Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS??? - Page 3

On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>> >> >
>> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>> >
>> >No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
>> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>
>You have no "point", troll. You were simply rude and were told off
>for inexcusable conduct.

I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
it. Just look up.
--
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

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
> >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
> >> >
> >> >No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
> >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
> >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
> >
> >You have no "point", troll. You were simply rude and were told off
> >for inexcusable conduct.
>
> I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
> it. Just look up.

Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Jun 28, 1:10*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> > wrote:
>
> > >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> > >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringementwas a victimless
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. *Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. *My guess is that we might be
> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>
> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>
> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing anarrogant
> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>
> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>
> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. *That's the only response you deserve.
>
> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> > >> >No point of yours was proved. *When you call someone a "good waste
> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>
> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> > >You have no "point", troll. *You were simply rude and were told off
> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>
> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
> > it. Just look up.
>
> Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Vandeman does have a mind, he is mentally ill and unstable. Its a
shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
professional help.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "sohn@usol.com"
<sohn@usol.com> wrote:

>On Jun 28, 1:10*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. *Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. *My guess is that we might be
>> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>>
>> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>>
>> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. *That's the only response you deserve.
>>
>> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >> >No point of yours was proved. *When you call someone a "good waste
>> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>>
>> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >You have no "point", troll. *You were simply rude and were told off
>> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>>
>> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
>> > it. Just look up.
>>
>> Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>>
>> --
>> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
>Vandeman does have a mind, he is mentally ill and unstable. Its a
>shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
>professional help.

This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
that mountain bikers visit on anyone who dares to tell the truth about
their selfish, destructive, sick sport.
--
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

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "sohn@usol.com"
<sohn@usol.com> wrote:

>On Jun 28, 1:10*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. *Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. *My guess is that we might be
>> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>>
>> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>>
>> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. *That's the only response you deserve.
>>
>> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >> >No point of yours was proved. *When you call someone a "good waste
>> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>>
>> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >You have no "point", troll. *You were simply rude and were told off
>> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>>
>> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
>> > it. Just look up.
>>
>> Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>>
>> --
>> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
>Vandeman does have a mind, he is mentally ill and unstable. Its a
>shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
>professional help.

This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
that mountain bikers visit on anyone who dares to tell the truth about
their selfish, destructive, sick sport.
--
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

On Jun 28, 1:23*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "s...@usol.com"
>
>
>
> <s...@usol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 28, 1:10*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> MikeVandeman<mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >MikeVandeman<mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >MikeVandeman<mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> >> > >> >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >MikeVandeman<mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (BillZ.)
> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >MikeVandeman<mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net(BillZ.)
> >> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >MikeVandeman<mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't beenvictimized. I've
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable,and hence
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. *Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. *My guess is that we might be
> >> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>
> >> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showingan arrogant
> >> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>
> >> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> >> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>
> >> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. *That's the only response you deserve.
>
> >> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> >> > >> >No point of yours was proved. *When you call someone a "good waste
> >> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
> >> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>
> >> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> >> > >You have no "point", troll. *You were simply rude and were told off
> >> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>
> >> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
> >> > it. Just look up.
>
> >>Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>
> >> --
> >> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
> >Vandemandoes have a mind, *he is mentally ill and unstable. *Its a
> >shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
> >professional help.
>
> This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
> that mountain bikers visit on anyone who dares to tell the truth about
> their selfish, destructive, sick sport.
> --
> 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

Mike, you don't need to submit more PROOF in regards to your warped
mental state...........

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:
>This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)

Unless he was addressing part of your argument, which is unlikely at
this point in the thread, then it's not ad hominem; it's just an insult.

It has to be clear that he is trying to undermine your position by
attacking your character for it to be ad hominem.

For instance, "what you say is false because you're a mountain biker" is
a fine example of ad hominem.

-Beej

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:41:12 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
>
>Unless he was addressing part of your argument, which is unlikely at
>this point in the thread, then it's not ad hominem; it's just an insult.
>
>It has to be clear that he is trying to undermine your position by
>attacking your character for it to be ad hominem.
>
>For instance, "what you say is false because you're a mountain biker" is
>a fine example of ad hominem.

You don't know what you are talking about. Ad hominem is attacking the
messenger, when the REAL issue is the message. It's much easier to
attack the messenger, than to tell the truth about your destructive,
selfish, sick sport.

>-Beej
--
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