A
Alpha Male
Guest
> WhoTF cares?
Anyone who has had to listen to Mike spew his fragmented and inconsistent
********.
Chris Garstin
Anyone who has had to listen to Mike spew his fragmented and inconsistent
********.
Chris Garstin
J
Jeff Strickland
Guest
"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>
> >>>You want proof that Mike lies, just look at his sigline.
> >>>
> >>><quote>
> >>>.> 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.)
> >>></quote>
> >>>
> >>>Mike hasn't been spending the past 8 years fighting auto dependence and
> >
> > road
> >
> >>>construction. He once worked that way for 8 years, but he hasn't been
> >>>working that way for the past 8 years.
> >>>
> >>>Maybe Mike isn't lying, maybe he's just an illiterate buffoon with a
PhD
> >>>from a box of Cracker Jacks.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Maybe Mike is just a guy with an opinion, it used to be said, "if you
> >>can't beat 'em, join 'em". Now it seems to be in NG's at least, "if you
> >>can't beat 'em, attack them personally" or "if you can't beat 'em, sling
> >>mud at 'em"
> >>
> >>Gee people, if you can't same something nice and intellegent, then don't
> >>say anything at all......
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > You're new here, aren't you?
>
> Admittedly, yes....
> >
> > Mike's opinion is that mountain bike riders deserve to be attacked by
> > mountain lions, even when the mountain lions in question are in a
National
> > Forest that borders residential neighborhoods where people go to walk
the
> > dog in the afternoon and early evening. The National Forest and an
adjacent
> > wilderness area are actually located in the heart of Orange County, CA.,
and
> > the local residents - including children - make use of the nearby open
space
> > for all manner of suitable recreational activities. The mountain lion
that
> > killed a bike rider was somehow provoked by the bike rider, the inferren
ce
> > being that a hiker, or a child walking home from school, would not have
> > provoked the lion.
>
>
> Having read Mikes posts, I don't get that, but maybe it's lost in all
> the personal attacks, by people who couldn't give a convincing
argument....
>
> > Let me give you some facts. A square mile equals 640 acres. An acre is
> > 43,560 square feet. If a trail was 2 ft wide and 1 mile long, it would
take
> > up 10,520 square feet. A square mile is 28 million (27,878,400) square
feet.
> > The trail takes up 0.0376% of the space. This means that if Mike were
100%
> > effective in his agenda, the very best he could hope for is the
protection
> > of less than 0.04% of the environment, and for him to have this much
impact,
> > 100% of each and every trail would have to be classified as a complete
and
> > total environmental disaster.
>
> I think the issue isn't pre-established trails, it's people who are
> bound and determined to create as many new ones as they can, in the
> shortest possible time, and that's a problem, whether your on a bike, on
> a horse, in a car or even on foot. It still comes down to a group in
> this case mountain bikers, not wanting to obey the rules (sticking to
> established trails), and they got banned for it.
>
I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. Mike is obsessed with the impact of
bikes to the complete exclusion of all other activities.
I agree that you are seeing lots of personal attacks that tend to betray the
authors as mindless thugs. The fact is, it is Mike that is the mindless one
here. If you visit his website, you'll see that he has an agenda that is
first, get bikes off the dirt, then second, get all other rubber off the
dirt. His stated goal is to make the backcountry off limits to all
visitation, his attack today is against bikes. Basically, bikes today, boots
tomorrow.
When I was young and foolish, as you are today, I tried to have intelligent
conversations with Mike. I set about learning just how much space I demand
with my offroad vehicle - offroad is such a misnomer, the actual term should
be off highway - and was astounded to find out that I take less than
one-half or one percent of the square mile that the mile long trail I was
using took up. Then, I realized that there are literally hundreds of square
miles within sight of the trail I was on, and none of them had trails in
them, and I began to see just how inconsequential my visitation was on the
habitat and the species that lived there.
If Mike was railing against housing developments and minimalls in the
forest, then I would be right there with him. But, he is the guy that is
standing at the trailhead with a brand new gate and a padlock in his hand.
