John Roberts: Is there Any Limit to Human Arrogance?

Mike Vandeman said:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"! Is
there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8 billion
years, before humans ever thought of appearing.

And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?

Quoted message said:

What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS, does
not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes?

What kind of [censored] assumes that their species is so significant that we
should be allowed to create artificial environments on the planet where
humans do not exist and the natural process of one species eliminating
others is halted? What makes us different to any other animal from
pre-human times, in that respect, and why should we try to stop it? Man
*is* nature, to assume otherwise is arrogance above and beyond any
level i know.

J

In article <[email hidden]>,

Coyoteboy said:

Mike Vandeman said:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!

Is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8

billion

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

years, before humans ever thought of appearing.

And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?

If man is the cause of extinction, shouldn't man take steps to undo that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,

does

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes?

What kind of [censored] assumes that their species is so significant that we
should be allowed to create artificial environments on the planet where
humans do not exist and the natural process of one species eliminating
others is halted? What makes us different to any other animal from
pre-human times, in that respect, and why should we try to stop it? Man
*is* nature, to assume otherwise is arrogance above and beyond any
level i know.

J

You are exampleof the "unlimited".

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To the Editor:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!
Is
there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8
billion
years, before humans ever thought of appearing. What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,
does
not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes? Such ignorance doesn't deserve to be on the bench, much less the
Supreme
Court. John Roberts may appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable, within
the
narrow context of "constitutional law", but no human being can today
afford to
be ignorant of the biological basis for life on Earth, and we cannot
afford to
have such a person in a position of power.

Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.

All I can say is, "I'm glad we don't have a person such as you in a position
of power."

Talk about arrogance! You take the cake, my friend.

Look out humanity. Mike is out to ban us from the whole planet. He is just
starting with Mountain Bikes. His hidden agenda is now quite obvious.

Mike, You should start by eradicating yourself. The rest of us will follow
your lead. ;o)

Have a nice day Mikey.
Charlie Maxwell

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To the Editor:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!
Is
there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8
billion
years, before humans ever thought of appearing. What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,
does
not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes? Such ignorance doesn't deserve to be on the bench, much less the
Supreme
Court. John Roberts may appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable, within
the
narrow context of "constitutional law", but no human being can today
afford to
be ignorant of the biological basis for life on Earth, and we cannot
afford to
have such a person in a position of power.

Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Lloyd Parker said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Coyoteboy said:

Mike Vandeman said:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!

Is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8

billion

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

years, before humans ever thought of appearing.

And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?

If man is the cause of extinction, shouldn't man take steps to undo that?

But these so called men have less intelligence than the extinction
process! Intelligent desing they are not!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,

does

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes?

What kind of [censored] assumes that their species is so significant that we
should be allowed to create artificial environments on the planet where
humans do not exist and the natural process of one species eliminating
others is halted? What makes us different to any other animal from
pre-human times, in that respect, and why should we try to stop it? Man
*is* nature, to assume otherwise is arrogance above and beyond any
level i know.

J

"Lloyd Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Coyoteboy said:

Mike Vandeman said:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is
"unconstitutional"!

Is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8

billion

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

years, before humans ever thought of appearing.

And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?

If man is the cause of extinction, shouldn't man take steps to undo that?

Why?

There are numerous documented incidents whereby
the success of one species has pushed out and
eliminated, to the point of extinction, one or
more competing species.

Name me one of those, who were the direct
cause, that actually took steps to ensure
they wouldn't make the others extinct?

Why does man presume to think that he can,
or even should, do what no other has done
before him?

Why?

I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:49:58 -0400, the person
known to the court as "Sgt. Sausage" <[email hidden]> made a
statement (<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

There are numerous documented incidents whereby
the success of one species has pushed out and
eliminated, to the point of extinction, one or
more competing species.

True.

Quoted message said:

Name me one of those, who were the direct
cause, that actually took steps to ensure
they wouldn't make the others extinct?

I'm struggling to think of any where the cause (direct or indirect,
e.g. through species introduction) was not man, mind...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 15 Sep 2005 03:48:18 -0700, "Coyoteboy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"! Is
..> there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8 billion
..> years, before humans ever thought of appearing.
..
..And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
..about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
..including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
..that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
..proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?

It's not arrogance, just basic conservation biology.

