|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
Ed Pirrero wrote:
Really? Which part is opinion? I see one in there, besides the invective. E.P. I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the readers' perceptions. Bruce Jensen |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of your research and facts as accurate? http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=4926 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=58298 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
Bruce Jensen wrote: Ed Pirrero wrote: Really? Which part is opinion? I see one in there, besides the invective. E.P. I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the readers' perceptions. OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion. Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the invective makes for difficult reading. Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out. Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts" as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things as "junk" science. No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. E.P. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out. Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts" as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things as "junk" science. No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. E.P. I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven impossible by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a mirror of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason. What I am trying to do is to rename the threads and possibly by example show others that the thread can be renamed with Subject lines that MV is not willing to pursue. Having thousands of posts follow his Subject title is to repeat the original lie that his subject espouses (Mountain Bikers kill hikers, Mountain Bikers destroy wilderness, Mountain Bikers break the law) which increases the probability of a Google hit and plants seeds in the weakminded. Repetition turns lies into truth for many as shown in past political elections. If you wish to engage in reasoned debate with MV you are wasting your time. (Yawn. Did you say something?) If you wish to do so anyway I would suggest changing the header. At least that reduces the appearence of his hijacking of the group. He has no interest in "wilderness" or "wildlife." His game is to control a group. By responding to the apparent though false message he posts one allows him to play his game with an unsuspecting dupe. The dupe replies using the same header and typically not snipping the original post. MV gets to see his subject and message repeated thousands of times, meanwhile he denigrates and uses "invective" until the rspondent tires and moves on. MV wins his twisted little game that his opponent didn't even realize was being played. I've decided to play with MV when I have the time. I'll control the header content. I'll snip the garbage in the message. I'll say "LIAR." I'll "yawn" when I'm done. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin"
after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his statement. He has called me a liar on numerous occasions. Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate. Saying that he doesn't adhere "Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Bruce Jensen wrote: Ed Pirrero wrote: Really? Which part is opinion? I see one in there, besides the invective. E.P. I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the readers' perceptions. OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion. Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the invective makes for difficult reading. Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out. Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts" as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things as "junk" science. No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. E.P. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Do you actually believe that he reads published, accredited journals?
"jason" wrote in message m... Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of your research and facts as accurate? http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=4926 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=58298 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
[Top-posting fixed]
Roberto Baggio wrote: "Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Bruce Jensen wrote: Ed Pirrero wrote: Really? Which part is opinion? I see one in there, besides the invective. I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the readers' perceptions. OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion. Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the invective makes for difficult reading. Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out. Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts" as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things as "junk" science. No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin" after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his statement. He has called me a liar on numerous occasions. Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate. Who said he doesn't? BTW, figure out how to post properly, OK? E.P. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
JP wrote: "Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out. Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts" as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things as "junk" science. No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. E.P. I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven impossible by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a mirror of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason. That's fine. Can you send it directly to him, and spare the rest of us? Thanks. E.P. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... JP wrote: "Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out. Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts" as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things as "junk" science. No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. E.P. I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven impossible by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a mirror of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason. That's fine. Can you send it directly to him, and spare the rest of us? Thanks. E.P. If "the rest of us" can refrain from answering his posts, fine. If they decide to engage him, I'm in. You can spare yourself anytime by not clicking the message. As far as my sending a direct response to a public post....NO. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
Top posting is a preference.
It saves time and effort for the reader already following a thread. "Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... [Top-posting fixed] Roberto Baggio wrote: "Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Bruce Jensen wrote: Ed Pirrero wrote: Really? Which part is opinion? I see one in there, besides the invective. I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the readers' perceptions. OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion. Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the invective makes for difficult reading. Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out. Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts" as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things as "junk" science. No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not entitled to their own set of facts. He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin" after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his statement. He has called me a liar on numerous occasions. Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate. Who said he doesn't? BTW, figure out how to post properly, OK? E.P. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist | Werehatrack | General | 2 | July 27th 06 02:49 PM |
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. | terrybigwheel | Unicycling | 10 | May 23rd 06 04:25 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" | matabala | Racing | 1 | August 23rd 05 04:49 PM |
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | January 4th 05 03:04 PM |