Re: Vandeman applying Republican tactics to the environment

[Edward Dolan]

"Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KG4gg.222989$7a.157670@pd7tw1no...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>
>> I sense your fear of the truth leaking out. That's why I and Ed and
>> others who tell the truth about mountain biking are attacked so
>> viciously. We are a threat to your chosen way of life (such as it is).
>
> Hardly! I'd welcome an honest, emotionally neutral, minimally biased
> discussion...but when someone tries to start one, you call them a mountain
> biking liar and point to your webpage and the articles that you have
> posted there...unfortunately, I have read your articles and found them far
> more full of opinion, generalization and emotionally charged rhetoric than
> actual science, logic or reasoning.

Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
total idiots?

> From my observation, your reply to anyone who disagrees with you is to
> call them a liar, personally attack them and re-post your opinionated,
> generalization filled and emotionally charged work. If they ask for
> supporting documents, you hide behind statements such as "do your own
> homework." If you want us to read your evidence, provide it...you present
> the appearance of an individual who does not wish to show validation for
> his claims and it severely undermines your credibility.

"Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
total idiots?" - Ed Dolan

> As for your webpage: those of us who mountain bike and have a vested
> interest in this field could reply in kind by citing the IMBA webpage to
> you all the time. I think I'm quite correct in thinking that you'd regard
> it the same way most of us regard your personal webspace...as "junk
> science."

"Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
total idiots?" - Ed Dolan

> Also, indicating that you want all bikes on road is rather counter
> productive to your claims. If you increase road traffic, more roads
> and/or lanes need to be developed to handle the additional traffic which
> means that additional habitat is lost. Is that truly what you want? You
> have stated that you are trying to avoid habitat loss.

To quote Vandeman ... DUH!

Regards,

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

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Edward Dolan wrote:

>
> "Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste a lot
> of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why argue with
> total idiots?" - Ed Dolan

We have (oh, but that's right, you have no clue as you won't look at
what we've done in the past, ie. running a google search).

As for idiots....you're right...you and Vandeman are not worth the effort.

Michael Halliwell

 

[pmhilton]

Michael Halliwell wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> "Then you need to take on the articles. Vandeman is right not to waste
>> a lot of time refuting those who do not reference the articles. Why
>> argue with total idiots?" - Ed Dolan
>
>
> We have (oh, but that's right, you have no clue as you won't look at
> what we've done in the past, ie. running a google search).
>
> As for idiots....you're right...you and Vandeman are not worth the effort.
>
> Michael Halliwell

What Halliwell is saying here is:

MV has been a proven hyper-repetitive and hyper-redundant idiot for at
least 10 years. Any Google search will demonstrate that beyond any question.

You are a newcomer here and exhibit precisely the same characteristics
as MV. Any Google search will demonstrate that beyond any question.

Pete H

 

[pmhilton]

Bill Baka wrote:
> pmhilton wrote:
I responded to the question as
>> asked, not the question as implied.
>>
>> PH
>>
> OK,
> I see 'Dolan' is in this so he probably started it.
> Bill Baka

Yep.

 

[pmhilton]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> I do not have the foggiest notion who Paris Hilton is, whether man or woman
> or beast.

YOU opened this matter YOURSELF! From this we can readily assume you
have not the foggiest notion what you are about.

QED

 

[Edward Dolan]

"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> I do not have the foggiest notion who Paris Hilton is, whether man or
>> woman or beast.
>
> YOU opened this matter YOURSELF! From this we can readily assume you have
> not the foggiest notion what you are about.
>
> QED

No, you opened the matter by having a very strange name.

I was once in London in another century in Feb. and it was so foggy I could
not see my hand in front of my face. All was light and bright by the time I
got to Paris. Of course, I never did stay in any Hilton hotels, whether in
foggy old London or bright and sunny Paris.

Regards,

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

 

[pmhilton]

Edward Dolan wrote:

>
> No, you opened the matter by having a very strange name.

You are the only "person" in over 62 years to find my name, which is of
very ovbious and very commonplace British Isles derivaton, "strange."
While you declaim it as "strange," it strangely seems central to your
strange, possibly psychotic, maunderings which ludicrously seek to turn
the messenge in upon itself. Your violations of logic and proper
discourse are not even so challenging as Mikey's; this is possibly
because you have only vommited yourself upon these groups recently and
thereby lack the familiarity with infinite regress which only time can
provide.

>
> I was once in London in another century in Feb. and it was so foggy I could
> not see my hand in front of my face. All was light and bright by the time I
> got to Paris. Of course, I never did stay in any Hilton hotels, whether in
> foggy old London or bright and sunny Paris.