Mike is the guy that would have me sit at home watching movies of the great
outdoors, instead of visiting there myself.
For this, Mike endures personal attacks.
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>
> >>>You want proof that Mike lies, just look at his sigline.
> >>>
> >>><quote>
> >>>.> 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.)
> >>></quote>
> >>>
> >>>Mike hasn't been spending the past 8 years fighting auto dependence and
> >
> > road
> >
> >>>construction. He once worked that way for 8 years, but he hasn't been
> >>>working that way for the past 8 years.
> >>>
> >>>Maybe Mike isn't lying, maybe he's just an illiterate buffoon with a
PhD
> >>>from a box of Cracker Jacks.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Maybe Mike is just a guy with an opinion, it used to be said, "if you
> >>can't beat 'em, join 'em". Now it seems to be in NG's at least, "if you
> >>can't beat 'em, attack them personally" or "if you can't beat 'em, sling
> >>mud at 'em"
> >>
> >>Gee people, if you can't same something nice and intellegent, then don't
> >>say anything at all......
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > You're new here, aren't you?
>
> Admittedly, yes....
> >
> > Mike's opinion is that mountain bike riders deserve to be attacked by
> > mountain lions, even when the mountain lions in question are in a
National
> > Forest that borders residential neighborhoods where people go to walk
the
> > dog in the afternoon and early evening. The National Forest and an
adjacent
> > wilderness area are actually located in the heart of Orange County, CA.,
and
> > the local residents - including children - make use of the nearby open
space
> > for all manner of suitable recreational activities. The mountain lion
that
> > killed a bike rider was somehow provoked by the bike rider, the inferren
ce
> > being that a hiker, or a child walking home from school, would not have
> > provoked the lion.
>
>
> Having read Mikes posts, I don't get that, but maybe it's lost in all
> the personal attacks, by people who couldn't give a convincing
argument....
>
> > Let me give you some facts. A square mile equals 640 acres. An acre is
> > 43,560 square feet. If a trail was 2 ft wide and 1 mile long, it would
take
> > up 10,520 square feet. A square mile is 28 million (27,878,400) square
feet.
> > The trail takes up 0.0376% of the space. This means that if Mike were
100%
> > effective in his agenda, the very best he could hope for is the
protection
> > of less than 0.04% of the environment, and for him to have this much
impact,
> > 100% of each and every trail would have to be classified as a complete
and
> > total environmental disaster.
>
> I think the issue isn't pre-established trails, it's people who are
> bound and determined to create as many new ones as they can, in the
> shortest possible time, and that's a problem, whether your on a bike, on
> a horse, in a car or even on foot. It still comes down to a group in
> this case mountain bikers, not wanting to obey the rules (sticking to
> established trails), and they got banned for it.
>
I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. Mike is obsessed with the impact of
bikes to the complete exclusion of all other activities.
I agree that you are seeing lots of personal attacks that tend to betray the
authors as mindless thugs. The fact is, it is Mike that is the mindless one
here. If you visit his website, you'll see that he has an agenda that is
first, get bikes off the dirt, then second, get all other rubber off the
dirt. His stated goal is to make the backcountry off limits to all
visitation, his attack today is against bikes. Basically, bikes today, boots
tomorrow.
When I was young and foolish, as you are today, I tried to have intelligent
conversations with Mike. I set about learning just how much space I demand
with my offroad vehicle - offroad is such a misnomer, the actual term should
be off highway - and was astounded to find out that I take less than
one-half or one percent of the square mile that the mile long trail I was
using took up. Then, I realized that there are literally hundreds of square
miles within sight of the trail I was on, and none of them had trails in
them, and I began to see just how inconsequential my visitation was on the
habitat and the species that lived there.
If Mike was railing against housing developments and minimalls in the
forest, then I would be right there with him. But, he is the guy that is
standing at the trailhead with a brand new gate and a padlock in his hand.
