Mountain Bikers Destroy Rainforest Area as Large as a Football Field!

[Edward Dolan]

"Dre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>> Did you say something?
>>
>> These asshole mountain bikers NEVER say anything! Just the same old ****
>> over and over. God, you would think they would get disgusted with their
>> own **** after awhile.
>>
> <snip>
> LOL!
>
> Does anyone else find that statement just a little ironic?
>
> I think before you start accusing us of repeating the same old **** you
> better have a look at your own content, its bloody old...
>
> Cheers Dre

I have to repeat myself more than I would like to because I realize that I
am talking to idiots, morons and cretins for the most part. Repetition is
the key to all learning as any good teacher will tell you. However, it may
be that mountain bikers are too dumb to ever learn anything no matter how
often wisdom is rained down on them from on high by superior beings such as
myself.

Yea, it is a thankless task and I shall not be rewarded for it on this
earth, but God sees how you and your ilk desecrate His earth with your
freaking mountain bikes and I will be at His side for the Last Judgment at
which time I will recommend to Him that He cast you into Hell where you so
clearly belong. There you will eternally pedal your bike in a circle round
and round a Hellfire with flames constantly liking at your dumb ass.

Regards,

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:46:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Dre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [...]
>>>> Did you say something?
>>>
>>> These asshole mountain bikers NEVER say anything! Just the same old ****
>>> over and over. God, you would think they would get disgusted with their
>>> own **** after awhile.
>>>
>> <snip>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Does anyone else find that statement just a little ironic?
>>
>> I think before you start accusing us of repeating the same old **** you
>> better have a look at your own content, its bloody old...
>>
>> Cheers Dre
>
>I have to repeat myself more than I would like to because I realize that I
>am talking to idiots, morons and cretins for the most part. Repetition is
>the key to all learning as any good teacher will tell you. However, it may
>be that mountain bikers are too dumb to ever learn anything no matter how
>often wisdom is rained down on them from on high by superior beings such as
>myself.
>
>Yea, it is a thankless task and I shall not be rewarded for it on this
>earth, but God sees how you and your ilk desecrate His earth with your
>freaking mountain bikes and I will be at His side for the Last Judgment at
>which time I will recommend to Him that He cast you into Hell where you so
>clearly belong. There you will eternally pedal your bike in a circle round
>and round a Hellfire with flames constantly liking at your dumb ass.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

It looks like I am going to have to add Nobel Prize in Literature to
your many accolades, although I have to admit that it's altogether too
easy -- like shooting fish in a barrel.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[SmokeyJose]

I must remember the terminology:

rainforest = jungle

wetland = swamp

pseudoenvironmentalist = nuts

 

[Beej]

On Oct 15, 12:46 am, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have to repeat myself more than I would like to because I realize that I
> am talking to idiots, morons and cretins for the most part.

That's just what Jesus said!

-Beej

 

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> It looks like I am going to have to add Nobel Prize in Literature to
> your many accolades, although I have to admit that it's altogether too
> easy -- like shooting fish in a barrel.

Go get a room you two.

 

[Roberto Baggio]

I had to reply to this again, after perusing some of your other posts.

Every time someone puts up factual information, your response is "liar" and
"did you say something". Rather than answer the questions or publish proof
of your blanket statements, you use the canned response. Not once, with
regards to the picture of the dirt jumps, did you post anything factual.
You didn't cite anything other than a letter a "friend" sent you. You make
claims about seeing evidence of things, in a very broad fashion, and then
follow that up with logic that defies reason. "Hey, I saw evidence of a
tree that was cut down, and it must have been a mountain biker because only
mountain bikers cut down trees". Geez, how did trees ever get cut down
before there were mountain bikers?

The footprint local hiking/biking/running trails leave on the environment is
a fraction of the footprint of a small subdivision. Local trails are not
expanding; subdivisions are. Local trails are maintained, and most are used
for a very small period of a day (if they are used), and there is flora and
fauna throughout; can't say that about the subdivision. But when someone
else points this out, you claim it is irrelevant. When they ask where you
get the electricity to power your computer (most likely from strip mined
coal or a nuclear reactor), you claim that is irrelevant. Sure glad to know
that strip mining is irrelevant whereas people getting out and exercising is
bad. Maybe in your area of the world it is OK for teens to become gang
members and crack addicts, but in this area of the world we promote a
healthy lifestyle.

