| Re: Too bad Mike Vandman can't answer the tough questions...
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:64aqp29857pa898po75ep46lhjt93cfp0o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:06:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:k40lp21is08651fhcv36sgb9pbtad2v36t@4ax.com. ..
>>>>
>>>>The science of my mathematics conflicts with the science of your
>>>>psychosis.
>>>>Mathematics trumps psychosis. You lose.
>>>
>>> I have an MA in math from Harvard. What about you? Have you finished
>>> grade school yet? Besides, this is biology, not math. It's amazing how
>>> you keep coming back for more punishment, no matter how many times you
>>> get whipped.
>>
>>You haven't figured out that you are fighting to save 0.004% of the
>>environment -- and that assumes you are 100% corrects AND I give you a 100
>>fold benefit of the doubt about how much land area is actually adversely
>>affected by bike riding, AND ignores any other form or activity that can
>>cause or contribute to the adversity you assert.
>>
>>My math trumps your psychosis.
>
> BS. Human impacts aren't restricted to the width of the trail -- a
> fact of basic biology that has never penetrated your thick skull --
> and , I predict, never will. It's one of those "inconvenient truths".
Talk about "inconvenient truth"! I've actually INCLUDED the off-the-trail
affects by giving you the ENTIRE length of the trail and giving you a 100
fold benefit of the doubt. I've given you the maximum advangtage, and you
still can credit yoruself with no more than 0.004% of habitat preservation.
My instinct is that your preservation efforts are much less effective ...
|