Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

11-21-2006, 08:41 AM

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ...
>>>> Last Child in the Woods --
>>>> Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
>>>> by Richard Louv
>>>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>> November 16, 2006
>>>>
>>>> In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a
>>>> convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain
>>>> access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not
>>>> available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant
>>>> lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need
>>>> for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts,
>>>> cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow,
>>>> our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.
>>>
>>>...so far so good
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able,
>>>> in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most
>>>> obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact
>>>> with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they
>>>> want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife
>>>> obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we
>>>> leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only
>>>> within certain limits.
>>>
>>>Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
>>>for
>>>thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
>>>populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
>>>tribes,
>>>for instance)
>>>Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
>>>humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
>>>little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
>>>inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
>>>grows
>>>accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no danger.
>>
>> That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
>> aren't harming them.
>While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most prevalent
>in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
>presence over time is much improved.

That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
Crawl back under your rock.

However, you use these statistics to
>rationalize the exclusion of activities in all areas and in every
>circumstance. You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other
>recreation, that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these
>areas of habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving
>wildlife to be more sensitive to human presence.
>>
>>>(2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact
>>>> is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts",
>>>> farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not
>>>> all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and
>>>> protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and
>>>> decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and
>>>> thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski
>>>> resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and
>>>> they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!
>>>
>>>Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they
>>>believe
>>>there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they
>>>will
>>>do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to
>>>paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski
>>>area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall.
>>
>> They both destroy habitat.
>To varying degrees and with differing concerns of result. The "ski area"
>would concern itself with preserving much of the landscape and natural
>surroundings (especially now with more conservation laws in place) as it is
>this that attracts the primary customers of the facility. The shopping mall
>is only concerned with retail space and parking.
>However, none of this concerns your initial statement that a child who
>"plays in the woods" has an inclination to become an exploitive adult.
>>
>>>> It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must
>>>> experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally
>>>> true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay
>>>> out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I
>>>> discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat
>>>> Off-Limits to Humans!", at [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
>>>Wildlife can and does survive with human presence. It is the total
>>>obliteration of habitat that is harmful. It is the killing for the
>>>pleasure
>>>of it that is harmful. MV believes a man standing in a forest is doing
>>>harm.
>Interesting how there is no MV comment here...
>>>>
>>>> It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we
>>>> interact with nature determines how we think about it and how learn to
>>>> treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them,
>>>> but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building
>>>> "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature
>>>> exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut
>>>> short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third
>>>> layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at
>>>> the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must
>>>> have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.
>>>
>>>You get stung and all children with a treehouse are demonized...?
>>
>> For good reason. They are only imitating adults.
>Your ability to connect dots is amusing. Your leaps of logic qualify as a
>"super power"! Your ability to use your experience as a measure of
>experience for all humanity is quite healthy, also. Children express
>independence as a natural aspect of becoming an adult. There are far too
>many variables involved in growing from a child to an adult for your
>statement concerning forts and "bee stings" to be any type of conclusion.
>>
>>>> On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been
>>>> taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to
>>>> take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future
>>>> Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring
>>>> one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by
>>>> the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans
>>>> (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was
>>>> also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either
>>>> waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.)
>>>
>>>Again, because you can not accomplish a task you attempt to demonize all
>>>those who can.
>>
>> Irrelevant. You are demonstrating the domineering attitude I am
>> describing.
>Not at all. It is you who is expressing a "domineering attitude". It is you
>attempting to make your opinion of activities you dislike the benchmark for
>acceptable use. It is you insisting that your experience is some kind of
>measure for everyone else.
>>
>>>> Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just
>>>> hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos,
>>>> it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to
>>>> controlling their bike, or they will crash.
>>>
>>>Where do you get 99.44% ? Is that some kind of MV math only you know? You
>>>base this on commercial or "bragging rights" videos designed to sell
>>>excitement.
>>
>> No, ordinary mountain bikers' self-made videos.
>Again... Where do you get 99.44% ? Where do you get "ordinary"? These self
>made "videos" you claim as representative of the entire group are actually
>showcasing the extreme end of the activity. It is this extreme faction that
>often creates the friction between "us" and other trail users. It is quite
>possible the "99.44%" you mention is the real and average cyclist just out
>to ride in the woods and the remaining .56% are the ones riding wild and
>fast to create sensational video images.
>I can make the same comparison with hiking. I've seen video documentation of
>trash and hiker abuse along the Appalachian Trail so I can make the same
>leap of logic that 99.44% of AT hikers are littering and damaging the
>habitat and wildlife.
>>
>> Apparently, you have not watched the The Discovery Channel and
>>>their documentaries on cycling showing smooth skills and attention to the
>>>beauty of the surroundings.
>>
>> Only where the trail is smooth and straight, so that they don't have
>> to steer!
>Incorrect. Your choice to impose your perception of the activity onto people
>who actually do it shows your capacity to ignore real truth. Just as I can
>say it is impossible for you to hike without lugged boots. You say you do it
>with ease. I say you can not walk a steep incline with smooth shoes without
>paying extreme attention to foot placement. You can not possibly notice the
>rabbit 20 feet to your left if you are looking down to make sure your
>footing is secure.
>>
>> Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial
>>>product
>>
>> That's a LIE.
>Really...? They does show sensational and extreme activity. Many are
>incorporated into commercial videos. The "LIE" is that these images
>represent the majority of cyclists and their way of riding a bike in the
>woods.
>>
>> and use that as an illustration of the whole. Typical. You are not
>>>interested in fact but only your support of the agenda you had before your
>>>first attempt at "research". You have stated before (and on your site)
>>>that
>>>you could not ride a mountain bike. That is meaningless as countless
>>>others
>>>do it every day WHILE enjoying the scenery around them. You choose to
>>>ignore
>>>these facts and instead use your opinion as a determination of the
>>>activity.
>>
>> One look at one of those videos shows that that is IMPOSSIBLE.
>Again... it your unfounded insistence that these images represent the
>majority, and your insistence that individuals can not do what they
>themselves accomplish, is nothing but another stain on your credibility. Do
>you also say it is impossible to run 26 miles merely because you can not do
>it?
>>
>>>Children initiated into
>>>> mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the
>>>> strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of
>>>> nature is acceptable. It's not!
>>>
>>>Opinion. There is NOTHING to support this statement
>>
>> But it's true.
>No. It is a statement of your opinion. My opinion is that a child initiated
>into off-road cycling can develop a respect for the surroundings and an
>admiration for preservation.
>>
>>>> On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First
>>>> of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a
>>>> microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health --
>>>> especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin.
>>>
>>>Much of this research is old, faulty or of dubious origin. A simple search
>>>of the research shows that.
>>>Beyond that, the current phones are less powerful (more towers means they
>>>do
>>>not need to be as powerful), are using better transmission technology, and
>>>many have even taken these fears to the design and have the antennae
>>>placed
>>>in the lower sections of the unit.
>>
>> It's still right next to the brain, and the frequency hasn't changed.
>"We performed highly sensitive, extremely well-controlled tests on living
>cells irradiated with energy like that from mobile phones, but at levels 5
>to 10 times higher than those set for the devices by regulatory agencies,"
>says Andrei Laszlo, Ph.D., associate professor of radiation oncology and a
>researcher at the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and
>Washington University School of Medicine. "We see no indication that factors
>involved in the stress response increase their activity as a result of such
>exposures."

