Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught.



On Feb 14, 9:01 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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!

Not true; mountain bikers and hikers tend to move at the same rate and
can both step over things.

And the statement is especially not true in the case where the hiker
is riding a mountain bike and the mountain biker is on foot.

It's tricky semantic differences like these that make nature such a
complicated issue.

-Beej
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 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!

You can't say it's so because you say so, dipshit. You should know that.
One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.

My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.

cc
 
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> 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!
>
>You can't say it's so because you say so, dipshit. You should know that.
>One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>
>My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>
>cc

Did you say something?
===
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 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?

Translation: Mickey got caught with his pants down, again.
What a hoot!!

PS Mickey, Bob jumped just to get away from you...
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> 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!
>> You can't say it's so because you say so, dipshit. You should know that.
>> One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>> that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>> trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>> the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>> tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>>
>> My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>> as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>> basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>>
>> cc
>
> Did you say something?

Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
keep trying . .
 
On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >>> 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!
> >> You can't say it's so because you say so, dipshit. You should know that.
> >> One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
> >> that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
> >> trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
> >> the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
> >> tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>
> >> My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
> >> as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
> >> basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>
> >> cc
>
> > Did you say something?
>
> Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
> keep trying .

Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?

Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...

If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
thread list!

This ain't rocket science, boys.

E.P.
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

Tripe Trimmed

>> Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
>> keep trying .
>
> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>
> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>
> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> thread list!
>
> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>
> E.P.
>

And if you and I stopped, ...., especially when we remember to trim the ****
when we can't control ourselves :>)
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> 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!
>>>> You can't say it's so because you say so, dipshit. You should know that.
>>>> One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>>>> that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>>>> trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>>>> the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>>>> tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>>>> My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>>>> as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>>>> basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>>>> cc
>>> Did you say something?
>> Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
>> keep trying .
>
> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>
> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>
> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> thread list!
>
> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>

Yes, but thank you for lending
your willingness to point out
the idiotically obvious for
the sheer lack of something
meaningful to say.

HAND.

cc
 
On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>
> > Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>
> > If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> > less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> > posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> > thread list!
>
> > This ain't rocket science, boys.
>
> Yes, but thank you for lending
> your willingness to point out
> the idiotically obvious for
> the sheer lack of something
> meaningful to say.

How hilariously ironic.

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>>> thread list!
>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>> your willingness to point out
>> the idiotically obvious for
>> the sheer lack of something
>> meaningful to say.
>
> How hilariously ironic.
>

Yeah, I guess you're right. It
is pretty idiotically obvious
that you have nothing
meaningful to say.

cc
 
On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
> >>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
> >>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> >>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> >>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> >>> thread list!
> >>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
> >> Yes, but thank you for lending
> >> your willingness to point out
> >> the idiotically obvious for
> >> the sheer lack of something
> >> meaningful to say.
>
> > How hilariously ironic.
>
> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
> is pretty idiotically obvious
> that you have nothing
> meaningful to say.

LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.

Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:

Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.

HTH, HAND,

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>>>>> thread list!
>>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>>>> your willingness to point out
>>>> the idiotically obvious for
>>>> the sheer lack of something
>>>> meaningful to say.
>>> How hilariously ironic.
>> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
>> is pretty idiotically obvious
>> that you have nothing
>> meaningful to say.
>
> LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>
> Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>
> Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>
> HTH, HAND,
>
> E.P.
>

I knew what you meant, douchebag. If you read my last post and *that*
irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
speak-and-spell.

As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.

Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
nothing but defeat your purpose. Just crawl back under your rock.

cc
 
On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
> >>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
> >>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
> >>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
> >>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
> >>>>> thread list!
> >>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
> >>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
> >>>> your willingness to point out
> >>>> the idiotically obvious for
> >>>> the sheer lack of something
> >>>> meaningful to say.
> >>> How hilariously ironic.
> >> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
> >> is pretty idiotically obvious
> >> that you have nothing
> >> meaningful to say.
>
> > LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>
> > Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>
> > Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>
> > HTH, HAND,
>
> > E.P.
>
> I knew what you meant, douchebag.