Mike is the guy that would have me sit at home watching movies of the great
outdoors, instead of visiting there myself.
For this, Mike endures personal attacks.
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:38:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>.The fundamental problem here is that you are a bigot. Because you are
>.a bigot you see everything done by your chosen hate group as a
>.problem, and absolutely nothing they do as anything but a problem.
>You are full of it. I don't have a "hate group". I just tell the truth --
For certain values of "truth". Your bigotry is plain for all to see.
The fact that you are apparently blind to it only makes it the more
apparent to everyone else.
>something that seems to be very rare these days, and especially not appreciated
>by mountain bikers. You see, if they were to tell the truth, they wouldn't be
>able to practice their selfish, destructive sport any more.
And if you were able to tell the truth you would not practice your
selfish and destructive choices either. No human intrusion on the
environment is possible without impacting on the wildlife.
>I already said that everyone causes damage. But you miss the point. This isn't
>about mountain BIKERS, but about BIKES, which are not people. I know you'd
>rather talk about someone else, however....
I think you'll find that the bikes don't move without the bikers, just
as horses behave very differently when they are not being ridden.
Your obsessive focus on one of the many man-made implements used to
intrude on nature - others of which include hiking boots, horse shoes,
cross-country motorcycles and all-wheel-drive motor vehicles - reveals
you as a bigot plain and simple.
>.In this specific case you are clearly arguing from ignorance as well
>.as bigotry. The area in question is a managed and almost entirely
>.synthetic environment, a commercial forestry operation with some areas
>.set aside for the enjoyment of us folks, however we choose to enjoy
>.them (and the location and designation of those areas changes over
>.time).
>Irrelevant. ALL natural areas are wildlife habitat, and are STOLEN from
>wildlife.
Ah, Vandeman the anarchist. A follower of Proudhon, eh? So when are
you going to give back the bits you've STOLEN to live on? Or leave
your employer, with their buildings on STOLEN land? But wait! It
turns out that you are a hiker, complicit in the theft, an accessory
before, during and after the fact! So, not just a bigot, a
hypocritical bigot. The very worst kind.
> All exceptions to this are entirely arbitrary.
>BS. Mountain bikes are not people OR animals, so should be banned.
Neither are horse shoes, saddles or hiking boots. Do you go naked
when you go hiking? I'm betting not - it would frighten the horses.
>.You make an arbitrary exception for hikers, and now
>.apparently for horse riders. As a bigot you view your arbitrary
>.exceptions as the only valid ones.
>You make no sense whatsoever. But I can see that you aren't listening.
ROFLMAO! Vandeman the world-class troll and bigot accusing /someone
else/ of not listening! And they say USians don't do irony!
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>.The fundamental problem here is that you are a bigot. Because you are
>.a bigot you see everything done by your chosen hate group as a
>.problem, and absolutely nothing they do as anything but a problem.
>You are full of it. I don't have a "hate group". I just tell the truth --
For certain values of "truth". Your bigotry is plain for all to see.
The fact that you are apparently blind to it only makes it the more
apparent to everyone else.
>something that seems to be very rare these days, and especially not appreciated
>by mountain bikers. You see, if they were to tell the truth, they wouldn't be
>able to practice their selfish, destructive sport any more.
And if you were able to tell the truth you would not practice your
selfish and destructive choices either. No human intrusion on the
environment is possible without impacting on the wildlife.
>I already said that everyone causes damage. But you miss the point. This isn't
>about mountain BIKERS, but about BIKES, which are not people. I know you'd
>rather talk about someone else, however....
I think you'll find that the bikes don't move without the bikers, just
as horses behave very differently when they are not being ridden.
Your obsessive focus on one of the many man-made implements used to
intrude on nature - others of which include hiking boots, horse shoes,
cross-country motorcycles and all-wheel-drive motor vehicles - reveals
you as a bigot plain and simple.