Who paid for that research?

>Source: Washington University School of Medicine
>
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>>>If MV wants to go into the woods without a phone, more power to him. I
>>>would
>>>hope he is using 99.44% of his attention so he does not trip into a ravine
>>>with no way to get out.
>
>Interesting - No comment from MV here.
>>>
>>>> Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature
>>>> faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized"
>>>> world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be
>>>> reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic
>>>> faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a
>>>> headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for
>>>> over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for
>>>> any of these items.
>>>
>>>Fine. That does not mean you have the right or power to demand that
>>>everyone
>>>"enjoy" themselves the way you do.
>>
>> Cell phones show evolution at work.

>
>Yes, they do. Humans continue to evolve technology to move forward.
>>
>>>> It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on
>>>> wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant
>>>> and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore,
>>>> we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and
>>>> leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home.
>>>
>>>Your definition of "minimal-impact" suits your opinions. However, others
>>>may
>>>not (and do not need to) adhere to it. There are thousands upon thousands
>>>upon thousands of acres of land off limits to the activities you dislike.
>>>Fortunately, the ones who make the decisions see that there must also be
>>>areas to service a wide variety of options for natural enjoyment.
>>
>> WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
>> pavement.
>
>You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Because I haven't seen any. SHOW me one! You CAN'T!

You have chosen to ignore the
>facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
>continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
>cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
>> ===
>
>
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-21-2006, 12:41 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news

qa6m2h8ovpehac1nedlphgmhv5p1h0s90@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
>>>>for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
>>>>populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
>>>>tribes, for instance)
>>>>Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
>>>>humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
>>>>little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
>>>>inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
>>>>grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no
>>>>danger.
>>>
>>> That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
>>> aren't harming them.
>>While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most
>>prevalent
>>in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
>>presence over time is much improved.
>
> That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
> Crawl back under your rock.

True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing
direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion and
your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information.
How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about
exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How
about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather
than pulling only the pieces you like?

"You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation,
that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of
habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be
more sensitive to human presence."

When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers, rather
than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have taken a
big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no platform on which
to present your "opinions".

Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global warming
featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan.
Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting changes
of climate.
Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your sig
(I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.

11-22-2006, 07:58 AM

"S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:5wJ8h.4505$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
>
> True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing
> direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion
> and your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information.
> How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about
> exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How
> about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather
> than pulling only the pieces you like?
>
> "You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation,
> that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of
> habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be
> more sensitive to human presence."
>
> When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers,
> rather than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have
> taken a big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no
> platform on which to present your "opinions".
>
> Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global
> warming featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille
> Parmesan. Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is
> exacting changes of climate.
> Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your
> sig (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
> construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.
>

He's not interested in a constructive result, he's a troll
and he's playing you for a reaction like a kid poking a bug.
He doesn't give a crap for the environment or wildlife or he would direct
his
considerable efforts in a direction where they might actually accomplish
something.
Instead he gets his jollys from annoying and namecalling.
If you visit the groups he crossposts to that are concerned with the
environment
you will find that his posts are completely ignored.

