Another Idiot Mountain Biker Demonstrates Their Stupidity

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Jun 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
    >Mike:

    >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN
    and i want to share that although I don't think mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that are
    off limits to all humans (I like that idea),

    I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in the world.

    > we live
    in a world with many people. get over your inability to share the trails.

    You misunderstood. I am perfectly happy to share the trails with mountain bikers, who are human
    beings, but not with bicycles, which aren't human, have no rights, and don't belong there.

    > i don't like the flies and soil
    effects from horses/riders on trails, and I either avoid those trails or I get over it and use them.

    Why? There are good reasons why exotic species shouldn't be allowed in natural areas.

    >THere are many trails to travel that don't allow
    mountain bikers, and you can use those.

    I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about THAT? Ignore it?

    >Multi-purpose/user trails compose some of our public
    land trail system and although that may suck to you, we have a lot of people on this planet. I wish
    we didn't have so many, but that's the way it is.

    I have never complained about the people. It's the BIKES I object to. And so far, I have yet to hear
    a single good reason why we should permit them. You don't offer one, either.

    >Ilana

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

    ===
    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Dirk Genius

    Dirk Genius Guest

    I agree with some of what Mike says, I've clipped those portions.

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
    > >Mike:
    >
    > I need <snip> help. <snip>

    There you go, some of what he says IS true.
     
  3. Dear Mike, You poor, pathetic little man. You repeatedly call for closure of all trails to mountain
    bikers, but in the same breath you say that the bikers are welcome, just not the bikes. If you take
    the bikes away, the bikers cease to be bikers, they become hikers at that point. So, you do not
    welcome bikers, you only welcome hikers. If you take the vehicles away from drivers, then they
    become hikers too, they are no longer drivers if that which the drive is taken away. So, you do not
    welcome drivers, you only welcome hikers.

    I will give you credit for an accurate statement though. You say that bikers use trails that are
    closed, and complain about sharing in this instance. I agree that if a trail is marked as a hiking
    trail, bikes ought not be using
    it. I have no solution on dealing with this, but it is a valid complaint and a solution is needed.
    Your solution is to close all routes in the inventory to all but foot traffic, and your agenda
    is to even remove foot traffic. This solution is like chopping your leg off because you have an
    ingrown toenail.

    Having said that, the vast majority of trails are designated for shared use, bikes and foot traffic.
    Motor vehicle routes are generaly kept separate, and pedestrians generally do not walk on motor
    vehicle routes, so the conflicts over use do not arise. Motor cycles are another separate problem,
    but in California, motorcycles without street legal license plates are restricted to offroad vehicle
    areas, and are heavily regulated from forest and park routes, nearly eliminating the conflicts that
    arise from multi-use.

    Now that I am done top posting, please allow me to comment on each point below ...

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
    > >Mike:
    >
    > >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN
    > and i want to share that although I don't think mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that
    > are off limits to all humans (I like that idea),
    >
    > I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in
    the
    > world.
    >
    The poster is agreeing with you, yet you have hurled an insult.

    > > we live
    > in a world with many people. get over your inability to share the trails.
    >
    > You misunderstood. I am perfectly happy to share the trails with mountain bikers, who are human
    > beings, but not with bicycles, which aren't human,
    have no
    > rights, and don't belong there.
    >
    You pathetic liar, if you ban the bikes, the bikers become hikers at that point. You are not happy
    to share trails with mountain bikers, you liar.

    > > i don't like the flies and soil
    > effects from horses/riders on trails, and I either avoid those trails or I get over it and
    > use them.
    >
    > Why? There are good reasons why exotic species shouldn't be allowed in
    natural
    > areas.
    >
    Your meds must be wearing off, this makes no sense at all. Where did anybody suggest an
    exotic species?

