The Mike Vandeman "FAQ"



In alt.mountain-bike Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:
> There once was a fellow named Mike
> Who didn't want people to bike
> He posted a lot
> Of ridiculous rot
> And now everyone thinks he's a psych

> --

Perhaps also:-

Mikey cured his frustration,
When he discovered masturbation,
Since all he needed was a good stong hand
And his overactive imagintaion


Yes, I know it doesn't fit the limeric form but anyway:)

--
Tim. /\ /\
O___O
=\__|__/= meow.
U
 
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 05:26:31 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> .> Only living things can have a point of view. Including ALL living
..> .> .things
..> .> .> .> (biocentric) makes it objective. How can there be any more
..objective
..> .> .> .pi=oint of
..> .> .> .> view than that. Did you really THINK about it???
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .So paramecium have POVs?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Yes, of course.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Even supposing they do, how can you presume to
..> .> .> .speak for them, or any other living creature for that matter?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Easy. The same way we speak for preliterate children. DUH!
..> .> .
..> .> .Have you ever been a paramecia Mike? We've all been children so we
..have a
..> .> .general idea of what children think.
..> .>
..> .> We haven't been other people, but we speak for other people.
..> .
..> .Yes, why do we do that? I wish we would stop. Most people who claim to
..speak
..> .for me are dead wrong.
..>
..> You would prefer that they not practice empathy?! I doubt that they are as
..wrong
..> as you think.
..
..I don't doubt their intentions, but only I know what I really think.

Don't be so sure. Humans are pretty good at guessing approximately what someone
is thinking, and so are animals.

..> .> Even then, we're only guessing. It's
..> .> .rather similar to "saying what the dog is thinking".
..> .>
..> .> It's the same as everything else: we observe BEHAVIOR and infer the
..> .thinking
..> .> that accompanies it, also using empathy. We know what all species need,
..so
..> .we
..> .> can advocate that they get what they need. To pretend otherwise is
..> .disingenuous.
..> .
..> .So do animals have empathy? I doubt it, seeing as they're always eating
..each
..> .other.
..>
..> Of course they do. We have no other way of thinking about other organisms.
..
..So because you can't comprehend it, it must not exist?

I have no idea what you are talking about. My internet-mediated empathy isn't
working.

===
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
 
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:20:06 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:41:21 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .This might explain Mike's angry outbursts lately (like, last TEN YEARS):
..> .
..>
...http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424753|oddlyenough|09-01-2004::09:45|
..reuters.html
..> .
..> .Bill "just a wild guess" S.
..>
..> Oh, right: the only reason someone would criticize mountain biking is that
..there
..> is something wrong with them. Right. Idiot.
..
..There's nothing necessarily wrong with somone who criticizes mountain
..biking. There IS something wrong with someone who equates mountain biking
..with evil,

WHY? It IS evil.

.. ignores much more pertinent problems like horses or roads,

Liar.

makes
..vast generalizations about the intellegence and nature of mountain bikers,

From a vast amount of experience.

..plays fast and loose with the words idiot, liar and DUH, refuses to stand
..down on issues where he has clearly been shown to be wrong,

Hasn't happened yet!

has been
..disowned by those who are on his side, has all the maturity and tact of a
..five-year-old, and posts to usenet every day for TEN FREAKIN' YEARS trying
..to convert people who don't care, who are beyond not caring to the point
..where they are provoking him and using him for their personal amusment.

You are lying. You don't sound amused.
===
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
 
> .> .> .> Even supposing they do, how can you presume to
> .> .> .> .speak for them, or any other living creature for that matter?
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Easy. The same way we speak for preliterate children. DUH!
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Have you ever been a paramecia Mike? We've all been children so we
> .have a
> .> .> .general idea of what children think.
> .> .>
> .> .> We haven't been other people, but we speak for other people.
> .> .
> .> .Yes, why do we do that? I wish we would stop. Most people who claim to
> .speak
> .> .for me are dead wrong.
> .>
> .> You would prefer that they not practice empathy?! I doubt that they are
as
> .wrong
> .> as you think.
> .
> .I don't doubt their intentions, but only I know what I really think.
>
> Don't be so sure. Humans are pretty good at guessing approximately what
someone
> is thinking, and so are animals.

But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm thinking.

> .> .> Even then, we're only guessing. It's
> .> .> .rather similar to "saying what the dog is thinking".
> .> .>
> .> .> It's the same as everything else: we observe BEHAVIOR and infer the
> .> .thinking
> .> .> that accompanies it, also using empathy. We know what all species
need,
> .so
> .> .we
> .> .> can advocate that they get what they need. To pretend otherwise is
> .> .disingenuous.
> .> .
> .> .So do animals have empathy? I doubt it, seeing as they're always
eating
> .each
> .> .other.
> .>
> .> Of course they do. We have no other way of thinking about other
organisms.
> .
> .So because you can't comprehend it, it must not exist?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. My internet-mediated empathy
isn't
> working.