As you've already seen a reasoned response, logical, annotated, factual is a
waste of time.
He's like a child making prank calls when Mommy and Daddy aren't home.
He's only interested in getting a response so he can start calling names.
His PhD is in a field wholly unrelated to nature, biology and environment.
His job is in a cubicle for a telecommunications company.
He's an impotent nobody crying out for attention and he gets it only here.

He loses when his posts get ZERO response and sit alone and ignored between
other threads.
That's the only way to defeat a troll. Like Tinkerbelle, when no one
believes in him anymore
he will wither and die.

If you must repond to him, please delete his stupid diatribe. It's criminal
to consider
how many servers are necessary for Google to preserve his nonsense because
people
duplicate his entire post to respond.

11-22-2006, 08:28 AM

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:41:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news

qa6m2h8ovpehac1nedlphgmhv5p1h0s90@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
>>>>>for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
>>>>>populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
>>>>>tribes, for instance)
>>>>>Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
>>>>>humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
>>>>>little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
>>>>>inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
>>>>>grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no
>>>>>danger.
>>>>
>>>> That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
>>>> aren't harming them.
>>>While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most
>>>prevalent
>>>in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
>>>presence over time is much improved.
>>
>> That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
>> Crawl back under your rock.
>
>True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing
>direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion and
>your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information.
>How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about
>exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How
>about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather
>than pulling only the pieces you like?
>
>"You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation,
>that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of
>habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be
>more sensitive to human presence."
>
>When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers, rather
>than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have taken a
>big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no platform on which
>to present your "opinions".
>
>Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global warming
>featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan.
>Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting changes
>of climate.
>Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your sig
>(I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
>construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.
>
>

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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-22-2006, 09:11 AM

See what I mean Steve?
You gave a reasoned response based on facts.
The troll ignored it.
"Yawn" "Did you say something" His standard playground putdown.
He doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty.
He'll never have the courage to really engage in honest debate.
He's a spoiled brat seeking attention.
You wasted your time. He put you down.
He's won the little game you didn't even know you were playing.
His little impotent ego is fed for another day.

Did you really want to make him feel better?

11-22-2006, 11:34 AM

"JP" <vze2wx8p@verizon.net> wrote in message
news

x%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
> See what I mean Steve?
>
> Did you really want to make him feel better?
>
I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.

11-22-2006, 11:38 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:41:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>>Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global
>>warming
>>featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan.
>>Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting
>>changes
>>of climate.
>>Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your
>>sig
>>(I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
>>construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.
>>
>>
>
> Yawn.

In accordance with the rules:
"It is a game for the rest of us to see which one can get you to say "yawn",
"did you say something?" or throw a name at us. You are a text driven video
game.
Why do we play the game? So anyone else looking for real information will
know you are not the source of it."

I win again!

11-22-2006, 04:52 PM

"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rD19h.162$jH3.77@newsfe14.lga...
>
> "JP" <vze2wx8p@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news

x%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
>> See what I mean Steve?
>>
>> Did you really want to make him feel better?
>>
> I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
> present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
> organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
> papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.

I wish you were right .
But I think he is smart enough, though not emotionally mature or fulfilled.
The conferences I've googled are for the most part filled with
other crackpots though in different areas and I have the feeling
that they will always accept a "PhD" in their quest to appear legitimate.
He shares the podium with crystal worshippers, UFO abductees and other
wackos, which on the surface since the participants are never described
makes his resume appear more legitimate.
It's your time and I wish you the best. I hope I'm wrong and that you
somehow
enlighten him but I must confess that my confidence level is not high.

11-22-2006, 11:19 PM

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:34:43 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>"JP" <vze2wx8p@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news

x%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
>> See what I mean Steve?
>>
>> Did you really want to make him feel better?
>>
>I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
>present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
>organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
>papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves.
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-22-2006, 11:21 PM

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:52:05 GMT, "JP" <vze2wx8p@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:rD19h.162$jH3.77@newsfe14.lga...
>>
>> "JP" <vze2wx8p@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news

x%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
>>> See what I mean Steve?
>>>
>>> Did you really want to make him feel better?
>>>
>> I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
>> present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
>> organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
>> papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.
>
>
>I wish you were right .
>But I think he is smart enough, though not emotionally mature or fulfilled.
>The conferences I've googled are for the most part filled with
>other crackpots though in different areas and I have the feeling
>that they will always accept a "PhD" in their quest to appear legitimate.
>He shares the podium with crystal worshippers, UFO abductees and other
>wackos, which on the surface since the participants are never described
>makes his resume appear more legitimate.

LIAR. These are scientific conferences, full of scientists, land
managers, and other people who are actually doing something worthwhile
with their lives, unlike you guys, who are only looking for cheap
thrills.

>It's your time and I wish you the best. I hope I'm wrong and that you
>somehow
>enlighten him but I must confess that my confidence level is not high.
>
>
>
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]