    > >THere are many trails to travel that don't allow
    > mountain bikers, and you can use those.
    >
    > I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about THAT?
    Ignore
    > it?
    >
    This is the only thing you have EVER said that I agree with. Clearly, bikes are not banned from
    every trail you have ever hiked on, but they are and should be banned from certain trails as
    determined by local officials.

    > >Multi-purpose/user trails compose some of our public
    > land trail system and although that may suck to you, we have a lot of people on this planet. I
    > wish we didn't have so many, but that's the way it is.
    >
    > I have never complained about the people. It's the BIKES I object to. And
    so
    > far, I have yet to hear a single good reason why we should permit them.
    You
    > don't offer one, either.
    >
    So far, except for the limited instances of having a route that local officials have deemed to be
    routes where bikes ought not be but go anyway, you have failed to provide a single good reason to
    not permit them.

    The problem we have before us is, should local officials close routes for environmental reasons, or
    should they be closed because of crybabies like you that can't seem to get along with everybody
    else. I think the poster you responded to here and I both know the answer, you think that trails
    should be closed just because you are a crybaby.

    A trail that is 2ft wide takes less than a quarter acre for every mile that it runs. If the
    entirety of the trail was a total wasteland, that wasteland would amount to less than 0.04% of
    the environment. The reality is that a tiny fraction of the route is even a problem, let alone an
    environmental wasteland, so for every route-mile, the impact on the environment is soemwhere down
    around 0.001%, almost a number so small as to be incalcuable, certainly an insignificant amount
    of damage.
     
  4. Igor

    Igor Guest

    Dear Mike,

    What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that made you prefer company of
    cockroaches and weeds to human interaction? Did the other kids try to run you over with their bikes
    while you were planting your flower garden? You need help, dude. BTW, how did those "previous years"
    that you spent "fighting auto dependence and road construction" pan out?

    There's not a goddamn thing you can do about any of this, so give up - get a job and try to find a
    woman (Pay special attention to hippy chicks, they love this crap!)
     
  5. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about THAT? Ignore it?

    >This is the only thing you have EVER said that I agree with. Clearly, bikes are not banned from
    >every trail you have ever hiked on, but they are and should be banned from certain trails as
    >determined by local officials.

    And of course there are those hikers who leave the marked trails and hike into areas which are
    marked as off-limits...

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  6. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about
    THAT?
    > >>Ignore it?
    >
    > >This is the only thing you have EVER said that I agree with. Clearly,
    bikes
    > >are not banned from every trail you have ever hiked on, but they are and should be banned from
    > >certain trails as determined by local officials.
    >
    > And of course there are those hikers who leave the marked trails and hike into areas which are
    > marked as off-limits...
    >

    Absolutely! Violators are not limited to travel modes that we like or dislike.
     
  7. Twisties

    Twisties New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mike i have read the other threads you have started, now u are annoing the hell out of me!

    U stupid #@%$ head!

    u suffer from ATTENTION DEFICITE DISORDER!!!!

    U NEED TO FIND A FRIEND!

    GO AWAY AND STOP ANNOING US!!! GO TO ONE OF THE OTHER CYCLING SITES THAT ARE ALL ABOUT MTB!!! WHY ARE YOU ANNOING ONE SITE THAT HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE DEVOTED TO MTBIKING???


    GO AWAY!
     
  8. Zilla

    Zilla Guest

    The way to stop him is to ignore him. You just gave him what he wanted...

    --
    - Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

    "Twisties" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Mike i have read the other threads you have started, now u are annoing the hell out of me!
    >
    > U stupid #@%$ head!
    >
    > u suffer from ATTENTION DEFICITE DISORDER!!!!
    >
    > U NEED TO FIND A FRIEND!
    >
    > GO AWAY AND STOP ANNOING US!!! GO TO ONE OF THE OTHER CYCLING SITES THAT ARE ALL ABOUT MTB!!! WHY
    > ARE YOU ANNOING ONE SITE THAT HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE DEVOTED TO MTBIKING???
    >
    >
    > GO AWAY!
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > >--------------------------<
    > Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com
     
  9. Reco Diver

    Reco Diver Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
    > >Mike:
    >
    > >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN
    > and i want to share that although I don't think mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that
    > are off limits to all humans (I like that idea),
    >
    > I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in the world.
    >

    <snip>

    B.S. Places like “Castrovalva” (off limits to all humans) have been brought to your
    attention before. Sure it’s not on the maps anymore ... that was the first step. Do your
    homework. You should even be able to google it up ... If you actually cared.