I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you can't
comprehend it not existing, it must exist". Also, you seem to be confusing
empathy for telepathy.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:20:06 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:41:21 GMT, "S o r n i"
<[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .This might explain Mike's angry outbursts lately (like, last TEN
YEARS):
> .> .
> .>
>
...http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424753|oddlyenough|09-01-2004::09:45
|
> .reuters.html
> .> .
> .> .Bill "just a wild guess" S.
> .>
> .> Oh, right: the only reason someone would criticize mountain biking is
that
> .there
> .> is something wrong with them. Right. Idiot.
> .
> .There's nothing necessarily wrong with somone who criticizes mountain
> .biking. There IS something wrong with someone who equates mountain biking
> .with evil,
>
> WHY? It IS evil.
>
> . ignores much more pertinent problems like horses or roads,
>
> Liar.
>
> makes
> .vast generalizations about the intellegence and nature of mountain
bikers,
>
> From a vast amount of experience.
>
> .plays fast and loose with the words idiot, liar and DUH, refuses to stand
> .down on issues where he has clearly been shown to be wrong,
>
> Hasn't happened yet!
>
> has been
> .disowned by those who are on his side, has all the maturity and tact of a
> .five-year-old, and posts to usenet every day for TEN FREAKIN' YEARS
trying
> .to convert people who don't care, who are beyond not caring to the point
> .where they are provoking him and using him for their personal amusment.
>
> You are lying. You don't sound amused.

Mike, if that really is you (and I'm not so sure of this), you have just
confirmed your kookdom.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:17:25 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> .> Even supposing they do, how can you presume to
..> .> .> .> .speak for them, or any other living creature for that matter?
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Easy. The same way we speak for preliterate children. DUH!
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Have you ever been a paramecia Mike? We've all been children so we
..> .have a
..> .> .> .general idea of what children think.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> We haven't been other people, but we speak for other people.
..> .> .
..> .> .Yes, why do we do that? I wish we would stop. Most people who claim to
..> .speak
..> .> .for me are dead wrong.
..> .>
..> .> You would prefer that they not practice empathy?! I doubt that they are
..as
..> .wrong
..> .> as you think.
..> .
..> .I don't doubt their intentions, but only I know what I really think.
..>
..> Don't be so sure. Humans are pretty good at guessing approximately what
..someone
..> is thinking, and so are animals.
..
..But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm thinking.

What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are thinking from what
you say. DUH!

..> .> .> Even then, we're only guessing. It's
..> .> .> .rather similar to "saying what the dog is thinking".
..> .> .>
..> .> .> It's the same as everything else: we observe BEHAVIOR and infer the
..> .> .thinking
..> .> .> that accompanies it, also using empathy. We know what all species
..need,
..> .so
..> .> .we
..> .> .> can advocate that they get what they need. To pretend otherwise is
..> .> .disingenuous.
..> .> .
..> .> .So do animals have empathy? I doubt it, seeing as they're always
..eating
..> .each
..> .> .other.
..> .>
..> .> Of course they do. We have no other way of thinking about other
..organisms.
..> .
..> .So because you can't comprehend it, it must not exist?
..>
..> I have no idea what you are talking about. My internet-mediated empathy
..isn't
..> working.
..
..I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you can't
..comprehend it not existing, it must exist".

You haven't said what "it" is!

Also, you seem to be confusing
..empathy for telepathy.

Not really.
===
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
 
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:17:25 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:20:06 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:41:21 GMT, "S o r n i"
..<[email protected]>
..> .wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .This might explain Mike's angry outbursts lately (like, last TEN
..YEARS):
..> .> .
..> .>
..>
....http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424753|oddlyenough|09-01-2004::09:45
..|
..> .reuters.html
..> .> .
..> .> .Bill "just a wild guess" S.
..> .>
..> .> Oh, right: the only reason someone would criticize mountain biking is
..that
..> .there
..> .> is something wrong with them. Right. Idiot.
..> .
..> .There's nothing necessarily wrong with somone who criticizes mountain
..> .biking. There IS something wrong with someone who equates mountain biking
..> .with evil,
..>
..> WHY? It IS evil.
..>
..> . ignores much more pertinent problems like horses or roads,
..>
..> Liar.
..>
..> makes
..> .vast generalizations about the intellegence and nature of mountain
..bikers,
..>
..> From a vast amount of experience.
..>
..> .plays fast and loose with the words idiot, liar and DUH, refuses to stand
..> .down on issues where he has clearly been shown to be wrong,
..>
..> Hasn't happened yet!
..>
..> has been
..> .disowned by those who are on his side, has all the maturity and tact of a
..> .five-year-old, and posts to usenet every day for TEN FREAKIN' YEARS
..trying
..> .to convert people who don't care, who are beyond not caring to the point
..> .where they are provoking him and using him for their personal amusment.
..>
..> You are lying. You don't sound amused.
..
..Mike, if that really is you (and I'm not so sure of this), you have just
..confirmed your kookdom.