Perhaps you could, just once, post up something factual. For example, you
could state the exact location you saw mountain bikers cutting down trees.

Oh, and one more thing. In that picture you linked - the picture of the
dirt jumps in the midst of pristine rainforest - there isn't one tree in
that picture that is more than 60 or 70 years old (if that). There's also a
plethora of roads and homes right beside there. There's talk of some new
subdivisions going up in the area. They will be clear cutting a large area.
Care to come up and complain about that one? Or would there be too much
irony in doing so as where you live, and the areas you visit on a daily
basis, were once pristine, virgin woods?


"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:29:19 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've posted information with regards to the local government's ARS. This
>>is
>>public information, and is available for all to view. You completely
>>ignore
>>this point.
>>
>>I ask for proof on what actions are illegal, and again you completely
>>ignore
>>this point.
>>
>>I ask you for absolute proof on a few points, and instead you post:
>>
>>> You mountain bikers are selfish sociopaths, period. You care about
>>> NOTHING and NO ONE except your own
>>> selfish pleasures.
>>
>>> I know you are LYING -- something mountain bikers can't seem to live
>>> without.
>>
>>>>> I HAVE seen it first hand, which is why I know that you are lying. My
>>>>> friend says:
>>
>>You make zero attempt to back anything up, and instead do pretty much
>>nothing but call people liars. I was surprised, and perhaps slightly
>>amused, to read other posts where you have replied to other people's
>>comments by calling them liars. It's a pervasive theme in all of your
>>posts.
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>
>
> Did you say something?

 

[pmhilton]

Roberto Baggio wrote:
> I had to reply to this again, after perusing some of your other posts.
>

The time-honored track record will bear out that you are attempting
rational discourse with an irrational being. His sort of mindless
maundering has been going on for several years now and the only visible
result is moderately entertaining moments to give the same old responses
to his same old maunderings. Should you leave for 6 months or longer and
then return, most of these threads will bear a remarkable resemblance to
one another. Factual data means as little to MV as does the passage of time.

PH

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:18:25 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I had to reply to this again, after perusing some of your other posts.
>
>Every time someone puts up factual information, your response is "liar"

Only if you lie, as you are doing right now.

and
>"did you say something". Rather than answer the questions or publish proof
>of your blanket statements, you use the canned response. Not once, with
>regards to the picture of the dirt jumps, did you post anything factual.

The photos speak for themselves.

>You didn't cite anything other than a letter a "friend" sent you. You make
>claims about seeing evidence of things, in a very broad fashion, and then
>follow that up with logic that defies reason. "Hey, I saw evidence of a
>tree that was cut down, and it must have been a mountain biker because only
>mountain bikers cut down trees". Geez, how did trees ever get cut down
>before there were mountain bikers?

Only mountain bikers build structures in the woods to bike on. DUH!

>The footprint local hiking/biking/running trails leave on the environment is
>a fraction of the footprint of a small subdivision. Local trails are not
>expanding;

You are LYING.