    R
     
  10. On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Dear Mike, .You poor, pathetic little man. You repeatedly call for closure of all trails .to
    mountain bikers,

    No, only to BIKES, LIAR.

    but in the same breath you say that the bikers are .welcome, just not the bikes. If you take the
    bikes away, the bikers cease to .be bikers, they become hikers at that point.

    BS.

    So, you do not welcome bikers, .you only welcome hikers. If you take the vehicles away from
    drivers, then .they become hikers too, they are no longer drivers if that which the drive .is taken
    away. So, you do not welcome drivers, you only welcome hikers. . .I will give you credit for an
    accurate statement though. You say that bikers .use trails that are closed, and complain about
    sharing in this instance. I .agree that if a trail is marked as a hiking trail, bikes ought not be
    using .it. I have no solution on dealing with this, but it is a valid complaint and .a solution is
    needed. Your solution is to close all routes in the inventory .to all but foot traffic, and your
    agenda is to even remove foot traffic. .This solution is like chopping your leg off because you
    have an ingrown .toenail. . .Having said that, the vast majority of trails are designated for
    shared use, .bikes and foot traffic. Motor vehicle routes are generaly kept separate, and
    .pedestrians generally do not walk on motor vehicle routes, so the conflicts .over use do not
    arise. Motor cycles are another separate problem, but in .California, motorcycles without street
    legal license plates are restricted .to offroad vehicle areas, and are heavily regulated from
    forest and park .routes, nearly eliminating the conflicts that arise from multi-use. . .Now that I
    am done top posting, please allow me to comment on each point .below ... . . ."Mike Vandeman"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message .news:[email protected]... .> At
    08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote: .> >Mike: .> .> >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth
    Tenney at ESAN .> and i want to share that although I don't think .> mountain bikers should be
    allowed in areas that are .> off limits to all humans (I like that idea), .> .> I need your help.
    So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in .the .> world. .> .The poster is agreeing
    with you, yet you have hurled an insult. . . .> > we live .> in a world with many people. get over
    your inability .> to share the trails. .> .> You misunderstood. I am perfectly happy to share the
    trails with mountain .> bikers, who are human beings, but not with bicycles, which aren't human,
    .have no .> rights, and don't belong there. .> .You pathetic liar, if you ban the bikes, the bikers
    become hikers at that .point. You are not happy to share trails with mountain bikers, you liar. . .
    . .> > i don't like the flies and soil .> effects from horses/riders on trails, and I either .>
    avoid those trails or I get over it and use them. .> .> Why? There are good reasons why exotic
    species shouldn't be allowed in .natural .> areas. .> .Your meds must be wearing off, this makes no
    sense at all. Where did anybody .suggest an exotic species? . . .> >THere are many trails to travel
    that don't allow .> mountain bikers, and you can use those. .> .> I do, but mountain bikers ride
    there anyway! What should I do about THAT? .Ignore .> it? .> .This is the only thing you have EVER
    said that I agree with. Clearly, bikes .are not banned from every trail you have ever hiked on, but
    they are and .should be banned from certain trails as determined by local officials. . . . .>
    >Multi-purpose/user trails compose some of our public .> land trail system and although that may
    suck to you, .> we have a lot of people on this planet. I wish we .> didn't have so many, but
    that's the way it is. .> .> I have never complained about the people. It's the BIKES I object to.
    And .so .> far, I have yet to hear a single good reason why we should permit them. .You .> don't
    offer one, either. .> .So far, except for the limited instances of having a route that local
    .officials have deemed to be routes where bikes ought not be but go anyway, .you have failed to
    provide a single good reason to not permit them.

