In defense of Mr. Vandeman (was: Re: The TRUTH about Mountain Biking)

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:26:47 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> All you have to do to verify that is look at a mountain biking video.
>>> Just Google "mountain biking video".
>>..and find, for the most part, videos posted for entertainment purposes.
>>There is hardly any real reflection of simply riding a bike through the
>>woods. By sheer nature of the "entertainment" factor, these are probably
>>the
>>most extreme examples available.
>
> Nope, just normal mountain bikers on a normal ride, going too fast to
> notice anything but a blur. It's obvious.
Your OPINION. Your OPINIONS of the activity are not a valid filter for
determining what is, or is not normal, pertaining to this activity.

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:33:05 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:42:38 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> cc wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
>>>>>>>> A Review of the Literature
>>>>>>>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> July 3, 2004...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At first glance, based on reactions to Mr. Vandeman's posts and the
>>>>>>> fact that mountain bikes do less damage than motorcycles, I was
>>>>>>> inclined to think he was a zealot.
>>>>>> Here's where you made your
>>>>>> fatal mistake. Any human being
>>>>>> of sound mind who has read >2
>>>>>> of MVs posts has no choice but
>>>>>> to conclude that he is a
>>>>>> zealot incapable of rational
>>>>>> thought. Anyone who does not
>>>>>> see this is clearly also a
>>>>>> zealot or mentally retarded.
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy into your all or nothing view of the universe; like Bush's
>>>>> "you're either with us or against us" pre-Iraq war position. Time
>>>>> proved that there was no single truth about that situation. Vandeman
>>>>> may annoy people but that doesn't mean everything he says is false.
>>>>> You're no better than him with your reactionary angle.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, but Vandeman's opinion IS
>>>> one-sided. If you care to
>>>> enter into a rational
>>>> conversation, don't do so by
>>>> defending Vandeman. Period. If
>>>> you are really aiming to have
>>>> a debate involving compromise
>>>> and speaking about so-called
>>>> "facts," then MV could not be
>>>> any further from that concept.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> The Sierra Club acknowledges that mountain biking isn't so
>>>>>>> nature-friendly and gives tips to minimize impact. Observations show me
>>>>>>> that these tips are ignored by extreme riders (they can't help but do
>>>>>>> so).
>>>>>> Yes, but the science does not.
>>>>>> Why don't you do the research,
>>>>>> and maybe when you come back
>>>>>> I'll give a **** about what
>>>>>> you have to say. Until then go
>>>>>> troll somewhere else, dickweed.
>>>>>
>>>> Again, try this: google this
>>>> newsgroup, read the threads.
>>>> Read the research.
>>>
>>> I doubt that you have actually read the original research articles,
>>> only IMBA's whitewash of them. Tell us what you have read, or shut up.
>>>
>> The burden is not on me, MV.
>> It's on you. I've read all
>> your explanations, and am not
>> convinced. Your turn to shut up.
>
> EXACTLY what I expected: You are touting research that you haven't
> even READ! Exactly what I would expect from a mountain biker. If you
> had actually READ it, you would have to agree with me (or lie --
> something that mountain bikers also know a lot about).

Mike, the above statement is what is called cognitive dissonance, as I'm
sure you're aware.

A real scientist never leaves out the possibility of being disproven;
the above statement is exactly the opposite, declaring what we've known
all along: you are no scientist or researcher. This type of thinking is
what leads to the omission of all data disagreeing with a preconceived
hypothesis, which is exactly what you are carrying out relative to
mountain biking. Wake up !!

