On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 05:20:04 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>> Did you say something?
>
>That about sums up my feelings about your so called "research" and
>"literature reviews."
>
>Wake me up when you have something substantive to say, MV.
>
>Psycho Mike
If you wait for that, your nap may exceed Mr. Van Winkle's.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:05:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:57:09 -0700, "Stan de SD"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Plus - It is your opinion that "mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all
>>>> other trail users". There is no basis to use "terrorize" as an inclusive
>>>> definition of off-road >>>cyclists. Especially when one of them was
>>>> caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>>>>
>>>> That's called "poetic justice".
>>>
>>>"Poetic Justice" will be the day your ass gets busted for trying to injure
>>>a
>>>mountain biker,
>>
>> Nobody has to "try" to do that. Mountain bikers do it to themselves
>> already! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>You obviously think you made a "funny". Not quite. Again with a sweeping
>opinion from your perceived notion that all off-road cyclists are dropping
>off cliffs and running into trees and injuring themselves. The FACT is, you
>post a link to a site that details the report of a person (cyclist) injured
>by a wire-trap set by a third party with the intent of causing damage or
>harm. Then, in following posts, you condone this act of terrorism. You take
>an opportunity here to make some lame comment that only you find funny and
>relevant. Yet you disregard a direct statement challenging you to explain
>your logic in condoning the injury of another person!
>
>"Your support of violence and attempted murder is duly noted.
>And this is not the first time (Google group search "vandeman") you have
>praised and supported these terrorist acts.
It's called "poetic justice", or "justice" for short.
>And where would your support be if an animal had been caught in this loop of
>wire? Is it only OK if another human being is injured by this terrorist
>activity?"
>
>By the way, how much "sudden oak death" is being spread by mudslides in CA
>because you were too busy whining about a few bicycles when all that land
>was being cleared for development? How much habitat is in the Pacific
>because you have rallied user groups to challenge each other rather than
>cooperate to save trails for everyone. In case you haven't noticed, the
>"trails" exist because "habitat" exists. The more trails and people
>interested in using them, the more voices to challenge developers and
>politicians in saving the habitat areas encompassing those trails.
>
>But when has logic ever been your strong point?
>
===
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.)
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:05:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Plus - It is your opinion that "mountain bikers" are "terrorizing
> >>>>> all
>>>>> other trail users". There is no basis to use "terrorize" as an
>>>>> inclusive
>>>>> definition of off-road >>>cyclists. Especially when one of them was
>>>>> caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's called "poetic justice".
>>>>
>>>>Stan D: "Poetic Justice" will be the day your ass gets busted for
>>>>trying to injure
>>>>a mountain biker,
>>>
>>> Nobody has to "try" to do that. Mountain bikers do it to themselves
>>> already! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>>You obviously think you made a "funny". Not quite. Again with a sweeping
>>opinion from your perceived notion that all off-road cyclists are dropping
>>off cliffs and running into trees and injuring themselves. The FACT is,
>>you
>>post a link to a site that details the report of a person (cyclist)
>>injured
>>by a wire-trap set by a third party with the intent of causing damage or
>>harm. Then, in following posts, you condone this act of terrorism. You
>>take
>>an opportunity here to make some lame comment that only you find funny and
>>relevant. Yet you disregard a direct statement challenging you to explain
>>your logic in condoning the injury of another person!
>>
>>"Your support of violence and attempted murder is duly noted.
>>And this is not the first time (Google group search "vandeman") you have
>>praised and supported these terrorist acts.
>
> It's called "poetic justice", or "justice" for short.
>
Further proof of terrorist support by your own statement. And yet again you
ignore a direct
>>And where would your support be if an animal had been caught in this loop
>>of
>>wire? Is it only OK if another human being is injured by this terrorist
>>activity?"
And yet again you ignore a direct inquiry to explain yourself.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:17:27 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:05:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>> Plus - It is your opinion that "mountain bikers" are "terrorizing
>> >>>>> all
>>>>>> other trail users". There is no basis to use "terrorize" as an
>>>>>> inclusive
>>>>>> definition of off-road >>>cyclists. Especially when one of them was
>>>>>> caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's called "poetic justice".
>>>>>
>>>>>Stan D: "Poetic Justice" will be the day your ass gets busted for
>>>>>trying to injure
>>>>>a mountain biker,
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has to "try" to do that. Mountain bikers do it to themselves
>>>> already! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>>>You obviously think you made a "funny". Not quite. Again with a sweeping
>>>opinion from your perceived notion that all off-road cyclists are dropping
>>>off cliffs and running into trees and injuring themselves. The FACT is,
>>>you
>>>post a link to a site that details the report of a person (cyclist)
>>>injured
>>>by a wire-trap set by a third party with the intent of causing damage or
>>>harm. Then, in following posts, you condone this act of terrorism. You
>>>take
>>>an opportunity here to make some lame comment that only you find funny and
>>>relevant. Yet you disregard a direct statement challenging you to explain
>>>your logic in condoning the injury of another person!
>>>
>>>"Your support of violence and attempted murder is duly noted.
>>>And this is not the first time (Google group search "vandeman") you have
>>>praised and supported these terrorist acts.
>>
>> It's called "poetic justice", or "justice" for short.
>>
>Further proof of terrorist support by your own statement. And yet again you
>ignore a direct
>
>>>And where would your support be if an animal had been caught in this loop
>>>of
>>>wire? Is it only OK if another human being is injured by this terrorist
>>>activity?"
>
>And yet again you ignore a direct inquiry to explain yourself.
>
>
Yawn.
===
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.)
Apparently, that sums up the total of your opinions since it is either
"yawn" or "did you say something" that always closes your defense of these
opinions and statements you make in the first place. Perhaps, in the future,
all of your headers should begin with "yawn" or "did you say something".