subdivisions are. Local trails are maintained, and most are used
>for a very small period of a day (if they are used), and there is flora and
>fauna throughout; can't say that about the subdivision. But when someone
>else points this out, you claim it is irrelevant. When they ask where you
>get the electricity to power your computer (most likely from strip mined
>coal or a nuclear reactor), you claim that is irrelevant. Sure glad to know
>that strip mining is irrelevant whereas people getting out and exercising is
>bad. Maybe in your area of the world it is OK for teens to become gang
>members and crack addicts, but in this area of the world we promote a
>healthy lifestyle.
>
>Perhaps you could, just once, post up something factual. For example, you
>could state the exact location you saw mountain bikers cutting down trees.
>
>Oh, and one more thing. In that picture you linked - the picture of the
>dirt jumps in the midst of pristine rainforest - there isn't one tree in
>that picture that is more than 60 or 70 years old (if that). There's also a
>plethora of roads and homes right beside there. There's talk of some new
>subdivisions going up in the area. They will be clear cutting a large area.
>Care to come up and complain about that one? Or would there be too much
>irony in doing so as where you live, and the areas you visit on a daily
>basis, were once pristine, virgin woods?
>
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:29:19 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I've posted information with regards to the local government's ARS. This
>>>is
>>>public information, and is available for all to view. You completely
>>>ignore
>>>this point.
>>>
>>>I ask for proof on what actions are illegal, and again you completely
>>>ignore
>>>this point.
>>>
>>>I ask you for absolute proof on a few points, and instead you post:
>>>
>>>> You mountain bikers are selfish sociopaths, period. You care about
>>>> NOTHING and NO ONE except your own
>>>> selfish pleasures.
>>>
>>>> I know you are LYING -- something mountain bikers can't seem to live
>>>> without.
>>>
>>>>>> I HAVE seen it first hand, which is why I know that you are lying. My
>>>>>> friend says:
>>>
>>>You make zero attempt to back anything up, and instead do pretty much
>>>nothing but call people liars. I was surprised, and perhaps slightly
>>>amused, to read other posts where you have replied to other people's
>>>comments by calling them liars. It's a pervasive theme in all of your
>>>posts.
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>
>>
>> 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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
<<nothing of consequence>>

Game, set and match Roberto Baggio.

 

[Roberto Baggio]

OK, first of two points. First, I asked you a direct question, which is in
the first paragraph. Did you answer the question? No.....you decided to
quote something else and call me a liar. If you're so truthful, answer the
question.

Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is NOT
virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
old. Do you refute what I am stating? Can you refute it, with proof? Are
you going to say "look at the photo", because if so, then all you are doing
is proving that I am correct and you are the one who is lying. What about
the residential area beside this photo; you know, the one that consumes a
couple hundred square blocks. Oh, that's right, you've never been there or
seen it, so you wouldn't know.

For someone who proclaims to be an environmentalist, you've only proven that
you know "jack ****" about the environment.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:18:25 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I had to reply to this again, after perusing some of your other posts.

>>Perhaps you could, just once, post up something factual. For example, you
>>could state the exact location you saw mountain bikers cutting down trees.
>>
>>Oh, and one more thing. In that picture you linked - the picture of the
>>dirt jumps in the midst of pristine rainforest - there isn't one tree in
>>that picture that is more than 60 or 70 years old (if that). There's also
>>a
>>plethora of roads and homes right beside there. There's talk of some new
>>subdivisions going up in the area. They will be clear cutting a large
>>area.
>>Care to come up and complain about that one? Or would there be too much
>>irony in doing so as where you live, and the areas you visit on a daily
>>basis, were once pristine, virgin woods?

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:00:01 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OK, first of two points. First, I asked you a direct question, which is in
>the first paragraph. Did you answer the question? No.....you decided to
>quote something else and call me a liar. If you're so truthful, answer the
>question.
>
>Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
>stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is NOT
>virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
>old.

I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.

Do you refute what I am stating? Can you refute it, with proof? Are
>you going to say "look at the photo", because if so, then all you are
doing
>is proving that I am correct and you are the one who is lying. What about
>the residential area beside this photo; you know, the one that consumes a
>couple hundred square blocks. Oh, that's right, you've never been there or
>seen it, so you wouldn't know.
>
>For someone who proclaims to be an environmentalist, you've only proven that
>you know "jack ****" about the environment.
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:18:25 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I had to reply to this again, after perusing some of your other posts.
>
>>>Perhaps you could, just once, post up something factual. For example, you
>>>could state the exact location you saw mountain bikers cutting down trees.
>>>
>>>Oh, and one more thing. In that picture you linked - the picture of the
>>>dirt jumps in the midst of pristine rainforest - there isn't one tree in
>>>that picture that is more than 60 or 70 years old (if that). There's also
>>>a
>>>plethora of roads and homes right beside there. There's talk of some new
>>>subdivisions going up in the area. They will be clear cutting a large
>>>area.
>>>Care to come up and complain about that one? Or would there be too much
>>>irony in doing so as where you live, and the areas you visit on a daily
>>>basis, were once pristine, virgin woods?
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Romain]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:00:01 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >OK, first of two points. First, I asked you a direct question, which is in
> >the first paragraph. Did you answer the question? No.....you decided to
> >quote something else and call me a liar. If you're so truthful, answer the
> >question.
> >
> >Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
> >stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is NOT
> >virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
> >old.
>
> I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
> rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
> question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
> ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
> question.
>