Hit the nail on the head, didn't I? No one is here to enjoy talking to me. OIt's
obvious you DON'T. You are here to try (vainly) to REFUTE me. And you aren't
even aware that you CAN'T.
===
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
 
> .> .reuters.html
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Bill "just a wild guess" S.
> .> .>
> .> .> Oh, right: the only reason someone would criticize mountain biking
is
> .that
> .> .there
> .> .> is something wrong with them. Right. Idiot.
> .> .
> .> .There's nothing necessarily wrong with somone who criticizes mountain
> .> .biking. There IS something wrong with someone who equates mountain
biking
> .> .with evil,
> .>
> .> WHY? It IS evil.
> .>
> .> . ignores much more pertinent problems like horses or roads,
> .>
> .> Liar.
> .>
> .> makes
> .> .vast generalizations about the intellegence and nature of mountain
> .bikers,
> .>
> .> From a vast amount of experience.
> .>
> .> .plays fast and loose with the words idiot, liar and DUH, refuses to
stand
> .> .down on issues where he has clearly been shown to be wrong,
> .>
> .> Hasn't happened yet!
> .>
> .> has been
> .> .disowned by those who are on his side, has all the maturity and tact
of a
> .> .five-year-old, and posts to usenet every day for TEN FREAKIN' YEARS
> .trying
> .> .to convert people who don't care, who are beyond not caring to the
point
> .> .where they are provoking him and using him for their personal
amusment.
> .>
> .> You are lying. You don't sound amused.
> .
> .Mike, if that really is you (and I'm not so sure of this), you have just
> .confirmed your kookdom.
>
> Hit the nail on the head, didn't I? No one is here to enjoy talking to me.
OIt's
> obvious you DON'T. You are here to try (vainly) to REFUTE me. And you
aren't
> even aware that you CAN'T.

No, no one is here to enjoy talking to you (though with all the crossposts
it's a bit questionable as to where "here" is). I am most certainly aware
that I cannot refute you, but I try anyway because it's amusing to watch you
take yourself so seriously. My question is, why are YOU here? Obviously not
because you care about mountain bikers tearing up trails (though you may
care, posting here does nothing to prevent it).

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:17:25 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .> .> .> .> Even supposing they do, how can you presume to
> .> .> .> .> .speak for them, or any other living creature for that matter?
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> Easy. The same way we speak for preliterate children. DUH!
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .Have you ever been a paramecia Mike? We've all been children so
we
> .> .have a
> .> .> .> .general idea of what children think.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> We haven't been other people, but we speak for other people.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Yes, why do we do that? I wish we would stop. Most people who claim
to
> .> .speak
> .> .> .for me are dead wrong.
> .> .>
> .> .> You would prefer that they not practice empathy?! I doubt that they
are
> .as
> .> .wrong
> .> .> as you think.
> .> .
> .> .I don't doubt their intentions, but only I know what I really think.
> .>
> .> Don't be so sure. Humans are pretty good at guessing approximately what
> .someone
> .> is thinking, and so are animals.
> .
> .But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm
thinking.
>
> What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are thinking
from what
> you say. DUH!

So what are my opinions on mountain bikers, Mike?

> .> .> .> Even then, we're only guessing. It's
> .> .> .> .rather similar to "saying what the dog is thinking".
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> It's the same as everything else: we observe BEHAVIOR and infer
the
> .> .> .thinking
> .> .> .> that accompanies it, also using empathy. We know what all species
> .need,
> .> .so
> .> .> .we
> .> .> .> can advocate that they get what they need. To pretend otherwise
is
> .> .> .disingenuous.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .So do animals have empathy? I doubt it, seeing as they're always
> .eating
> .> .each
> .> .> .other.
> .> .>
> .> .> Of course they do. We have no other way of thinking about other
> .organisms.
> .> .
> .> .So because you can't comprehend it, it must not exist?
> .>
> .> I have no idea what you are talking about. My internet-mediated empathy
> .isn't
> .> working.
> .
> .I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you can't
> .comprehend it not existing, it must exist".
>
> You haven't said what "it" is!

