Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies" - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

12-05-2006, 01:05 PM

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Really? Which part is opinion?
>
> I see one in there, besides the invective.
>
> E.P.

I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
readers' perceptions.

Bruce Jensen

12-06-2006, 07:01 AM

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

hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of
your research and facts as accurate?

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

12-06-2006, 07:30 AM

Bruce Jensen wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> > Really? Which part is opinion?
> >
> > I see one in there, besides the invective.
> >
> > E.P.
>
> I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
> readers' perceptions.

OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
invective makes for difficult reading.

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

E.P.

12-06-2006, 08:00 AM

"Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1165419017.967432.231760@f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
> course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
> Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
> as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
> as "junk" science.
>
> No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
> entitled to their own set of facts.
>
> E.P.
>

I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven
impossible
by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a
mirror
of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason.
What I am trying to do is to rename the threads and possibly by example
show others that the thread can be renamed with Subject lines that MV is not
willing to pursue. Having thousands of posts follow his Subject title is to
repeat the
original lie that his subject espouses (Mountain Bikers kill hikers,
Mountain Bikers
destroy wilderness, Mountain Bikers break the law) which increases the
probability
of a Google hit and plants seeds in the weakminded. Repetition turns lies
into
truth for many as shown in past political elections.

If you wish to engage in reasoned debate with MV you are wasting your time.
(Yawn. Did you say something?)
If you wish to do so anyway I would suggest changing the header.
At least that reduces the appearence of his hijacking of the group.
He has no interest in "wilderness" or "wildlife."
His game is to control a group.
By responding to the apparent though false message he posts
one allows him to play his game with an unsuspecting dupe.
The dupe replies using the same header and typically not snipping the
original post.
MV gets to see his subject and message repeated thousands of times,
meanwhile he denigrates and uses "invective" until the rspondent tires and
moves on.
MV wins his twisted little game that his opponent didn't even realize was
being played.

I've decided to play with MV when I have the time.
I'll control the header content.
I'll snip the garbage in the message.
I'll say "LIAR."
I'll "yawn" when I'm done.

12-06-2006, 08:14 AM

He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin"
after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a
photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the
word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his
statement.

He has called me a liar on numerous occasions.

Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate.

Saying that he doesn't adhere
"Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1165419017.967432.231760@f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Bruce Jensen wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> > Really? Which part is opinion?
>> >
>> > I see one in there, besides the invective.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>>
>> I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
>> readers' perceptions.
>
> OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
> Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
> invective makes for difficult reading.
>
> Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
> course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
> Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
> as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
> as "junk" science.
>
> No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
> entitled to their own set of facts.
>
> E.P.
>

12-06-2006, 08:15 AM

Do you actually believe that he reads published, accredited journals?

"jason" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:eXAdh.408412$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].easynews.co m...
>
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>
> hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of your
> research and facts as accurate?
>
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

12-06-2006, 08:53 AM

[Top-posting fixed]

Roberto Baggio wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:1165419017.967432.231760@f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> > Bruce Jensen wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>
> >> > Really? Which part is opinion?
> >> >
> >> > I see one in there, besides the invective.
> >>
> >> I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
> >> readers' perceptions.
> >
> > OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
> > Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
> > invective makes for difficult reading.
> >
> > Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
> > course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
> > Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
> > as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
> > as "junk" science.
> >
> > No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
> > entitled to their own set of facts.
> >
> He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin"
> after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a
> photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the
> word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his
> statement.
>
> He has called me a liar on numerous occasions.
>
> Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate.

Who said he doesn't?

BTW, figure out how to post properly, OK?

E.P.

12-06-2006, 08:54 AM

JP wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:1165419017.967432.231760@f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
> > course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
> > Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
> > as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
> > as "junk" science.
> >
> > No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
> > entitled to their own set of facts.
> >
> > E.P.
> >
>
> I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven
> impossible
> by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a
> mirror
> of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason.

That's fine. Can you send it directly to him, and spare the rest of
us?

Thanks.

E.P.

12-06-2006, 10:29 AM

In article <U0Cdh.437704$R63.178430@pd7urf1no>,
Roberto Baggio <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Do you actually believe that he reads

No

12-07-2006, 05:34 AM

"Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:1165424059.876526.259430@16g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...
>
> JP wrote:
>> "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:1165419017.967432.231760@f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>> >
>> > Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
>> > course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
>> > Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
>> > as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
>> > as "junk" science.
>> >
>> > No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
>> > entitled to their own set of facts.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven
>> impossible
>> by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a
>> mirror
>> of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason.
>
> That's fine. Can you send it directly to him, and spare the rest of
> us?
>
> Thanks.
>
> E.P.
>

If "the rest of us" can refrain from answering his posts, fine.
If they decide to engage him, I'm in.
You can spare yourself anytime by not clicking the message.
As far as my sending a direct response to a public post....NO.