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:28:01 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:33:05 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:42:38 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> cc wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> R. Lander wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
>>>>>>>>> A Review of the Literature
>>>>>>>>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>> July 3, 2004...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At first glance, based on reactions to Mr. Vandeman's posts and the
>>>>>>>> fact that mountain bikes do less damage than motorcycles, I was
>>>>>>>> inclined to think he was a zealot.
>>>>>>> Here's where you made your
>>>>>>> fatal mistake. Any human being
>>>>>>> of sound mind who has read >2
>>>>>>> of MVs posts has no choice but
>>>>>>> to conclude that he is a
>>>>>>> zealot incapable of rational
>>>>>>> thought. Anyone who does not
>>>>>>> see this is clearly also a
>>>>>>> zealot or mentally retarded.
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't buy into your all or nothing view of the universe; like Bush's
>>>>>> "you're either with us or against us" pre-Iraq war position. Time
>>>>>> proved that there was no single truth about that situation. Vandeman
>>>>>> may annoy people but that doesn't mean everything he says is false.
>>>>>> You're no better than him with your reactionary angle.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but Vandeman's opinion IS
>>>>> one-sided. If you care to
>>>>> enter into a rational
>>>>> conversation, don't do so by
>>>>> defending Vandeman. Period. If
>>>>> you are really aiming to have
>>>>> a debate involving compromise
>>>>> and speaking about so-called
>>>>> "facts," then MV could not be
>>>>> any further from that concept.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Sierra Club acknowledges that mountain biking isn't so
>>>>>>>> nature-friendly and gives tips to minimize impact. Observations show me
>>>>>>>> that these tips are ignored by extreme riders (they can't help but do
>>>>>>>> so).
>>>>>>> Yes, but the science does not.
>>>>>>> Why don't you do the research,
>>>>>>> and maybe when you come back
>>>>>>> I'll give a **** about what
>>>>>>> you have to say. Until then go
>>>>>>> troll somewhere else, dickweed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Again, try this: google this
>>>>> newsgroup, read the threads.
>>>>> Read the research.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that you have actually read the original research articles,
>>>> only IMBA's whitewash of them. Tell us what you have read, or shut up.
>>>>
>>> The burden is not on me, MV.
>>> It's on you. I've read all
>>> your explanations, and am not
>>> convinced. Your turn to shut up.
>>
>> EXACTLY what I expected: You are touting research that you haven't
>> even READ! Exactly what I would expect from a mountain biker. If you
>> had actually READ it, you would have to agree with me (or lie --
>> something that mountain bikers also know a lot about).
>
>Mike, the above statement is what is called cognitive dissonance,

Using big words won't help you, since you don't know what they mean.

as I'm
>sure you're aware.
>
>A real scientist never leaves out the possibility of being disproven;
>the above statement is exactly the opposite, declaring what we've known
>all along: you are no scientist or researcher. This type of thinking is
>what leads to the omission of all data disagreeing with a preconceived
>hypothesis, which is exactly what you are carrying out relative to
>mountain biking. Wake 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:28:01 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:33:05 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:42:38 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>R. Lander wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>cc wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>R. Lander wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
>>>>>>>>>>A Review of the Literature
>>>>>>>>>>Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>July 3, 2004...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>At first glance, based on reactions to Mr. Vandeman's posts and the
>>>>>>>>>fact that mountain bikes do less damage than motorcycles, I was
>>>>>>>>>inclined to think he was a zealot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here's where you made your
>>>>>>>>fatal mistake. Any human being
>>>>>>>>of sound mind who has read >2
>>>>>>>>of MVs posts has no choice but
>>>>>>>>to conclude that he is a
>>>>>>>>zealot incapable of rational
>>>>>>>>thought. Anyone who does not
>>>>>>>>see this is clearly also a
>>>>>>>>zealot or mentally retarded.
>>>>>>>>Which is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't buy into your all or nothing view of the universe; like Bush's
>>>>>>>"you're either with us or against us" pre-Iraq war position. Time
>>>>>>>proved that there was no single truth about that situation. Vandeman
>>>>>>>may annoy people but that doesn't mean everything he says is false.
>>>>>>>You're no better than him with your reactionary angle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but Vandeman's opinion IS
>>>>>>one-sided. If you care to
>>>>>>enter into a rational
>>>>>>conversation, don't do so by
>>>>>>defending Vandeman. Period. If
>>>>>>you are really aiming to have
>>>>>>a debate involving compromise
>>>>>>and speaking about so-called
>>>>>>"facts," then MV could not be
>>>>>>any further from that concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Sierra Club acknowledges that mountain biking isn't so
>>>>>>>>>nature-friendly and gives tips to minimize impact. Observations show me
>>>>>>>>>that these tips are ignored by extreme riders (they can't help but do
>>>>>>>>>so).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, but the science does not.
>>>>>>>>Why don't you do the research,
>>>>>>>>and maybe when you come back
>>>>>>>>I'll give a **** about what
>>>>>>>>you have to say. Until then go
>>>>>>>>troll somewhere else, dickweed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, try this: google this
>>>>>>newsgroup, read the threads.
>>>>>>Read the research.
>>>>>
>>>>>I doubt that you have actually read the original research articles,
>>>>>only IMBA's whitewash of them. Tell us what you have read, or shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The burden is not on me, MV.
>>>>It's on you. I've read all
>>>>your explanations, and am not
>>>>convinced. Your turn to shut up.
>>>
>>>EXACTLY what I expected: You are touting research that you haven't
>>>even READ! Exactly what I would expect from a mountain biker. If you
>>>had actually READ it, you would have to agree with me (or lie --
>>>something that mountain bikers also know a lot about).
>>
>>Mike, the above statement is what is called cognitive dissonance,
>
>
> Using big words won't help you, since you don't know what they mean.
>

