S
S Curtiss
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:09:56 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>>Interesting... You didn't call me out on "rainforest" designation in
>>Canada. I was curious and looked it up. Pacific rim watershed areas along
>>North America are actually classified as "rainforests". Yet you ignore my
>>my
>>mistake to focus on your alleged destruction by "mountain bikers".
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>"Virgin"...? This close to major population and residential...? To quote
>>the
>>piece you posted: "as it is considered more neighbourhood forested
>>areas at end of streets, cul-de-sacs, etc."
>>You ignore the FACT the area was already compromised by houses, roads,
>>proximity to population and construction.
>>Mountain bikers did not destroy anything.
>
> BS. They destroyed living rainforest for cheap thrills -- nothing new
> for mountain bikers.
You continue to offer nothing of substance to support your statement. The
piece YOU posted is, first of all, heresay. Second of all, you IGNORE the
quote "as it is considered more neighbourhood forested areas at end of
streets, cul-de-sacs, etc." Third, you insist on forming your conclusion
based on your OPINION.
Neighborhood...? Cul-de sacs...? Virgin...?
Where were the "mountain bikers" when the bulldozers and chainsaws were
clearing the area for these homes?
The only thing "virgin" is your OPINION as it has yet to be penetrated by
reality.
>
> They are utilizing an area that is
>>adjacent to their living area. You ignore my mistake of rainforest
>>designation to continue your microscopic focus on your OPINION that
>>anything
>>concerning bicycles off-road is suspect.
>>> ===
>>> 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!
Awwww... Poor little man afraid of more technology...? You always latch
onto the conspiracy in spite of the odds. If you are so scared, get a Razr
with the antenna in the lower section... Or get a Bluetooth... Or hide
under your blanket so the gremlins don't get you...
Pathetic.
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:09:56 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>>Interesting... You didn't call me out on "rainforest" designation in
>>Canada. I was curious and looked it up. Pacific rim watershed areas along
>>North America are actually classified as "rainforests". Yet you ignore my
>>my
>>mistake to focus on your alleged destruction by "mountain bikers".
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>"Virgin"...? This close to major population and residential...? To quote
>>the
>>piece you posted: "as it is considered more neighbourhood forested
>>areas at end of streets, cul-de-sacs, etc."
>>You ignore the FACT the area was already compromised by houses, roads,
>>proximity to population and construction.
>>Mountain bikers did not destroy anything.
>
> BS. They destroyed living rainforest for cheap thrills -- nothing new
> for mountain bikers.
You continue to offer nothing of substance to support your statement. The
piece YOU posted is, first of all, heresay. Second of all, you IGNORE the
quote "as it is considered more neighbourhood forested areas at end of
streets, cul-de-sacs, etc." Third, you insist on forming your conclusion
based on your OPINION.
Neighborhood...? Cul-de sacs...? Virgin...?
Where were the "mountain bikers" when the bulldozers and chainsaws were
clearing the area for these homes?
The only thing "virgin" is your OPINION as it has yet to be penetrated by
reality.
>
> They are utilizing an area that is
>>adjacent to their living area. You ignore my mistake of rainforest
>>designation to continue your microscopic focus on your OPINION that
>>anything
>>concerning bicycles off-road is suspect.
>>> ===
>>> 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!
Awwww... Poor little man afraid of more technology...? You always latch
onto the conspiracy in spite of the odds. If you are so scared, get a Razr
with the antenna in the lower section... Or get a Bluetooth... Or hide
under your blanket so the gremlins don't get you...
Pathetic.