I doubt it. That's what makes it so funny.

> If you read my last post and *that*
> irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
> speak-and-spell.

Oh, I got the irony - but not in the way you're imagining. LMAO.

> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.

Well, let's look at results, shall we?

Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
yup - no meaning.

> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
> nothing but defeat your purpose.

Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
else.

> Just crawl back under your rock.

You first, crabby.

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 18, 7:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?
>>>>>>> Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...
>>>>>>> If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
>>>>>>> less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
>>>>>>> posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
>>>>>>> thread list!
>>>>>>> This ain't rocket science, boys.
>>>>>> Yes, but thank you for lending
>>>>>> your willingness to point out
>>>>>> the idiotically obvious for
>>>>>> the sheer lack of something
>>>>>> meaningful to say.
>>>>> How hilariously ironic.
>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right. It
>>>> is pretty idiotically obvious
>>>> that you have nothing
>>>> meaningful to say.
>>> LOL. You obviously have no clue what the word "irony" means.
>>> Here's a bit of clue-by-four clubbage for you:
>>> Your replies to the MJV trolls are not meaningful in any way.
>>> HTH, HAND,
>>> E.P.
>> I knew what you meant, douchebag.
>
> I doubt it. That's what makes it so funny.

Uh-huh.

>
>> If you read my last post and *that*
>> irony didn't strike you, perhaps you should go home and pull out your
>> speak-and-spell.
>
> Oh, I got the irony - but not in the way you're imagining. LMAO.

Uh-huh.

>
>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>
> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>
> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
> yup - no meaning.

Again, all your opinion. Like assholes, buddy. Sometimes a little closer
for some than others. Yours smells a little funny, but it's still yours.

>
>> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
>> nothing but defeat your purpose.
>
> Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
> what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
> respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
> else.

So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever? I kind
of doubt that. Still waiting ....

>
>> Just crawl back under your rock.
>
> You first, crabby.
>
> E.P.
>
 
On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>
> > Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>
> > Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
> > generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
> > yup - no meaning.
>
> Again, all your opinion.

No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.

But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.

> >> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
> >> nothing but defeat your purpose.
>
> > Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
> > what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
> > respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
> > else.
>
> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?

Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.

> Still waiting ....

For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>>> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>>> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
>>> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
>>> yup - no meaning.
>> Again, all your opinion.
>
> No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.
>
> But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
> has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.

No effect on MJV != no meaning. Again, your definition reflects your
opinion.

>
>>>> Concerning the intent of your original post, however, you've done
>>>> nothing but defeat your purpose.
>>> Then you're pretty dumb if you think I haven't accomplished EXACTLY
>>> what I set out to do. Well, that's sort of given - only idiots
>>> respond to MJV thinking it has any kind of meaning to him or anyone
>>> else.
>> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?
>
> Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.

So please illuminate us as to the point of any of your posts?

This portion of this thread is less than useless, as it pertains to a
point that has yet to be made (by you) ! Get to it, or get lost. I mean,
it's okay, I know you don't have one. Still waiting ...

>
>> Still waiting ....
>
> For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
> power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.
>

You know, I'm not sure what nuggets you're trying to drop, but if it
really was that feeding the trolls is pointless and increases what you
consider junk posting, then you are both inflicting your opinion on me
and being a whiny ***** net nanny who can't use his filters and STFU.

It's pretty hilarious, considering you're doing nothing but exactly what
you accuse me of doing with MJV ... seeing how it's the reason you
started the thread in first place, the first and deepest irony alas
belongs to you. Go write that in your journal and highlight it as the
most interesting thing you've done so far this year. You won't be
disappointed this winter when you do your year in review this winter ...
 
On Feb 19, 3:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
> >>> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
> >>> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
> >>> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
> >>> yup - no meaning.
> >> Again, all your opinion.
>
> > No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.
>
> > But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
> > has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.
>
> No effect on MJV != no meaning. Again, your definition reflects your
> opinion.

