RR: Losing her cherry (Klondike Bluffs)



On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Bruce Jensen wrote:
>>>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern
>>>> > for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road
>>>> > cycling.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
>>>> cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.
>>>
>>>Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
>>>positions are so silly at times...
>>>
>>>> I believe
>>>> that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
>>>> every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that
>>>> any additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be
>>>> stopped.
>>>
>>>And going after one of the least harmful human activities
>>>accomplishes, what?

>>
>> BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
>> and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
>> damage.
>>
>>>> He
>>>> sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
>>>> firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
>>>> habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).
>>>
>>>The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use? When
>>>I see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that EVERY
>>>backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human waste?
>>>
>>>His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
>>>there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

>>
>> Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
>> reason to allow bikes in natural areas.
>>
>>>Is that the position you understand?

>
>
>Mike,
> Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the USNET??
>What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road cycling
>should be allowed.


To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.

> Chris Foster
>
>>>
>>>E.P.

>> ===
>> 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!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>

===
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!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bruce Jensen wrote:
>>>>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern
>>>>> > for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road
>>>>> > cycling.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
>>>>> cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
>>>>positions are so silly at times...
>>>>
>>>>> I believe
>>>>> that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction
>>>>> at every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes
>>>>> that any additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be
>>>>> stopped.
>>>>
>>>>And going after one of the least harmful human activities
>>>>accomplishes, what?
>>>
>>> BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
>>> and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
>>> damage.
>>>
>>>>> He
>>>>> sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having
>>>>> seen firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails,
>>>>> off-trail habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his
>>>>> position).
>>>>
>>>>The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?
>>>>When I see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that
>>>>EVERY backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human
>>>>waste?
>>>>
>>>>His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
>>>>there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.
>>>
>>> Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
>>> reason to allow bikes in natural areas.
>>>
>>>>Is that the position you understand?

>>
>>
>>Mike,
>> Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the
>> USNET??
>>What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road cycling
>>should be allowed.

>
> To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.
>
>> Chris Foster
>>


OK, following that logic, I am completly educated, you have voiced
your opinion. Why should you be allowed to continue to post on USNET?


>>>>
>>>>E.P.
>>> ===
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>

> ===
> 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!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On 11 Dec 2006 14:11:46 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bruce Jensen wrote:
>>>>>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern
>>>>>> > for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road
>>>>>> > cycling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
>>>>>> cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
>>>>>positions are so silly at times...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe
>>>>>> that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction
>>>>>> at every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes
>>>>>> that any additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be
>>>>>> stopped.
>>>>>
>>>>>And going after one of the least harmful human activities
>>>>>accomplishes, what?
>>>>
>>>> BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
>>>> and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
>>>> damage.
>>>>
>>>>>> He
>>>>>> sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having
>>>>>> seen firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails,
>>>>>> off-trail habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his
>>>>>> position).
>>>>>
>>>>>The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?
>>>>>When I see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that
>>>>>EVERY backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human
>>>>>waste?
>>>>>
>>>>>His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
>>>>>there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
>>>> reason to allow bikes in natural areas.
>>>>
>>>>>Is that the position you understand?
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike,
>>> Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the
>>> USNET??
>>>What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road cycling
>>>should be allowed.

>>
>> To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.
>>
>>> Chris Foster
>>>

>
>OK, following that logic, I am completly educated, you have voiced
>your opinion. Why should you be allowed to continue to post on USNET?


How are you going to stop me? Idiot.

>>>>>
>>>>>E.P.
>>>> ===
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>

>> ===
>> 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!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>

===
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!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 11 Dec 2006 14:11:46 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 08 Dec 2006 16:52:24 GMT, Chris Foster
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bruce Jensen wrote:
>>>>>>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real
>>>>>>> > concern for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about
>>>>>>> > off-road cycling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
>>>>>>> cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
>>>>>>positions are so silly at times...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe
>>>>>>> that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or
>>>>>>> extinction at every turn (and this is true in some cases), and
>>>>>>> he believes that any additional unnecessary stress placed on
>>>>>>> them ought to be stopped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And going after one of the least harmful human activities
>>>>>>accomplishes, what?
>>>>>
>>>>> BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our
>>>>> parks and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a
>>>>> lot of damage.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>> sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having
>>>>>>> seen firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails,
>>>>>>> off-trail habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his
>>>>>>> position).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?
>>>>>>When I see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that
>>>>>>EVERY backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human
>>>>>>waste?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
>>>>>>there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
>>>>> reason to allow bikes in natural areas.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is that the position you understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mike,
>>>> Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the
>>>> USNET??
>>>>What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road
>>>>cycling should be allowed.
>>>
>>> To educate you. It doesn't apply to mountain biking.
>>>
>>>> Chris Foster
>>>>

>>
>>OK, following that logic, I am completly educated, you have voiced
>>your opinion. Why should you be allowed to continue to post on USNET?

>
> How are you going to stop me? Idiot.



OK Following that logic, How are you going to stop all those BILLIONS
of mountain bikers from destroying your precious virgin forest


wait for it

wait for it

wait for it



IDIOT


(did that so you could understand my message, seems that name calling is
the only method of conversation you can follow)





>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>E.P.
>>>>> ===
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>
>>> ===
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>

> ===
> 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!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> black wrote:
>
>> Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
>> simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
>> "Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
>> to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
>> thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
>> encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
>> etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
>> you missed the bigger picture?

>
> Welcome to Alt.Mountain-Bike. That's how it is, just get over it and
> keep posting. The USENET is a strange place and A.M-B is even stranger.
> Here's some info to give you a heads up:
>
> http://www.schnauzers.ws/ambfaq.html
>


speaking of regulars, where's
crazy?
 
cc wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>> black wrote:
>>
>>> Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
>>> simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
>>> "Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
>>> to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
>>> thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
>>> encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
>>> etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
>>> you missed the bigger picture?

>>
>> Welcome to Alt.Mountain-Bike. That's how it is, just get over it and
>> keep posting. The USENET is a strange place and A.M-B is even
>> stranger. Here's some info to give you a heads up:
>>
>> http://www.schnauzers.ws/ambfaq.html
>>

>
> speaking of regulars, where's crazy?


Good question. He hasn't posted since I moved in June. Hope he's OK.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws
 
Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> cc wrote:


>> speaking of regulars, where's crazy?


> Good question. He hasn't posted since I moved in June. Hope he's OK.


He posted once or twice from an actual ISP (non-WebTV) I think, but that was
weeks ago.

CRAZE??? Speak up, man!

Bill "a fan" S.