"Divisive Issue"

On Mar 1, 7:34 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

To drop into your relam of thought for a moment:

YOU BRAINLESS IDJIT!

What being would EVER think it possible to drop a mammoth with a
single spear thrust???????????

The Paleo-Indians did not have cell phones, so what DID get them?

On 1 Mar 2007 18:34:19 -0800, "pmh" wrote:

On Mar 1, 7:34 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

To drop into your relam of thought for a moment:

YOU BRAINLESS IDJIT!

What being would EVER think it possible to drop a mammoth with a
single spear thrust???????????

I never said they did, liar.

The Paleo-Indians did not have cell phones, so what DID get them?
===
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

OK, now we're making some progress.

What Is Homo Sapiens' Place in Nature,
From an Objective (Biocentric) Point of View?
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
July 4, 2002

"For hundreds of millenia, evolving humanity was a native species ... in
Africa and Asia. ... The modern Races of Homo sapiens were a true alien
species when they colonized the rest of the world, from Australia to
the New World and finally the distant oceanic islands." E.O. Wilson,
p.98.

"The behaviours animals use to avoid predators are both genetically
based and learned. The genetic component is acquired through natural
selection and so can only slowly be developed. This may account in
part for the fact that most of the world's surviving large mammals
live in Africa, for it was there that humanity evolved, and it was
only there that animals had the time to acquire the genetically based
behaviours that allowed them to cope with the new predator." Tim
Flannery, p.198.

These are valid points, but apply not only to man but to any species
that expands his range.

"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.

That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
agree with him. Man's
superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
but do not take him out
of the natural equation.

Many answers have been given to this question, but none, to my
knowledge, based on science. Even scientists, apparently, often avoid
applying their knowledge when it may be inconvenient (e.g., interfere
with our preferred lifestyle). For example, open any biology textbook
and find where it defines "exotic species". Do you see any mention of
the fact that humans are, throughout most of our range, an exotic
species -- or even a discussion of whether we are an exotic species?
If biology is so valuable (which I think it is), why do we shy away
from using it?

Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic. Early man expanded his
range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
shelter - natural drives.

For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
accept that definition, but scientists do.

Another example: it is often claimed that humans are a natural
part of our environment -- we are just an animal like any other
animal. If that is true, then why aren't humans mentioned in the vast
majority of natural histories? The fact is, we consider ourselves a
part of our ecosystems when it's convenient (e.g. when we want to
justify recreation in wildlife habitat), and not, when it's not
convenient (e.g. when choosing where to live: in a house!). When you
die, will you re-enter the ecosystem just like any other dead
organism? No! We are either cremated, or buried in a box, specifically
to avoid the natural process of decay.

I rather prefer the Tibetan sky burial where the bodies of the dead
are offered to the vultures. Read about it at
http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/Tib...ib-burial.html It seems
to be in closest harmony with nature.

snip

This all boils down to whether one is a conservationist or a
preservationist. I am a conservationist. You are a preservationist.
Here's a pretty good explanation of the difference:

"Conservation & Preservation

"Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use the
words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often
confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences
exist.
Conservation is the sustainable use and management of natural
resources including wildlife, water, air, and earth deposits. Natural
resources may be renewable or non-renewable. The conservation of
renewable resources like trees involves ensuring that they are not
consumed faster than they can be replaced. The conservation of non-
renewable resources like fossil fuels involves ensuring that
sufficient quantities are maintained for future generations to
utilise. Conservation of natural resources usually focuses on the
needs and interests of human beings, for example the biological,
economic, cultural and recreational values such resources have. The
rain forest for example, contains a wide range of biodiversity,
providing food stocks for local populations and a source of timber and
medicines for other countries. Conservationists accept that
development is necessary for a better future, but only when the
changes take place in ways that are not wasteful. What the
conservationist opposes is not the harnessing of nature for mankind's
progression, but the fact that all too often the environment comes off
the worse for wear.

"Preservation, in contrast to conservation, attempts to maintain in
their present condition areas of the Earth that are so far untouched
by humans. This is due to the concern that mankind is encroaching onto
the environment at such a rate that many untamed landscapes are being
given over to farming, industry, housing, tourism and other human
developments, and that we our losing too much of what is 'natural'.
Like conservationists, some preservationists support the protection of
nature for purely human-centred reasons. Stronger advocates of
preservation however, adopt a less human-centred approach to
environmental protection, placing a value on nature that does not
relate to the needs and interests of human beings. Deep green ecology
argues that ecosystems and individual species should be preserved
whatever the cost, regardless of their usefulness to humans, and even
if their continued existence would prove harmful to us. This follows
from the belief that every living thing has a right to exist and
should be preserved."

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Sustain...servation.html

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 1 Mar 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:52 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
You are atempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

I know. I'm kind of like Don Quixote that way. Mike and I go back at
least ten years.

Proving that you are incapable of learning anything.

Mike, repeated personal attacks do nothing to support your arguments.
Facts do. Now please provide facts, not opinion, to support your
claims.

Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!