    They aren't human, so they don't have rights. QED

    .The problem we have before us is, should local officials close routes for .environmental reasons,
    or should they be closed because of crybabies like .you that can't seem to get along with everybody
    else. I think the poster you .responded to here and I both know the answer, you think that trails
    should .be closed just because you are a crybaby. . .A trail that is 2ft wide takes less than a
    quarter acre for every mile that .it runs. If the entirety of the trail was a total wasteland, that
    wasteland .would amount to less than 0.04% of the environment. The reality is that a .tiny fraction
    of the route is even a problem, let alone an environmental .wasteland, so for every route-mile, the
    impact on the environment is .soemwhere down around 0.001%, almost a number so small as to be
    incalcuable, .certainly an insignificant amount of damage. .

    ===
    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
     
  11. On 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote:

    .Dear Mike, . .What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .made you
    prefer company of cockroaches and weeds to human interaction?

    None. I just believe in telling the truth.
    ===
    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
     
  12. On 28 Jun 2003 11:00:17 -0700, [email protected] (Reco Diver) wrote:

    .Mike Vandeman <mj[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>... .> At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin
    wrote: .> >Mike: .> .> >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN .> and i want to share
    that although I don't think .> mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that are .> off limits to
    all humans (I like that idea), .> .> I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed
    anywhere in the .> world. .> . .<snip> . .B.S. Places like “Castrovalva” (off limits to
    all humans)

    Where is it? Who is the land manager? Please reply via email.

    .have been brought to your attention before. Sure it’s not on the .maps anymore ... that was
    the first step. Do your homework. You should .even be able to google it up ... If you actually
    cared. . .R

    ===
    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
     
  13. On 28 Jun 2003 21:00:04 +0950, Twisties <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Mike i have read the other threads you have started, now u are annoing .the hell out of me! . .U
    stupid #@%$ head! . .u suffer from ATTENTION DEFICITE DISORDER!!!! . .U NEED TO FIND A FRIEND! . .GO
    AWAY AND STOP ANNOING US!!! GO TO ONE OF THE OTHER CYCLING SITES THAT .ARE ALL ABOUT MTB!!! WHY ARE
    YOU ANNOING ONE SITE THAT HAS A SMALL .PERCENTAGE DEVOTED TO MTBIKING??? . . .GO AWAY!

    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  14. Mike L.

    Mike L. Guest

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

    > On 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote:
    >
    > .Dear Mike, . .What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .made you
    > prefer company of cockroaches and weeds to human interaction?
    >
    > None. I just believe in telling the truth.

    The truth as only you wish to see it, as misinformed and distorted as your perception of it is.
     
  15. On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:06:54 -0000, "Mike L." <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in .news:[email protected]: . .>
    On 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote: .> .> .Dear Mike, .> . .> .What
    kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .> .made you prefer company of
    cockroaches and weeds to human interaction? .> .> None. I just believe in telling the truth. . .The
    truth as only you wish to see it, as misinformed and distorted as your .perception of it is.

    No, the TRUTH. I assume that you learned what that is, in kindergarten, if not earlier.
    ===
    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
     
  16. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    >
    > .Dear Mike, .You poor, pathetic little man. You repeatedly call for closure of all
    trails
    > .to mountain bikers,
    >
    > No, only to BIKES, LIAR.
    >
    > but in the same breath you say that the bikers are .welcome, just not the bikes. If you take the
    > bikes away, the bikers cease
    to
    > .be bikers, they become hikers at that point.
    >
    > BS.
    >
    BS? Really? If a biker is not riding a bike but is walking instead, then he is not a biker at that
    point, he is a hiker. If a driver is not driving, but is walking instead, he is not a driver at that
    point, he is a hiker. If a glofer is not playing golf at the moment bu tis bolwing instead, he is
    not a glofer at that point, he is a bowler. In each and every case where we label a person as
    belonging to a group because of the activity the group engages in, but we change that activity for a
    member of that group, then that member will then belong to a different group for the purposes of
    describing him because of the activity he is engaged in. Hikers can be bikers on a different day,
    and bikers can be hikers on a different day. Bikers can leave the bike on the back of the car and
    become hikers for a few hours. But, the moment the biker gets off his bike and travels by foot, he
    is a hiker until he gets back on the bike again. A biker retains his biker status while walking his
    bike -- thank you Captain Obvious for pointing this out.