I, too, was in London in another century - this can be documented.
(Actually both London, England and London, Ontario; however, not whilst
on the same journey.) I found there no difficulty in finding my way
about either city nor today can see the minutest relevance between my
quite ordinary name and the captial city of a Continental nation. I most
certainlly was not led so bumblingly astray as to stumble unawares onto
The Continent.

You blather at interminable length of being "high" on Olympus conversing
with anthropomorphic figmentations who are uniformly represented
throughout history as bickering, ill-behaved infants who have little to
do - when not squabbling amongst themsleves - than being tiresomely
meddlesome in human affairs, often in a scurrilous and venal manner. I
can readily see the "high" in your alledged experience. There have been
as yet no documentable delineations of the anthropomorphic beings
rumored to reside there and amongst whom you voiciferously claim to
reside. By the same token there have been centuries of documentation
purporting to describe the infantile, egocentric, anthrophobic and
internecine silliness to be found there. These qualities present
themselves clearly and abundantly in your own comments relating to yourself.

In counter of all this, I can offer a gedcom-format genealogy of my
family which will firmly document my lineage descended from Alfred The
Great and his House as well as the 11th Century Frankish interlopers.
Genealogists term this "a foot in both camps" but such is of minor
consequence. Of greater moment is that these connections are documented
& verifiable whereas yours are not documentable and cannot be documented
outside psychopathic (drug induced?) episodes. You, Timothy Leary and
Lord Byron perhaps have much in common.

Save your disjointed, interneceine blither-blather. In a few hours I
will be on a vacation trip and my filters are such that your items on
these threads will expire far sooner than my anticipated return. I am
and will remain beyond your scatalogical and scurrilous sciolism. Your
mindless, meaningless maunderings may be seen - but much more likely
avoided - by others. I should not be in the lest surprised to learn
that, except for Mad Mikey, I am the final person to filter you from my
cybersphere.

Peter Hilton "of The Strange name"

 

[Edward Dolan]

"pmhilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you opened the matter by having a very strange name.
>
> You are the only "person" in over 62 years to find my name, which is of
> very ovbious and very commonplace British Isles derivaton, "strange."
> While you declaim it as "strange," it strangely seems central to your
> strange, possibly psychotic, maunderings which ludicrously seek to turn
> the messenge in upon itself. Your violations of logic and proper discourse
> are not even so challenging as Mikey's; this is possibly because you have
> only vommited yourself upon these groups recently and thereby lack the
> familiarity with infinite regress which only time can provide.

PMHilton is a very strange name, not to say an odd name indeed. Maybe if you
had a first and/or middle name it would not be so weird, but PM? I urge you
to get an acceptable first name like Edward. Then you can perhaps be Great
like I am.

I have been on Usenet for over 3 years now and surely that is long enough to
become well acquainted with the essential idiocy of these so-called
newsgroups. Once in a blue moon someone will post a somewhat halfway
intelligent message, but 99% of all posts are obviously being done by
idiots.

The ways of Ed Dolan the Great are mysterious indeed. If you were a genius
like me you would understand what I am about, but since you are not, you
will forever remain dumfounded and at sea. I shall try not to be too cruel
to you as I suspect you are just a good natured but simple-minded fool.

>> I was once in London in another century in Feb. and it was so foggy I
>> could not see my hand in front of my face. All was light and bright by
>> the time I got to Paris. Of course, I never did stay in any Hilton
>> hotels, whether in foggy old London or bright and sunny Paris.
>
> I, too, was in London in another century - this can be documented.
> (Actually both London, England and London, Ontario; however, not whilst on
> the same journey.) I found there no difficulty in finding my way about
> either city nor today can see the minutest relevance between my quite
> ordinary name and the captial city of a Continental nation. I most
> certainlly was not led so bumblingly astray as to stumble unawares onto
> The Continent.

London is a very foggy city, which is why I do not have the foggiest notion
who Paris Hilton is. Why won't you tell me who she is since she has your
freaking last name? I suspect you are related and that you are ashamed of
her. Well, there is no accounting for our relatives.

I do not believe you were ever in London. Otherwise you would know that it
is very, very foggy there in the winter time. Hells Bells, I could not even
see my hand in front of my face. It was like pea soup and I almost choked to
death!

> You blather at interminable length of being "high" on Olympus conversing
> with anthropomorphic figmentations who are uniformly represented
> throughout history as bickering, ill-behaved infants who have little to
> do - when not squabbling amongst themsleves - than being tiresomely
> meddlesome in human affairs, often in a scurrilous and venal manner. I can
> readily see the "high" in your alledged experience. There have been as yet
> no documentable delineations of the anthropomorphic beings rumored to
> reside there and amongst whom you voiciferously claim to reside. By the
> same token there have been centuries of documentation purporting to
> describe the infantile, egocentric, anthrophobic and internecine silliness
> to be found there. These qualities present themselves clearly and
> abundantly in your own comments relating to yourself.

