On Feb 19, 5:14 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 3:41 pm, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> 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.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
> > The point really couldn't be any clearer.
>
> Uh-huh. There is none.
Just because you can't grasp it does not imply its absense.
> >>>> 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!
A logical impossibility.
> Your continuation is simply a
> perpetuation of the irony you are so intent on illuminating.
The glaring difference is that I actually know and understand that
anything in reply to what MJV writes is a waste of bandwidth.
Oh, and the fact that I don't take what's written in usenet nearly as
seriously as you so obviously do...
On 16 Feb 2007 12:31:14 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
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.
And their "rockets" aren't going anywhere.
>E.P.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:38:40 -0800, 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. 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
Isn't it great, when mountain bikers demonstrate how they can't even
get along with their own peers?!
===
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!
On 19 Feb 2007 14:15:37 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
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.
>
>> 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.
Isn't it great, watching mountain bikers play "Who's dumber?"
===
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!