Maybe you need to review
freshman psychology. Idiot.

I'm nice. I'll do your
homework for you.

You are unable to accept any
ideas that conflict with your
preconceived truth, so you
alter your personal reality to
make everything incompatible
patently false. Textbook.


>>A real scientist never leaves out the possibility of being disproven;
>>the above statement is exactly the opposite, declaring what we've known
>>all along: you are no scientist or researcher. This type of thinking is
>>what leads to the omission of all data disagreeing with a preconceived
>>hypothesis, which is exactly what you are carrying out relative to
>>mountain biking. Wake 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Corvus Corvax]

[...massive crossposting trimmed...]

cc wrote:
>
> A real scientist never leaves out the possibility of being disproven;
> the above statement is exactly the opposite, declaring what we've known
> all along: you are no scientist or researcher. This type of thinking is
> what leads to the omission of all data disagreeing with a preconceived
> hypothesis, which is exactly what you are carrying out relative to
> mountain biking. Wake up !!

Real scientists generally don't waste their time arguing with whack-job
crackpots. What's your excuse?

CC (the other one)

 

[cc]

Corvus Corvax wrote:
> [...massive crossposting trimmed...]
>
> cc wrote:
>
>>A real scientist never leaves out the possibility of being disproven;
>>the above statement is exactly the opposite, declaring what we've known
>>all along: you are no scientist or researcher. This type of thinking is
>>what leads to the omission of all data disagreeing with a preconceived
>>hypothesis, which is exactly what you are carrying out relative to
>>mountain biking. Wake up !!
>
>
> Real scientists generally don't waste their time arguing with whack-job
> crackpots. What's your excuse?
>
> CC (the other one)
>

Good question . . amb is a
good distraction when I should
be writing or when I'm waiting
for an experiment to finish .
.. or to begin. You know, aided
procrastination. MV is
something to do whilst waiting
for MB content.

I guess it's also kind of like
one of those toys kids have:
the inflatable, bowling-pin
shaped balloons with weight in
the bottom. Every time you hit
them, they come back up. But
you keep hitting them anyway,
right?

 

[R. Lander]

cc wrote:

> > Explain why anyone should compromise on protecting wildlife, who can't
> > protect themselves from us. This should be good. Or just admit the
> > truth: you don't care about wildlife or the environment.
>
> If you cared about the
> environment, you would work
> toward a solution that
> maximized the possibility of
> actually making a difference,
> rather than spouting
> ideologies. People *will*
> enjoy nature, and undoubtedly
> some of that "recreation" will
> cause a finite amount of
> damage, which is - despite
> what you think - self-healing
> in many respects. Nature is
> resilient. You have obviously
> accepted that a small amount
> of intrusion is acceptable, or
> you would not hike. Otherwise,
> as I have many times pointed
> out, you are simply a hypocrite.

People who use terms like "resilient" are ignoring population growth,
which forces more "recreational damage" on the landscape all the time.
Nature is only resilient if you _leave it alone_ to recover. It will
keep suffering a death of 1,000 cuts (more like 1,000,000... cuts)
unless the population juggernaut goes away.