>.In this specific case you are clearly arguing from ignorance as well
>.as bigotry. The area in question is a managed and almost entirely
>.synthetic environment, a commercial forestry operation with some areas
>.set aside for the enjoyment of us folks, however we choose to enjoy
>.them (and the location and designation of those areas changes over
>.time).
>Irrelevant. ALL natural areas are wildlife habitat, and are STOLEN from
>wildlife.
Ah, Vandeman the anarchist. A follower of Proudhon, eh? So when are
you going to give back the bits you've STOLEN to live on? Or leave
your employer, with their buildings on STOLEN land? But wait! It
turns out that you are a hiker, complicit in the theft, an accessory
before, during and after the fact! So, not just a bigot, a
hypocritical bigot. The very worst kind.
> All exceptions to this are entirely arbitrary.
>BS. Mountain bikes are not people OR animals, so should be banned.
Neither are horse shoes, saddles or hiking boots. Do you go naked
when you go hiking? I'm betting not - it would frighten the horses.
>.You make an arbitrary exception for hikers, and now
>.apparently for horse riders. As a bigot you view your arbitrary
>.exceptions as the only valid ones.
>You make no sense whatsoever. But I can see that you aren't listening.
ROFLMAO! Vandeman the world-class troll and bigot accusing /someone
else/ of not listening! And they say USians don't do irony!
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:45:54 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>.I guess you should tell the horse riders that they aren't allowed their
>.inanimate saddles, horseshoes or bridles next. Nor their horsefloats or
>.vehicles.
>Why don't YOU tell them?
Because telling other people what do based on entirely arbitrary
criteria is /your/ speciality.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>.I guess you should tell the horse riders that they aren't allowed their
>.inanimate saddles, horseshoes or bridles next. Nor their horsefloats or
>.vehicles.
>Why don't YOU tell them?
Because telling other people what do based on entirely arbitrary
criteria is /your/ speciality.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:09:19 GMT, "Scott Ehardt"
<SCEhardt--((REM@VE))--SCEhardt.com> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:
>> Proof? In fact, IMBA has a study on their web site showing that the vast
>> MAJORITY of mountain bikers don't obey the law.
>Would you care to provide a link?
What would be the point? I would say that a random sample of active
adults from any Western democracy would reveal that pretty close to
100% break the law at least some of the time. Mostly traffic laws,
but others too.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
<SCEhardt--((REM@VE))--SCEhardt.com> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:
>> Proof? In fact, IMBA has a study on their web site showing that the vast
>> MAJORITY of mountain bikers don't obey the law.
>Would you care to provide a link?
What would be the point? I would say that a random sample of active
adults from any Western democracy would reveal that pretty close to
100% break the law at least some of the time. Mostly traffic laws,
but others too.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
C
Chris Glidden
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:24:32 -0700, "Chris Glidden"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
> .(Snip other person's accomplishments)
> .
> .What have you done lately Mike? Besides posting the same old tired out
> .drivel you've been posting for years.
>
> See my web site.
> ===
> 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
I read your website 10 years ago and have checked back periodically. It
hasn't changed.
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:24:32 -0700, "Chris Glidden"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
> .(Snip other person's accomplishments)
> .
> .What have you done lately Mike? Besides posting the same old tired out
> .drivel you've been posting for years.
>
> See my web site.
> ===
> 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
I read your website 10 years ago and have checked back periodically. It
hasn't changed.
N
NeXuS
Guest
N
NeXuS
Guest
> You still haven't answered the question. What does the harm that mountain
> biking
> does have to do with horseback riding (hint: NOTHING)?
Ok then, EVERYTHING......... They do just as much damage. Learn to flame
properly schoolgirl.
V
Volker Hetzer
Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:38:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> >Irrelevant. ALL natural areas are wildlife habitat, and are STOLEN from
> >wildlife.
Nature doesn't know the concept of "theft". Just the law of the stronger.
Right now that's us. If and how we let nature live is because of what we want,
not what nature has some "right" to.
Greetings!
Volker
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:38:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> >Irrelevant. ALL natural areas are wildlife habitat, and are STOLEN from
> >wildlife.