    It would be much easier to hold a conversation with you if you would use the same dictionary as
    everybody else. Your penchant for making up definitions to words makes it quite difficult to
    talk to you.
     
  17. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:06:54 -0000, "Mike L." <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in .news:[email protected]: .
    > .> On 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote: .> .> .Dear Mike, .> . .>
    > .What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .> .made you prefer company
    > of cockroaches and weeds to human interaction? .> .> None. I just believe in telling the truth. .
    > .The truth as only you wish to see it, as misinformed and distorted as
    your
    > .perception of it is.
    >
    > No, the TRUTH. I assume that you learned what that is, in kindergarten, if
    not
    > earlier.

    Clearly, your truth is not the same truth shared by nearly everybody else on the planet. Your truth
    is unique to your perspective. Your perspective is distorted and warped, caused by years of being
    misinformed.
     
  18. On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:17:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff
    Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> .Dear Mike, .> .You poor, pathetic little man. You
    repeatedly call for closure of all .trails .> .to mountain bikers, .> .> No, only to BIKES, LIAR. .>
    .> but in the same breath you say that the bikers are .> .welcome, just not the bikes. If you take
    the bikes away, the bikers cease .to .> .be bikers, they become hikers at that point. .> .> BS. .>
    .BS? Really? If a biker is not riding a bike but is walking instead, then he .is not a biker at that
    point, he is a hiker.

    It would help if you learned to read English. If you aren't a mountain biker, then what are you
    doing in this newsgroup? And owning and riding a mountain bike. Obviously, you didn't read your
    dictionary. Idiot!

    If a driver is not driving, but .is walking instead, he is not a driver at that point, he is a
    hiker. If a .glofer is not playing golf at the moment bu tis bolwing instead, he is not a .glofer
    at that point, he is a bowler. In each and every case where we label .a person as belonging to a
    group because of the activity the group engages .in, but we change that activity for a member of
    that group, then that member .will then belong to a different group for the purposes of describing
    him .because of the activity he is engaged in. Hikers can be bikers on a .different day, and bikers
    can be hikers on a different day. Bikers can leave .the bike on the back of the car and become
    hikers for a few hours. But, the .moment the biker gets off his bike and travels by foot, he is a
    hiker until .he gets back on the bike again. A biker retains his biker status while .walking his
    bike -- thank you Captain Obvious for pointing this out. . .It would be much easier to hold a
    conversation with you if you would use the .same dictionary as everybody else. Your penchant for
    making up definitions .to words makes it quite difficult to talk to you. .

    ===
    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
     
  19. Sorni

    Sorni Guest

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

    > If you aren't a mountain biker, then what are you doing in this newsgroup?

    Bwa.

    Ha.

    Guffaw.

    Snork.

    BBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHhhaHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

    Oh, man.

    Maybe I'll refrain from filtering (the big fish, anyway) for a little while longer.

    Bill
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:01:22 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >If you aren't a mountain biker, then what are you doing in this newsgroup?

    Obviously you've forgotten which ngs you're trolling.

    alt.mountain-bike rec.bicycles.soc rec.backcountry sci.environment
    ca.environment

    If all these imply that one must be a mountain biker then your cause is forever doomed. Actually,
    it's forever doomed anyway due to your crass idiocy.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com [currently
    offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...