"Divisive Issue"

On Mar 1, 7:34 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> 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?

pmh said:

On Mar 1, 7:34 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> 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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"For hundreds of millenia, evolving humanity was a native species ... in
Africa and Asia. ... The modern Races of [censored] 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.

Quoted message said:

"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.

Quoted message said:

"... 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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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/TibPages/tib-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/Sustainability/Older/Conservation_and_Preservation.html

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

Quoted message said:

Olebiker said:

Mike Vandeman said:

>> 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.

Olebiker said:

OK, now we're making some progress.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"For hundreds of millenia, evolving humanity was a native species ... in
Africa and Asia. ... The modern Races of [censored] 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.

Quoted message said:

"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.

Quoted message said:

"... 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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/TibPages/tib-burial.html It seems
to be in closest harmony with nature.

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

Quoted message said:

<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

Quoted message said:

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/Sustainability/Older/Conservation_and_Preservation.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" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Olebiker said:

On Mar 1, 10:52 am, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:40:36 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 1 Mar 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Mar 1, 10:52 am, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> 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.

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"... 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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Early man expanded his

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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/TibPages/tib-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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

"Conservation & Preservation

Quoted message said:

"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" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:40:36 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On 1 Mar 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 1, 10:52 am, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> 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

Quoted message said:

"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

Olebiker said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

>"... 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.

Quoted message said:

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.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Early man expanded his

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

As well as how long it has been there.

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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/TibPages/tib-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.

No excuse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

"Conservation & Preservation

Quoted message said:

"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."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.
===
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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 3 Mar 2007 12:38:49 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

Of course they didn't object. You were long gone home before they could
stop laughing long enough to object. Stand up comedy is your life.

My, my, my, oh my, it surely sucks to be you.

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

Quoted message said:

Olebiker said:

Mike Vandeman said:

>>"... 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.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

As well as how long it has been there.

One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at
least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very
many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf.

Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the
right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region?

Bob

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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/TibPages/tib-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.

No excuse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.
===
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 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:09:29 -0800, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Olebiker said:

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.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

Let me guess, your "mom" was the only person in the audience who clapped?
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/ryanfuture/Tranny.jpg
--
Slack

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:14:50 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>> 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.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You do that all by yourself. I (and others)
only point to the truth in the examples of your lies you so willingly
provide either by being blind by your own bias against this particular
activity or by being a complete imbecile. Since actual research, references
and evidence posted over the years shows your opinions are clearly mistaken
and you continue on the same course, the only possible conclusion is the
latter.

According to Webster, "murder" is the deliberate killing of one human by
another. Secondary definitions apply to popular speech and slang.
Beyond that, you still have NOT qualified the statement concerning
"thousands of small animals every week" or quantified the statement in
regards to the depth of small creatures killed by hikers in the same time
frame or nullified your "murder" of small creatures with every step you
take.
Until you establish the FACTS of your statement in total with relevant and
verifiable sources (IE: NOT your opinions or assumptions), it is a NON-FACT
statement.

And - You STILL ignore the obvious LIES and NON-FACTS of the statements
documented from you concerning the remainder of the post as is stated below.
By ignoring it you only CONFIRM the LIES as posted by YOU.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"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"

These represent statements made by you and your repeated attempts to
disregard or discard them only shows the continued depth of your dishonesty
and lack of integrity in EVERY statement and claim you make.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

Olebiker said:

Mike Vandeman said:

>>"... 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.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Humans are also along the top of the food chain, have "migrated" just as
many other animals have done and carry no more guilt for doing so than does
any other animal. Get over it.
Your opinion has no weight as you are a proven liar.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

That is your CLAIM that no one has objected. That means nothing. Provide
actual comments and reviews of your statements made at these "conferences"
which can be verified. If you can not, your claim of "no objection" is
MEANINGLESS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

As well as how long it has been there.

Every migrated species is "exotic" at one time or another. Humans carry no
more a distinction of "exotic" as does any other species that has moved
about for whatever reason.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

Perhaps the other animal species that have migrated beyond their origin need
to be "read their rights".... If they could understand them... Or could
have the capacity to care when it concerns the availability of their next
meal or mate.
Humans move about. Get over it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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/TibPages/tib-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.

No excuse.

Same argument applies for persistant ignorance but that has never held you
back from making yourself a poster child for the term "moron".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.

Your narrow and self-defined version of "sustainable" is impossible to
satisfy. However, the cooperative efforts of several organizations and user
groups has given way to rulings and useage guidelines that provide for
growing solutions available for providing human reach and access as well as
protection of wildlife.
You, however, ignore these positive steps taken and insist on applying your
definitions and opinions. With so much more at stake concerning expanded
construction and wasted space you remain hinged on your unfounded spout of
misinformation about BICYCLES. It is PATHETIC.

Mike Vandeman said:

Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Guess what, Mike. Yours doesn't either.

