Ways to save energy, carbon, or pollution - NOW!

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 May 2007 23:56:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On 15 May 2007 07:44:05 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 14, 5:48 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Thank you for adding NOTHING of value to the discussion, as usual.

Just returning the favor ;-)

BJ

At least you ADMIT it.

...Which is going one better than you.

BS. I provide the ONLY valuable & reliable information that ever
appears in alt.mountain-bike.


And in several other groups that you cross post to. Well, in those groups,
your posts are seldom valuable or reliable.

How would YOU know? ROTFL


Because in the group that I visit, your posts are seldom valuable or
reliable. If they are not valuable or reliable here, then I assume they are
not valuable or reliable anyplace else.

For a guy with a PhD, you are sure stupid.

On May 17, 2:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I'm not being rude, just truthful. If I ever decide to be rude, you
will know it. It hasn't happened yet.

You clearly have no conception whatsoever of how you appear to others.

On Fri, 18 May 2007 02:16:22 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 May 2007 23:56:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 15 May 2007 07:44:05 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 14, 5:48 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Thank you for adding NOTHING of value to the discussion, as usual.

Just returning the favor ;-)

BJ

At least you ADMIT it.

...Which is going one better than you.

BS. I provide the ONLY valuable & reliable information that ever
appears in alt.mountain-bike.


And in several other groups that you cross post to. Well, in those groups,
your posts are seldom valuable or reliable.

How would YOU know? ROTFL


Because in the group that I visit, your posts are seldom valuable or
reliable.

See what I mean? You completely failed to answer my simple question.
Your stupidity is AMAZING!

If they are not valuable or reliable here, then I assume they are
not valuable or reliable anyplace else.

For a guy with a PhD, you are sure stupid.




--
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 18 May 2007 07:46:54 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 17, 2:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I'm not being rude, just truthful. If I ever decide to be rude, you
will know it. It hasn't happened yet.

You clearly have no conception whatsoever of how you appear to others.

What does that have to do with anything?
--
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
...

How would YOU know? ROTFL


Because in the group that I visit, your posts are seldom valuable or
reliable.

See what I mean? You completely failed to answer my simple question.
Your stupidity is AMAZING!



Put on your PhD hat and follow along here.

You asked, "How would YOU know? (ROTFL)" (parenthesis added for clarity)

I answered that because of the many groups that you cross post to, the one I
visit is one where your posts are seldom valuable or reliable. That seems
like a very direct asnwer to your quiry.

Since you asked, I'll go a step further and assert that your posts are not
reliable, much less, valuable. For example, you reported that a mountain
biker died and the community was crushed by the loss (paraphrasing the
actual article you posted), but upon reading the article, the mountain biker
was killed in an unrelated accident that had nothing at all to do with bike
riding -- indeed, he wasn't even riding a bike at the time of his death. In
another article you posted, a bike rider was killed by a mountain lion
lurking just outside a residential neighborhood in Orange County, CA, and
attributed the death to being a direct result of the bicycle and its
operation in the particular area when the reality is that the mountain lion
attacking the rider was merely a coincidence -- the lion could easily have
attacked a child walking along the same path on his or her way home from
school (the pathway is also near an elementry school in addition to being
nearby to homes).

These are but two of your posts that are unreliable. Factually, the events
occurred, but as a matter of reliability, the conditions under which they
occurred vary greatly with your commentary contained in the Subject Line or
in the opening paragraph(s) of the posts.

You asked earlier in another thread, what's the difference in a lawyer and a
liar? The liar has a PhD.

On May 18, 8:31 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 18 May 2007 07:46:54 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 17, 2:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I'm not being rude, just truthful. If I ever decide to be rude, you
will know it. It hasn't happened yet.

You clearly have no conception whatsoever of how you appear to others.

What does that have to do with anything?

It has as much to do with everything as *your* prior statement. You
can't *tell* when you're rude. Are you autistic? Sociopathic? You
just assume that everything you say comes out sounding like the
gospel? Well, it doesn't - even the intelligent stuff sounds
combative, obnoxious and RUDE.

Bruce Jensen wrote:
On May 17, 2:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I'm not being rude, just truthful. If I ever decide to be rude, you
will know it. It hasn't happened yet.

You clearly have no conception whatsoever of how you appear to others.

You guys are missing the point and it's really simple. More people means
more consumers and they all want the life style that they can afford.
The answer is actually some meaningful form of birth control, like no
conceptions so no abortion problems. That could be done simply by taxing
each child over 2 per family.
Simple, but nobody will like it.
Bill Baka

On 18 May 2007 10:12:23 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 18, 8:31 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 18 May 2007 07:46:54 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 17, 2:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I'm not being rude, just truthful. If I ever decide to be rude, you
will know it. It hasn't happened yet.

You clearly have no conception whatsoever of how you appear to others.

What does that have to do with anything?

It has as much to do with everything as *your* prior statement. You
can't *tell* when you're rude. Are you autistic? Sociopathic? You
just assume that everything you say comes out sounding like the
gospel? Well, it doesn't - even the intelligent stuff sounds
combative, obnoxious and RUDE.

Only because you read into it what isn't there. What else is new?
--
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 May 20, 7:28 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 18 May 2007 10:12:23 -0700, Bruce Jensen
On May 17, 2:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I'm not being rude, just truthful. If I ever decide to be rude, you
will know it. It hasn't happened yet.

You clearly have no conception whatsoever of how you appear to others.

What does that have to do with anything?

It has as much to do with everything as *your* prior statement. You
can't *tell* when you're rude. Are you autistic? Sociopathic? You
just assume that everything you say comes out sounding like the
gospel? Well, it doesn't - even the intelligent stuff sounds
combative, obnoxious and RUDE.

Only because you read into it what isn't there.

I ain't the only one.

What else is new?

Nothing - there has *always been* plenty that isn't there. Logic,
science and factual data for starters.