"Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:55:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> .
news[email protected]... .> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:28:57 +0000, "Just
> zis Guy, you know?" .> <
[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:49:00 GMT,
> Mike Vandeman <
[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> . .> .>.Just as well the New Forest fauna don't
> know that - and I'm not
about
> .> .>.to tell them either. The thing which drives them away is motor .> .>.traffic. They don't
> like the noise, and they don't like the smell. .> .>.Fair enough, neither do I. They seem not to
> care too much about .> .>.walkers and cyclists - follow the trails far enough from the roads
and
> .> .>.you start to see all the butterflies, mammals, birds, occasional .> .>.snakes - all the
> things you claim we've driven off. .> . .> .>BS. You are seeing only the ones that hold their
> noses and tolerate .human .> .>presence. .> . .> .Strange - this thousand-year-old forest doesn't
> seem to be suffering .> .any reduction in species diversity due to cyclists, walkers and .>
> .equestrians using it. Maybe the vast logging machines are more .> .significant - but no, the
> wildlife doesn't seem to care too much about .> .them either. Whaddya know. It's a managed forest,
> man made and used .> .for the enjoyment of all kinds of people, and it's full of wildlife, .>
> .including some rare species. .> .> So you ADMIT that it is reducing wildlife populations. QED .
> .???? . .I don't understand your response, Mike. He specifically said, " ...this
> .thousand-year-old forest doesn't seem to be suffering any reduction in .species ..." He went on
> to say that "maybe" the vast logging machines are .more significant, but he seems to discount them
> also because the animals .don't seem to care. He finally states that it is a managed forest with
lots
> .of wildlife, and used for the enjoyment of all kinds of human activities. . .Everything he said
> makes sense, and you come along with, "So you ADMIT
that
> .it is reducing wildlife populations. QED", proving once again that you
can't
> .read. . .It seems to me that perhaps my confusion on your statements comes from
the
> .fact that you cross-post from several different groups into groups that
are
> .not participants in the discussions. I just noticed that I am replying to .what appears to be
> your reply to yourself because of your insistance on .cross-posting. Please stop cross-posting.
>
> 1. Learn to read: "including some rare species" implies that populations
have
> been reduced. Otherwise, how did they get to be rare????
>
Perhaps the species are rare in other locations, but are bountiful here. Just a thought ...
> 2. Cross-posting is appropriate, when articles cross topic boundaries.
DUH!
>
Cross posting initself isn't so bad, although it is contrary to proper netiquitte. I can overlook
netiquitte improprieties when the topic allpies, but it is impossible to overlook instances where
you crosspost, then a reply on another group is not crossposted, but you reply again in a crosspost.
The result of this ignorance is that in another group, we see you say something stupid, followed by
a disjointed even more stupid thing to say. This particular post is an excellent example ...
> 3. Why do you care? I guess you don't want too many people to become aware
of
> the damage that mountain bikers do....
I care because while I am not a mountain biker, I do operate a vehicle in backcountry areas, and
people like you are wrongly attributing damage to the environment to things that are so
insignificant as to be inconsequential. Environmental damage caused by a bike, or any transient
visitation source, is very very slight. The larger issue to battle is encroachment on the scale of
development. Visitors or all sorts can (and should) be educated to cause minimal lasting impact, and
for the most part, they are. I, personally, am a volunteer organizer for an Adopt-A-Trail that
maintains a trail that has been in the forest road inventory for well over a century, and the
surrounding habitat is doing just fine by every measure. Not some meausres, every measure.
Shrill voices like your's lack sanity and reason in crafting viable solutions to the need for human
recreation and habitat protection. You (YOU personally) are among the largest obsitlces in creating
workable plans that protect habitat while allowing reasonable regulations for access. You demand
that everything be closed without regard to actual facts, and this is wrong. Voices of reason must
be dilligent to keep the shrill cries that the sky is falling from drowning us out. You (YOU
personally) would do better for the environment if you just shut the **** up and let some of the
more moderate in your camp take the lead in discussions.
You have not made a rational argument in more than a year. You post statements that have very little
basis in reality, and any reasonable resonse that would ellicit further conversation from a sane
person causes you to call people a LIAR, or dum-dum, or some other childish retort followed by DUH!
And, you crosspost this ignorant ****. And. to top it all off, you claim to be a PhD, but if my kids
are going to come out of college with your understanding of basic english and math, I'm gonna save
my money and send them to Real Estate school where they can learn to take advantage of the urban
sprawl toat appears to be all but unavoidable in California. Certainly, somebody with your education
should understand how silly you sound, and it embaraces me to have people in other parts of the
world think that all Americans are just like you.