But that won't happen any time soon, especially with the current level
of growthmania, egged on by stupid conservatives who don't want to
conserve anything. Environmental laws can barely slow the impact of 75
million more people each year (global net growth rate). Until growth
stops, people will keep picking old scabs and creating new cuts.
Mountain biking is a small but noteworthy part of that impact. First on
my list would be urban sprawl and road-building that chops wilderness
into ever-smaller pieces.

Tossing your own words back at you, "If you cared about the
environment" you'd deal with the population problem honestly. Few
people do. They are too busy trying to make money from
population-growth-generated economic activity.

R. Lander

 

[Edward Dolan]

"R. Lander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cc wrote:
>
>> > Explain why anyone should compromise on protecting wildlife, who can't
>> > protect themselves from us. This should be good. Or just admit the
>> > truth: you don't care about wildlife or the environment.
>>
>> If you cared about the
>> environment, you would work
>> toward a solution that
>> maximized the possibility of
>> actually making a difference,
>> rather than spouting
>> ideologies. People *will*
>> enjoy nature, and undoubtedly
>> some of that "recreation" will
>> cause a finite amount of
>> damage, which is - despite
>> what you think - self-healing
>> in many respects. Nature is
>> resilient. You have obviously
>> accepted that a small amount
>> of intrusion is acceptable, or
>> you would not hike. Otherwise,
>> as I have many times pointed
>> out, you are simply a hypocrite.
>
> People who use terms like "resilient" are ignoring population growth,
> which forces more "recreational damage" on the landscape all the time.
> Nature is only resilient if you _leave it alone_ to recover. It will
> keep suffering a death of 1,000 cuts (more like 1,000,000... cuts)
> unless the population juggernaut goes away.
>
> But that won't happen any time soon, especially with the current level
> of growthmania, egged on by stupid conservatives who don't want to
> conserve anything. Environmental laws can barely slow the impact of 75
> million more people each year (global net growth rate). Until growth
> stops, people will keep picking old scabs and creating new cuts.
> Mountain biking is a small but noteworthy part of that impact. First on
> my list would be urban sprawl and road-building that chops wilderness
> into ever-smaller pieces.
>
> Tossing your own words back at you, "If you cared about the
> environment" you'd deal with the population problem honestly. Few
> people do. They are too busy trying to make money from
> population-growth-generated economic activity.
>
> R. Lander

Damn - another excellent post by R. Lander! He is right on as always. It is
such a pleasure to read some wisdom on these newsgroups from time to time. I
wish I could write as well as him. It is the reason I hang around as much as
I do. I am always hoping to read something as well thought out and as well
written as R. Lander.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Bill Sornson]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> I wish I could write as well as him.

As well as /he/.

HTH, BS

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> I wish I could write as well as him.
>
> As well as /he/.
>
> HTH, BS

You might be technically correct, but it just does not sound right to me. I
always go with what sounds right as I have a very good ear for that. I will
admit that those of us from the Upper Midwest are not always as correct as
we could be. The East Coast intelligentsia (Ivy College graduates) will
always be right about things like this. If I weren't so lazy I would look it
up and find out once and for all. I do wonder what rule of grammar governs
this business?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[cc]

R. Lander wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
>
>>>Explain why anyone should compromise on protecting wildlife, who can't
>>>protect themselves from us. This should be good. Or just admit the
>>>truth: you don't care about wildlife or the environment.
>>
>>If you cared about the
>>environment, you would work
>>toward a solution that
>>maximized the possibility of
>>actually making a difference,
>>rather than spouting
>>ideologies. People *will*
>>enjoy nature, and undoubtedly
>>some of that "recreation" will
>>cause a finite amount of
>>damage, which is - despite
>>what you think - self-healing
>>in many respects. Nature is
>>resilient. You have obviously
>>accepted that a small amount
>>of intrusion is acceptable, or
>>you would not hike. Otherwise,
>>as I have many times pointed
>>out, you are simply a hypocrite.
>
>
> People who use terms like "resilient" are ignoring population growth,
> which forces more "recreational damage" on the landscape all the time.
> Nature is only resilient if you _leave it alone_ to recover. It will
> keep suffering a death of 1,000 cuts (more like 1,000,000... cuts)
> unless the population juggernaut goes away.
>
> But that won't happen any time soon, especially with the current level
> of growthmania, egged on by stupid conservatives who don't want to
> conserve anything. Environmental laws can barely slow the impact of 75
> million more people each year (global net growth rate). Until growth
> stops, people will keep picking old scabs and creating new cuts.
> Mountain biking is a small but noteworthy part of that impact. First on
> my list would be urban sprawl and road-building that chops wilderness
> into ever-smaller pieces.
>
> Tossing your own words back at you, "If you cared about the
> environment" you'd deal with the population problem honestly. Few
> people do. They are too busy trying to make money from
> population-growth-generated economic activity.
>