Sorry if that wasn't clear. Empathy in animals.

> Also, you seem to be confusing
> .empathy for telepathy.
>
> Not really.

Yeah, actually you are.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:43:55 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:17:25 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .> .> .> .> Even supposing they do, how can you presume to
..> .> .> .> .> .speak for them, or any other living creature for that matter?
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> Easy. The same way we speak for preliterate children. DUH!
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .Have you ever been a paramecia Mike? We've all been children so
..we
..> .> .have a
..> .> .> .> .general idea of what children think.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> We haven't been other people, but we speak for other people.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Yes, why do we do that? I wish we would stop. Most people who claim
..to
..> .> .speak
..> .> .> .for me are dead wrong.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You would prefer that they not practice empathy?! I doubt that they
..are
..> .as
..> .> .wrong
..> .> .> as you think.
..> .> .
..> .> .I don't doubt their intentions, but only I know what I really think.
..> .>
..> .> Don't be so sure. Humans are pretty good at guessing approximately what
..> .someone
..> .> is thinking, and so are animals.
..> .
..> .But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm
..thinking.
..>
..> What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are thinking
..from what
..> you say. DUH!
..
..So what are my opinions on mountain bikers, Mike?

I don't remember if or what you said about them.

..> .> .> .> Even then, we're only guessing. It's
..> .> .> .> .rather similar to "saying what the dog is thinking".
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> It's the same as everything else: we observe BEHAVIOR and infer
..the
..> .> .> .thinking
..> .> .> .> that accompanies it, also using empathy. We know what all species
..> .need,
..> .> .so
..> .> .> .we
..> .> .> .> can advocate that they get what they need. To pretend otherwise
..is
..> .> .> .disingenuous.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .So do animals have empathy? I doubt it, seeing as they're always
..> .eating
..> .> .each
..> .> .> .other.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Of course they do. We have no other way of thinking about other
..> .organisms.
..> .> .
..> .> .So because you can't comprehend it, it must not exist?
..> .>
..> .> I have no idea what you are talking about. My internet-mediated empathy
..> .isn't
..> .> working.
..> .
..> .I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you can't
..> .comprehend it not existing, it must exist".
..>
..> You haven't said what "it" is!
..
..Sorry if that wasn't clear. Empathy in animals.

If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that of a
chimpanzee by only 1.4%.

..> Also, you seem to be confusing
..> .empathy for telepathy.
..>
..> Not really.
..
..Yeah, actually you are.

You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the difference.
===
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
 
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:43:54 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .reuters.html
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Bill "just a wild guess" S.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Oh, right: the only reason someone would criticize mountain biking
..is
..> .that
..> .> .there
..> .> .> is something wrong with them. Right. Idiot.
..> .> .
..> .> .There's nothing necessarily wrong with somone who criticizes mountain
..> .> .biking. There IS something wrong with someone who equates mountain
..biking
..> .> .with evil,
..> .>
..> .> WHY? It IS evil.
..> .>
..> .> . ignores much more pertinent problems like horses or roads,
..> .>
..> .> Liar.
..> .>
..> .> makes
..> .> .vast generalizations about the intellegence and nature of mountain
..> .bikers,
..> .>
..> .> From a vast amount of experience.
..> .>
..> .> .plays fast and loose with the words idiot, liar and DUH, refuses to
..stand
..> .> .down on issues where he has clearly been shown to be wrong,
..> .>
..> .> Hasn't happened yet!
..> .>
..> .> has been
..> .> .disowned by those who are on his side, has all the maturity and tact
..of a
..> .> .five-year-old, and posts to usenet every day for TEN FREAKIN' YEARS
..> .trying
..> .> .to convert people who don't care, who are beyond not caring to the
..point
..> .> .where they are provoking him and using him for their personal
..amusment.
..> .>
..> .> You are lying. You don't sound amused.
..> .
..> .Mike, if that really is you (and I'm not so sure of this), you have just
..> .confirmed your kookdom.
..>
..> Hit the nail on the head, didn't I? No one is here to enjoy talking to me.
..OIt's
..> obvious you DON'T. You are here to try (vainly) to REFUTE me. And you
..aren't
..> even aware that you CAN'T.
..
..No, no one is here to enjoy talking to you

You just contradicted yourself. Earlier, you said they are talking with me for
"personal amusment".

(though with all the crossposts
..it's a bit questionable as to where "here" is). I am most certainly aware
..that I cannot refute you, but I try anyway because it's amusing to watch you
..take yourself so seriously.

