"Mike Vandeman sat at his computer and drooled the following slimy mess;
"Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my
view that
Wow, Mikey, I am impressed. Between your subject line and the very first line of your post you give
us not one, but two inconsistencies within a single post. Here I was, preparing to read about how
some "mountain", somewhere in the great wide world, had actively killed some mountain biker in a fit
of rage and just possibly with a touch of premeditation! How on earth did that word "lion" creep
into your opening statement? And what was with pluralizing the word "biker"? These are two points
that drastically change the intent of your message about a rabid mountain causing the death of a
single specimen of the human species! I mean, how can you so lose your train of thought between your
subject line and entering the first line of your post? Does this little slip combined with "confirms
my view" have any links to some ****ling psychological nuance that is troubling you these days?
> (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it
> too easy for people to get into wildlife habitat
and
Just to show you that I can be just as narrow-minded as you, I will not comment any further on this
statement. Just as you can ignore facts of human nature that are used to refute this, so to can I
ignore this statement by ignoring your facts that lead up to it. I will continue to disappoint you
and not allow myself to heap the derogatory, abusive style of responses that you are so fond of,
down to, and including the foul language that you so much want to believe will help sway people to
your viewpoint.
> disturb the wildlife whose home it is; and (2) humans don't belong
EVERYWHERE;
FACT ALERT, FACT ALERT! Mikey, I am extremely impressed that you actually managed to get your #2
statement 100% correct. (Here's a gold star to paste on your refridgerator.) It is very refreshing
to note that you agree with all the anthropologists of the world, that the long and convoluted
lineage of evolution that has lead to **** Sapien being eminently suitable to live and survive
within the boundaries of the Tropics and Sub-Tropical zones of planet Earth. And of course, I am
not ignoring the fact that, over geologic timespans, some tribes have migrated outside of these
zones and have evolved tools to allow them to live and thrive in those areas. But note that these
tribes have not been physically altered by evolution to allow them to survive there without any
assistance from tools. They just implemented their tool making ability to adapt and design shelter
and clothing.
> wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, and deserve to have
habitat
> that is closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are dangerous to humans.
> Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the
Cleveland
> National Forest to human access is the only appropriate response to this incident.
>
> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to
survive, the
> only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always kill the animal
first,
> and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among
humans,
> you are innocent till proven guilty.
Wrong again, Mikey. The only "appropriate response" in this, or any similar cases, is education of
the masses in the ways of nature. The law of the natural world is Kill Or Be Killed. If an animal
does not kill something to survive (even a plant that the mouse eats) then something else will come
along and kill it, or even worse, the animal will starve to death. If human beings are not aware of
what can go wrong in a certain set of circumstances, then there will ALWAYS be some mishaps between
"animals" and "humans". (Though I do get a little fuzzy right about here. Are we not animals
ourselves?) And as for your statement "It is interesting that we always kill the animal first", this
again, is shown by the proof of our evolved, genetic code. If some animal threatens or endangers ANY
member of the "Tribe", then the only response to continued survival and growth of the Tribe is the
extermination of that threat. This is a very deeply imbedded trait that cannot be wished away, nor
would I want it to go away. This trait is what keeps the majority of us from killing our offspring
the first time they do something that displeases us. My own son is 19 and in college, and God help
the imbecile that would harm him, because I will retaliate in any manner that I deem appropriate,
whether legal or otherwise. You do not hurt the flesh of my flesh! This is the very same trait that
does allow us an awakening concern for others not of our own species. But it has nothing to do with
restricting our species, as you so fervently hope for.
> ===
> 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.)
Your closing statement (signature line), by using words that indicate past-tense, indicate that you
have given up the fight for "auto dependence and road construction". The question that arises here
is, why did you give up? Did you lose there, too?
>
>
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
