Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught.

[Beej]

On Feb 8, 6:06 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> A mountain biker is only destructive.
>
> >What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?
>
> Then they are probably destrroying somehting else, equally selfishly.

And yet, despite this, you're not interested in banning bikers. I'm
starting to seriously question your motivations.

-Beej

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 9 Feb 2007 16:17:52 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 6:06 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> A mountain biker is only destructive.
>>
>> >What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?
>>
>> Then they are probably destrroying somehting else, equally selfishly.
>
>And yet, despite this, you're not interested in banning bikers. I'm
>starting to seriously question your motivations.

It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?

>-Beej
===
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

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2007 16:17:52 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 6:06 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> A mountain biker is only destructive.
>>>> What about mountain bikers who aren't riding mountain bikes?
>>> Then they are probably destrroying somehting else, equally selfishly.
>> And yet, despite this, you're not interested in banning bikers. I'm
>> starting to seriously question your motivations.
>
> It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?
>

You try first. We're waiting ...

 

[Beej]

On Feb 9, 5:30 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?

That you're not really as pro-environment as you claim, when you're
not interested in banning these people you say are so destructive.

-Beej

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>
>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>
>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>
> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
onto "mountain bikers".
The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a statement
made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem to
care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact is
obvious and nonsense.
Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
obvious.
It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
cause injury.
It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
It is FACT he was breaking the law.

Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
has no weight in the matter

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 9 Feb 2007 19:40:35 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 9, 5:30 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's about time you started thinking. What did you come up with?
>
>That you're not really as pro-environment as you claim, when you're
>not interested in banning these people you say are so destructive.

Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!

>-Beej
===
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]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is beneficial,
>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE and
>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>
>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>
>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a dictionary.
>>
>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>onto "mountain bikers".
>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a statement
>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem to
>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact is
>obvious and nonsense.
>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>obvious.
>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>cause injury.
>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>
>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>has no weight in the matter

Did you say somehting?
===
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

 

[Beej]

On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!

You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
something, and that you are not interested in banning them.

They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.

-Beej

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is
>>>>>>>>> beneficial,
>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>
>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>dictionary.
>>>
>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>statement
>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem
>>to
>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact
>>is
>>obvious and nonsense.
>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>obvious.
>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>cause injury.
>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>
>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>>has no weight in the matter
>
> Did you say somehting?
> ===
Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of off-road
cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for a
mall or development.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 12:19 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat").

Why?

Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Why?

> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

Why?

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>
>You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>
>They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.

There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.

>-Beej
===
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]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:45:30 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is
>>>>>>>>>> beneficial,
>>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>>statement
>>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem
>>>to
>>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact
>>>is
>>>obvious and nonsense.
>>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>>obvious.
>>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>>cause injury.
>>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>>
>>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>>>has no weight in the matter
>>
>> Did you say somehting?
>> ===
>Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
>substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
>environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
>discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
>rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of off-road
>cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
>resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
>looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for a
>mall or development.
>

Did you say somehting?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Feb 2007 13:12:14 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On Feb 10, 12:19 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat").
>
>Why?

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.

>Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.

>Why?
>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>
>Why?

Do you put your head in the microwave?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:45:30 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case of mountain
>>>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake is
>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial,
>>>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it: you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>>> Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>>> dictionary.
>>>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>>> There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose to
>>>> imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>>> onto "mountain bikers".
>>>> The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>>> measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>>> surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>>> Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>>> statement
>>>> made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you seem
>>>> to
>>>> care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple fact
>>>> is
>>>> obvious and nonsense.
>>>> Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>>> obvious.
>>>> It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>>> cause injury.
>>>> It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>>> It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>>>
>>>> Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while riding
>>>> are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your OPINION
>>>> has no weight in the matter
>>> Did you say somehting?
>>> ===
>> Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
>> substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
>> environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
>> discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
>> rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of off-road
>> cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
>> resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
>> looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for a
>> mall or development.
>>
>
> Did you say somehting?

yes, but you did not.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:45:30 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is a REPTILE
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that you choose
>>>>to
>>>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose to imply
>>>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How do you
>>>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to it's
>>>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is a
>>>>statement
>>>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY difference you
>>>>seem
>>>>to
>>>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that simple
>>>>fact
>>>>is
>>>>obvious and nonsense.
>>>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the case is also
>>>>obvious.
>>>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a way as to
>>>>cause injury.
>>>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as terrorism.
>>>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>>>
>>>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists while
>>>>riding
>>>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized. Your
>>>>OPINION
>>>>has no weight in the matter
>>>
>>> Did you say somehting?
>>> ===
>>Conceding to actual fact and truth yet again as you obviously can not
>>substantiate your comments. You are truly a PATHETIC representative for
>>environmental causes as your OPINIONS are only an example of why common
>>discussion is often stalled by misconceptions and simplistic, idealistic
>>rhetoric. It is obvious you are more interested in your OPINIONS of
>>off-road
>>cycling than you are in responsible discussion to make environmental
>>resources safer and more secure from destruction. You stand in the forest
>>looking for bicycles oblivious to the trees being cleared behind you for
>>a
>>mall or development.
>>
>
> Did you say somehting?
> ===
That's about what I would expect. With no integrity in your "reviews" or
your "papers" there can obviously be no honesty in your support of the
statements you make.

 

[Beej]

On Feb 10, 3:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
> activities, not people.

Whee! Hehe! Ah, Mike... I don't care what anyone says. You're
awesome.

-Beej

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Feb 2007 23:41:01 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 3:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>> activities, not people.
>
>Whee! Hehe! Ah, Mike... I don't care what anyone says. You're
>awesome.

I just LOVE the smell of insight.

>-Beej
===
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

 

[Jimster]

On Feb 4, 11:47 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:59:52 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >J wrote:
> >>http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020207/loc_020207074.shtml
>
> >> Good Job to the citizen, not police that caught this guy.
>
> >The guy needs to have the book thrown at him. Attempted murder included.
>
> Why? Mountain bikers murder horses and wildlife every day, and think
> nothing of it.


What? Mtn Bikers murder horse and wildlife? - man you are such an
asshole!

 

[Jimster]

On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
> >> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>
> >You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
> >they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
> >something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>
> >They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
> >inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>
> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.


Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?

Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>> >> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>
>> >You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>> >they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>> >something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>
>> >They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>> >inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>
>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>
>
>Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>
>Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!

Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
===
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