Mountain Kills Mountain Biker

[Kevan Smith]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:50:33 -0500, Peter H <[email protected]> from wrote:

>Kevan Smith wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't like the paperwork and waiting involved with interlibrary loans. Like any good American, I
>>demand instant gratification! Anyway, why are you so afraid to provide four paragraphs?
>>
>>
>>
>"Afraid?" I'm afraid not; I'm supplying citations that support my comments and if you wish to
>challenge both my comments & the sources I use to suport them without entering fully into the
>exchange, that's your own lookout.
>
>Herewith two direct quotes from Brower - same work as cited above:
>
>"Some of my colleagues make the error of trying to be sensible." "Objectivity is the greatest
>threat to the United States today."
>
>The book also covers in detail the direct statements of the Sierra Club's board of directors just
>before & during the meeting in which they tossed Brower on his ear for being such a loose cannon.

Neither of those shed light on the statement you made that I'm asking about.

--
[email protected]
Emphasize differences.
36

 

[Rick Etter]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:34:33 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]>
from
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:30:11 -0500, "rick etter"
<[email protected]>
> >from
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:58:06 -0500, Peter H <[email protected]> from
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Kevan Smith wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>Well, first of all, I could go to a library, but it would be far
> >quicker
> >> >for him
> >> >> >>to type in a few sentences. Second, he cited a very old edition of
> >the
> >> >book, so,
> >> >> >>even if I went to the library, the passage he mentions may not be
on
> >the
> >> >page he
> >> >> >>cited in the copy I get. In fact, the passage might not even be in
> >newer
> >> >> >>editions of the work. In order to see exactly what he's citing,
I'll
> >> >have to get
> >> >> >>the same edition, and the odds aren't very good that my library
will
> >> >have it. In
> >> >> >>fact, I just checked my local library online, and they don't have
a
> >> >copy,
> >> >> >>anyway.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >You're working harder at getting out of this than you would be by following up. Your
> >> >> >library most likely has a lending agreement with
an
> >> >> >entire network of libraries.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't like the paperwork and waiting involved with interlibrary
> >loans.
> >> >=====================
> >> >So, your deliberate ignorance is more important, eh? Figures...
> >>
> >> Gee, your argument might wash, except I'm asking for instruction, no?
> >====================
> >No, your asking him to post something that you will turn around and not believe anyway, because
> >you can't be bothered with an interlibarary loan. What a hoot.
>
> Oh, you're projecting motive on me. Sorry, you're wrong.
===========================
So, you dishonestly snip out parts you don't like either, eh? the fact remains you have already
accused him of posting false information. Why should anyone think you would now accept what he
posts? You prefer to remain ignorant because it fits your need to be able to spew nonsense. As it
stands, I'm not wrong, you've already proven yourself.

>
>
>
> --
> [email protected] Humanize something free of error. 50

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:12:58 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]> from
wrote:

>So, you dishonestly snip out parts you don't like either, eh? the fact remains you have already
>accused him of posting false information. Why should anyone think you would now accept what he
>posts? You prefer to remain ignorant because it fits your need to be able to spew nonsense. As it
>stands, I'm not wrong, you've already proven yourself.

Nope. You're pretty much in error regarding your facts.

--
[email protected]
Don't be frightened to display your talents.
27

 

[Rick Etter]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:12:58 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]>
from
> wrote:
>
> >So, you dishonestly snip out parts you don't like either, eh? the fact remains you have already
> >accused him of posting false information. Why should anyone think you would now accept what he
> >posts? You prefer to remain ignorant because it fits your need to be able to spew nonsense.
As
> >it stands, I'm not wrong, you've already proven yourself.
>
> Nope. You're pretty much in error regarding your facts.
> ======================
Really? Which parts. Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like.
Fact, you already accused him of making up the statement he claimed was in the book. Fact, you said
yourself you're too lazy(or stupid) to do an interlibrary loan.

Seems the facts are really not as you seem to think, but just as I said.

