Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More - View Single Post

02-05-2007, 07:18 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:2vmfs2dvs86dhq1so97c7f22i85u20v51c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:25:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
>>>>> will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
>>>>> will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
>>>>> are examples in zoological museums.
>>>>> ===
>>>>Can you please give me an address where I may view the specimens you
>>>>claim
>>>>are in zoological museums. I do not believe you have the credentials to
>>>>make such claims.
>>>
>>> You don't need "credentials" to see the obvious. The tags on the
>>> snakes say "killed by a mountain biker". DUH!
>>>
>>>>Have the specimens been peer reviewed, and judged by scientific method
>>>>to
>>>>have been "ran over" as you americans say.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>Who did the review or examination? Where? When? Where are the actual
>>documents on results?
>>Are you going to answer his DIRECT question? He asked you for a physical
>>ADDRESS to view these alleged specimens.
>
> Find them yourselves. I don't want them stolen.
Thanks for the PROOF you can not back up your own statements. If you were
confident of your statements and you were honest in your mind you would have
no issue with providing verifiable information.
Since you can not, your statements of the existence of this "evidence" is a
lie until you can show otherwise.
But we all knew that.
Now, thanks to Google archiving, everybody will.
>
>>As have I:
>>**********
>>"Thats a laugh! You say they exist therefore it is on you to provide the
>>PROOF. Your statement "They must be pretty common" is an assumption based
>>on
>>your OPINION. I've been riding for years and haven't come across an animal
>>that shows signs it was killed by a cyclist. It is rare to find a dead
>>animal along the trail killed by any means. You can either provide the
>>scientific and conclusive evidence from this biologist (a name, and
>>facility
>>association as well) or you are claiming something you can not prove.
>>"Because you say so" is not evidence. If you were HONEST, you would have
>>NO
>>DIFFICULTY providing this proof.
>>>
>>>>>>This is, as it has always been, an example you CLAIM proves off-road
>>>>>>cyclist
>>>>>>behavior but you have no REAL EVIDENCE. Your word means NOTHING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions:
>>>>>>>>What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
>>>>>>>>"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing
>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>were
>>>>>>>>definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye
>>>>>>>>witness
>>>>>>>>accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
>>>>>>STILL NO ANSWER TO DIRECT QUESTIONS ON POINT AND PROOF.
>>>>>>And that speaks VOLUMES on your credibility as a LIAR.
>>>>STILL NO ANSWER on a direct point YOU MADE. YOU stated "There are
>>>>examples
>>>>in zoological museums". So, go ahead, which examples...? Which
>>>>museums...? If there are examples, then it should be easy for you to
>>>>supply the names.
>>>
>>> If you were smart (or cared), you would already know that information.
>>
>>Sorry - my "Kreskin Skills" are limited when it comes to devining
>>information from morons. YOU say it is there. If you honestly thought your
>>statements were true, you would gladly offer real information to support
>>them instead of trying to sidetrack and misdirect inquiries.So....
>>Either
>>provide proof of your statements or, by not doing so, provide the proof
>>you
>>are lying
>>That should be easy to grasp by someone with a PhD... Even if it is on
>>fast
>>food preperation. "
>>***********************
>>So which is it? Definate proof with names, addresses, specimen names and
>>location / case / reference / number. Something TANGIBLE that can be
>>verified.
>>This should be EASY if it is actual.
>>
>>Either provide real and verifiable evidence to support your statements
>>concerning these "animals" or, by not doing so, acknowledge you are a
>>liar.
>>
Thanks for the PROOF you can not back up your own statements. If you were
confident of your statements and you were honest in your mind you would have
no issue with providing verifiable information.
Since you can not, your statements of the existence of this "evidence" is a
lie until you can show otherwise.
But we all knew that.
Now, thanks to Google archiving, everybody will.

> ===
> 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

02-05-2007, 07:18 PM	#52 (permalink)
S Curtiss Posts: n/a	Re: So you admit HIKERS kill the wildlife!!!! "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:2vmfs2dvs86dhq1so97c7f22i85u20v51c@4ax.com... > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:25:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> > wrote: > >>>>> Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and >>>>> will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely >>>>> will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There >>>>> are examples in zoological museums. >>>>> === >>>>Can you please give me an address where I may view the specimens you >>>>claim >>>>are in zoological museums. I do not believe you have the credentials to >>>>make such claims. >>> >>> You don't need "credentials" to see the obvious. The tags on the >>> snakes say "killed by a mountain biker". DUH! >>> >>>>Have the specimens been peer reviewed, and judged by scientific method >>>>to >>>>have been "ran over" as you americans say. >>> >>> Yes. >>Who did the review or examination? Where? When? Where are the actual >>documents on results? >>Are you going to answer his DIRECT question? He asked you for a physical >>ADDRESS to view these alleged specimens. > > Find them yourselves. I don't want them stolen. Thanks for the PROOF you can not back up your own statements. If you were confident of your statements and you were honest in your mind you would have no issue with providing verifiable information. Since you can not, your statements of the existence of this "evidence" is a lie until you can show otherwise. But we all knew that. Now, thanks to Google archiving, everybody will. > >>As have I: >>******** >>"Thats a laugh! You say they exist therefore it is on you to provide the >>PROOF. Your statement "They must be pretty common" is an assumption based >>on >>your OPINION. I've been riding for years and haven't come across an animal >>that shows signs it was killed by a cyclist. It is rare to find a dead >>animal along the trail killed by any means. You can either provide the >>scientific and conclusive evidence from this biologist (a name, and >>facility >>association as well) or you are claiming something you can not prove. >>"Because you say so" is not evidence. If you were HONEST, you would have >>NO >>DIFFICULTY providing this proof. >>> >>>>>>This is, as it has always been, an example you CLAIM proves off-road >>>>>>cyclist >>>>>>behavior but you have no REAL EVIDENCE. Your word means NOTHING. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions: >>>>>>>>What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or >>>>>>>>"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing >>>>>>>>they >>>>>>>>were >>>>>>>>definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye >>>>>>>>witness >>>>>>>>accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"? >>>>>>STILL NO ANSWER TO DIRECT QUESTIONS ON POINT AND PROOF. >>>>>>And that speaks VOLUMES on your credibility as a LIAR. >>>>STILL NO ANSWER on a direct point YOU MADE. YOU stated "There are >>>>examples >>>>in zoological museums". So, go ahead, which examples...? Which >>>>museums...? If there are examples, then it should be easy for you to >>>>supply the names. >>> >>> If you were smart (or cared), you would already know that information. >> >>Sorry - my "Kreskin Skills" are limited when it comes to devining >>information from morons. YOU say it is there. If you honestly thought your >>statements were true, you would gladly offer real information to support >>them instead of trying to sidetrack and misdirect inquiries.So.... >>Either >>provide proof of your statements or, by not doing so, provide the proof >>you >>are lying >>That should be easy to grasp by someone with a PhD... Even if it is on >>fast >>food preperation. " >>********************* >>So which is it? Definate proof with names, addresses, specimen names and >>location / case / reference / number. Something TANGIBLE that can be >>verified. >>This should be EASY if it is actual. >> >>Either provide real and verifiable evidence to support your statements >>concerning these "animals" or, by not doing so, acknowledge you are a >>liar. >> Thanks for the PROOF you can not back up your own statements. If you were confident of your statements and you were honest in your mind you would have no issue with providing verifiable information. Since you can not, your statements of the existence of this "evidence" is a lie until you can show otherwise. But we all knew that. Now, thanks to Google archiving, everybody will. > === > 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