FINALLY a Bit of Honesty from a Mountain Biker!

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:58:52 -0700, wrote:

On Jun 28, 11:45 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:15:50 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:56:32 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:20 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:27:56 -0700,
wrote:
On Jun 12, 10:03 pm, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is
off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?

You're an idiot. What could pure habitat possibly be for a
human except net disadvantageous? You can't even admire it
visually.

Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3. We benefit from,
and in fact can't live without, other species. No surprize
that a mountain biker doesn't know that.

1) I have never mountain biked in my life, you cross post this
nonsense to the four winds.

2) You can't benefit from a species you exclude yourself from
all contact with. It's not a very easy point to miss.

Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant mountain bikers are.
The xygen you breathe is provided mostly by algae & bacteria in
the ocean. Etc.

1) I still don't mountain bike; you are still cross-posting this to
the four winds.
2) If I breathe their oxygen and they photosynthesize my carbon
dioxide, I haven't excluded myself from contact with them now have
I? You just named the method of contact, in fact.

So you are in contact with every species in the world? That's not
what "contact" means. Idiot.
--
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.)

Contact means among other things:

"Connection or interaction; communication: still in contact with my
former employer.
Visual observation: The pilot made contact with the ship.
Association; relationship: came into contact with new ideas at
college."

So you're wrong there too. Breathing someone else's air is being in
contact with them. QED.

Now you ghoulish, cross-posting fruitcake, what in the hell do
photosynthesizing bacteria have to do with your offlimits habitat? Is
that just a red herring or was it relevant in any way at all? You
want to make a habitat that is a net producer of oxygen? Again I ask:
what benefits are humans supposed to derive from your lunatic idea to
create an environment off limits to humans?

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!


Mike,
All species are dependent on the species that are in it surrounding
environment. The lion is dependent upon it's food source in the same
way we are, but I dont see lions protecting its prey.

Chris Foster
(100% off the grid)

PS You appear like a fool every time you use the DUH phrase

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!

This is ludicrous. We don't need to protect every species and we
don't need to set some aside in a place where they are out of
contact. In fact, being able to place them out of contact means we
aren't 100% dependent on them. You're just plain old insane aren't
you?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:27:58 -0700, wrote:

On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!

This is ludicrous. We don't need to protect every species

Name one species that we don't need to protect. Idiot.

and we
don't need to set some aside in a place where they are out of
contact. In fact, being able to place them out of contact means we
aren't 100% dependent on them. You're just plain old insane aren't
you?
--
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

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:56:17 -0700, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:27:58 -0700, wrote:

On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!

This is ludicrous. We don't need to protect every species

Name one species that we don't need to protect.


Ok, let's start with you, Dumb-ass.
--
Slack

On Jul 3, 12:56 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:27:58 -0700, wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!

This is ludicrous. We don't need to protect every species

Name one species that we don't need to protect. Idiot.

Yersinia.

And you failed to answer the point of how humans being dependent on
SOME species to survive, not Yersinia, doesn't relate at all to ruling
a habitat off limits to humans. You are chock full of non sequiturs,
genius.

On 02 Jul 2007 16:05:20 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:58:52 -0700, wrote:

On Jun 28, 11:45 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:15:50 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:56:32 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:20 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:27:56 -0700,
wrote:
On Jun 12, 10:03 pm, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is
off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?

You're an idiot. What could pure habitat possibly be for a
human except net disadvantageous? You can't even admire it
visually.

Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3. We benefit from,
and in fact can't live without, other species. No surprize
that a mountain biker doesn't know that.

1) I have never mountain biked in my life, you cross post this
nonsense to the four winds.

2) You can't benefit from a species you exclude yourself from
all contact with. It's not a very easy point to miss.

Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant mountain bikers are.
The xygen you breathe is provided mostly by algae & bacteria in
the ocean. Etc.