Nature doesn't know the concept of "theft". Just the law of the stronger.
Right now that's us. If and how we let nature live is because of what we want,
not what nature has some "right" to.
Greetings!
Volker
C
Cyli
Guest
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:30:22 -0400, The Wogster <[email protected]>
wrote:
(much snipped)
>> You're new here, aren't you?
>
>Admittedly, yes....
Yeah, Mike can occasionally sound reasonable, on his better days, when
one is new here.
>Having read Mikes posts, I don't get that, but maybe it's lost in all
>the personal attacks, by people who couldn't give a convincing argument....
Many of his attackers do seem to be incapable of offering a convincing
argument. Most of us don't bother, as there's no point.
>I think the issue isn't pre-established trails, it's people who are
>bound and determined to create as many new ones as they can, in the
>shortest possible time, and that's a problem, whether your on a bike, on
>a horse, in a car or even on foot. It still comes down to a group in
>this case mountain bikers, not wanting to obey the rules (sticking to
>established trails), and they got banned for it.
Fine with me. Creating trails helps create erosion, kills some amount
of vegetation and is contrary to the rules of most parks and places
that do allow mountain biking.
>
>W
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with MV even when you
agree with him on certain points. In the old long ago I once tried
it.
You must also realize that the wilderness he's trying to create is
within his urban or suburban property. And that, until it ran under a
car, he used to let his domestic cat roam there and elsewhere.
Anyone caring a slight damn about wildlife does not let a domestic
animal run loose, particularly a cat, in a place where people live who
concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
survival of species of birds in general is concerned.) Well, and
people who care about their cat's health and welfare don't let them
loose, either.
Mike's PhD is, I gather, on the subject of food preferences of persons
of Asian backgrounds. This is not a sound scientific credential for
forestry or wilderness management. Or much of anything, as, given
MV's personality, I assume those polled tended to tell him less than
the truth. To see his lack of capability in physical fields, please
deja / Google up the recent discussion here on cell phones.
The fact that it seems that this time he has found a news item that
fits his agenda has little to do with the lack of respect he generally
receives by earning it. It has more to do with his steadfast
'research' of the news to find articles he can incorporate into his
usual spew. He has, by co-opting it to fit his argument (and it does,
beautifully. It's probably the best thing he's ever come up with.)
now removed most of its impact on mountain bikers by being the one
promulgating it.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)
wrote:
(much snipped)
>> You're new here, aren't you?
>
>Admittedly, yes....
Yeah, Mike can occasionally sound reasonable, on his better days, when
one is new here.
>Having read Mikes posts, I don't get that, but maybe it's lost in all
>the personal attacks, by people who couldn't give a convincing argument....
Many of his attackers do seem to be incapable of offering a convincing
argument. Most of us don't bother, as there's no point.
>I think the issue isn't pre-established trails, it's people who are
>bound and determined to create as many new ones as they can, in the
>shortest possible time, and that's a problem, whether your on a bike, on
>a horse, in a car or even on foot. It still comes down to a group in
>this case mountain bikers, not wanting to obey the rules (sticking to
>established trails), and they got banned for it.
Fine with me. Creating trails helps create erosion, kills some amount
of vegetation and is contrary to the rules of most parks and places
that do allow mountain biking.
>
>W
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with MV even when you
agree with him on certain points. In the old long ago I once tried
it.
You must also realize that the wilderness he's trying to create is
within his urban or suburban property. And that, until it ran under a
car, he used to let his domestic cat roam there and elsewhere.
Anyone caring a slight damn about wildlife does not let a domestic
animal run loose, particularly a cat, in a place where people live who
concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
survival of species of birds in general is concerned.) Well, and
people who care about their cat's health and welfare don't let them
loose, either.
Mike's PhD is, I gather, on the subject of food preferences of persons
of Asian backgrounds. This is not a sound scientific credential for
forestry or wilderness management. Or much of anything, as, given
MV's personality, I assume those polled tended to tell him less than
the truth. To see his lack of capability in physical fields, please
deja / Google up the recent discussion here on cell phones.