..> What kind of hubris allows
..> someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS, does
..> not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
..> wishes?
..
..What kind of [censored] assumes that their species is so significant that we
..should be allowed to create artificial environments on the planet where
..humans do not exist and the natural process of one species eliminating
..others is halted?

Human-free habitat is the rule on the Earth, since it was human-free for over 4
billion years. There's nothing "natural" about what humans do.

What makes us different to any other animal from
..pre-human times, in that respect, and why should we try to stop it? Man
..*is* nature, to assume otherwise is arrogance above and beyond any
..level i know.

Look up "exotic species" in a biology text. Humans are BY FAR the most
destructive species in the world. Other species generally kill only what they
need to eat; humans kill FAR more than we need to eat. I think you could answer
your own question, if you half tried.

..J

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Thu, 15 Sep 05 13:29:46 GMT, [email hidden] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

..In article <[email hidden]>,
.. "Coyoteboy" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..>
..>Mike Vandeman wrote:
..>> John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!
..Is
..>> there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8
..billion
..>> years, before humans ever thought of appearing.
..>
..>And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
..>about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
..>including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
..>that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
..>proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?
..
..If man is the cause of extinction, shouldn't man take steps to undo that?

Are you really asking a mountain biker to understand morality?!

..>> What kind of hubris allows
..>> someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,
..does
..>> not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
..>> wishes?
..>
..>What kind of [censored] assumes that their species is so significant that we
..>should be allowed to create artificial environments on the planet where
..>humans do not exist and the natural process of one species eliminating
..>others is halted? What makes us different to any other animal from
..>pre-human times, in that respect, and why should we try to stop it? Man
..>*is* nature, to assume otherwise is arrogance above and beyond any
..>level i know.
..>
..>J
..>

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:49:58 -0400, "Sgt. Sausage" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.."Lloyd Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> In article <[email hidden]>,
..> "Coyoteboy" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..>>
..>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
..>>> John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is
..>>> "unconstitutional"!
..> Is
..>>> there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8
..> billion
..>>> years, before humans ever thought of appearing.
..>>
..>>And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
..>>about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
..>>including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
..>>that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
..>>proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?
..>
..> If man is the cause of extinction, shouldn't man take steps to undo that?
..
..Why?

Self-interest, if nothing else: other species are absolutely necessary for human
life. Where do you think clean air, clean water, food, medicine, and the
enjoyment of nature come from?

..There are numerous documented incidents whereby
..the success of one species has pushed out and
..eliminated, to the point of extinction, one or
..more competing species.
..
..Name me one of those, who were the direct
..cause, that actually took steps to ensure
..they wouldn't make the others extinct?

ALL of them. Most species kill only what they need to eat. Anything more would
be a waste of energy, and cause them to reduce their survival rate.

..Why does man presume to think that he can,
..or even should, do what no other has done
..before him?

Because we are allegedly smarter?

..Why?
..
..

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:59:45 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:49:58 -0400, the person
..known to the court as "Sgt. Sausage" <[email hidden]> made a
..statement (<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's
..bundle) to the following effect:
..
..>There are numerous documented incidents whereby
..>the success of one species has pushed out and
..>eliminated, to the point of extinction, one or
..>more competing species.
..
..True.
..
..>Name me one of those, who were the direct
..>cause, that actually took steps to ensure
..>they wouldn't make the others extinct?
..
..I'm struggling to think

You can say THAT again.

of any where the cause (direct or indirect,
..e.g. through species introduction) was not man, mind...
..
..Guy

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

How many Benoits is he?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Vandeman said:

To the Editor:

.....

What Editor? Which editor?

No publication was cited.

Losing your brain Mike?

--

Mike says he himself is unnatural, I certainly agree. He has never
been more correct.

Charlie Maxwell said:

Look out humanity. Mike is out to ban us from the whole planet. He is just
starting with Mountain Bikes. His hidden agenda is now quite obvious.

Mike, You should start by eradicating yourself. The rest of us will follow
your lead. ;o)

Yes. Mike, put a bullet in your brain, put some windex in your veins,
get in a horrible car accident, whatever. PLEASE GO AWAY FROM USENET

Quoted message said:

Have a nice day Mikey.
Charlie Maxwell

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To the Editor:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!
Is
there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8
billion
years, before humans ever thought of appearing. What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,
does
not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes? Such ignorance doesn't deserve to be on the bench, much less the
Supreme
Court. John Roberts may appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable, within
the
narrow context of "constitutional law", but no human being can today
afford to
be ignorant of the biological basis for life on Earth, and we cannot
afford to
have such a person in a position of power.

Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sgt. Sausage said:

"Lloyd Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Coyoteboy said:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is
> "unconstitutional"!

Is

Quoted message said:

> there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8

billion

Quoted message said:

> years, before humans ever thought of appearing.

And before humans ever thought of appearing the earth was happy going
about a process of evolution and extinction of thousands of speciest,
including some that made new trails through the wilderness. What is it
that gives you the arrogance to assume you are correct in slowing this
proceedure by creating your 'habitat'?

If man is the cause of extinction, shouldn't man take steps to undo that?

Why?

The ecosystem we inhabit is a complex interlocking system, for one.
For another, who knows where me might find tomorrow's cure for cancer or
something else similarly useful?

Quoted message said:

There are numerous documented incidents whereby
the success of one species has pushed out and
eliminated, to the point of extinction, one or
more competing species.

Name me one of those, who were the direct
cause, that actually took steps to ensure
they wouldn't make the others extinct?

Why does man presume to think that he can,
or even should, do what no other has done
before him?

Why?

I submit that on or about Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:31:47 GMT, the person
known to the court as Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> made a
statement (<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

.I'm struggling to think
You can say THAT again.
of any where the cause (direct or indirect,
.e.g. through species introduction) was not man, mind...

Better than your not bothering at all, though.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Mike, I think you are onto the start of something big.

A habitat that is off limits to humans would need a great deal of ongoing
security, if on a planet inhabited by humans. The easiest way to obtain
such an isolated habitat with a suitable environment would be to exterminate
the human pests. Due to limited resources, we need to find some way to get
the humans to first clean up the mess they have made, so that we do not need
to do the cleaning. Then exterminate them, but not too quickly, so that
they can clean up that mess as well.

Any ideas on how to motivate them to start the clean up? Of course, we do
not want the proctors to think that there is any outside influence on the
humans.

Bruce

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To the Editor:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!

Is

Quoted message said:

there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8

billion

Quoted message said:

years, before humans ever thought of appearing. What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,

does

Quoted message said:

not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes? Such ignorance doesn't deserve to be on the bench, much less the

Supreme

Quoted message said:

Court. John Roberts may appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable, within

the

Quoted message said:

narrow context of "constitutional law", but no human being can today

afford to

Quoted message said:

be ignorant of the biological basis for life on Earth, and we cannot

afford to

Quoted message said:

have such a person in a position of power.

Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

OK.... so now you are also a lawyer...? You take a few cases, without
knowledge of particular facts presented in these particular cases, and take
the resulting ruling as proof that John Roberts is attacking the Endangered
Species Act.
That is the height of arrogance! Simply because he took the facts as
presented and ruled in a way you see as detrimental you now proclaim him to
be a villain. Did you read the complete transcripts? Has John Roberts spoken
the words "The Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional..."?
Roberts does take a narrow view of federal power over states' rights which
leans more to his tendency to literally interpret Constitutional matters.
Perhaps it would be best to review the ES Act as written to clarify federal
power of enforcement. This is the job of the U.S. Congress, not a Judge of
any stature.
"Although it's somewhat troubling that Judge Roberts wrote this opinion, it
is by no means conclusive evidence of a radical or extremist approach,''
said Timothy Dowling, chief counsel of the pro-environmentalist Community
Rights Council. "He's simply saying we need to look at the issue more
closely. '' *In regards to the ES Act and a case of a developer and the
habitat of the arroyo southwestern toad.
Personally, I would take a Judge who focuses on literal interpretation of
the Constitution rather than one who uses the Bench to re-write law to fit
the topic of the day.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To the Editor:

John Roberts thinks that the Endangered Species Act is "unconstitutional"!
Is
there ANY limit to human arrogance? Life existed on this planet for 3.8
billion
years, before humans ever thought of appearing. What kind of hubris allows
someone to say that a given species, however insignificant IN OUR MINDS,
does
not deserve to exist, simply because it conflicts with some human's petty
wishes? Such ignorance doesn't deserve to be on the bench, much less the
Supreme
Court. John Roberts may appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable, within
the
narrow context of "constitutional law", but no human being can today
afford to
be ignorant of the biological basis for life on Earth, and we cannot
afford to
have such a person in a position of power.

Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande