A Lesson from Florida: It's Time for Regime Change!



On 07 Oct 2004 00:27:44 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Stephen Baker) wrote:

..MV blathers:
..
..>Someone who is eventually going to
..>die can't be said to "own" property, anyway: your "ownership ends with your
..>death.
..
..So will your drivel, but you "own" that.....
..I own my car. But that will end with it's death.
..What's your point?

You don't own them.

..>>And just because a law is democratically created, it is not necessarily
..>>fair or just.
..>
..>Yes, it is. Otherwise the Supreme Court would block it.
..
..Bwahahahahahahahahahaha... <choke>
..
..Nice one Mikey. Trying out for SNL?
..

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 06:56:57 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 05 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> .> .> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the
..> .> ability .> to .go there.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Yes, we have.
..> .> .
..> .> .And yet, we haven't.
..> .> .
..> .> .mo·nop·o·lize tr.v.
..> .> .1. To acquire or maintain a monopoly of.
..> .>
..> .> This is the one that applies.
..> .
..> .Really? Who did we acquire the monopoly from? How are we maintaining
..> it?
..>
..> We stole it. We maintain it by claiming the right to go anywhere
..> anytime we choose.
..
..Who did we steal it from? Answer the damn question.

From the previous owner, obviously. God, you guys are slow.

..> and if
..> .you don't like it, there's nothing you can do. You don't really own
..> your .property. Think about it: You have to pay for it in property
..> taxes every .year, and it can be seized from you at any time. That's
..> not ownership, .that's rental.
..>
..> You are free to call it whatever you want. Someone who is eventually
..> going to die can't be said to "own" property, anyway: your "ownership
..> ends with your death.
..
..Indeed. So what?

Private property is BS.

..> .And just because a law is democratically created, it is not
..> necessarily .fair or just.
..>
..> Yes, it is. Otherwise the Supreme Court would block it.
..
..The supreme court was democratically created. You do seem to enjoy
..circular arguments.
..
..> More often than not, it isn't. Furthermore, the idea that
..> .the government should have ultimate control, simply because it
..> ."protects" the populace, is not a new one. Most commonly, it is known
..> as ."fascism".
..>
..> Or "democracy".
..
..Now you're getting it.
..
..> .> And
..> .> .since all other rights are derived from a right to property, to
..> .> support .eminent domain is to deny all rights.
..> .
..> .This is no small thing. You only have a right to life and liberty
..> because .you own yourself. Someone who is incapable of ownership does
..> not have .these rights.
..>
..> Who might that be? You don't own yourself, because you don't have any
..> right to do whatever you want. You will always be restricted by law.
..
..You're quite the statist, Mike. "Law" is nothing more than a set of
..restrictions agreed to be "reasonable" by a group of people who are not
..necessarily subjected to said restrictions, or inclusive of those
..subjected. Law exists only in the heads of those who believe it to have
..some kind of validity.
..
..Rights, on the other hand, are immutable.

So blacks still don't have the right to vote? You make no sense.

I can do whatever I want, so
..long as I don't prevent anyone else from doing whatever they want.

So you can grow pot, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people? BS.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:22:27 GMT, "Pete" <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
..> .
..> .Try riding through Clifton, Passaic, or Paterson, NJ the 2nd most
..populuous
..> .city in the nation. 150,000 people in 8 square miles with a very high
..crime
..> .rate and terrible drivers. The people in that area do not respect bicycle
..> .riders as the often show by throwing bottles and other objects out the
..> .window at them.
..> .Between the bad drivers and restless minorities every ride feels like a
..> .mission.
..>
..> There are some places that humans shouldn't live.
..
..Such as the formerly pristine area which has now become the overcrowded,
..wasteful, unsustainable area known as San Francisco?

S.F. Is one of the most sustainable cities in the U.S.

Pete
..

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:27:27 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:21:19 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:53:16 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..>.By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability to
..>.go there.
..>
..>Yes, we have.
..>
..Exactly what wildlife are you speaking for, that lives on the Moon?

Any that are there or would like to be there.

..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)
..------------------------------------------------
..at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
..
..Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
..Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:22:24 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:p[email protected]:
..
..> On 25 Sep 2004 11:05:25 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> news:<[email protected]>... .> There are
..> animals that TOLERATE the presence of humans, but most don't. .
..> .Those are the ones that will flourish. The ones who can't tolerate
..> .human presence or adapt to tolerate it will retreat to areas where
..> .they can survive.
..>
..> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
..> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
..> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive --
..> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
..
..Mike, you need to get away from Cali, not every square inch of Colorado,
..Utah, Wyoming, etc... has been "commandeered".

Then name one area that is off-limits to ALL humans, liar.

..> What is critical is that those enclaves be
..> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
..> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to allow
..> .interbreeding between the groups.
..>
..> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
..
..LIAR !!

No, fact. You can't name a single area off-limits to all humans.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:14 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]> wrote:

..Hey Mikey,
.. I own about 86 acres of the Wet Mountains in Colorado. All of it is
..virgin wilderness. It has never been logged.
..
.. I have designated about half of it OFF_LIMITS to humans, (basicly I
..told the kids to not play in the canyon, mainly due to rattle snakes)
..
.. I am a mountain biker. Check this out:
..
..
.. 5280 ft/mile X 5280ft/mile X 1 square mile/640 acres =
..43560 sqare feet/acre
..
.. 43560 square feet/acre X 40 acres = 1742400 sqare feet of
..wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans.
..
..
..Since you have only 400 sq feet, does that mean I am 4356 times
..better than you ???

No, because of all the habitat you have DESTROYED by promoting mountain biking.

..and I do not lie !
..
..
..-- Brewer
..
..
..
..
..
..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:[email protected]:
..
..> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:53:16 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .On 01 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..> .
..> .> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
..> .> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
..> .> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive
..> -- .> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
..> .> .
..> .> .So, since there are no areas where animals can survive, what the
..> hell .> keeps .eating my bushes at night?
..> .>
..> .> You are. It's obvious.
..> .
..> .*sob* Yes, it's true! All of it!
..> .
..> .> .> What is critical is that those enclaves be
..> .> .> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
..> .> .> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to
..> .> allow .> .interbreeding between the groups.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
..> .> .
..> .> .Mike, have you ever actually been in a wilderness area? There are
..> no .> .shopping malls or parking lots. There might be a narrow dirt
..> trail, .> if .you're lucky. Sometimes you have to rely on cairns for
..> navigation, .> if .they're still there. That's not monopolization.
..> .>
..> .> Yes, it is. None of it is off-limits to humans.
..> .
..> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability
..> to .go there.
..>
..> Yes, we have.
..>
..> .> .> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of
..> .> that. .> We do it for other government priorities.
..> .> .
..> .> .I see, kick them out, and if anyone refuses to leave, put a gun to
..> .> his .head. Violence solves everything.
..> .>
..> .> That's not violence, just law enforcement. As a mountain biker, you
..> .> should know about violence, especially to the land and wildlife.
..> .
..> .Law enforcement = force (hence the "force" in "enforcement"). Force =
..> .threat of violence. Furthermore, "law enforcement" is no excuse when
..> the .laws being enforced (or in this case, abused) are as tyrannical
..> and .dangerous as those you propose.
..>
..> What's "tyrannical"? Eminent domain? The public, through its
..> representatives, has decided that it is acceptable. "Tyrannical" is
..> humans thinking they own the Earth and can do whatever they want to
..> it. Keeping some of it wilderness is simply correcting that situation
..> -- giving wildlife their due. ===
..> 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.)
..>
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..>

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> .> But that is a commonly known fact. Human presence drives away
> species sensitive .> .> to human presence.
> .> .Persistent, continuous human presence may do so, but not
> occasional .> .visitation.
> .>
> .> How do you draw that line? It makes no sense. There is no such
> line. .
> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
> .predator.
>
> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g.
> scaring birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.

The predators that have been scared away?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive --
> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
> .
> .Mike, you need to get away from Cali, not every square inch of
> Colorado, .Utah, Wyoming, etc... has been "commandeered".
>
> Then name one area that is off-limits to ALL humans, liar.

Chernobyl.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> .Really? Who did we acquire the monopoly from? How are we
> maintaining .> it?
> .>
> .> We stole it. We maintain it by claiming the right to go anywhere
> .> anytime we choose.
> .
> .Who did we steal it from? Answer the damn question.
>
> From the previous owner, obviously. God, you guys are slow.

Who was... ?

> .> and if
> .> .you don't like it, there's nothing you can do. You don't really
> own .> your .property. Think about it: You have to pay for it in
> property .> taxes every .year, and it can be seized from you at any
> time. That's .> not ownership, .that's rental.
> .>
> .> You are free to call it whatever you want. Someone who is
> eventually .> going to die can't be said to "own" property, anyway:
> your "ownership .> ends with your death.
> .
> .Indeed. So what?
>
> Private property is BS.

Why?

> .> .> And
> .> .> .since all other rights are derived from a right to property, to
> .> .> support .eminent domain is to deny all rights.
> .> .
> .> .This is no small thing. You only have a right to life and liberty
> .> because .you own yourself. Someone who is incapable of ownership
> does .> not have .these rights.
> .>
> .> Who might that be? You don't own yourself, because you don't have
> any .> right to do whatever you want. You will always be restricted by
> law. .
> .You're quite the statist, Mike. "Law" is nothing more than a set of
> .restrictions agreed to be "reasonable" by a group of people who are
> not .necessarily subjected to said restrictions, or inclusive of those
> .subjected. Law exists only in the heads of those who believe it to
> have .some kind of validity.
> .
> .Rights, on the other hand, are immutable.
>
> So blacks still don't have the right to vote? You make no sense.

Nor do you, as this is entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

> I can do whatever I want, so
> .long as I don't prevent anyone else from doing whatever they want.
>
> So you can grow pot, as long as it doesn't interfere with other
> people?

Um, yeah. Pot is a relatively harmless drug. All it does is make you
stupid and slow.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> There are some places that humans shouldn't live.
> .
> .Such as the formerly pristine area which has now become the
> overcrowded, .wasteful, unsustainable area known as San Francisco?
>
> S.F. Is one of the most sustainable cities in the U.S.

But only because he happens to live there.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lagrande/starkey_na/PDFs_Preprints/ms-06_Wisdom.pdf
> .It begins to quantify the flight reaction of mule deer and elk to
> .ATVs, horseback riders, mountain bikes, and hikers. It doesn't refute
> .my statement. It merely reinforces what I said.
>
> Which was what? (Sorry, I don't memorize everything you say.)

That the transitory presence of a human does not drive wildlife off
their range permanently. They move off a certain distance then resume
their activity.

> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
> .for not mowing.
>
> 12% of my property.

Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?

> .I do not doubt the truth of that statement. Allowing snowmobiles in
> .the national parks when deer and elk are hard up for forage puts
> .additional stress on already stressed animals.
>
> Right. The same gfoes for mountain bikers, who are FAR more numerous.

I'm not aware of mountain bikers getting into deer or elk range when
deep snow is making it hard for the animals to forage. Of course, I'm
not a mountain biker and I live in Florida so I am not up on the cold
weather practices of mountain bikers.

> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
> .predator.
>
> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g. scaring
> birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.

And you think that birds react differently to humans than they do
other animals?

> .You have done no science, Michael. You have merely regurgitated and
> .misinterpreted what real scientists have said.
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You said it was a good paper. Scientists colledt
> data and interpret it. The ones I reported on misinterpreted their own data, to
> try to make it support mountain biking. I just pointed that out. That's science.
> I guess you, just like other mountain bikers, just didn't like my conclusions.
> Tough.

I said the paper was good, not your extrapolations from the data
provided by the scientists. As I told you before, I'm a roadie, not a
mountain biker.

**** Durbin
 
Hi slogic was better than yours ! He stated facts, not simply replying
to his point with 'Irrelevent' as you did. In a debate, he would have
kicked your butt !!



Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:45:07 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .I think Mikey has meet his match !!!
>
> Hardly.
>
> [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote in
> .news:[email protected]:
> .
> .> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> news:<[email protected]>...
> .>> .> You obviously haven't read the research. Read the last
reference
> .>> on .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7/htm.
> .>>
> .>> Typo. Try http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm. You should
have
> .>> been able to figure that out yourself.
> .>
> .> Good paper.
> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lagrande/starkey_na/PDFs_Preprints/ms-06
> ._Wisdo
> .> m.pdf It begins to quantify the flight reaction of mule deer and
elk
> .> to ATVs, horseback riders, mountain bikes, and hikers. It doesn't
> .> refute my statement. It merely reinforces what I said.
> .>
> .>> .And just where, in relation to your residence is this property?
How
> .>> .large is it and how close is your home to it?
> .>>
> .>> Irrelevant.
> .>
> .> Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
> .> acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
> .> American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
> .> limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the
neighbors
> .> for not mowing.
> .>
> .>> .Individuals who believe as you may do what they wish with their
own
> .>> .property. Citizens would have to be convinced, through rigorous
> .>> .science, that public land being off limits to human visitation
would
> .>> .be required to avoid exclusion of an endangered species.
> .>>
> .>> It's already been done. It's called "conservation biology". Our
> .>> MOST-protected lands are national parks, but they are still losing
> .>> species.
> .>
> .> I do not doubt the truth of that statement. Allowing snowmobiles
in
> .> the national parks when deer and elk are hard up for forage puts
> .> additional stress on already stressed animals.
> .>
> .>> .> But that is a commonly known fact. Human presence drives away
> .>> species sensitive .> to human presence.
> .>> .Persistent, continuous human presence may do so, but not
occasional
> .>> .visitation.
> .>>
> .>> How do you draw that line? It makes no sense. There is no such
line.
> .>
> .> By observing which species can accept what level of human
intrusion.
> .> Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
> .> predator.
> .>
> .>> .> .Allowed to visit, but not engage in activities that make it
> .>> .> .uninhabitable to wildlife.
> .>> .>
> .>> .> How would you know ahat those activities are? In any case, it
is
> .>> NOT off-limits .> to ALL humans, which is what I am advocating.
> .>> .
> .>> .The problem, Michael, is that you have not demonstrated
> .>> SCIENTIFICALLY .that what you are advocating is necessary.
> .>>
> .>> I just did. You simply haven't read my papers.
> .>
> .> You have done no science, Michael. You have merely regurgitated
and
> .> misinterpreted what real scientists have said.
> .>
> .> **** Durbin
>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:14 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Hey Mikey,
> . I own about 86 acres of the Wet Mountains in Colorado. All of it
> is .virgin wilderness. It has never been logged.
> .
> . I have designated about half of it OFF_LIMITS to humans, (basicly
> I .told the kids to not play in the canyon, mainly due to rattle
> snakes) .
> . I am a mountain biker. Check this out:
> .
> .
> . 5280 ft/mile X 5280ft/mile X 1 square mile/640 acres =
> .43560 sqare feet/acre
> .
> . 43560 square feet/acre X 40 acres = 1742400 sqare feet of
> .wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans.
> .
> .
> .Since you have only 400 sq feet, does that mean I am 4356 times
> .better than you ???
>
> No, because of all the habitat you have DESTROYED by promoting
> mountain biking.


Hey Mikey Moron,
I said the land is virgin!! Not destroyed, absolutely pristine.
BTW LIAR, I never promoted mountain biking anywhere !!!

You are about as dumb as they come Mikey


>
> .and I do not lie !
> .
> .
> .-- Brewer
 

> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
> .for not mowing.

>> 12% of my property.

>>> Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
[/color]

.> .> .How much Mike? How many square feet?
.> About 400.

.I finally found it on your web site 20 by 20 feet. What a joke.

But that's the ONLY 400 square feet in the world that is off-limits to all
humans. That's why it's significant.

.> How far away do you keep people in
.> .> .order for it to qualify as off limits to people?
.>
.> As long as they don't go there.


12% of about 3200 squre feet.
Even a well used mountain bike trail gives animals more human free space than that.
 
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:09:13 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> .> .Really? Who did we acquire the monopoly from? How are we
..> maintaining .> it?
..> .>
..> .> We stole it. We maintain it by claiming the right to go anywhere
..> .> anytime we choose.
..> .
..> .Who did we steal it from? Answer the damn question.
..>
..> From the previous owner, obviously. God, you guys are slow.
..
..Who was... ?
..
..> .> and if
..> .> .you don't like it, there's nothing you can do. You don't really
..> own .> your .property. Think about it: You have to pay for it in
..> property .> taxes every .year, and it can be seized from you at any
..> time. That's .> not ownership, .that's rental.
..> .>
..> .> You are free to call it whatever you want. Someone who is
..> eventually .> going to die can't be said to "own" property, anyway:
..> your "ownership .> ends with your death.
..> .
..> .Indeed. So what?
..>
..> Private property is BS.
..
..Why?

Wildlife. There is no other possibility. DUH!

..> .> .> And
..> .> .> .since all other rights are derived from a right to property, to
..> .> .> support .eminent domain is to deny all rights.
..> .> .
..> .> .This is no small thing. You only have a right to life and liberty
..> .> because .you own yourself. Someone who is incapable of ownership
..> does .> not have .these rights.
..> .>
..> .> Who might that be? You don't own yourself, because you don't have
..> any .> right to do whatever you want. You will always be restricted by
..> law. .
..> .You're quite the statist, Mike. "Law" is nothing more than a set of
..> .restrictions agreed to be "reasonable" by a group of people who are
..> not .necessarily subjected to said restrictions, or inclusive of those
..> .subjected. Law exists only in the heads of those who believe it to
..> have .some kind of validity.
..> .
..> .Rights, on the other hand, are immutable.
..>
..> So blacks still don't have the right to vote? You make no sense.
..
..Nor do you, as this is entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
..
..> I can do whatever I want, so
..> .long as I don't prevent anyone else from doing whatever they want.
..>
..> So you can grow pot, as long as it doesn't interfere with other
..> people?
..
..Um, yeah. Pot is a relatively harmless drug. All it does is make you
..stupid and slow.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:04:02 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
..> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
..> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive --
..> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
..> .
..> .Mike, you need to get away from Cali, not every square inch of
..> Colorado, .Utah, Wyoming, etc... has been "commandeered".
..>
..> Then name one area that is off-limits to ALL humans, liar.
..
..Chernobyl.

It's not. I met someone who went there, after the accident.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:01:06 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:[email protected]:
..
..> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:14 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Hey Mikey,
..> . I own about 86 acres of the Wet Mountains in Colorado. All of it
..> is .virgin wilderness. It has never been logged.
..> .
..> . I have designated about half of it OFF_LIMITS to humans, (basicly
..> I .told the kids to not play in the canyon, mainly due to rattle
..> snakes) .
..> . I am a mountain biker. Check this out:
..> .
..> .
..> . 5280 ft/mile X 5280ft/mile X 1 square mile/640 acres =
..> .43560 sqare feet/acre
..> .
..> . 43560 square feet/acre X 40 acres = 1742400 sqare feet of
..> .wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans.
..> .
..> .
..> .Since you have only 400 sq feet, does that mean I am 4356 times
..> .better than you ???
..>
..> No, because of all the habitat you have DESTROYED by promoting
..> mountain biking.
..
..
..Hey Mikey Moron,
.. I said the land is virgin!! Not destroyed, absolutely pristine.
.. BTW LIAR, I never promoted mountain biking anywhere !!!

You are a mountain biker, hence you destroy habitat. QED

.. You are about as dumb as they come Mikey
..
..
..>
..> .and I do not lie !
..> .
..> .
..> .-- Brewer

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 12 Oct 2004 11:30:58 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lagrande/starkey_na/PDFs_Preprints/ms-06_Wisdom.pdf
..> .It begins to quantify the flight reaction of mule deer and elk to
..> .ATVs, horseback riders, mountain bikes, and hikers. It doesn't refute
..> .my statement. It merely reinforces what I said.
..>
..> Which was what? (Sorry, I don't memorize everything you say.)
..
..That the transitory presence of a human does not drive wildlife off
..their range permanently. They move off a certain distance then resume
..their activity.

If there are enough humans, they leave permanently. Or die, from lack of usable
habitat.

..> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
..> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
..> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
..> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
..> .for not mowing.
..>
..> 12% of my property.
..
..Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?

Irrelevant.

..> .I do not doubt the truth of that statement. Allowing snowmobiles in
..> .the national parks when deer and elk are hard up for forage puts
..> .additional stress on already stressed animals.
..>
..> Right. The same gfoes for mountain bikers, who are FAR more numerous.
..
..I'm not aware of mountain bikers getting into deer or elk range when
..deep snow is making it hard for the animals to forage. Of course, I'm
..not a mountain biker and I live in Florida so I am not up on the cold
..weather practices of mountain bikers.

They have the same effect, regardless of snow or lack of it. God, you are slow!

..> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
..> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
..> .predator.
..>
..> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g. scaring
..> birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.
..
..And you think that birds react differently to humans than they do
..other animals?

Irrelevant.

..> .You have done no science, Michael. You have merely regurgitated and
..> .misinterpreted what real scientists have said.
..>
..> You just contradicted yourself. You said it was a good paper. Scientists colledt
..> data and interpret it. The ones I reported on misinterpreted their own data, to
..> try to make it support mountain biking. I just pointed that out. That's science.
..> I guess you, just like other mountain bikers, just didn't like my conclusions.
..> Tough.
..
..I said the paper was good, not your extrapolations from the data
..provided by the scientists. As I told you before, I'm a roadie, not a
..mountain biker.

I didn't extrapolate. Can't you read?

..**** Durbin

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:04:02 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
> .
> .> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
> .> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
> .> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive
> -- .> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
> .> .
> .> .Mike, you need to get away from Cali, not every square inch of
> .> Colorado, .Utah, Wyoming, etc... has been "commandeered".
> .>
> .> Then name one area that is off-limits to ALL humans, liar.
> .
> .Chernobyl.
>
> It's not. I met someone who went there, after the accident.

Mikey, Would you please go visit it yourself


===
I am working on creating a newsgroup that is off-limits to
Vanda-monkeys ("pure logic"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting stupidity and ignorance.)


> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:01:06 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
> .news:[email protected]:
> .
> .> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:14 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Hey Mikey,
> .> . I own about 86 acres of the Wet Mountains in Colorado. All of
it
> .> is .virgin wilderness. It has never been logged.
> .> .
> .> . I have designated about half of it OFF_LIMITS to humans,
(basicly
> .> I .told the kids to not play in the canyon, mainly due to rattle
> .> snakes) .
> .> . I am a mountain biker. Check this out:
> .> .
> .> .
> .> . 5280 ft/mile X 5280ft/mile X 1 square mile/640 acres
=
> .> .43560 sqare feet/acre
> .> .
> .> . 43560 square feet/acre X 40 acres = 1742400 sqare feet
of
> .> .wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans.
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .Since you have only 400 sq feet, does that mean I am 4356 times
> .> .better than you ???
> .>
> .> No, because of all the habitat you have DESTROYED by promoting
> .> mountain biking.


LIAR

I have not promoted anything except the fact that I have designated
about 4356 times the amount of space "OFF_LIMITS to humans" as you have.

I have destroyed absolutly no more than you have Duh


===
I am working on creating a newsgroup that is off-limits to
Vanda-monkeys ("pure logic"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting stupidity and ignorance.)




> .
> .
> .Hey Mikey Moron,
> . I said the land is virgin!! Not destroyed, absolutely pristine.
> . BTW LIAR, I never promoted mountain biking anywhere !!!
>
> You are a mountain biker, hence you destroy habitat. QED
>
> . You are about as dumb as they come Mikey
> .
> .
> .>
> .> .and I do not lie !
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .-- Brewer
>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewRiderMan
A hard lesson learned.
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
NewRiderMan
NewRiderMan
S
OT: harsh lesson to learn (roids)
Replies
9
Views
245
Mountain Bikes
Slack
S
M
OT. Lesson Learned.
Replies
20
Views
927
Mountain Bikes
jem
J
M
  • Locked
A lesson from Pete (first aid)
Replies
42
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Dave W
D
S
  • Locked
(OT) Pre-nup "Lesson" for Shaun
Replies
6
Views
896
Mountain Bikes
Bomba
B
Top Bottom Back