You succeeded in reiterating
my point and stating it as
your own. You then accuse me
of implying that our growth
and impact is a part of a
sustainable system of enjoying
nature. I never said this was
the case, or that the future
is bright. But the point is
that efforts are better spent
elsewhere, which is trivially
obvious. MV doesn't even
attempt to contradict that
argument.

cc

 

[Slack]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:20:53 -0700, Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>> I wish I could write as well as him.
>>
>> As well as /he/.
>>
>> HTH, BS
>
> You might be technically correct, but it just does not sound right to
> me. I
> always go with what sounds right as I have a very good ear for that.

The term is idiomatic English.

> I will admit that those of us from the Upper Midwest are not always as
> correct as
> we could be. The East Coast intelligentsia (Ivy College graduates) will
> always be right about things like this. If I weren't so lazy I would
> look it
> up and find out once and for all. I do wonder what rule of grammar
> governs
> this business?

The use of Personal Pronouns. Section 10, pg 286...
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0072936533/sr=8-1/qid=1151969458/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-3021163-7185527?ie=UTF8>
____
Slack

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:41:52 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>R. Lander wrote:
>> cc wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Explain why anyone should compromise on protecting wildlife, who can't
>>>>protect themselves from us. This should be good. Or just admit the
>>>>truth: you don't care about wildlife or the environment.
>>>
>>>If you cared about the
>>>environment, you would work
>>>toward a solution that
>>>maximized the possibility of
>>>actually making a difference,
>>>rather than spouting
>>>ideologies. People *will*
>>>enjoy nature, and undoubtedly
>>>some of that "recreation" will
>>>cause a finite amount of
>>>damage, which is - despite
>>>what you think - self-healing
>>>in many respects. Nature is
>>>resilient. You have obviously
>>>accepted that a small amount
>>>of intrusion is acceptable, or
>>>you would not hike. Otherwise,
>>>as I have many times pointed
>>>out, you are simply a hypocrite.
>>
>>
>> People who use terms like "resilient" are ignoring population growth,
>> which forces more "recreational damage" on the landscape all the time.
>> Nature is only resilient if you _leave it alone_ to recover. It will
>> keep suffering a death of 1,000 cuts (more like 1,000,000... cuts)
>> unless the population juggernaut goes away.
>>
>> But that won't happen any time soon, especially with the current level
>> of growthmania, egged on by stupid conservatives who don't want to
>> conserve anything. Environmental laws can barely slow the impact of 75
>> million more people each year (global net growth rate). Until growth
>> stops, people will keep picking old scabs and creating new cuts.
>> Mountain biking is a small but noteworthy part of that impact. First on
>> my list would be urban sprawl and road-building that chops wilderness
>> into ever-smaller pieces.
>>
>> Tossing your own words back at you, "If you cared about the
>> environment" you'd deal with the population problem honestly. Few
>> people do. They are too busy trying to make money from
>> population-growth-generated economic activity.
>>
>
>You succeeded in reiterating
>my point and stating it as
>your own. You then accuse me
>of implying that our growth
>and impact is a part of a
>sustainable system of enjoying
>nature. I never said this was
>the case, or that the future
>is bright. But the point is
>that efforts are better spent
>elsewhere, which is trivially
>obvious.

That is just an excuse to do more damage. You mountain bikers are
transparent.

MV doesn't even
>attempt to contradict that
>argument.
>
>cc
===
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

 

[Bill Sornson]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>> I wish I could write as well as him.
>>
>> As well as /he/.
>>
>> HTH, BS
>
> You might be technically correct, but it just does not sound right to
> me. I always go with what sounds right as I have a very good ear for
> that. I will admit that those of us from the Upper Midwest are not
> always as correct as we could be. The East Coast intelligentsia (Ivy
> College graduates) will always be right about things like this. If I
> weren't so lazy I would look it up and find out once and for all. I
> do wonder what rule of grammar governs this business?