I can see that Hilton doesn't believe in the Gods. He should for after all
they were created in the image of man.

> In counter of all this, I can offer a gedcom-format genealogy of my family
> which will firmly document my lineage descended from Alfred The Great and
> his House as well as the 11th Century Frankish interlopers. Genealogists
> term this "a foot in both camps" but such is of minor consequence. Of
> greater moment is that these connections are documented & verifiable
> whereas yours are not documentable and cannot be documented outside
> psychopathic (drug induced?) episodes. You, Timothy Leary and Lord Byron
> perhaps have much in common.

But you come unto these newsgroups as little old pmhilton. No, there is just
no way you can be Great. Everything about you says that you are a pip-squeak
and most likely come from a long line of pip-squeaks. Well, it is no
disgrace not to be Great like I am. After all, there is only so much room in
the world for us Great Ones.

> Save your disjointed, interneceine blither-blather. In a few hours I will
> be on a vacation trip and my filters are such that your items on these
> threads will expire far sooner than my anticipated return. I am and will
> remain beyond your scatalogical and scurrilous sciolism. Your mindless,
> meaningless maunderings may be seen - but much more likely avoided - by
> others. I should not be in the lest surprised to learn that, except for
> Mad Mikey, I am the final person to filter you from my cybersphere.

Sciolism I do not know, but the rest of your nonsense is almost on a par
with mine. But I am Greater than you are because I do not come unto these
newsgroups as emdolan. God, how revolting could I get! I am not capable of
that kind of humility. No, I am Edward Dolan and I am Ed Dolan the Great and
I am Saint Edward the Great. You are nothing next to all of that.

> Peter Hilton "of The Strange name"

So you do have a first name after all. Then why not use it instead of that
pitiful pm business?

Regards,

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:44:54 -0400, pmhilton <[email protected]> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you opened the matter by having a very strange name.
>
>You are the only "person" in over 62 years to find my name, which is of
>very ovbious and very commonplace British Isles derivaton, "strange."
>While you declaim it as "strange," it strangely seems central to your
>strange, possibly psychotic, maunderings which ludicrously seek to turn
>the messenge in upon itself. Your violations of logic and proper
>discourse are not even so challenging as Mikey's; this is possibly
>because you have only vommited yourself upon these groups recently and
>thereby lack the familiarity with infinite regress which only time can
>provide.
>
>>
>> I was once in London in another century in Feb. and it was so foggy I could
>> not see my hand in front of my face. All was light and bright by the time I
>> got to Paris. Of course, I never did stay in any Hilton hotels, whether in
>> foggy old London or bright and sunny Paris.
>
>I, too, was in London in another century - this can be documented.
>(Actually both London, England and London, Ontario; however, not whilst
>on the same journey.) I found there no difficulty in finding my way
>about either city nor today can see the minutest relevance between my
>quite ordinary name and the captial city of a Continental nation. I most
>certainlly was not led so bumblingly astray as to stumble unawares onto
>The Continent.
>
>You blather at interminable length of being "high" on Olympus conversing
>with anthropomorphic figmentations who are uniformly represented
>throughout history as bickering, ill-behaved infants who have little to
>do - when not squabbling amongst themsleves - than being tiresomely
>meddlesome in human affairs, often in a scurrilous and venal manner. I
>can readily see the "high" in your alledged experience. There have been
>as yet no documentable delineations of the anthropomorphic beings
>rumored to reside there and amongst whom you voiciferously claim to
>reside. By the same token there have been centuries of documentation
>purporting to describe the infantile, egocentric, anthrophobic and
>internecine silliness to be found there. These qualities present
>themselves clearly and abundantly in your own comments relating to yourself.
>
>In counter of all this, I can offer a gedcom-format genealogy of my
>family which will firmly document my lineage descended

"Descended" is indeed the operative word.

from Alfred The
>Great and his House as well as the 11th Century Frankish interlopers.
>Genealogists term this "a foot in both camps" but such is of minor
>consequence. Of greater moment is that these connections are documented
>& verifiable whereas yours are not documentable and cannot be documented
>outside psychopathic (drug induced?) episodes. You, Timothy Leary and
>Lord Byron perhaps have much in common.
>
>Save your disjointed, interneceine blither-blather. In a few hours I
>will be on a vacation trip and my filters are such that your items on
>these threads will expire far sooner than my anticipated return. I am
>and will remain beyond your scatalogical and scurrilous sciolism. Your
>mindless, meaningless maunderings may be seen - but much more likely
>avoided - by others. I should not be in the lest surprised to learn
>that, except for Mad Mikey, I am the final person to filter you from my
>cybersphere.
>
>Peter Hilton "of The Strange name"
===
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