>
>
> --
> [email protected] Don't be frightened to display your talents. 27

 

[Peter H]

Kevan Smith wrote:

>>I don't like the paperwork and waiting involved with interlibrary loans. Like any good American, I
>>demand instant gratification! Anyway, why are you so afraid to provide four paragraphs?
>>
>>
>>
Elsewhere in this thread you accuse someone of projecting onto yourself; here you're projecting onto
me. I ain't "afraid" of nuthin' - 'cept mebbe owls & crickets. Betcha two cents you don't recognize
the allusion.

I'm not the least bit "afraid, " I'm simply refusing. You can only guess at my motives and so far
you've been qute wide of the mark.

Pete H

--
A person is free only in the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:26:49 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]> from
wrote:

>Seems the facts are really not as you seem to think, but just as I said.

Nope. Wrong again.

--
[email protected]
Remove ambiguities and convert to specifics.
101

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:53:43 -0500, Peter H <[email protected]> from wrote:

>Kevan Smith wrote:
>
>>>I don't like the paperwork and waiting involved with interlibrary loans. Like any good American,
>>>I demand instant gratification! Anyway, why are you so afraid to provide four paragraphs?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Elsewhere in this thread you accuse someone of projecting onto yourself; here you're projecting
>onto me. I ain't "afraid" of nuthin' - 'cept mebbe owls & crickets. Betcha two cents you don't
>recognize the allusion.
>
>I'm not the least bit "afraid, " I'm simply refusing. You can only guess at my motives and so far
>you've been qute wide of the mark.

Frankly, I don't care anymore. I've satisfied myself that you aren't interested in discussion so
much as "scoring points." Suit yourself.

--
[email protected]
Emphasize the flaws.
119

 

[Rick Etter]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:26:49 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]>
from
> wrote:
>
> >Seems the facts are really not as you seem to think, but just as I said.
>
> Nope. Wrong again.
======================
Yes, they were. I noticed you had to dishonestly snip them out so that you wouldn't be presented
with them while you ly. Here, let me add them back in... Fact, you snipped out, without annotation
portions of posts you don't like.(LOL which you just did again) Fact, you already accused him of
making up the statement he claimed was in the book. Fact, you said yourself you're too lazy(or
stupid) to do an interlibrary loan.

> --
> [email protected] Remove ambiguities and convert to specifics. 101

 

[Peter H]

Kevan Smith wrote:

>>Frankly, I don't care anymore. I've satisfied myself that you aren't interested in discussion so
>>much as "scoring points." Suit yourself.
>>
>>
>>
Frankly, I was more interested in establishing points; others may accept them or not as the case may
be & information was given wereby they could be verified.

Pete H

--
A person is free only in the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:51:59 -0500, Peter H <[email protected]> from wrote:

>Kevan Smith wrote:
>
>>>Frankly, I don't care anymore. I've satisfied myself that you aren't interested in discussion so
>>>much as "scoring points." Suit yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Frankly, I was more interested in establishing points; others may accept them or not as the case
>may be & information was given wereby they could be verified.

Sure, to a 33-year-old edition of an obscure book. Great reference. NOT!

--
[email protected]
What are you really thinking about just now?
96

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:35:10 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]> from
wrote:

> Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like.

Only quoting the part you are responding to is considered good usenet etiquette.

--
[email protected]
Trust in the you of now.
72

 

[Peter H]

Kevan Smith wrote:

>>Sure, to a 33-year-old edition of an obscure book.
>>
Irrelevant comment. The book's age has little to bear on this thread. The book is still available,
in hardcover, softcover & audio format. Check Amazon; I did not bother with other book search
engines since the most commonly used one gave me several hits immediately. Do a Google on John
McPhee & get some feel for the range of his writings; do a Google on David Brower & get a feel for
the materials on the web relating to his involvement with environmental issues. At least one person
has taken the time to search him out & replied in a personal email (of course, I might be
fabricating this) that what he found on the most commonly visited David Brower web page, although it
ostensibly was meant as a tribute, bears out my original comment & also contains the Brower satement
I began with. A bit of searching willl provide answers; hurling negaitves & unfounded assumptions
only uses up a bit of time.

I realize you "demand instant gratification," but the world isn't like that. It's appropriate for
you do do a lttle of the work on your own.

I also suggest as a resource page:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

which is also intended to help.