You just contradicted yourself again. You said "no one is here to enjoy talking
to you". How easily you forget which lies you told!

My question is, why are YOU here? Obviously not
..because you care about mountain bikers tearing up trails (though you may
..care, posting here does nothing to prevent it).

It's obvious. Why do you ask such a stupid question?
===
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
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:43:54 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .> .> .reuters.html
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .Bill "just a wild guess" S.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Oh, right: the only reason someone would criticize mountain
biking
> .is
> .> .that
> .> .> .there
> .> .> .> is something wrong with them. Right. Idiot.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .There's nothing necessarily wrong with somone who criticizes
mountain
> .> .> .biking. There IS something wrong with someone who equates mountain
> .biking
> .> .> .with evil,
> .> .>
> .> .> WHY? It IS evil.
> .> .>
> .> .> . ignores much more pertinent problems like horses or roads,
> .> .>
> .> .> Liar.
> .> .>
> .> .> makes
> .> .> .vast generalizations about the intellegence and nature of mountain
> .> .bikers,
> .> .>
> .> .> From a vast amount of experience.
> .> .>
> .> .> .plays fast and loose with the words idiot, liar and DUH, refuses to
> .stand
> .> .> .down on issues where he has clearly been shown to be wrong,
> .> .>
> .> .> Hasn't happened yet!
> .> .>
> .> .> has been
> .> .> .disowned by those who are on his side, has all the maturity and
tact
> .of a
> .> .> .five-year-old, and posts to usenet every day for TEN FREAKIN' YEARS
> .> .trying
> .> .> .to convert people who don't care, who are beyond not caring to the
> .point
> .> .> .where they are provoking him and using him for their personal
> .amusment.
> .> .>
> .> .> You are lying. You don't sound amused.
> .> .
> .> .Mike, if that really is you (and I'm not so sure of this), you have
just
> .> .confirmed your kookdom.
> .>
> .> Hit the nail on the head, didn't I? No one is here to enjoy talking to
me.
> .OIt's
> .> obvious you DON'T. You are here to try (vainly) to REFUTE me. And you
> .aren't
> .> even aware that you CAN'T.
> .
> .No, no one is here to enjoy talking to you
>
> You just contradicted yourself. Earlier, you said they are talking with me
for
> "personal amusment".

Oh my gosh, Mike! You're right! Everything you say must be true! I am not
worthy of you magnanimous magnificence!

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

Hint: I'm being sarcastic.
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:43:55 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:17:25 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> .<[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .> .> .> .> Even supposing they do, how can you presume to
> .> .> .> .> .> .speak for them, or any other living creature for that
matter?
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .> Easy. The same way we speak for preliterate children. DUH!
> .> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .> .Have you ever been a paramecia Mike? We've all been children
so
> .we
> .> .> .have a
> .> .> .> .> .general idea of what children think.
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> We haven't been other people, but we speak for other people.
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .Yes, why do we do that? I wish we would stop. Most people who
claim
> .to
> .> .> .speak
> .> .> .> .for me are dead wrong.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> You would prefer that they not practice empathy?! I doubt that
they
> .are
> .> .as
> .> .> .wrong
> .> .> .> as you think.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I don't doubt their intentions, but only I know what I really
think.
> .> .>
> .> .> Don't be so sure. Humans are pretty good at guessing approximately
what
> .> .someone
> .> .> is thinking, and so are animals.
> .> .
> .> .But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm
> .thinking.
> .>
> .> What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are thinking
> .from what
> .> you say. DUH!
> .
> .So what are my opinions on mountain bikers, Mike?
>
> I don't remember if or what you said about them.

So you don't know what I'm thinking.

> .> .> .> .> Even then, we're only guessing. It's
> .> .> .> .> .rather similar to "saying what the dog is thinking".
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> It's the same as everything else: we observe BEHAVIOR and
infer
> .the
> .> .> .> .thinking
> .> .> .> .> that accompanies it, also using empathy. We know what all
species
> .> .need,
> .> .> .so
> .> .> .> .we
> .> .> .> .> can advocate that they get what they need. To pretend
otherwise
> .is
> .> .> .> .disingenuous.
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .So do animals have empathy? I doubt it, seeing as they're always
> .> .eating
> .> .> .each
> .> .> .> .other.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Of course they do. We have no other way of thinking about other
> .> .organisms.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .So because you can't comprehend it, it must not exist?
> .> .>
> .> .> I have no idea what you are talking about. My internet-mediated
empathy
> .> .isn't
> .> .> working.
> .> .
> .> .I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you can't
> .> .comprehend it not existing, it must exist".
> .>
> .> You haven't said what "it" is!
> .
> .Sorry if that wasn't clear. Empathy in animals.
>
> If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that of a
> chimpanzee by only 1.4%.