Just a few from a quick search:

May 2002:
"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are killed
by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing small
animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."
*references Mikey...? You don't get to simply make up numbers. Where was
your PROOF that off-road cyclists kill thousands of small animals every
week"

Sept 2006:
"It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
cheap thrills."
The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you state
"mountain bikers" destroyed it.

Jan 2007:
In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
response:

"Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
stole a bicycle to get away.
In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism remains
one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except for
mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly abandoned
the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away from
a direct question"

All of the above represent obvious LIES (not factual) on your part.
Documented and easily
searched.

A simple Google search of usenet reveals everything within minutes.
Of course, if someone really wanted to read something from you that was not
factual, all they would have to do is follow the link to your "website"!

What is Mike Vanderman's place in nature, from a meta-trolling point
of view?
Joseph S. Huang, not a Ph.D
March 2, 2007

DETECT IDEOLOGY: ANTI-HUMAN
APPLY IDEOLOGY: SELF DESTRUCT
SELF DESTRUCT: FAILURE, UNWILLING TO DESTROY SELF
IDEOLOGY FAILED.

On 2 Mar 2007 08:25:36 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

OK, now we're making some progress.

What Is Homo Sapiens' Place in Nature,
From an Objective (Biocentric) Point of View?
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
July 4, 2002

"For hundreds of millenia, evolving humanity was a native species ... in
Africa and Asia. ... The modern Races of Homo sapiens were a true alien
species when they colonized the rest of the world, from Australia to
the New World and finally the distant oceanic islands." E.O. Wilson,
p.98.

"The behaviours animals use to avoid predators are both genetically
based and learned. The genetic component is acquired through natural
selection and so can only slowly be developed. This may account in
part for the fact that most of the world's surviving large mammals
live in Africa, for it was there that humanity evolved, and it was
only there that animals had the time to acquire the genetically based
behaviours that allowed them to cope with the new predator." Tim
Flannery, p.198.

These are valid points, but apply not only to man but to any species
that expands his range.

"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.

That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
agree with him. Man's
superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
but do not take him out
of the natural equation.

So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.

Many answers have been given to this question, but none, to my
knowledge, based on science. Even scientists, apparently, often avoid
applying their knowledge when it may be inconvenient (e.g., interfere
with our preferred lifestyle). For example, open any biology textbook
and find where it defines "exotic species". Do you see any mention of
the fact that humans are, throughout most of our range, an exotic
species -- or even a discussion of whether we are an exotic species?
If biology is so valuable (which I think it is), why do we shy away
from using it?

Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.

You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
the day you arrive! DUH!

Early man expanded his
range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
shelter - natural drives.

For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
accept that definition, but scientists do.

It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).

Another example: it is often claimed that humans are a natural
part of our environment -- we are just an animal like any other
animal. If that is true, then why aren't humans mentioned in the vast
majority of natural histories? The fact is, we consider ourselves a
part of our ecosystems when it's convenient (e.g. when we want to
justify recreation in wildlife habitat), and not, when it's not
convenient (e.g. when choosing where to live: in a house!). When you
die, will you re-enter the ecosystem just like any other dead
organism? No! We are either cremated, or buried in a box, specifically
to avoid the natural process of decay.

I rather prefer the Tibetan sky burial where the bodies of the dead
are offered to the vultures. Read about it at
http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/Tib...ib-burial.html It seems
to be in closest harmony with nature.

But I see that you don't offer to practice it.

snip

This all boils down to whether one is a conservationist or a
preservationist. I am a conservationist. You are a preservationist.
Here's a pretty good explanation of the difference:

"Conservation & Preservation

"Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use the
words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often
confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences
exist.
Conservation is the sustainable use

That is a nice-sounding concept that has no basis in reality: it
doesn't exist!

and management of natural
resources including wildlife, water, air, and earth deposits. Natural
resources may be renewable or non-renewable. The conservation of
renewable resources like trees involves ensuring that they are not
consumed faster than they can be replaced. The conservation of non-
renewable resources like fossil fuels involves ensuring that
sufficient quantities are maintained for future generations to
utilise. Conservation of natural resources usually focuses on the
needs and interests of human beings, for example the biological,
economic, cultural and recreational values such resources have. The
rain forest for example, contains a wide range of biodiversity,
providing food stocks for local populations and a source of timber and
medicines for other countries. Conservationists accept that
development is necessary for a better future, but only when the
changes take place in ways that are not wasteful. What the
conservationist opposes is not the harnessing of nature for mankind's
progression, but the fact that all too often the environment comes off
the worse for wear.

"Preservation, in contrast to conservation, attempts to maintain in
their present condition areas of the Earth that are so far untouched
by humans. This is due to the concern that mankind is encroaching onto
the environment at such a rate that many untamed landscapes are being
given over to farming, industry, housing, tourism and other human
developments, and that we our losing too much of what is 'natural'.
Like conservationists, some preservationists support the protection of
nature for purely human-centred reasons. Stronger advocates of
preservation however, adopt a less human-centred approach to
environmental protection, placing a value on nature that does not
relate to the needs and interests of human beings. Deep green ecology
argues that ecosystems and individual species should be preserved
whatever the cost, regardless of their usefulness to humans, and even
if their continued existence would prove harmful to us. This follows
from the belief that every living thing has a right to exist and
should be preserved."