Pete H

--
A person is free only in the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry

 

[Rick Etter]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:35:10 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]>
from
> wrote:
>
> > Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like.
>
> Only quoting the part you are responding to is considered good usenet
etiquette.
===========================
Not without annotating that you are snipping, and not when the part you are denying is what you are
snipping out, dishonest fool.

Here, let me help you out in remembering your defencencies...

Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like.(LOL which you just did
again) Fact, you already accused him of making up the statement he claimed was in the book. Fact,
you said yourself you're too lazy(or stupid) to do an interlibrary loan.

>
>
> --
> [email protected] Trust in the you of now. 72

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:51:49 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:35:10 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]> from .wrote: . .> Fact,
you snipped out, without annotation portions of .>posts you don't like. . .Only quoting the part you
are responding to is considered good usenet etiquette.

Yes, of course!
===
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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:23:07 -0000, "Alan Poots" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>your recent arguments against me show an impressive inability to conduct thought experiments, to
>understand reasoning, and a remarkable ability to ignore what i am actually saying. by attempting
>to produce reasoned arguments and to provide methodologies you could use to test your case i have
>received nothing but the inane ramblings of an arrogant and, it would appear, ignorant, tyro.

Congratulations on understanding Vandemann. He is what killfiles are for.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at the University of Washington.

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:01:17 -0500, Peter H <[email protected]> from wrote:

>Kevan Smith wrote:
>
>>>Sure, to a 33-year-old edition of an obscure book.
>>>
>Irrelevant comment. The book's age has little to bear on this thread. The book is still available,
>in hardcover, softcover & audio format. Check Amazon; I did not bother with other book search
>engines since the most commonly used one gave me several hits immediately. Do a Google on John
>McPhee & get some feel for the range of his writings; do a Google on David Brower & get a feel for
>the materials on the web relating to his involvement with environmental issues

It's not an irrelevant comment; many books undergo significant changes through the years. As I
pointed out before, the edition you cite may bear no resemblance to those published today, or, in
the best case, what you say is on page 86 would in fact be on another page.

Further, I did all of those things you suggested. I spent an hour of googling on it for some reason,
and I couldn't find a single page that had Brower admitting to making up the factoid that X percent
of the world's population consumes Y percent of its resources.

--
[email protected]
Tidy up.
41

 

[Rick Etter]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:51:49 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:35:10 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]>
from
> .wrote: . .> Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of .>posts you don't like. . .Only
> quoting the part you are responding to is considered good usenet
etiquette.
=====================
Sure, but he, and you, snip out parts you don't like, and then reply as if all the post is there...
Even at that, you should indicate that snips occured...

>
> Yes, of course!
> ===

snip, stupid sig that doesn't mean anything...

 

[Rick Etter]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:25:19 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]>
from
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like.
>
>
> There's your annotation, asshole. Oh, did I call you a name? Too bad. I'm
not
> dishonest, and I don't appreciate being labeled like that.
> =================
Then don't ly, and then claim you weren't....

Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like. Fact, you already
accused him of making up the statement he claimed was in the book. Fact, you said yourself you're
too lazy(or stupid) to do an interlibrary loan.

Ah, the language of the ignorant, isn't it great!

>
>
>
> --
> [email protected] Get your neck massaged. 59

 

[Don]

"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:25:19 -0500, "rick etter" <[email protected]>
> from
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like.
> >
> >
> > There's your annotation, asshole. Oh, did I call you a name? Too bad.
I'm
> not
> > dishonest, and I don't appreciate being labeled like that.
> > =================
> Then don't ly, and then claim you weren't....
>
>
> Fact, you snipped out, without annotation portions of posts you don't like. Fact, you already
> accused him of making up the statement he claimed was in the book. Fact, you said yourself you're
> too lazy(or stupid) to do an interlibrary loan.
>
> Ah, the language of the ignorant, isn't it great!

Jeez, you don't get along with anybody do you, Rick?

 

[S O R N I]

rick etter wrote:

> Then don't ly, and then claim you weren't....

Cardinal rule of flaming: don't reveal one's own stupidity when trying to appear superior.

Bill "whyte lyes?" S.