
it's okay, I know you don't have one. Still waiting ...

>
>> Still waiting ....
>
> For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
> power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.
>

You know, I'm not sure what nuggets you're trying to drop, but if it
really was that feeding the trolls is pointless and increases what you
consider junk posting, then you are both inflicting your opinion on me
and being a whiny pussy net nanny who can't use his filters and STFU.

It's pretty hilarious, considering you're doing nothing but exactly what
you accuse me of doing with MJV ... seeing how it's the reason you
started the thread in first place, the first and deepest irony alas
belongs to you. Go write that in your journal and highlight it as the
most interesting thing you've done so far this year. You won't be
disappointed this winter when you do your year in review this winter ...

Ed Pirrero

February 19th 07, 11:59 PM

On Feb 19, 3:41 pm, cc > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc > wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc > wrote:
> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
> >>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
> >>> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
> >>> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
> >>> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
> >>> yup - no meaning.
> >> Again, all your opinion.
>
> > No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.
>
> > But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
> > has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.
>
> No effect on MJV != no meaning. Again, your definition reflects your
> opinion.

Then use whatever definition suits you. I'll wait...

> >> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?
>
> > Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.
>
> So please illuminate us as to the point of any of your posts?

Comprehending English is not your strong suit, I see.

The point really couldn't be any clearer.

> This portion of this thread is less than useless

Oh, my - an opinion? Wow, talk about more irony...

> Get to it, or get lost.

It's already been made, tough guy.

>
> >> Still waiting ....
>
> > For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
> > power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.
>
> You know, I'm not sure what nuggets you're trying to drop...

I know. You are completely clueless. Which is the whole reason you
respond to MJV as if your posts were anything but a complete waste of
bandwidth.

But you did have a very good suggestion - one I'm sure you'll follow:

Write down all your "pithy" remarks to MJV in your journal, rather
than posting them such that the whole world can revel in your
ignorance. That way, you get to say what you want, and the words will
have exactly the same effect on everyone, without the wasted
electrons.

E.P.

February 20th 07, 01:14 AM

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:41 pm, cc > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>>>>> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>>>>> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
>>>>> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
>>>>> yup - no meaning.
>>>> Again, all your opinion.
>>> No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.
>>> But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
>>> has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.
>> No effect on MJV != no meaning. Again, your definition reflects your
>> opinion.
>
> Then use whatever definition suits you. I'll wait...

Sorry, bud, but I needn't define it for you. Unless you really are the
net police . . but only then. Show me your badge or shoulder to burp on,
or you'll simply have to guess.

>
>>>> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?
>>> Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.
>> So please illuminate us as to the point of any of your posts?
>
> Comprehending English is not your strong suit, I see.

Once you start speaking it, I'll let you know.

>
> The point really couldn't be any clearer.

Uh-huh. There is none.

>
>> This portion of this thread is less than useless
>
> Oh, my - an opinion? Wow, talk about more irony...
>
>> Get to it, or get lost.
>
> It's already been made, tough guy.

Uh-huh. There is none.

>
>
>>>> Still waiting ....
>>> For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
>>> power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.
>> You know, I'm not sure what nuggets you're trying to drop...
>
> I know. You are completely clueless. Which is the whole reason you
> respond to MJV as if your posts were anything but a complete waste of
> bandwidth.

It's hilarious that you keep alluding to a point that you don't have! I
obviously care not for your opinion of the *meaning* of my posts, and
everything you have to say following that is rendered the same waste of
bandwidth you imply my posts represent. Your continuation is simply a
perpetuation of the irony you are so intent on illuminating. This you
obviously cannot grasp. But please try try again . .

bruno

February 20th 07, 01:31 AM

cc dude i have to ****in' say it--you are one humorless prig. yeah
"prig". look it up you manque faux erudite douchebag poseur. fo' real
dog. you're startin' to get on ol' bruno's (and everyone else's
nerves!!). get laid dude! whichever way ya like it. . .

hardeeharhar!!!

happy everything to everybody!!!!

bruno

February 20th 07, 01:41 AM

cc, i really have to say i'm ****ed at you. your douchebaggery is
astounding! jus' fer ****z an' giggles i done read through (ok--
skimmed) this whole thread and i wonder why the good folks here even
tolerate your sorry pedantic ass. dude, get a ****in' clue--you are a
douche. a gaylord even.

but ya know what--if yer jus' ****in' wif us and are not serious--
you're a genius. an EVIL genius, but a genius nonethe****inless. you
got me fer shure!!!

but duder. serious. are you 4 real? straight up.