The fact that it seems that this time he has found a news item that
fits his agenda has little to do with the lack of respect he generally
receives by earning it. It has more to do with his steadfast
'research' of the news to find articles he can incorporate into his
usual spew. He has, by co-opting it to fit his argument (and it does,
beautifully. It's probably the best thing he's ever come up with.)
now removed most of its impact on mountain bikers by being the one
promulgating it.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)
W
Westie
Guest
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If Mike was railing against housing developments and minimalls in the
> forest, then I would be right there with him. But, he is the guy that is
> standing at the trailhead with a brand new gate and a padlock in his hand.
> Mike is the guy that would have me sit at home watching movies of the great
> outdoors, instead of visiting there myself.
>
> For this, Mike endures personal attacks.
Don't forget that he is very good at baiting people too.
Try to have a logical, sensible, argument with him and somewhere,
somehow you will find that he retorts with "Duh!", "BS" or something
equally intelligent for someone with a Phd. Or he tells you that what
you have said must be evidence that all mountainbikers are liars. Or
even that you, personally, are a liar and stupid - duh! He's
particularly good at this when he finds himself backed into a corner.
After that he invariably ignores you and effectively ends the
conversation. Or he uses astounding circular logic to keep going it in
circles.
He really doesn't care about the environment. He's just a nutjob that
loves the massive amount of attention he gets by being the only known
"environmentalist" on the planet campaigning about something that no
serious environmentalist in their right mind would bother with when
there are so many more important things to achieve. By doing this one
thing that no-one-else does so aggressively and vocally, he's actually
been considered to be an "authority" by people that don't realise that
his "science" and "evidence" is psuedo-science and all made up by
someone with a screw loose.
--
Westie
> If Mike was railing against housing developments and minimalls in the
> forest, then I would be right there with him. But, he is the guy that is
> standing at the trailhead with a brand new gate and a padlock in his hand.
> Mike is the guy that would have me sit at home watching movies of the great
> outdoors, instead of visiting there myself.
>
> For this, Mike endures personal attacks.
Don't forget that he is very good at baiting people too.
Try to have a logical, sensible, argument with him and somewhere,
somehow you will find that he retorts with "Duh!", "BS" or something
equally intelligent for someone with a Phd. Or he tells you that what
you have said must be evidence that all mountainbikers are liars. Or
even that you, personally, are a liar and stupid - duh! He's
particularly good at this when he finds himself backed into a corner.
After that he invariably ignores you and effectively ends the
conversation. Or he uses astounding circular logic to keep going it in
circles.
He really doesn't care about the environment. He's just a nutjob that
loves the massive amount of attention he gets by being the only known
"environmentalist" on the planet campaigning about something that no
serious environmentalist in their right mind would bother with when
there are so many more important things to achieve. By doing this one
thing that no-one-else does so aggressively and vocally, he's actually
been considered to be an "authority" by people that don't realise that
his "science" and "evidence" is psuedo-science and all made up by
someone with a screw loose.
--
Westie
P
pmhilton
Guest
Cyli wrote:
> in a place where people live who
>concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
>recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
>survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
>
Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
small potatoes.
Pete H
--
A person is free only in
the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry
> in a place where people live who
>concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
>recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
>survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
>
Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
small potatoes.
Pete H
--
A person is free only in
the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry
S
Shaun aRe
Guest
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Shaun aRe wrote:
> > "Slack" <[email protected]> wrote
> {Buncha others wrote... blah blah}
>
> >>>>> You don't think he has a valid point?
> >>>>
> >>>> *Invalid* point, aka *erectile dysfunction* - HTH.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Very funny.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Once in awhile,
> >
> > Once in a freaking WHILE!!! ****! - *always*, if not more often,
> > matey.
> >
> >> Shaun whips out a decent one.
> >
> > Blatant Sorni invitation noted ',;~P'''
>
> Too easy.
