|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message news On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:46:19 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:01:30 GMT, jason wrote: 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? Where in my signature do you see the word "cancer"? Idiot. Then what danger are you referring to if not previous (and controversial) studies linking cell phones to cancer? "Benign" tumors on the auditory nerve (done in Sweden). Breakdown of the blood-brain barrier. Etc. Non-conclusive in light of more recent information. Hardly scientific to cast opinions in concrete as information constantly changes... |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. Neither do hiking shoes. Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite. No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal damage to trails Repeating that lie doesn't make it true. That "lie" is backed up by scientists who are accredited and publish in peer-reviewed journals. Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.) Mike, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You know the references I am referring to very well, as you've cited them in the pieces of trash you continually post here. (Just as I said: you can't!!!!!) It's on your site. Try reading YOUR OWN bibliography, moron. Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut up. Wilson and Seney is published in MRD, which is peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS. Don't you read the **** you write, Mike? "Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words, it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal. Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is: This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant". If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common sense. Just because you don't agree with the *actual research* doesn't change it. How can you be so blind? I mean, everything you say flies in the face of real science. Your idiotic thread on cell phones causing cancer, for example. You cannot argue with data! Yet you continue your flaming diatribes . . with no results except for a rather large peanut gallery telling you to take a hike . . or drop off the planet. You do not, and your opinion is therefore meaningless. Get the picture? === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote: Roberto Baggio wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. So being fair to minorities is a bad thing? You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand. Do you want me to spell it out for you, moron? Describing negative experiences with mountain bikers is being honest. Extrapolating those experiences to EVERY mountain biker is bigotry. Nope, it's called "observation". Again, you have done nothing to demonstrate anything but wild speculation. Observation does in no case warrant such ridiculous extrapolation or zealous rhetoric. If you were a scientist, you would realize this. Obviously, you are not. Observations are the foundation of science. DUH! Yes, but only when applied within the framework of a scientific methodology (which has been employed in various studies that show mountain biking to be of comparable impact to hiking). 1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well know. Again, you mistake your opinion of the studies with one that is relevant. Your voice is meaningless, as we have established. Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either then or now. 2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are "comparable". It means nothing. Obviously the meaning I implied was "similar". Grasping at straws, as usual. Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks for demonstrating your total ignorance of science. But what can one expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a man! Try a dictionary, asshole. Yes. This has been amply established. === === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
Mike Vandeman wrote in
: On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:38:42 GMT, wizardB wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote: wrote in message ps.com... Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...06/12/03/SPG4O MO5321.DTL&hw=Tom+Stienstra&sn=001&sc=1000 So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you didn't quote any.) Wrong, you poor wannabe naturalist. Your unsubstantiated opinion is the LIE. Yu haven't cited evidence to back any of your claims. Ever. Your website is not proof. But you can't help it. There is no evidence that supports any of your claims. No legitimate agenmcy will give you the time of day. That is why your sad little impotent quest gets played out on AMB 1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them. Nope, restrictions are allowed. That's why Yosmite National Park doesn't allow mountain biking. That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses running on trails...LIAR!!!! 2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your opinion. \Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do. Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not belong in public. LIAR!!! 3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact hikers like wider trails. You know that's a lie. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!! 4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS LIE. Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do. 5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to walk. Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking trail. So what? He can still walk. But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke Vandeman. And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet can ride. LIAR!!! Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the damage caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!! Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North America and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights. Once again proving your an idiot horses were brought to North America by the Spaniards you dolt Yes, but THE HORSE evolved in North America long before that! DUH! True, but then died out along with the along with the mammoths and saber- tooth tigers. The horses of today are not descendants of horses that were native to North America. Do they still have rights? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html Actually, the US Constitution is the only document that gives US citizens any 'rights' in the United States. If you think I am wrong, fly to Cuba and start spewing your bull **** there, see how long you end up in prison. Horses are not mentioned in the Constitution, so they don't have any rights at all. Mike To be credible, you need proof/evidance Something not written by yourself that others agee with Yawn......did you say something??? === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. Neither do hiking shoes. Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite. No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal damage to trails Repeating that lie doesn't make it true. That "lie" is backed up by scientists who are accredited and publish in peer-reviewed journals. Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.) Mike, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You know the references I am referring to very well, as you've cited them in the pieces of trash you continually post here. (Just as I said: you can't!!!!!) It's on your site. Try reading YOUR OWN bibliography, moron. Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut up. Wilson and Seney is published in MRD, which is peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS. Don't you read the **** you write, Mike? "Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " snip irrelevant opinion Mike, I didn't ask for your opinion, because I don't care about it (because it's biased, unmeritorious opinion). I did, however, give you a research study that was peer-reviewed. So it's now your turn to shut up. If you want someone to listen to your POS "literature review", why don't you submit it for peer review and have it published? I'm not sure you are aware, but there are journals dedicated to review articles of this nature. If you're able to get it published, come on back and maybe we'll read it. We both know that will never happen, however, as your article is nothing but bigoted, zealous rhetoric. Get it? Just because you don't agree with the *actual research* doesn't change it. How can you be so blind? I mean, everything you say flies in the face of real science. Your idiotic thread on cell phones causing cancer, for example. You cannot argue with data! Yet you continue your flaming diatribes . . with no results except for a rather large peanut gallery telling you to take a hike . . or drop off the planet. You do not, and your opinion is therefore meaningless. Get the picture? === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message news On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP" wrote: \Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do. Specious nonsense. Bikes do not ride without a cyclist atop. Cyclists have rights. Idiot. Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not belong in public. LIAR!!! 3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact hikers like wider trails. You know that's a lie. Not so. Pedestrian traffic in the woods is not always single file. The footprint of the bike is cushioned by a wide tire, lessening the impact of human weight on the surface. In addition the bicycle rolls along the surface, it doesn't travel in a series of impacts like the pedestrian. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!! 4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS LIE. Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do. Nonsense LIAR. That is a self serving opinion. 5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to walk. Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking trail. So what? He can still walk. The point is he can't. He hobbles in severe pain. But you really don't care. This is not about access wilderness, protection of nature or and of the rest of your phony hypothesis. Pure and simple, you are anti bike for reasons yet undisclosed. When you stop lying perhaps real dialogue can ensue. Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North America and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights. Horses are plains aniimals. Their "rights" are not the topic of discussion. The destruction they cause to trails is the point you conveniently evade. That is the result of the rider directing the animal where it does not belong. The bike rider can use trails responsibly, the horse rider cannot. Additionally the bike rider can always control his bicycle. Not so the horse rider. But your lies ignore that. Doesn't matter really. You are a solitary voice, impotent in your quest. The only attention you get is here, in AMB. What a pathetic way to spend your time. Gotta go. I'm bored with you now. Yawn.............................. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote: Roberto Baggio wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. So being fair to minorities is a bad thing? You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand. Do you want me to spell it out for you, moron? Describing negative experiences with mountain bikers is being honest. Extrapolating those experiences to EVERY mountain biker is bigotry. Nope, it's called "observation". Again, you have done nothing to demonstrate anything but wild speculation. Observation does in no case warrant such ridiculous extrapolation or zealous rhetoric. If you were a scientist, you would realize this. Obviously, you are not. Observations are the foundation of science. DUH! Yes, but only when applied within the framework of a scientific methodology (which has been employed in various studies that show mountain biking to be of comparable impact to hiking). 1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well know. Again, you mistake your opinion of the studies with one that is relevant. Your voice is meaningless, as we have established. Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either then or now. Mike, conferences are not forums for serious peer-review (as in "get this **** out of here", which is surely what everyone in those forums was thinking). Questions are generally directed at elucidating details of the studies. In any case, these are NOT PEER-REVIEWED, as you are well aware. End of story. You present opinion, and nothing more. Try DOING RESEARCH. You are not a scientist, and by calling yourself one you insult the entire community. 2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are "comparable". It means nothing. Obviously the meaning I implied was "similar". Grasping at straws, as usual. Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks for demonstrating your total ignorance of science. Well, first of all, comparable and similar are both acceptable in this context, despite your semantic flailing. You may argue over the details, but both are acceptable to imply that effects are on the same order of magnitude, and therefore comparable and similar. Secondly, I don't need to defend myself as a scientist in this situation. You do, however, if you wish to attain any credibility. (Hint: you have none). I will say, however, I was first published in a peer-reviewed journal at much less than half your age. So your argument holds no water. But what can one expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a man! Mike, I - unlike you - have a career in science ahead of me. God forbid some freaking lunatic like you decide to do something stupid. Need I point out the irony in you pointing out that you are a man ?! Try a dictionary, asshole. Yes. This has been amply established. === === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Really? I found several references that discourage it. And nothing but that wiki article on pointing out errors. \ The references (I found them too) were opinion, presented by various commenters. Nothing hard and fast, except that there are no rules If you read from top to bottom, that's the only reason to post in a fashion that reads like a conversation. Only in a case like this where we are going point to point. If only one point is being addressed, which is more common on USENET top posting makes the most sense, it saves one having to scan through previously read material looking for one or two lines. Not only that, but leaving the rest untrimmed *really* violates netiquette. Full-quoting is another term to look up. I don't need controlling personalities to direct my research. You are free to look up what you wish of course. Unfortunately, full-quoting AND top-posting often go hand-in-hand. Trim what you're not replying to, post underneath, in logical reading order, and give credibility to your flames of MJV by not name-calling. Everyone gets what they want, right? Your opinion on top-posting differs from mine and I'm sure the difference will continue. My practice reflects my logical POV, and how I absorb information. Since there are no rules anyhow this discussion is merely about preference. And in clarification, I did not flame MV. I responded to him in the language of his own kind, as a courtesy, in order that he could more readily understand the post. Interestingly you did not take your criticism of poor netiquette to him. Maybe that means you approve of his method of posting? JP |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
JP wrote: "Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com... Really? I found several references that discourage it. And nothing but that wiki article on pointing out errors. Right. There are also no rules against belching in public or chewing with your mouth open. People are polite out of consideration for others, not because of some law or other. The references (I found them too) were opinion, presented by various commenters. Nothing hard and fast, except that there are no rules If you read from top to bottom, that's the only reason to post in a fashion that reads like a conversation. I agree that top-posting is common. All sorts of rude behavior is common (cell phone conversations in public, fer instance), but that doesn't make it less rude. Proper trimming avoids having to wade through all sorts of previous crap. Only in a case like this where we are going point to point. If only one point is being addressed, which is more common on USENET top posting makes the most sense, it saves one having to scan through previously read material looking for one or two lines. Not only that, but leaving the rest untrimmed *really* violates netiquette. Full-quoting is another term to look up. Nice non sequitur. Full-quoting is boorish, and top-posters full-quote more often than not. I don't need controlling personalities to direct my research. You are free to look up what you wish of course. Unfortunately, full-quoting AND top-posting often go hand-in-hand. Trim what you're not replying to, post underneath, in logical reading order, and give credibility to your flames of MJV by not name-calling. Everyone gets what they want, right? Yeah, logic. When books are read back-to-front, top-posting becomes logical. Your opinion on top-posting differs from mine and I'm sure the difference will continue. My practice reflects my logical POV, and how I absorb information. Since there are no rules anyhow this discussion is merely about preference. I don't post replies to Vandeman. He's an idiot, and doesn't deserve the attention. I hope you found this to be more readable, after all, interspersed postings make more sense if you post in the logical place, which is above the quoted text, right? Oh, wait... And in clarification, I did not flame MV. I responded to him in the language of his own kind, as a courtesy, in order that he could more readily understand the post. Interestingly you did not take your criticism of poor netiquette to him. Maybe that means you approve of his method of posting? E.P. A: Top-posters Q: What's the nmost annoying thing in usenet? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:27:07 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:37:29 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. Exaggeration. Sensationalism. Fabrication. Show us where cyclists have "exclusive use" of the public trail system. It's a proposal. It's an OPINION. Please explain how interest in the outdoors (including hiking) continues to GROW if off-road cyclists are chasing everyone away. It isn't. It's decreasing. National parks are losing visitors. I didn't say National Parks. I said the OUTDOORS. Can't you read? National Parks are brcoming difficult to visit (higher gas prices) while interest in other options are becoming more available. Numbers are also fluctuating but not so drastically as being claimed. While they do show a trend lending to an overall decline, the factors involved do not include off-road cycling chasing people out You are lying again. I have seen numerous parks where hikers & equestrians were driven out by the presence of mountain bikers. Anecdotal and meaningless. BS. Anecdotal evidence was enough to win the 1994 federal lawsuit against IMBA and close trails to bikes. Your opinions automatically suspect cycling with total disregard to any other factors. (most National Parks do not allow off-road cycling). It is the more local and available public access land that is attracting people with a wide variety of outdoor options. Your attempt to throw cycling under the bus as a cause for National Parks' decline is simply a stupid gesture of impotence. It hasn't happened, luckily. But every hiking trail with lots of mountain bikers on it will eventually drive away all the hikers. OPINION. It is easy to say sensational things in attempts to sway emotion and public attention. Fortunately, it also easy to locate the TRUTH about outdoor cooperation and safety. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
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 08:21 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 04:04 PM |