Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught.

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

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

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.

"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.

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...20207074.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!

"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...