>
> (I know I am but what are you?!?)
>
> D'oh!
Heheh, taken to pickin' on yerself Billy Bwoy?!? Heheheh...
Shaun aRe
news:[email protected]...
> Shaun aRe wrote:
> > "Slack" <[email protected]> wrote
> {Buncha others wrote... blah blah}
>
> >>>>> You don't think he has a valid point?
> >>>>
> >>>> *Invalid* point, aka *erectile dysfunction* - HTH.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Very funny.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Once in awhile,
> >
> > Once in a freaking WHILE!!! ****! - *always*, if not more often,
> > matey.
> >
> >> Shaun whips out a decent one.
> >
> > Blatant Sorni invitation noted ',;~P'''
>
> Too easy.
>
> (I know I am but what are you?!?)
>
> D'oh!
Heheh, taken to pickin' on yerself Billy Bwoy?!? Heheheh...
Shaun aRe
G
Gary S.
Guest
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:18:23 -0700, "Chris Glidden"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:24:32 -0700, "Chris Glidden"
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
>> .(Snip other person's accomplishments)
>> .
>> .What have you done lately Mike? Besides posting the same old tired out
>> .drivel you've been posting for years.
>>
>> See my web site.
>> ===
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>I read your website 10 years ago and have checked back periodically. It
>hasn't changed.
>
Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
appears to spend much time at it.
Remember, this whole thing of his is not really about the environment,
but about him being recognized as an environmental leader. Getting
credit is more important than results.
Even though it is in his own mind, by his own standards, he is always
keeping score. "Winning" is his goal, and feeling superior.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:24:32 -0700, "Chris Glidden"
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
>> .(Snip other person's accomplishments)
>> .
>> .What have you done lately Mike? Besides posting the same old tired out
>> .drivel you've been posting for years.
>>
>> See my web site.
>> ===
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>I read your website 10 years ago and have checked back periodically. It
>hasn't changed.
>
Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
appears to spend much time at it.
Remember, this whole thing of his is not really about the environment,
but about him being recognized as an environmental leader. Getting
credit is more important than results.
Even though it is in his own mind, by his own standards, he is always
keeping score. "Winning" is his goal, and feeling superior.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
G
GaryG
Guest
"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cyli wrote:
>
> > in a place where people live who
> >concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
> >recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
> >survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
> >
> Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
> small potatoes.
>
I agree...I feed birds, and consider it my way of replacing the food
resources that would have existed here, if not for the presence of my home.
GG
> Pete H
>
> --
> A person is free only in
> the freedom of other persons.
> W. Berry
>
>
news:[email protected]...
> Cyli wrote:
>
> > in a place where people live who
> >concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
> >recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
> >survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
> >
> Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
> small potatoes.
>
I agree...I feed birds, and consider it my way of replacing the food
resources that would have existed here, if not for the presence of my home.
GG
> Pete H
>
> --
> A person is free only in
> the freedom of other persons.
> W. Berry
>
>
P
pmhilton
Guest
Gary S. wrote:
>>
>>
>Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
>appears to spend much time at it.
>
>
>
>
With a few floppies full of boilerplate, one could spam the known
universe w/ less effort than, say, 1/2 hour per day.
Pete H
--
A person is free only in
the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry
>>
>>
>Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
>appears to spend much time at it.
>
>
>
>
With a few floppies full of boilerplate, one could spam the known
universe w/ less effort than, say, 1/2 hour per day.
Pete H
--
A person is free only in
the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry
G
Gary S.
Guest
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:29:15 -0400, pmhilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>Gary S. wrote:
>
>>Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
>>appears to spend much time at it.
>>
>With a few floppies full of boilerplate, one could spam the known
>universe w/ less effort than, say, 1/2 hour per day.
>
>Pete H
And, using the scientific method, Mikie has provided proof.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
>Gary S. wrote:
>
>>Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
>>appears to spend much time at it.