Easy way to tell: finish the sentence. (In this case, you'd obviously
never say "I wish I could write as well as /him/ can" or "...him does".
You'd say, "I wish I could write as well as he does.")

Sorni

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish I could write as well as him.
>>>
>>> As well as /he/.
>>>
>>> HTH, BS
>>
>> You might be technically correct, but it just does not sound right to
>> me. I always go with what sounds right as I have a very good ear for
>> that. I will admit that those of us from the Upper Midwest are not
>> always as correct as we could be. The East Coast intelligentsia (Ivy
>> College graduates) will always be right about things like this. If I
>> weren't so lazy I would look it up and find out once and for all. I
>> do wonder what rule of grammar governs this business?
>
> Easy way to tell: finish the sentence. (In this case, you'd obviously
> never say "I wish I could write as well as /him/ can" or "...him does".
> You'd say, "I wish I could write as well as he does.")
>
> Sorni

Yes, you are quite right, I can see that now. You would have made an
excellent English composition instructor. I will try to remember that as it
is easily remembered the way you have given it. It is really funny how you
can be wrong about certain things all of your life and never know it. That
is what is known as true ignorance folks!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Slack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newsp.tb4zrmq75jd7qu@slacker...
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:20:53 -0700, Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>> I wish I could write as well as him.
>>
>> As well as /he/.
>>
>> HTH, BS
>
> You might be technically correct, but it just does not sound right to me.
> I
> always go with what sounds right as I have a very good ear for that.

The term is idiomatic English.

> I will admit that those of us from the Upper Midwest are not always as
> correct as
> we could be. The East Coast intelligentsia (Ivy College graduates) will
> always be right about things like this. If I weren't so lazy I would look
> it
> up and find out once and for all. I do wonder what rule of grammar
> governs
> this business?

The use of Personal Pronouns. Section 10, pg 286...
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0072936533/sr=8-1/qid=1151969458/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-3021163-7185527?ie=UTF8>
____
Slack

Yes, I stand corrected! I often confuse we and us too in the same type of
constructions. My education was only so-so. It seems I wasted my youth
reading longwinded tomes on civilization and culture and never bothered to
write anything myself. Being able to read well and being able to write well
are two different things. Professional librarians are great readers but
hardly ever great writers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:41:52 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>>cc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Explain why anyone should compromise on protecting wildlife, who can't
>>>>>protect themselves from us. This should be good. Or just admit the
>>>>>truth: you don't care about wildlife or the environment.
>>>>
>>>>If you cared about the
>>>>environment, you would work
>>>>toward a solution that
>>>>maximized the possibility of
>>>>actually making a difference,
>>>>rather than spouting
>>>>ideologies. People *will*
>>>>enjoy nature, and undoubtedly
>>>>some of that "recreation" will
>>>>cause a finite amount of
>>>>damage, which is - despite
>>>>what you think - self-healing
>>>>in many respects. Nature is
>>>>resilient. You have obviously
>>>>accepted that a small amount
>>>>of intrusion is acceptable, or
>>>>you would not hike. Otherwise,
>>>>as I have many times pointed
>>>>out, you are simply a hypocrite.
>>>
>>>
>>>People who use terms like "resilient" are ignoring population growth,
>>>which forces more "recreational damage" on the landscape all the time.
>>>Nature is only resilient if you _leave it alone_ to recover. It will
>>>keep suffering a death of 1,000 cuts (more like 1,000,000... cuts)
>>>unless the population juggernaut goes away.
>>>
>>>But that won't happen any time soon, especially with the current level
>>>of growthmania, egged on by stupid conservatives who don't want to
>>>conserve anything. Environmental laws can barely slow the impact of 75
>>>million more people each year (global net growth rate). Until growth
>>>stops, people will keep picking old scabs and creating new cuts.
>>>Mountain biking is a small but noteworthy part of that impact. First on
>>>my list would be urban sprawl and road-building that chops wilderness
>>>into ever-smaller pieces.
>>>
>>>Tossing your own words back at you, "If you cared about the
>>>environment" you'd deal with the population problem honestly. Few
>>>people do. They are too busy trying to make money from
>>>population-growth-generated economic activity.
>>>
>>
>>You succeeded in reiterating
>>my point and stating it as
>>your own. You then accuse me
>>of implying that our growth
>>and impact is a part of a
>>sustainable system of enjoying
>>nature. I never said this was
>>the case, or that the future
>>is bright. But the point is
>>that efforts are better spent
>>elsewhere, which is trivially
>>obvious.
>
>
> That is just an excuse to do more damage. You mountain bikers are
> transparent.