Nope, that's old data. It's more like 5%. Even 1.4% would be a huge
difference across the 3 billion nucleotides of the human geonome.
Furthermore, 97% of human DNA has no known function, so statistically only
2.85% of our DNA is significantly shared with chimps.

> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
> .> .empathy for telepathy.
> .>
> .> Not really.
> .
> .Yeah, actually you are.
>
> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the difference.

No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:51:17 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:43:55 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:17:25 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..> .<[email protected]>
..> .> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .> .> .> .> Even supposing they do, how can you presume to
..> .> .> .> .> .> .speak for them, or any other living creature for that
..matter?
..> .> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> .> Easy. The same way we speak for preliterate children. DUH!
..> .> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .> .Have you ever been a paramecia Mike? We've all been children
..so
..> .we
..> .> .> .have a
..> .> .> .> .> .general idea of what children think.
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> We haven't been other people, but we speak for other people.
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .Yes, why do we do that? I wish we would stop. Most people who
..claim
..> .to
..> .> .> .speak
..> .> .> .> .for me are dead wrong.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> You would prefer that they not practice empathy?! I doubt that
..they
..> .are
..> .> .as
..> .> .> .wrong
..> .> .> .> as you think.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .I don't doubt their intentions, but only I know what I really
..think.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Don't be so sure. Humans are pretty good at guessing approximately
..what
..> .> .someone
..> .> .> is thinking, and so are animals.
..> .> .
..> .> .But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm
..> .thinking.
..> .>
..> .> What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are thinking
..> .from what
..> .> you say. DUH!
..> .
..> .So what are my opinions on mountain bikers, Mike?
..>
..> I don't remember if or what you said about them.
..
..So you don't know what I'm thinking.

I didn't say that; YOU did.

..> .> .> .> .> Even then, we're only guessing. It's
..> .> .> .> .> .rather similar to "saying what the dog is thinking".
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> It's the same as everything else: we observe BEHAVIOR and
..infer
..> .the
..> .> .> .> .thinking
..> .> .> .> .> that accompanies it, also using empathy. We know what all
..species
..> .> .need,
..> .> .> .so
..> .> .> .> .we
..> .> .> .> .> can advocate that they get what they need. To pretend
..otherwise
..> .is
..> .> .> .> .disingenuous.
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .So do animals have empathy? I doubt it, seeing as they're always
..> .> .eating
..> .> .> .each
..> .> .> .> .other.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Of course they do. We have no other way of thinking about other
..> .> .organisms.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .So because you can't comprehend it, it must not exist?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> I have no idea what you are talking about. My internet-mediated
..empathy
..> .> .isn't
..> .> .> working.
..> .> .
..> .> .I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you can't
..> .> .comprehend it not existing, it must exist".
..> .>
..> .> You haven't said what "it" is!
..> .
..> .Sorry if that wasn't clear. Empathy in animals.
..>
..> If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that of a
..> chimpanzee by only 1.4%.
..
..Nope, that's old data. It's more like 5%. Even 1.4% would be a huge
..difference across the 3 billion nucleotides of the human geonome.
..Furthermore, 97% of human DNA has no known function, so statistically only
..2.85% of our DNA is significantly shared with chimps.

Reference? The latest I heard (from a professor of anatomy) is that bonobos are
even more than 98.6% identical to us.

..> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
..> .> .empathy for telepathy.
..> .>
..> .> Not really.
..> .
..> .Yeah, actually you are.
..>
..> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the difference.
..
..No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.

You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain bikers (or they
would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
===
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
 