Mike, you are a liar! Here are your exact words and I quote:

It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely
for cheap thrills.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

End Quote:

Once again you have been proven beyiond any doubt that you just plain
lie to suit your warped sense of reality.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

 

[Mike Vandeman]

October 26, 2006

Re: The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence

To the Editor:

If you want evidence of human arrogance and stupidity, you need look
no farther than the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence! Proposing to build a
fence between the U.S. and Mexico indicates that, once again, we fail
to recognize that wildlife are important and that they, like we,
require the ability to travel. At the same time that we are causing
global warming, forcing species to move north to find suitable habitat
to which they are acclimated, we are blocking their path!

Building a fence to stop immigration is like tightening your belt to
prevent weight gain. Let's address the causes, not the symptoms:
invest in improving the quality of life for our neighbors. That would
also be a good policy for other regions, such as the Middle East. (Of
course, that may require "regime change" at home.)

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Roberto Baggio]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
> rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
> question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
> ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
> question.


Once again fail to answer the any questions and instead spew your constant
stream of rhetoric.

But on to a point that seems to be more important for you than that.

You constantly degrade and deride mountain bikers, calling them liars. You
make blanket statements and post up hearsay as the Gospel truth. Your view
is that you tell the truth, and that mountain bikers lie.

Well, here is the quote from the post you made on September 26 with regards
to the area in the photograph that you reference. Read it again. You have
clearly lied in your statement quoted above. Perhaps by re-reading that
statement, and the one in the quote below, you may finally come to
understand the difference between the truth, and a lie.


"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:06:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Since when is Canada forestland considered "rainforest"? What are the
>>coordinates of this alleged destruction? Google sat maps are very detailed
>>for that region. Where is this? Perhaps the exaggeration is tainted by
>>emotion as the DNV did not act in such a manner as this absolutist
>>considered to be called for.
>>
>>You (and those like you) give only as much information as you feel
>>necessary
>>to make your point and exclude real information that counters it. The
>>exclusion of actual locations to verify this "third party" account is
>>suspect. The fact that it references residential proximity also makes the
>>entire account suspect.
>>
>>Wow! Some kids are riding bikes in a vacant lot adjacent to their
>>neighborhood...? Rainforest destruction...? Only MV math can arrive at
>>that answer.
>
> It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely
> for cheap thrills.
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
> rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
> question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
> ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
> question.

 

[Roberto Baggio]

Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.

Need any more proof that you are a liar?


"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:26:45 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mein Lieben! I've been to that area - have you?
>>
>>That is not virgin rainforest - those trees are mere 2nd growth sapplings.
>
> Right. Virgin rainforest, illegally destroyed by mountain bikers for
> cheap thrills.



"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:00:01 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
>>stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is
>>NOT
>>virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
>>old.
>
> I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
> rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
> question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
> ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
> question.
>
> Do you refute what I am stating? Can you refute it, with proof? Are
>>you going to say "look at the photo", because if so, then all you are
> doing
>>is proving that I am correct and you are the one who is lying. What about
>>the residential area beside this photo; you know, the one that consumes a
>>couple hundred square blocks. Oh, that's right, you've never been there
>>or
>>seen it, so you wouldn't know.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:25:44 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
>> rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
>> question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
>> ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
>> question.
>
>
>Once again fail to answer the any questions and instead spew your constant
>stream of rhetoric.

I see that you refuse to answer the question.

