Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught. - Page 8

02-13-2007, 06:51 AM

On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
> >> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>
> >You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
> >they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
> >something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>
> >They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
> >inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>
> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.

Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?

Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!

02-14-2007, 08:01 PM

On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> >> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>> >> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>
>> >You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>> >they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>> >something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>
>> >They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>> >inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>
>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>
>
>Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>
>Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!

Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
===
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. ]

02-15-2007, 08:50 AM

On Feb 14, 9:01 pm, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!

Not true; mountain bikers and hikers tend to move at the same rate and
can both step over things.

And the statement is especially not true in the case where the hiker
is riding a mountain bike and the mountain biker is on foot.

It's tricky semantic differences like these that make nature such a
complicated issue.

-Beej

02-15-2007, 09:10 AM

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>>
>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>>
>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
>
> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!

You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.

My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.

cc

02-15-2007, 08:12 PM

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>> On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>>> Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
>>>>>> destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
>>>>> You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
>>>>> they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
>>>>> something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
>>>>> They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
>>>>> inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
>>>> There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
>>>> activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
>>>
>>> Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
>>> biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?
>>>
>>> Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
>>> NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
>>> bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
>>> You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
>>> on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
>>> makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
>>
>> Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
>> much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
>> it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
>> as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
>
>You can't say it's so because you say so, dip****. You should know that.
>One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
>that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
>trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
>the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
>tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.
>
>My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
>as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
>basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.
>
>cc

Did you say something?
===
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. ]

02-15-2007, 08:29 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:27:35 -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 Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0800, cc <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One is HUMAN, you idiot. Not
>>>>>>>>>> to mention the INTENT of the
>>>>>>>>>> murderer stringing booby-traps
>>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>> You still haven't answered the question: " In the case
>>>>>>>>> of mountain
>>>>>>>>> bikers, what IS the difference, except that the snake
>>>>>>>>> is beneficial,
>>>>>>>>> and the mountain biker is just destructive?". Admit it:
>>>>>>>>> you CAN'T.
>>>>>>>>> Tw
>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>> Can you read? The snake is not HUMAN.
>>>>>>> So what? What's the DIFFERENCE between them? DUH!
>>>>>> Are you seriously that stupid? They DIFFER in that one is
>>>>>> a REPTILE and
>>>>>> one is HUMAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a category, not a difference.
>>>>
>>>>Mike, categorical is one kind of differentiation. Try using a
>>>>dictionary.
>>>
>>> So you admit that you can't or won't answer the question?
>>There is no question. Any qualities, beneficial or not, that
>>you choose to
>>imply onto a snake has no reference to any qualities you choose
>>to imply
>>onto "mountain bikers".
>>The snake is destructive in as much as it kills and moves. How
>>do you
>>measure "beneficial"? Beneficial to it's prey? Beneficial to
>>it's
>>surroundings? Beneficial to humans?
>>Your statement that the "mountain biker is just destructive" is
>>a statement
>>made from your opinion of "mountain bikers". The ONLY
>>difference you seem to
>>care about is that the snake does not ride a bicycle and that
>>simple fact is
>>obvious and nonsense.
>>Your attempts to force attention away from the FACTS of the
>>case is also
>>obvious.
>>It is FACT this man was purposefully rigging trails in such a
>>way as to
>>cause injury.
>>It is FACT this man's activities can be classified as
>>terrorism.
>>It is FACT he was breaking the law.
>>
>>Any implications you make towards the activities of cyclists
>>while riding
>>are a non-issue as off-road cycling is legal and recognized.
>>Your OPINION
>>has no weight in the matter
>
> Did you say somehting?

Translation: Mickey got caught with his pants down, again.
What a hoot!!

PS Mickey, Bob jumped just to get away from you...

02-15-2007, 09:43 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>I am a cyclophobic sociophobe (paraphrasing)

What else is new