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:51:16 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:43:54 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .> .> .reuters.html
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .Bill "just a wild guess" S.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Oh, right: the only reason someone would criticize mountain
..biking
..> .is
..> .> .that
..> .> .> .there
..> .> .> .> is something wrong with them. Right. Idiot.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .There's nothing necessarily wrong with somone who criticizes
..mountain
..> .> .> .biking. There IS something wrong with someone who equates mountain
..> .biking
..> .> .> .with evil,
..> .> .>
..> .> .> WHY? It IS evil.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> . ignores much more pertinent problems like horses or roads,
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Liar.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> makes
..> .> .> .vast generalizations about the intellegence and nature of mountain
..> .> .bikers,
..> .> .>
..> .> .> From a vast amount of experience.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .plays fast and loose with the words idiot, liar and DUH, refuses to
..> .stand
..> .> .> .down on issues where he has clearly been shown to be wrong,
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Hasn't happened yet!
..> .> .>
..> .> .> has been
..> .> .> .disowned by those who are on his side, has all the maturity and
..tact
..> .of a
..> .> .> .five-year-old, and posts to usenet every day for TEN FREAKIN' YEARS
..> .> .trying
..> .> .> .to convert people who don't care, who are beyond not caring to the
..> .point
..> .> .> .where they are provoking him and using him for their personal
..> .amusment.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You are lying. You don't sound amused.
..> .> .
..> .> .Mike, if that really is you (and I'm not so sure of this), you have
..just
..> .> .confirmed your kookdom.
..> .>
..> .> Hit the nail on the head, didn't I? No one is here to enjoy talking to
..me.
..> .OIt's
..> .> obvious you DON'T. You are here to try (vainly) to REFUTE me. And you
..> .aren't
..> .> even aware that you CAN'T.
..> .
..> .No, no one is here to enjoy talking to you
..>
..> You just contradicted yourself. Earlier, you said they are talking with me
..for
..> "personal amusment".
..
..Oh my gosh, Mike! You're right! Everything you say must be true! I am not
..worthy of you magnanimous magnificence!

You can say that again.
===
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
 
> .Oh my gosh, Mike! You're right! Everything you say must be true! I am not
> .worthy of you magnanimous magnificence!
>
> You can say that again.

Thank you for cutting out and/or ignoring the disclaimer: "Hint: I'm being
sarcastic".

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

Hint: This means that I'm not really thanking you.
 
> .> .> .But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm
> .> .thinking.
> .> .>
> .> .> What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are
thinking
> .> .from what
> .> .> you say. DUH!
> .> .
> .> .So what are my opinions on mountain bikers, Mike?
> .>
> .> I don't remember if or what you said about them.
> .
> .So you don't know what I'm thinking.
>
> I didn't say that; YOU did.

Why don't you look up-post a few lines? "I know approximately what you are
thinking from what you say."

Google, among other places, has a handy archive of everything posted to
usenet:

"To be honest, I don't mountain bike, and haven't for some time. I do a bit
of road biking, but it's only a minor hobby."
"Presumably, mountain bikers are louder than hikers. Overall, I believe
mountain bikers to be 'winning'."
"...I have no reason to be upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything,
I have a slight bias towards hiking..."
"So what if mountain biking causes damage? Everything causes damage!"
"For the second time, I'm not a mountain biker. I only play one on the
internet."

> .> .> .I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you
can't
> .> .> .comprehend it not existing, it must exist".
> .> .>
> .> .> You haven't said what "it" is!
> .> .
> .> .Sorry if that wasn't clear. Empathy in animals.
> .>
> .> If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that of a
> .> chimpanzee by only 1.4%.
> .
> .Nope, that's old data. It's more like 5%. Even 1.4% would be a huge
> .difference across the 3 billion nucleotides of the human geonome.
> .Furthermore, 97% of human DNA has no known function, so statistically
only
> .2.85% of our DNA is significantly shared with chimps.
>
> Reference? The latest I heard (from a professor of anatomy) is that
bonobos are
> even more than 98.6% identical to us.

Is National Geographic good enough for you? (http://tinyurl.com/5kuuf)

> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
> .> .>
> .> .> Not really.
> .> .
> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
> .>
> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
difference.
> .
> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
>
> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain bikers (or
they
> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).

It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to help. And
as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word) trails. I
only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to observe
proper trail etiquette, which is rare.


--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:44:23 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> .But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm
..> .> .thinking.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are
..thinking
..> .> .from what
..> .> .> you say. DUH!
..> .> .
..> .> .So what are my opinions on mountain bikers, Mike?
..> .>
..> .> I don't remember if or what you said about them.
..> .
..> .So you don't know what I'm thinking.
..>
..> I didn't say that; YOU did.
..
..Why don't you look up-post a few lines? "I know approximately what you are
..thinking from what you say."
..
..Google, among other places, has a handy archive of everything posted to
..usenet:
..
.."To be honest, I don't mountain bike, and haven't for some time. I do a bit
..of road biking, but it's only a minor hobby."
.."Presumably, mountain bikers are louder than hikers. Overall, I believe
..mountain bikers to be 'winning'."
.."...I have no reason to be upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything,
..I have a slight bias towards hiking..."
.."So what if mountain biking causes damage? Everything causes damage!"
.."For the second time, I'm not a mountain biker. I only play one on the
..internet."

That really says next to nothing. You keep your cards close to your chest.