Mike, it's not us vs. you.
It's everyone for the
environment. Once you get past
your bigoted crusade against
mountain bikers and realize
what the end goals are, you
might start making real progress.

Even an agenda seeking to
limit mountain biking couldn't
be more poorly carried out.
Attaching a kook to a cause
makes it all too easy to
marginalize it. Good job, MV.
You have noone but yourself to
blame for that.

cc


>
> MV doesn't even
>
>>attempt to contradict that
>>argument.
>>
>>cc
>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:56:44 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:41:52 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>R. Lander wrote:
>>>
>>>>cc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Explain why anyone should compromise on protecting wildlife, who can't
>>>>>>protect themselves from us. This should be good. Or just admit the
>>>>>>truth: you don't care about wildlife or the environment.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you cared about the
>>>>>environment, you would work
>>>>>toward a solution that
>>>>>maximized the possibility of
>>>>>actually making a difference,
>>>>>rather than spouting
>>>>>ideologies. People *will*
>>>>>enjoy nature, and undoubtedly
>>>>>some of that "recreation" will
>>>>>cause a finite amount of
>>>>>damage, which is - despite
>>>>>what you think - self-healing
>>>>>in many respects. Nature is
>>>>>resilient. You have obviously
>>>>>accepted that a small amount
>>>>>of intrusion is acceptable, or
>>>>>you would not hike. Otherwise,
>>>>>as I have many times pointed
>>>>>out, you are simply a hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People who use terms like "resilient" are ignoring population growth,
>>>>which forces more "recreational damage" on the landscape all the time.
>>>>Nature is only resilient if you _leave it alone_ to recover. It will
>>>>keep suffering a death of 1,000 cuts (more like 1,000,000... cuts)
>>>>unless the population juggernaut goes away.
>>>>
>>>>But that won't happen any time soon, especially with the current level
>>>>of growthmania, egged on by stupid conservatives who don't want to
>>>>conserve anything. Environmental laws can barely slow the impact of 75
>>>>million more people each year (global net growth rate). Until growth
>>>>stops, people will keep picking old scabs and creating new cuts.
>>>>Mountain biking is a small but noteworthy part of that impact. First on
>>>>my list would be urban sprawl and road-building that chops wilderness
>>>>into ever-smaller pieces.
>>>>
>>>>Tossing your own words back at you, "If you cared about the
>>>>environment" you'd deal with the population problem honestly. Few
>>>>people do. They are too busy trying to make money from
>>>>population-growth-generated economic activity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You succeeded in reiterating
>>>my point and stating it as
>>>your own. You then accuse me
>>>of implying that our growth
>>>and impact is a part of a
>>>sustainable system of enjoying
>>>nature. I never said this was
>>>the case, or that the future
>>>is bright. But the point is
>>>that efforts are better spent
>>>elsewhere, which is trivially
>>>obvious.
>>
>>
>> That is just an excuse to do more damage. You mountain bikers are
>> transparent.
>
>Mike, it's not us vs. you.
>It's everyone for the
>environment. Once you get past
>your bigoted crusade against
>mountain bikers and realize
>what the end goals are, you
>might start making real progress.
>
>Even an agenda seeking to
>limit mountain biking couldn't
>be more poorly carried out.
>Attaching a kook to a cause
>makes it all too easy to
>marginalize it. Good job, MV.
>You have noone but yourself to
>blame for that.

Your ineffectual attempt to blame ME for the damage YOU are doing is
duly noted. No wonder mountain bikers get no respect! That haven't
EARNED it.

>cc
>
>
>>
>> MV doesn't even
>>
>>>attempt to contradict that
>>>argument.
>>>
>>>cc
>>
===
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