>>
>With a few floppies full of boilerplate, one could spam the known
>universe w/ less effort than, say, 1/2 hour per day.
>
>Pete H
And, using the scientific method, Mikie has provided proof.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
C
Cyli
Guest
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:15:51 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Cyli wrote:
>>
>> > in a place where people live who
>> >concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
>> >recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
>> >survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
>> >
>> Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
>> small potatoes.
>>
>
>I agree...I feed birds, and consider it my way of replacing the food
>resources that would have existed here, if not for the presence of my home.
>
>GG
Okay. I'll use that rationalization the next time I feel guilt about
luring so many of them into one very small area.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)
wrote:
>"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Cyli wrote:
>>
>> > in a place where people live who
>> >concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
>> >recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
>> >survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
>> >
>> Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
>> small potatoes.
>>
>
>I agree...I feed birds, and consider it my way of replacing the food
>resources that would have existed here, if not for the presence of my home.
>
>GG
Okay. I'll use that rationalization the next time I feel guilt about
luring so many of them into one very small area.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)
G
GaryG
Guest
"Cyli" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:15:51 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Cyli wrote:
> >>
> >> > in a place where people live who
> >> >concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
> >> >recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
> >> >survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
> >> >
> >> Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
> >> small potatoes.
> >>
> >
> >I agree...I feed birds, and consider it my way of replacing the food
> >resources that would have existed here, if not for the presence of my
home.
> >
> >GG
>
> Okay. I'll use that rationalization the next time I feel guilt about
> luring so many of them into one very small area.
That can be a problem - cleanliness is important, and one reason why some
prefer plastic feeders (so they can be washed in the dishwasher once a week
or so).
Also, there is a problem right now in the West (mostly California), with
pine siskins. Here's a story from Oregon relating the problem:
http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050323/OUTDOORS/503230301/1034
GG
>
> Cyli
> r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
> Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli
> email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:15:51 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Cyli wrote:
> >>
> >> > in a place where people live who
> >> >concentrate birds by putting out feeders. (Which, though I do it, I
> >> >recognize to be an ecologically incorrect thing to do as far as the
> >> >survival of species of birds in general is concerned.)
> >> >
> >> Of all the things we do that might "tip the balance," this is pretty
> >> small potatoes.
> >>
> >
> >I agree...I feed birds, and consider it my way of replacing the food
> >resources that would have existed here, if not for the presence of my
home.
> >
> >GG
>
> Okay. I'll use that rationalization the next time I feel guilt about
> luring so many of them into one very small area.
That can be a problem - cleanliness is important, and one reason why some
prefer plastic feeders (so they can be washed in the dishwasher once a week
or so).
Also, there is a problem right now in the West (mostly California), with
pine siskins. Here's a story from Oregon relating the problem:
http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050323/OUTDOORS/503230301/1034
GG
>
> Cyli
> r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
> Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli
> email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)
J
Jason
Guest
* Gary S <Idontwantspam@net>:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:29:15 -0400, pmhilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Gary S. wrote:
>>
>>>Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
>>>appears to spend much time at it.
>>>
>>With a few floppies full of boilerplate, one could spam the known
>>universe w/ less effort than, say, 1/2 hour per day.
>>
>>Pete H
>
> And, using the scientific method, Mikie has provided proof.
>
> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
Proof of what? That's he's a sad pathetic man who's only fun is trolling
usenet? Then yes he's definatly provided ample proof. Of anything else
not so much.
Jason
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:29:15 -0400, pmhilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Gary S. wrote:
>>
>>>Mikie actually puts very little effort into his crusade, although he
>>>appears to spend much time at it.
>>>
>>With a few floppies full of boilerplate, one could spam the known
>>universe w/ less effort than, say, 1/2 hour per day.
>>
>>Pete H
>
> And, using the scientific method, Mikie has provided proof.
>
> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
Proof of what? That's he's a sad pathetic man who's only fun is trolling
usenet? Then yes he's definatly provided ample proof. Of anything else
not so much.
Jason