..> .> .> .I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you
..can't
..> .> .> .comprehend it not existing, it must exist".
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You haven't said what "it" is!
..> .> .
..> .> .Sorry if that wasn't clear. Empathy in animals.
..> .>
..> .> If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that of a
..> .> chimpanzee by only 1.4%.
..> .
..> .Nope, that's old data. It's more like 5%. Even 1.4% would be a huge
..> .difference across the 3 billion nucleotides of the human geonome.
..> .Furthermore, 97% of human DNA has no known function, so statistically
..only
..> .2.85% of our DNA is significantly shared with chimps.
..>
..> Reference? The latest I heard (from a professor of anatomy) is that
..bonobos are
..> even more than 98.6% identical to us.
..
..Is National Geographic good enough for you? (http://tinyurl.com/5kuuf)

No, of course not! Steve Jones, a geneticist, in _Y_ (2003) said that chimps &
bonobos are about 99% identical to us genetically. Page 176. An interesting
book. 95% doesn't sound right.Heck, I think we have 40% or 50% in common with a
head of lettuce!

..> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
..> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Not really.
..> .> .
..> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
..> .>
..> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
..difference.
..> .
..> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
..>
..> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain bikers (or
..they
..> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
..
..It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to help. And
..as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word) trails. I
..only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to observe
..proper trail etiquette, which is rare.

I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes on the
trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the environment. That wouldn't
surprize me.
===
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
 
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:44:23 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> .But it's still guessing. And trust me, you have no idea what I'm
..> .> .thinking.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> What's wrong with guessing? I know approximately what you are
..thinking
..> .> .from what
..> .> .> you say. DUH!
..> .> .
..> .> .So what are my opinions on mountain bikers, Mike?
..> .>
..> .> I don't remember if or what you said about them.
..> .
..> .So you don't know what I'm thinking.
..>
..> I didn't say that; YOU did.
..
..Why don't you look up-post a few lines? "I know approximately what you are
..thinking from what you say."
..
..Google, among other places, has a handy archive of everything posted to
..usenet:
..
.."To be honest, I don't mountain bike, and haven't for some time. I do a bit
..of road biking, but it's only a minor hobby."
.."Presumably, mountain bikers are louder than hikers. Overall, I believe
..mountain bikers to be 'winning'."
.."...I have no reason to be upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything,
..I have a slight bias towards hiking..."
.."So what if mountain biking causes damage? Everything causes damage!"
.."For the second time, I'm not a mountain biker. I only play one on the
..internet."
..
..> .> .> .I suppose that should technically have been phrased "because you
..can't
..> .> .> .comprehend it not existing, it must exist".
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You haven't said what "it" is!
..> .> .
..> .> .Sorry if that wasn't clear. Empathy in animals.
..> .>
..> .> If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that of a
..> .> chimpanzee by only 1.4%.
..> .
..> .Nope, that's old data. It's more like 5%. Even 1.4% would be a huge
..> .difference across the 3 billion nucleotides of the human geonome.
..> .Furthermore, 97% of human DNA has no known function, so statistically
..only
..> .2.85% of our DNA is significantly shared with chimps.
..>
..> Reference? The latest I heard (from a professor of anatomy) is that
..bonobos are
..> even more than 98.6% identical to us.
..
..Is National Geographic good enough for you? (http://tinyurl.com/5kuuf)

You didn't read far enough: "Humans and chimps still differ by about one percent
in gene sequences, he said." Differences in non(protein)coding sequences aren't
important.

===
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
 
> .> .> If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that
of a
> .> .> chimpanzee by only 1.4%.
> .> .
> .> .Nope, that's old data. It's more like 5%. Even 1.4% would be a huge
> .> .difference across the 3 billion nucleotides of the human geonome.
> .> .Furthermore, 97% of human DNA has no known function, so statistically
> .only
> .> .2.85% of our DNA is significantly shared with chimps.
> .>
> .> Reference? The latest I heard (from a professor of anatomy) is that
> .bonobos are
> .> even more than 98.6% identical to us.
> .
> .Is National Geographic good enough for you? (http://tinyurl.com/5kuuf)
>
> No, of course not!

The National Academy of Sciences then?
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/21/13633) In any case, we're
talking about chimpanzees, which are our closest relatives. I can say now
that I've never seen a chimp on the trail.

> .> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
> .> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Not really.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
> .> .>
> .> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
> .difference.
> .> .
> .> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
> .>
> .> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain bikers (or
> .they
> .> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
> .
> .It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to help.
And
> .as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word)
trails. I
> .only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to
observe
> .proper trail etiquette, which is rare.
>
> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes on
the
> trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the environment. That
wouldn't
> surprize me.

Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just as
much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No right to
mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then neither do
hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're going to
anyway. Oh well, I tried.)

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back