February 20th 07, 04:36 AM

bruno wrote:
> cc, i really have to say i'm ****ed at you. your douchebaggery is
> astounding! jus' fer ****z an' giggles i done read through (ok--
> skimmed) this whole thread and i wonder why the good folks here even
> tolerate your sorry pedantic ass. dude, get a ****in' clue--you are a
> douche. a gaylord even.
>
> but ya know what--if yer jus' ****in' wif us and are not serious--
> you're a genius. an EVIL genius, but a genius nonethe****inless. you
> got me fer shure!!!
>
> but duder. serious. are you 4 real? straight up.
>

bruno, i needn't even pay
attention to the content of
your posts to get irritated.
it's like when someone is just
so annoying you can't even
listen . . . apparently you
have a vocabulary, so why do
you spend the extra time it
must take you to make your
posts sound absolutely retarded?

February 20th 07, 04:38 AM

bruno wrote:
> cc, i really have to say i'm ****ed at you. your douchebaggery is

I do have to give you a little
cred for the use of the word
"douchebaggery".

>
> but duder. serious. are you 4 real? straight up.
>

Well, you're not.

Ed Pirrero

February 20th 07, 04:36 PM

On Feb 19, 5:14 pm, cc > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 3:41 pm, cc > wrote:
>
>
> >>>> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?
> >>> Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.
> >> So please illuminate us as to the point of any of your posts?
>
> > Comprehending English is not your strong suit, I see.
>
> Once you start speaking it, I'll let you know.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

> > The point really couldn't be any clearer.
>
> Uh-huh. There is none.

Just because you can't grasp it does not imply its absense.

> >>>> Still waiting ....
> >>> For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
> >>> power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.
> >> You know, I'm not sure what nuggets you're trying to drop...
>
> > I know. You are completely clueless. Which is the whole reason you
> > respond to MJV as if your posts were anything but a complete waste of
> > bandwidth.
>
> It's hilarious that you keep alluding to a point that you don't have!

A logical impossibility.

> Your continuation is simply a
> perpetuation of the irony you are so intent on illuminating.

The glaring difference is that I actually know and understand that
anything in reply to what MJV writes is a waste of bandwidth.

Oh, and the fact that I don't take what's written in usenet nearly as
seriously as you so obviously do...

E.P.

Mike Vandeman

February 22nd 07, 12:29 AM

On 16 Feb 2007 12:31:14 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" >
wrote:

>On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc > wrote:
>>
>> >> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> >>> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" >
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> >>>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>> >>>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>> >>>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>> >>>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>> >>>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>> >>>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>> >>>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>> >>>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>> >>>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>> >>>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>> >>>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>>
>> >>>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>> >>>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>> >>>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>> >>>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>> >>>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>> >>>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
>> >>> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
>> >>> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
>> >>> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
>> >>> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
>> >> You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
>> >> One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>> >> that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>> >> trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>> >> the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>> >> tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>>
>> >> My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>> >> as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>> >> basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>>
>> >> cc
>>
>> > Did you say something?
>>
>> Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
>> keep trying .
>
>Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>
>Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>
>If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>thread list!
>
>This ain't rocket science, boys.

And their "rockets" aren't going anywhere.

>E.P.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 22nd 07, 12:33 AM

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:38:40 -0800, cc > wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>>>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>>>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>>>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>>>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>>>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>>>>>> thread list!
>>>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>>>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>>>>> your willingness to point out
>>>>> the idiotically obvious for
>>>>> the sheer lack of something
>>>>> meaningful to say.
>>>> How hilariously ironic.
>>> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
>>> is pretty idiotically obvious
>>> that you have nothing
>>> meaningful to say.
>>
>> LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>>
>> Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>>
>> Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>>
>> HTH, HAND,
>>
>> E.P.
>>
>
>I knew what you meant, douchebag. If you read my last post and *that*
>irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
>speak-and-spell.
>
>As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>
>Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
>nothing but defeat your purpose. Just crawl back under your rock.
>
>cc

Isn't it great, when mountain bikers demonstrate how they can't even
get along with their own peers?!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

February 22nd 07, 12:34 AM

On 19 Feb 2007 14:15:37 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" >
wrote:

>On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc > wrote:
>> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc > wrote:
>> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc > wrote:
>> >>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>> >>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>> >>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>> >>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>> >>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>> >>>>> thread list!
>> >>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>> >>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>> >>>> your willingness to point out
>> >>>> the idiotically obvious for
>> >>>> the sheer lack of something
>> >>>> meaningful to say.
>> >>> How hilariously ironic.
>> >> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
>> >> is pretty idiotically obvious
>> >> that you have nothing
>> >> meaningful to say.
>>
>> > LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>>
>> > Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>>
>> > Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>>
>> > HTH, HAND,
>>
>> > E.P.
>>
>> I knew what you meant, douchebag.
>
>I doubt it. That's what makes it so funny.
>
>> If you read my last post and *that*
>> irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
>> speak-and-spell.
>
>Oh, I got the irony - but not in the way you're imagining. LMAO.
>
>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>
>Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>
>Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
>generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
>yup - no meaning.
>
>> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
>> nothing but defeat your purpose.
>
>Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
>what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
>respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
>else.
>
>> Just crawl back under your rock.
>
>You first, crabby.
>
>E.P.

Isn't it great, watching mountain bikers play "Who's dumber?"
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande