User group cooperation key to success

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further
information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the
recreational use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental
effects on wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl,
continue to whittle away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife
onto a smaller footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the
variety in genetic possibilities for many of the species. In regards to
recreation, it also forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of
protection for the wildlife and access for human recreation in natural
areas for their own health and "peace of mind" benefits. While some
continue to cling to ideas that some forms of recreation are "better" than
others or that some forms of recreation be restricted or banned, it proves
to be counter-productive. These arguments focus on human access into an
ever decreasing footprint which causes friction between "user groups" that
would be better served to maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt
the sprawl that decreases available space in the first place.

This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as
shown below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside
sources and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense".

A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting,
June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or
systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The
website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these
presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough
information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE
UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was
split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000
ha was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The
conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge,
plus the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in
bobcat activity:

"The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition,
and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section
where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per
100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may
reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion
may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the
highway."

Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows
that "biodiversity conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife
preservation in many ways. First, it is the primary goal of national
wildlife refuges so the larger focus of effort is on biodiversity and
preservation. This is important to realize as these areas have a large
area footprint but are still finite in their borders. In regards to
recreational use, this is also a concern as other areas continue to be
threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes available space outside
of these refuges. The refuges then become even more a concern as the
habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study recognizes four
segments of the government land system. These are the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National Park System, and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific goals,
guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that represents
the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and protects the
greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The other areas of
management allow for any number of activities from recreation to resource
extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an extent. In
comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or natural area
decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must result in
more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While not the
stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the spread
of human construction is the central component of decreased natural area
and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study upon
habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF THE
GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:
LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear result
that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within any
given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity.

Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning
wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend
highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of
outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of
preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF
ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY
WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming.
Visits to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in
correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games,
computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With
a decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern.
How valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being
utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a
country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons
concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make
cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these
areas beyond another rooftop.

It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect
wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may
consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their
discussion, these persons often alienate a large voice that would
otherwise be in league with their efforts. Some of these discussions of
preservation often discard recreation as non-essential to the goals they
pursue. This continues to prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As
the footprint of habitat is decreased, the stress on wildlife is only
increased. That is a "given". However, the allowance of diversity in
recreation in many of these areas creates an economic foundation for
preservation as well as an interested and diverse human voice to speak for
it.

S Curtiss

It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a
change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a
negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will
come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser.

Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes
down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem. Curtiss
reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my narrow focus on
trail conflicts between hikers and bikers.

Regards,

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

Edward Dolan said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

snip, too much [censored] too read<

You girls wanna log-off now and get a damn room! And don't forget the
<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/17063.jpg>
____
Slack

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip, too much [censored] too read<

Yes, I misspelled to... so sue me.

"Slack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:op.tciir1o75jd7qu@slacker...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

snip, too much [censored] too read<

You girls wanna log-off now and get a damn room!

[...]

Just another idiot mountain biker expressing his frustration at his
inability to read anything longer than one sentence.

Regards,

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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further
information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the
recreational use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental
effects on wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl,
continue to whittle away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife
onto a smaller footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the
variety in genetic possibilities for many of the species. In regards to
recreation, it also forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of
protection for the wildlife and access for human recreation in natural
areas for their own health and "peace of mind" benefits. While some
continue to cling to ideas that some forms of recreation are "better" than
others or that some forms of recreation be restricted or banned, it proves
to be counter-productive. These arguments focus on human access into an
ever decreasing footprint which causes friction between "user groups" that
would be better served to maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt
the sprawl that decreases available space in the first place.

This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as
shown below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside
sources and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense".

A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting,
June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or
systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The
website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these
presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough
information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE
UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was
split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000
ha was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The
conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge,
plus the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in
bobcat activity:

"The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition,
and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section
where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per
100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may
reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion
may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the
highway."

Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows
that "biodiversity conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife
preservation in many ways. First, it is the primary goal of national
wildlife refuges so the larger focus of effort is on biodiversity and
preservation. This is important to realize as these areas have a large
area footprint but are still finite in their borders. In regards to
recreational use, this is also a concern as other areas continue to be
threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes available space outside
of these refuges. The refuges then become even more a concern as the
habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study recognizes four
segments of the government land system. These are the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National Park System, and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific goals,
guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that represents
the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and protects the
greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The other areas of
management allow for any number of activities from recreation to resource
extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an extent. In
comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or natural area
decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must result in
more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While not the
stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the spread
of human construction is the central component of decreased natural area
and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study upon
habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF THE
GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:
LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear result
that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within any
given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity.

Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning
wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend
highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of
outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of
preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF
ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY
WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming.
Visits to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in
correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games,
computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With
a decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern.
How valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being
utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a
country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons
concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make
cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these
areas beyond another rooftop.

It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect
wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may
consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their
discussion, these persons often alienate a large voice that would
otherwise be in league with their efforts. Some of these discussions of
preservation often discard recreation as non-essential to the goals they
pursue. This continues to prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As
the footprint of habitat is decreased, the stress on wildlife is only
increased. That is a "given". However, the allowance of diversity in
recreation in many of these areas creates an economic foundation for
preservation as well as an interested and diverse human voice to speak for
it.

BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue
abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF
recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then,
OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful
activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why
bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

S Curtiss

===
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 hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue
abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF
recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then,
OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful
activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why
bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road.

Can't you READ? Over the years the benefits of off-road cycling have been
shown and accepted as valid by those who plan and regulate access
nationwide. The benefits to preservation alone by the increase in numbers of
varied interest groups apparently flies right over your closed mind. The
decrease in visitation accounted for by increased interest in various
electronic media should be an indicator of the danger involved with
decreased interest. Less people to speak for preservation only increases the
danger of development. You want to restrict activities (off-road cycling,
for example) that adds to these numbers of interest...!? But you are
obviously unconcerned about the "big picture" as long as it includes a few
bicycles. This only continues to prove that it is not wildlife or habitat
you are concerned with but merely use as a scapegoat in attempting to
validate your opinion.
Beyond the added voice for preservation, the economic benefits to many areas
that recreation brings to their communities, the health benefits to the
participants, the added emphasis on cycling as an alternative form of
transportation (cycling in general gets a boost from off-road interest) and
the cross-over interest in the outdoors off the bike all come into play.
The FACT that you use your OPINIONS as a filter to judge the validity of
off-road cycling conitinues to add nails to the coffin of your credibility.

Beyond any of that, I only looked through this site (Society for
Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006)
(http://www.conbio.org/2006/) because you listed it on your site as having
presented your anti-cycling propoganda. Are you lying? I looked over the
list of abstracts submitted and guess what...? YOU weren't listed! I can't
find your name ANYWHERE on the site. Did you just add this thinking nobody
would follow up? Now, I know you've attended it before... But now you list
this one but are not shown as submitted...
It is also obvious, even if it was a clerical error and you did present,
that you are out of touch with much of what was actually presented. What I
read through certainly seems to support a more inclusive effort of
cooperation and positive conclusions.

You can use your OPINION to filter this flow of information all you wish.
However, you are being left behind by an ever increasing voice in research
and results and any credibility you ever had is being even further eroded.

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a
change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a
negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will
come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser.

Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes
down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem.
Curtiss reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my
narrow focus on trail conflicts between hikers and bikers.

Please. Don't help. Unlike MV, I do not need the comments of anyone who
advances rape, bigotry and self-proclaimed idiocy posted in association with
anything I may write. I have no use for the mindset that produces the
comments you have made elsewhere in this forum.

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

It seems

Uh, thats as far as I read.
Slack I think has the right idea for both of you, nice quiet evening in the
ghetto, and don't forget the female condom!! ( maybe steve and mike can get
matching tattoo's, like this...

http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/bz/y8081

Enjoy!!

D Drew

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:10:45 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue
abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF
recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then,
OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful
activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why
bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road.

Can't you READ? Over the years the benefits of off-road cycling

That's not what I said. There are no valid reasons for allowing BIKES
off-road! Learn to think (I know, it's hopeless).

have been

Quoted message said:

shown and accepted as valid by those who plan and regulate access
nationwide. The benefits to preservation alone by the increase in numbers of
varied interest groups apparently flies right over your closed mind. The
decrease in visitation accounted for by increased interest in various
electronic media should be an indicator of the danger involved with
decreased interest. Less people to speak for preservation only increases the
danger of development. You want to restrict activities (off-road cycling,
for example) that adds to these numbers of interest...!? But you are
obviously unconcerned about the "big picture" as long as it includes a few
bicycles. This only continues to prove that it is not wildlife or habitat
you are concerned with but merely use as a scapegoat in attempting to
validate your opinion.
Beyond the added voice for preservation, the economic benefits to many areas
that recreation brings to their communities, the health benefits to the
participants,

Which don't require biking off-road: you can WALK.

the added emphasis on cycling as an alternative form of

Quoted message said:

transportation (cycling in general gets a boost from off-road interest) and
the cross-over interest in the outdoors off the bike all come into play.
The FACT that you use your OPINIONS as a filter to judge the validity of
off-road cycling conitinues to add nails to the coffin of your credibility.

Beyond any of that, I only looked through this site (Society for
Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006)
(http://www.conbio.org/2006/) because you listed it on your site as having
presented your anti-cycling propoganda. Are you lying?

Of course not. Only mountain bikers need to do that.

I looked over the

Quoted message said:

list of abstracts submitted and guess what...? YOU weren't listed! I can't
find your name ANYWHERE on the site. Did you just add this thinking nobody
would follow up? Now, I know you've attended it before... But now you list
this one but are not shown as submitted...
It is also obvious, even if it was a clerical error and you did present,
that you are out of touch with much of what was actually presented. What I
read through certainly seems to support a more inclusive effort of
cooperation and positive conclusions.

You can use your OPINION to filter this flow of information all you wish.
However, you are being left behind by an ever increasing voice in research
and results and any credibility you ever had is being even further eroded.

BS. Not one paper presented supported mountain biking. Of course, you
already knew that. You just can't bear to tell the truth....
===
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 hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:10:45 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue
abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF
recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then,
OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful
activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why
bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road.

Can't you READ? Over the years the benefits of off-road cycling

That's not what I said. There are no valid reasons for allowing BIKES
off-road! Learn to think (I know, it's hopeless).

Your OPINION of the activity is not a filter to determine "good reasons".
Fortunately, you have been over-ruled by better minds who can appreciate the
factors of economics and strength in numbers in standing against
development.

Quoted message said:

have been

Quoted message said:

shown and accepted as valid by those who plan and regulate access
nationwide. The benefits to preservation alone by the increase in numbers
of
varied interest groups apparently flies right over your closed mind. The
decrease in visitation accounted for by increased interest in various
electronic media should be an indicator of the danger involved with
decreased interest. Less people to speak for preservation only increases
the
danger of development. You want to restrict activities (off-road cycling,
for example) that adds to these numbers of interest...!? But you are
obviously unconcerned about the "big picture" as long as it includes a few
bicycles. This only continues to prove that it is not wildlife or habitat
you are concerned with but merely use as a scapegoat in attempting to
validate your opinion.
Beyond the added voice for preservation, the economic benefits to many
areas
that recreation brings to their communities, the health benefits to the
participants,

Which don't require biking off-road: you can WALK.

Non-statement. Meaningless. Counter-productive.
The VARIETY of outdoor options is what generates the larger numbers of
voices to stand in a cooperative effort to slow development. You continue to
argue for decreased interest in preservation.

Quoted message said:

the added emphasis on cycling as an alternative form of

Quoted message said:

transportation (cycling in general gets a boost from off-road interest)
and
the cross-over interest in the outdoors off the bike all come into play.
The FACT that you use your OPINIONS as a filter to judge the validity of
off-road cycling conitinues to add nails to the coffin of your
credibility.

Beyond any of that, I only looked through this site (Society for
Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006)
(http://www.conbio.org/2006/) because you listed it on your site as having
presented your anti-cycling propoganda. Are you lying?

Of course not. Only mountain bikers need to do that.

Anecdotal. Generalization. Opinion.

Quoted message said:

I looked over the

Quoted message said:

list of abstracts submitted and guess what...? YOU weren't listed! I can't
find your name ANYWHERE on the site. Did you just add this thinking nobody
would follow up? Now, I know you've attended it before... But now you
list
this one but are not shown as submitted...
It is also obvious, even if it was a clerical error and you did present,
that you are out of touch with much of what was actually presented. What I
read through certainly seems to support a more inclusive effort of
cooperation and positive conclusions.

No comment here...? Did you lie by posting the 2006 SCB Meeting on your
site? Were you there? Did you present? Why are you not listed?
What else have you posted as "reference" without actually attending?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can use your OPINION to filter this flow of information all you wish.
However, you are being left behind by an ever increasing voice in research
and results and any credibility you ever had is being even further eroded.

BS. Not one paper presented supported mountain biking. Of course, you
already knew that. You just can't bear to tell the truth....

There were no papers showing support to ban "mountain biking". There were no
papers mentioning "mountain biking". Not even yours... Which you post on
your site as a credit, btw. (lying...?)
However, it seems there were more than one showing that "recreation" is
either not as detrimental as you claim in your OPINION, or that recreation
can be balanced in regards to preservation.

Quoted message said:

===

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Both Chris Foster and Steve Curtiss could not think their way out of a
burning barn. They are the twiddledum and twiddledee of Usenet idiots. I do
not believe I have ever encountered any bigger [censored] in my entire life.

Try looking in a mirror, you pathetic lonely loser.

Quoted message said:

Regards,

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

``````AKA the psycho in ward 7

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NUjtg.6818$wZ.2@trndny01...

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Both Chris Foster and Steve Curtiss could not think their way out of a
burning barn. They are the twiddledum and twiddledee of Usenet idiots. I
do
not believe I have ever encountered any bigger [censored] in my entire life.

JP wrote:

Try looking in a mirror, you pathetic lonely loser.

Edward Dolan wrote:

I am overwhelmed by my own Greatness and Holiness when I do so. I live in a
world of midgets and dwarfs on these freaking newsgroups whereas I am a
GIANT. There is no one worthy of Me. Yea, I am virtually a GOD compared to
those all around Me.

I would henceforth liked to be addressed as Your Highness, or Your Holiness,
or Your Worship. However, if you would really like to make an impression on
Me, you can address Me as Your Majesty. I will let you know when I become a
God at which point you will have other addresses with which to approach Me.
In any event, much bowing and scraping is always in order when in the
presence of One so magnificent as Myself.

Regards,

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

What constitutes success in a news group?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edward Dolan said:

How do you know that I am not a mass murderer? I am old and getting ready to
die and I would not mind in the least taking some [censored] like Curtiss with
me.

We don't. You could be a serial killer. Large scale is harder to cover up.
It takes nation states to do that. You would know my uncle who worked
at Dugway occasionally. He admitted to working on mass murder.

Usenet has already had its share of murderers and suicides and spies.
Search for Fabrikant in sci.engr.mech. He was posting less than an hour
before he went on his rampage.

I should go find the 1st post in the thread.
Sounds like another naive newbie rant.
This is Usenet. Controlled chaos.

--

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NUjtg.6818$wZ.2@trndny01...

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Both Chris Foster and Steve Curtiss could not think their way out of a
burning barn. They are the twiddledum and twiddledee of Usenet idiots. I
do
not believe I have ever encountered any bigger [censored] in my entire
life.

JP wrote:

Try looking in a mirror, you pathetic lonely loser.

Edward Dolan wrote:

I am overwhelmed by my own Greatness and Holiness when I do so. I live in
a world of midgets and dwarfs on these freaking newsgroups whereas I am a
GIANT. There is no one worthy of Me. Yea, I am virtually a GOD compared to
those all around Me.

ed on ed: June 28, 2006: "Usenet is strictly for idiots, [censored] and
jerks - positively no exceptions! When I am on Usenet I try to be the
biggest idiot, [censored] and jerk of them all. I set the standard for one and
all. I believe I can state with absolute assurance that I am the Greatest
Idiot, the Greatest [censored] and the Greatest Jerk that usenet has ever known
in its' long and dishonored history. For Christ's sakes, I prove it every
time I post. Can't any of you poor [censored] read?

Quoted message said:

I would henceforth liked to be addressed as Your Highness, or Your
Holiness, or Your Worship. However, if you would really like to make an
impression on Me, you can address Me as Your Majesty. I will let you know
when I become a God at which point you will have other addresses with
which to approach Me. In any event, much bowing and scraping is always in
order when in the presence of One so magnificent as Myself.

The only "bowing" is the doubling over with laughter at "little eddie the
grate, aka, faint edward the grate - order of the perpetual burro, aka, his
lie-ness, his holey-ness, his worthless, his miniature."

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Curtiss the Cretin does not want a peacemaker, so instead he is going to
get nothing but a war maker. Enjoy!

"Peacemaker" ROFLMAO! You think I'm just going to toss out your past
comments towards me and others because you make some comment that feigns
agreement? You do not get to claim the role of "peacemaker" after your
history of antagonism and childish retorts.

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news😄Aatg.7475$nK.6662@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Care to explain why you are so eager to post in support of one who has
posted racist comments, advocated violence on women, has threatened the
use of a firearm, claims to be the "Great Idiot" and that everyone
(including you) on usenet are also idiots...?

It is because at the moment we are united against cretins like you. Why
not do the world a service and go hang your miserable self. We do not need
your boiler plate nonsense on these forums. You are worse than the Devil
to want to wantonly destroy God's creation.

The basis for the post was cooperation to preserve. Now you are just being a
parrot to Vandy and regurgitating his myopic nonsense. And now you act as if
"these forums" have any validity when you have already stated "Usenet is
strictly for idiots, [censored] and jerks - positively no exceptions...." It
is no wonder you express desire for my demise... However, your request is
very disrespectfully denied.

Quoted message said:

Christ! I commend you for posting some original material and you object.
How did you get to be so freaking stupid, that is my one and only
question!

From practically day one you have attacked my character. You have acted
childish with your name-calling and nonsense. You have called upon racial
slurs and violence. I do not need, want or have any desire to be "commended"
by one such as you. Of course I object, little man. A commendation from you
is akin to accepting a humanitarian award from the ku klux klan.

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
> Care to explain why you are so eager to post in support of one who has
> posted racist comments, advocated violence on women, has threatened the
> use of a firearm, claims to be the "Great Idiot" and that everyone
> (including you) on usenet are also idiots...?

It is because at the moment we are united against cretins like you. Why
not do the world a service and go hang your miserable self. We do not
need your boiler plate nonsense on these forums. You are worse than the
Devil to want to wantonly destroy God's creation.

The basis for the post was cooperation to preserve. Now you are just
being a parrot to Vandy and regurgitating his myopic nonsense. And now
you act as if "these forums" have any validity when you have already
stated "Usenet is strictly for idiots, [censored] and jerks - positively no
exceptions...." It is no wonder you express desire for my demise...
However, your request is very disrespectfully denied.

I am only on Usenet for the fun of it. The minute it no longer is that, I
am gone. I will get off any newsgroup or any member of a newsgroup when I
am no longer having any fun. You are right on the edge, but at least you
are not into spouting obscenities and threats like your good buddy, Chris
Foster. I suspect he is more your typical mountain biker, ever a slob and
a bully.

So you think racist and feminine slurs, course language, name-calling and
false-bravado are fun...?
You think posting that way and then calling someone else a "slob" and a
"bully" have any meaning...?
You think you have any foundation to judge anybody...?

Pathetic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Christ! I commend you for posting some original material and you object.
How did you get to be so freaking stupid, that is my one and only
question!

From practically day one you have attacked my character. You have acted
childish with your name-calling and nonsense. You have called upon racial
slurs and violence. I do not need, want or have any desire to be
"commended" by one such as you. Of course I object, little man. A
commendation from you is akin to accepting a humanitarian award from the
ku klux klan [Ku Klux Klan].

I can only call them as I see them. Vandeman is quite right to treat you
with nothing but contempt. You are a violator and a destroyer of natural
beauty as you rampage on your freaking mountain bike on hiking trails in
my sacred wilderness. You have no shame at all. I believe you are one of
the most evil men who has ever existed. In fact, I think you may be the
Devil Himself for all I know!

Your belief, opinion and comment has no substance. You have proven it time
and again, little man.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:42:22 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:10:45 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>
> BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue
> abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF
> recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then,
> OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful
> activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why
> bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road.
>
Can't you READ? Over the years the benefits of off-road cycling

That's not what I said. There are no valid reasons for allowing BIKES
off-road! Learn to think (I know, it's hopeless).

Your OPINION of the activity is not a filter to determine "good reasons".
Fortunately, you have been over-ruled by better minds who can appreciate the
factors of economics and strength in numbers in standing against
development.

Quoted message said:

have been

Quoted message said:

shown and accepted as valid by those who plan and regulate access
nationwide. The benefits to preservation alone by the increase in numbers
of
varied interest groups apparently flies right over your closed mind. The
decrease in visitation accounted for by increased interest in various
electronic media should be an indicator of the danger involved with
decreased interest. Less people to speak for preservation only increases
the
danger of development. You want to restrict activities (off-road cycling,
for example) that adds to these numbers of interest...!? But you are
obviously unconcerned about the "big picture" as long as it includes a few
bicycles. This only continues to prove that it is not wildlife or habitat
you are concerned with but merely use as a scapegoat in attempting to
validate your opinion.
Beyond the added voice for preservation, the economic benefits to many
areas
that recreation brings to their communities, the health benefits to the
participants,

Which don't require biking off-road: you can WALK.

Non-statement. Meaningless. Counter-productive.
The VARIETY of outdoor options is what generates the larger numbers of
voices to stand in a cooperative effort to slow development. You continue to
argue for decreased interest in preservation.

Quoted message said:

the added emphasis on cycling as an alternative form of

Quoted message said:

transportation (cycling in general gets a boost from off-road interest)
and
the cross-over interest in the outdoors off the bike all come into play.
The FACT that you use your OPINIONS as a filter to judge the validity of
off-road cycling conitinues to add nails to the coffin of your
credibility.

Beyond any of that, I only looked through this site (Society for
Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006)
(http://www.conbio.org/2006/) because you listed it on your site as having
presented your anti-cycling propoganda. Are you lying?

Of course not. Only mountain bikers need to do that.

Anecdotal. Generalization. Opinion.

Quoted message said:

I looked over the

Quoted message said:

list of abstracts submitted and guess what...? YOU weren't listed! I can't
find your name ANYWHERE on the site. Did you just add this thinking nobody
would follow up? Now, I know you've attended it before... But now you
list
this one but are not shown as submitted...
It is also obvious, even if it was a clerical error and you did present,
that you are out of touch with much of what was actually presented. What I
read through certainly seems to support a more inclusive effort of
cooperation and positive conclusions.

No comment here...? Did you lie by posting the 2006 SCB Meeting on your
site? Were you there? Did you present? Why are you not listed?
What else have you posted as "reference" without actually attending?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can use your OPINION to filter this flow of information all you wish.
However, you are being left behind by an ever increasing voice in research
and results and any credibility you ever had is being even further eroded.

BS. Not one paper presented supported mountain biking. Of course, you
already knew that. You just can't bear to tell the truth....

There were no papers showing support to ban "mountain biking". There were no
papers mentioning "mountain biking". Not even yours... Which you post on
your site as a credit, btw. (lying...?)
However, it seems there were more than one showing that "recreation" is
either not as detrimental as you claim in your OPINION, or that recreation
can be balanced in regards to preservation.

Citations, please, no BS.
===
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 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:04:58 -0700, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Citations, please, no BS.
===

You need a citataion, alright, for having a low IQ in a high IQ speed zone.
____
Slack