>But on to a point that seems to be more important for you than that.
>
>You constantly degrade and deride mountain bikers, calling them liars. You
>make blanket statements and post up hearsay as the Gospel truth. Your view
>is that you tell the truth, and that mountain bikers lie.
>
>Well, here is the quote from the post you made on September 26 with regards
>to the area in the photograph that you reference. Read it again. You have
>clearly lied in your statement quoted above. Perhaps by re-reading that
>statement, and the one in the quote below, you may finally come to
>understand the difference between the truth, and a lie.

No lie. A difference of terminology. My point was that you converted
rainforest to a clearcut, purely for your own pleasure.

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:06:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Since when is Canada forestland considered "rainforest"? What are the
>>>coordinates of this alleged destruction? Google sat maps are very detailed
>>>for that region. Where is this? Perhaps the exaggeration is tainted by
>>>emotion as the DNV did not act in such a manner as this absolutist
>>>considered to be called for.
>>>
>>>You (and those like you) give only as much information as you feel
>>>necessary
>>>to make your point and exclude real information that counters it. The
>>>exclusion of actual locations to verify this "third party" account is
>>>suspect. The fact that it references residential proximity also makes the
>>>entire account suspect.
>>>
>>>Wow! Some kids are riding bikes in a vacant lot adjacent to their
>>>neighborhood...? Rainforest destruction...? Only MV math can arrive at
>>>that answer.
>>
>> It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely
>> for cheap thrills.
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
>> rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
>> question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
>> ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
>> question.
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.
>
>Need any more proof that you are a liar?

No lie. It was virgin rainforest, as far as I'm concerned: no mountain
biking. You destroyed a football-field-sized area purely for your own
selfish pleasure.

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:26:45 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mein Lieben! I've been to that area - have you?
>>>
>>>That is not virgin rainforest - those trees are mere 2nd growth sapplings.
>>
>> Right. Virgin rainforest, illegally destroyed by mountain bikers for
>> cheap thrills.
>
>
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:00:01 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
>>>stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is
>>>NOT
>>>virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
>>>old.
>>
>> I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
>> rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
>> question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
>> ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
>> question.
>>
>> Do you refute what I am stating? Can you refute it, with proof? Are
>>>you going to say "look at the photo", because if so, then all you are
>> doing
>>>is proving that I am correct and you are the one who is lying. What about
>>>the residential area beside this photo; you know, the one that consumes a
>>>couple hundred square blocks. Oh, that's right, you've never been there
>>>or
>>>seen it, so you wouldn't know.
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Roberto Baggio]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.
>>
>>Need any more proof that you are a liar?
>
> No lie. It was virgin rainforest, as far as I'm concerned:

Your feeble attempt at back-pedaling is funnier that that or a circus clown.

You post that I should ask my mother to explain to me the difference between
"pristine" and "virgin" as I do not know the difference, and because you
never said "virgin". When it is proven that you did state "virgin" on at
least TWO occassions, your retort is "it was virgin rainforest, as far as
I'm concerned".

You know nothing of this ecology, nor what is occuring in this area, and you
are posting lies about it.

You post that I cut down trees, when I did no such thing. Again, another
lie.

You skew reality to conform to your thought process - "as far as I'm
concerned".

You harbour an aberrant hatred towards mountain bikers that causes you to be
a pathological liar.

It is people like you who cause nothing but unnecessary problems and do
nothing positive for the ecology, or humanity, and only live to exacerbate
in order to feed your weak ego.

I should have been smarter and heeded what others have posted about you as
it is clear now that they were correct.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.
>>
>>Need any more proof that you are a liar?
>
> No lie. It was virgin rainforest, as far as I'm concerned: no mountain
> biking. You destroyed a football-field-sized area purely for your own
> selfish pleasure.

"as far as I'm concerned..."? You do not get to warp reality simply to fit
your opinion. The reality is that you are ignoring REAL information from a
1st hand observer.
Just like you ignored the entire reference in the original YOU posted
refering to the area "as it is considered more neighbourhood forested areas
at end of streets, cul-de-sacs..."
This is an area within a neighborhood and development, yet you want to call
it "pristine" and "virgin". Is that tree where the bum is sleeping in
Central Park, NY virgin forest, too?
RB has proven you have no interest in reality or truth. That is OBVIOUS.
>