Then use whatever definition suits you. I'll wait...

> >> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?
>
> > Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.
>
> So please illuminate us as to the point of any of your posts?

Comprehending English is not your strong suit, I see.

The point really couldn't be any clearer.

> This portion of this thread is less than useless

Oh, my - an opinion? Wow, talk about more irony...

> Get to it, or get lost.

It's already been made, tough guy.


>
> >> Still waiting ....
>
> > For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
> > power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.
>
> You know, I'm not sure what nuggets you're trying to drop...

I know. You are completely clueless. Which is the whole reason you
respond to MJV as if your posts were anything but a complete waste of
bandwidth.

But you did have a very good suggestion - one I'm sure you'll follow:

Write down all your "pithy" remarks to MJV in your journal, rather
than posting them such that the whole world can revel in your
ignorance. That way, you get to say what you want, and the words will
have exactly the same effect on everyone, without the wasted
electrons.

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2:21 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 11:50 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>>> As for how meaningful my posts to MV are, that's simply your opinion.
>>>>> Well, let's look at results, shall we?
>>>>> Hmmm - you haven't done anything but generate more noise, get MJV to
>>>>> generate more noise in response, and contribute zero MTB content, so
>>>>> yup - no meaning.
>>>> Again, all your opinion.
>>> No, plain fact. For anyone who can read, that is.
>>> But please, be my guest and show where your drivel in response to MJV
>>> has had any effect whatsoever. I dare you.
>> No effect on MJV != no meaning. Again, your definition reflects your
>> opinion.
>
> Then use whatever definition suits you. I'll wait...

Sorry, bud, but I needn't define it for you. Unless you really are the
net police . . but only then. Show me your badge or shoulder to burp on,
or you'll simply have to guess.

>
>>>> So you set out to be a whiny net nanny with no point whatsoever?
>>> Oh, dear - you're still clueless, I see.
>> So please illuminate us as to the point of any of your posts?
>
> Comprehending English is not your strong suit, I see.

Once you start speaking it, I'll let you know.

>
> The point really couldn't be any clearer.

Uh-huh. There is none.

>
>> This portion of this thread is less than useless
>
> Oh, my - an opinion? Wow, talk about more irony...
>
>> Get to it, or get lost.
>
> It's already been made, tough guy.

Uh-huh. There is none.

>
>
>>>> Still waiting ....
>>> For the clue you so desperately need? I don't know if there is any
>>> power on Earth or in the heavens that could provide the one you need.
>> You know, I'm not sure what nuggets you're trying to drop...
>
> I know. You are completely clueless. Which is the whole reason you
> respond to MJV as if your posts were anything but a complete waste of
> bandwidth.

It's hilarious that you keep alluding to a point that you don't have! I
obviously care not for your opinion of the *meaning* of my posts, and
everything you have to say following that is rendered the same waste of
bandwidth you imply my posts represent. Your continuation is simply a
perpetuation of the irony you are so intent on illuminating. This you
obviously cannot grasp. But please try try again . .
 
bruno wrote:
> cc, i really have to say i'm ****** at you. your douchebaggery is

I do have to give you a little
cred for the use of the word
"douchebaggery".

>
> but duder. serious. are you 4 real? straight up.
>

Well, you're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Re: Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught.
Replies
1
Views
367
Mountain Bikes
RpJ
R
davideholl
Eco-Friendly MTB Clothing Options
Replies
16
Views
186
Mountain Bikes
davideholl
davideholl
K
Trek Fuel Ex Vs S-works Epic 29 ? Both Perf.and Eco.
Replies
4
Views
3K
Mountain Bikes
ABNPFDR
ABNPFDR
S
Eco friendly?
Replies
6
Views
527
Mountain Bikes
Becca: Where's your Daddy?
B
M
Mountain Bikers are Eco-Vandalists!
Replies
29
Views
1K
Mountain Bikes
Sweety
S
Top Bottom Back