Quoted message said:

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

I expect that in the fifteen minutes you were given to present the
paper in England there was no time for any discussion.

Quoted message said:

As well as how long it has been there.

Only you hold that opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

So you are telling me that a predator who evolves in Africa and
extends his range into Europe has no right to do that? Who is going
to tell him that? You?

You are anthropomorphising worse than Disney.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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/TibPages/tib-burial.html It seems
>to be in closest harmony with nature.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

No excuse.

It would be wasteful to have my body shipped to Tibet for sky burial.
Not as wasteful as your trips to Europe, Africa, and Asia, wasteful
nonetheless.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.

I live in Tallahassee, Florida. Between my neighborhood and the
Georgia border there are a number of huge tracts of land that used to
be working farms or plantations. Those tracts are now conservation
easements which will never suffer development.

I realize that this may not jive with your personal definition of
"sustainable" but, to the animals that live and thrive on the
property, it works pretty well.

This has been really fun, Mike, but I think my time would be better
served doing something useful.

Bob Berger said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

Quoted message said:

Olebiker said:

On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> 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.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

> >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.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

Quoted message said:

> 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.

As well as how long it has been there.

One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at
least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very
many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf.

What's wrong with that?

Quoted message said:

Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the
right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region?

"RE-introduction" tells me that it IS a native, but was just recently
extirpated from the area. The same goes for the California Grizzly. It
should be restored, as best we can (i.e., the closest relative).

Quoted message said:

Bob

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

Quoted message said:

> >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/TibPages/tib-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.

No excuse.

Quoted message said:

> >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."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.
===
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

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:56:10 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Olebiker said:

On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> 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.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Humans are also along the top of the food chain, have "migrated" just as
many other animals have done and carry no more guilt for doing so than does
any other animal.

Only those who WALKED here have even a tiny right to be here. That
leaves out 99.44% of the population, including you.

Get over it.

Quoted message said:

Your opinion has no weight as you are a proven liar.

Hasn't happened yet!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >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.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

That is your CLAIM that no one has objected. That means nothing. Provide
actual comments and reviews of your statements made at these "conferences"
which can be verified. If you can not, your claim of "no objection" is
MEANINGLESS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

As well as how long it has been there.

Every migrated species is "exotic" at one time or another. Humans carry no
more a distinction of "exotic" as does any other species that has moved
about for whatever reason.

Then why not admit that we are exotic. But more than that: invasive,
implying that we are veryu destructive to otrher species.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

Perhaps the other animal species that have migrated beyond their origin need
to be "read their rights".... If they could understand them... Or could
have the capacity to care when it concerns the availability of their next
meal or mate.
Humans move about. Get over it.

Then why try to rationalize it? By your logic, anything that humans
feel like doing is acceptable. It's NOT. DUH!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >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/TibPages/tib-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.

No excuse.

Same argument applies for persistant ignorance but that has never held you
back from making yourself a poster child for the term "moron".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >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."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.

Your narrow and self-defined version of "sustainable" is impossible to
satisfy.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

However, the cooperative efforts of several organizations and user

Quoted message said:

groups has given way to rulings and useage guidelines that provide for
growing solutions available for providing human reach and access as well as
protection of wildlife.

You are lying. All they provide is a figleaf for harmful activities.

Quoted message said:

You, however, ignore these positive steps taken and insist on applying your
definitions and opinions. With so much more at stake concerning expanded
construction and wasted space you remain hinged on your unfounded spout of
misinformation about BICYCLES. It is PATHETIC.

No misinformation whatsoever. You are LYING again --
characteristically, without a shred of evidence.
===
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

Olebiker said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Guess what, Mike. Yours doesn't either.

Quoted message said:

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

I expect that in the fifteen minutes you were given to present the
paper in England there was no time for any discussion.

1. There is always time for questions.
2. There is plenty of time for people to ask questions or make
comments later.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As well as how long it has been there.

Only you hold that opinion.

Only because others aren't honest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

So you are telling me that a predator who evolves in Africa and
extends his range into Europe has no right to do that? Who is going
to tell him that? You?

Less than the natives. It's obvious.

Quoted message said:

You are anthropomorphising worse than Disney.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >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/TibPages/tib-burial.html It seems
> >to be in closest harmony with nature.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

No excuse.

It would be wasteful to have my body shipped to Tibet for sky burial.
Not as wasteful as your trips to Europe, Africa, and Asia, wasteful
nonetheless.

I'm sure you never even considered it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >"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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.

I live in Tallahassee, Florida. Between my neighborhood and the
Georgia border there are a number of huge tracts of land that used to
be working farms or plantations. Those tracts are now conservation
easements which will never suffer development.

BS. Recreation IS development.

Quoted message said:

I realize that this may not jive with your personal definition of
"sustainable" but, to the animals that live and thrive on the
property, it works pretty well.

This has been really fun, Mike, but I think my time would be better
served doing something useful.

Yeah, like learning to tell the truth for a change.
===
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