RR: Losing her cherry (Klondike Bluffs)

On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


Bruce Jensen wrote:
S Curtiss wrote:

Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern
for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road
cycling.

FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
positions are so silly at times...

I believe
that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that
any additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be
stopped.

And going after one of the least harmful human activities
accomplishes, what?

BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
damage.

He
sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).

The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use? When
I see litter/crap in the backcountry, do I then assume that EVERY
backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human waste?

His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
reason to allow bikes in natural areas.

Is that the position you understand?


Mike,
Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the USNET??
What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road cycling
should be allowed.

To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.

Chris Foster


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

===
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
:

On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


Bruce Jensen wrote:
S Curtiss wrote:

Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern
for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road
cycling.

FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
positions are so silly at times...

I believe
that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction
at every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes
that any additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be
stopped.

And going after one of the least harmful human activities
accomplishes, what?

BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
damage.

He
sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having
seen firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails,
off-trail habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his
position).

The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?
When I see litter/crap in the backcountry, do I then assume that
EVERY backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human
waste?

His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
reason to allow bikes in natural areas.

Is that the position you understand?


Mike,
Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the
USNET??
What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road cycling
should be allowed.

To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.

Chris Foster


OK, following that logic, I am completly educated, you have voiced
your opinion. Why should you be allowed to continue to post on USNET?



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

===
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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 11 Dec 2006 14:11:46 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


Bruce Jensen wrote:
S Curtiss wrote:

Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern
for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road
cycling.

FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
positions are so silly at times...

I believe
that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction
at every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes
that any additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be
stopped.

And going after one of the least harmful human activities
accomplishes, what?

BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
damage.

He
sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having
seen firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails,
off-trail habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his
position).

The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?
When I see litter/crap in the backcountry, do I then assume that
EVERY backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human
waste?

His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
reason to allow bikes in natural areas.

Is that the position you understand?


Mike,
Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the
USNET??
What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road cycling
should be allowed.

To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.

Chris Foster


OK, following that logic, I am completly educated, you have voiced
your opinion. Why should you be allowed to continue to post on USNET?

How are you going to stop me? Idiot.


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

===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 11 Dec 2006 14:11:46 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


Bruce Jensen wrote:
S Curtiss wrote:

Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real
concern for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about
off-road cycling.

FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
positions are so silly at times...

I believe
that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or
extinction at every turn (and this is true in some cases), and
he believes that any additional unnecessary stress placed on
them ought to be stopped.

And going after one of the least harmful human activities
accomplishes, what?

BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our
parks and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a
lot of damage.

He
sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having
seen firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails,
off-trail habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his
position).

The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?
When I see litter/crap in the backcountry, do I then assume that
EVERY backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human
waste?

His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
reason to allow bikes in natural areas.

Is that the position you understand?


Mike,
Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the
USNET??
What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road
cycling should be allowed.

To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.

Chris Foster


OK, following that logic, I am completly educated, you have voiced
your opinion. Why should you be allowed to continue to post on USNET?

How are you going to stop me? Idiot.


OK Following that logic, How are you going to stop all those BILLIONS
of mountain bikers from destroying your precious virgin forest


wait for it

wait for it

wait for it



IDIOT


(did that so you could understand my message, seems that name calling is
the only method of conversation you can follow)







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

===
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


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
black wrote:

Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
"Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
you missed the bigger picture?

Welcome to Alt.Mountain-Bike. That's how it is, just get over it and
keep posting. The USENET is a strange place and A.M-B is even stranger.
Here's some info to give you a heads up:

http://www.schnauzers.ws/ambfaq.html


speaking of regulars, where's
crazy?

cc wrote:
Ride-A-Lot wrote:
black wrote:

Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
"Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
you missed the bigger picture?

Welcome to Alt.Mountain-Bike. That's how it is, just get over it and
keep posting. The USENET is a strange place and A.M-B is even
stranger. Here's some info to give you a heads up:

http://www.schnauzers.ws/ambfaq.html


speaking of regulars, where's crazy?

Good question. He hasn't posted since I moved in June. Hope he's OK.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
cc wrote:

speaking of regulars, where's crazy?

Good question. He hasn't posted since I moved in June. Hope he's OK.

He posted once or twice from an actual ISP (non-WebTV) I think, but that was
weeks ago.

CRAZE??? Speak up, man!

Bill "a fan" S.