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Sustain...servation.html
===
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

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:40:36 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Mar 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:52 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
You are atempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

I know. I'm kind of like Don Quixote that way. Mike and I go back at
least ten years.

Proving that you are incapable of learning anything.

Mike, repeated personal attacks do nothing to support your arguments.
Facts do. Now please provide facts, not opinion, to support your
claims.

Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!

Just a few from a quick search:

May 2002:
"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are killed
by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing small
animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."

"Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
torment". QED

It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
===
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" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:40:36 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On 1 Mar 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:52 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
You are atempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

I know. I'm kind of like Don Quixote that way. Mike and I go back
at
least ten years.

Proving that you are incapable of learning anything.

Mike, repeated personal attacks do nothing to support your arguments.
Facts do. Now please provide facts, not opinion, to support your
claims.

Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!

Just a few from a quick search:

May 2002:
"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are
killed
by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing
small
animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."

"Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
torment". QED

It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
Wrong - There is no INTENT to kill therefore "murder" is not the correct
term. Unless you intend to also state that every time you walk you also
"murder" small creatures and that your "murder" is somehow less important
than that which you attribute to cyclists. Plus, you still have NOT provided
ANY reference that supports your CLAIM that there are "thousands of small
animals" killed by mountain bikers or that anything "killed" is
statistically higher in numbers than those resulting from hikers'
activities.
You are applying your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS but supplying NO evidence to
support the numbers or the terminology. Therefore, it is NOT FACT.

You also completely disregarded the rest of post concerning NON-FACT (lies)
statements on your part:

Sept 2006:
"It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
cheap thrills."
The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you state
"mountain bikers" destroyed it.

Jan 2007:
In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
response:

"Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
stole a bicycle to get away.
In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism remains
one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except for
mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly abandoned
the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away from
a direct question"

You are PATHETIC as a researcher and a complete JOKE as a reference for
anything "factual". You have NO integrity in your statements and that is
proven by the tactics of your replies.

On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.

That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
agree with him. Man's
superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
but do not take him out of the natural equation.

So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.

I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
as some extranatural being.

Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.

You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
the day you arrive! DUH!

I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
nothing magic in being a native species.

Early man expanded his

range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
shelter - natural drives.

For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
accept that definition, but scientists do.

It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).

The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
organism got here.

Would you have us ship back to Asia any animals that came across the
Bering Strait or ship back to South America any animal that expanded
its range north into North America? The fact that they did not evolve
here does not give them any less right to exist here.


I rather prefer the Tibetan sky burial where the bodies of the dead
are offered to the vultures. Read about it at
http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/Tib...ib-burial.html It seems
to be in closest harmony with nature.

But I see that you don't offer to practice it.

It is my understanding that it would not be permitted in America.

This all boils down to whether one is a conservationist or a
preservationist. I am a conservationist. You are a preservationist.
Here's a pretty good explanation of the difference:

"Conservation & Preservation

"Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use the
words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often
confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences
exist.
Conservation is the sustainable use

That is a nice-sounding concept that has no basis in reality: it
doesn't exist!

Get your head out of books and into the real world and you will see
that it does. As Yogi Berra said, "You can learn a lot by watching."

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:14:50 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:40:36 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 1 Mar 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:52 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
You are atempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

I know. I'm kind of like Don Quixote that way. Mike and I go back
at
least ten years.

Proving that you are incapable of learning anything.

Mike, repeated personal attacks do nothing to support your arguments.
Facts do. Now please provide facts, not opinion, to support your
claims.

Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!

Just a few from a quick search:

May 2002:
"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are
killed
by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing
small
animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."

"Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
torment". QED

It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
Wrong - There is no INTENT to kill therefore "murder" is not the correct
term.

According to Webster, you are WRONG. Just like everything else you
say! ... Too bad you blew your ONE AND ONLY opportunity to prove me
wrong. c'est la vie.

Unless you intend to also state that every time you walk you also
"murder" small creatures and that your "murder" is somehow less important
than that which you attribute to cyclists. Plus, you still have NOT provided
ANY reference that supports your CLAIM that there are "thousands of small
animals" killed by mountain bikers or that anything "killed" is
statistically higher in numbers than those resulting from hikers'
activities.
You are applying your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS but supplying NO evidence to
support the numbers or the terminology. Therefore, it is NOT FACT.

You also completely disregarded the rest of post concerning NON-FACT (lies)
statements on your part:

Sept 2006:
"It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
cheap thrills."
The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you state
"mountain bikers" destroyed it.

Jan 2007:
In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
response:

"Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
stole a bicycle to get away.
In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism remains
one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except for
mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly abandoned
the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away from
a direct question"

You are PATHETIC as a researcher and a complete JOKE as a reference for
anything "factual". You have NO integrity in your statements and that is
proven by the tactics of your replies.

===
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