1) I still don't mountain bike; you are still cross-posting this to
the four winds.
2) If I breathe their oxygen and they photosynthesize my carbon
dioxide, I haven't excluded myself from contact with them now have
I? You just named the method of contact, in fact.

So you are in contact with every species in the world? That's not
what "contact" means. Idiot.
--
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.)

Contact means among other things:

"Connection or interaction; communication: still in contact with my
former employer.
Visual observation: The pilot made contact with the ship.
Association; relationship: came into contact with new ideas at
college."

So you're wrong there too. Breathing someone else's air is being in
contact with them. QED.

Now you ghoulish, cross-posting fruitcake, what in the hell do
photosynthesizing bacteria have to do with your offlimits habitat? Is
that just a red herring or was it relevant in any way at all? You
want to make a habitat that is a net producer of oxygen? Again I ask:
what benefits are humans supposed to derive from your lunatic idea to
create an environment off limits to humans?

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!


Mike,
All species are dependent on the species that are in it surrounding
environment. The lion is dependent upon it's food source in the same
way we are, but I dont see lions protecting its prey.

They don't need to. their prey has had millions of years to adapt to
them, and they know how to protect themselves. Humans haven't been
around long enough for that to happen. DUH!

Chris Foster
(100% off the grid)

PS You appear like a fool every time you use the DUH phrase
--
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

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:03:38 -0700, wrote:

On Jul 3, 12:56 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:27:58 -0700, wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!

This is ludicrous. We don't need to protect every species

Name one species that we don't need to protect. Idiot.

Yersinia.

And you failed to answer the point of how humans being dependent on
SOME species to survive, not Yersinia, doesn't relate at all to ruling
a habitat off limits to humans. You are chock full of non sequiturs,
genius.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/disea...ersinia_g.htm:

"Only a few strains of Y. enterocolitica cause illness in humans."

So how do you know that this species isn't important to our survival?
I don't think you've given it even a moment's thought, much less any
real investigation. That's the kind of ignorance that has led to the
current extinction crisis.
--
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

On Jul 4, 1:41 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:03:38 -0700, wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:56 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:27:58 -0700, wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!

This is ludicrous. We don't need to protect every species

Name one species that we don't need to protect. Idiot.

Yersinia.

And you failed to answer the point of how humans being dependent on
SOME species to survive, not Yersinia, doesn't relate at all to ruling
a habitat off limits to humans. You are chock full of non sequiturs,
genius.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/disea...ersinia_g.htm:

"Only a few strains of Y. enterocolitica cause illness in humans."

So how do you know that this species isn't important to our survival?

How do you know that it is? The evidence here is that it is counter
to survival causing little things like the plague. Your evidence that
it is vital to humanity? Nothing at all, just pointless naysaying?
Ah, I thought so. Thanks for playing, try again.

The evidence is that not every species has anything at all to do with
human survival. Anyway, are you proposing to set up an environment
for the plague to live happily? Not all species are vital to
humanity; that only comes from the evidence that exists, not your wild
eyed thought experiments, so pardon my fuddy duddy empiricism.

I don't think you've given it even a moment's thought, much less any
real investigation. That's the kind of ignorance that has led to the
current extinction crisis.

Says the guy who delights in dead cyclists and presents no counter
arguments. Real genius.

--
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 02 Jul 2007 16:05:20 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:58:52 -0700, wrote:

On Jun 28, 11:45 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:15:50 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:56:32 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:20 am, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:27:56 -0700,
wrote:
On Jun 12, 10:03 pm, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is
off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?

You're an idiot. What could pure habitat possibly be for a
human except net disadvantageous? You can't even admire it
visually.

Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3. We benefit from,
and in fact can't live without, other species. No surprize
that a mountain biker doesn't know that.

1) I have never mountain biked in my life, you cross post this
nonsense to the four winds.

2) You can't benefit from a species you exclude yourself from
all contact with. It's not a very easy point to miss.

Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant mountain bikers are.
The xygen you breathe is provided mostly by algae & bacteria in
the ocean. Etc.

1) I still don't mountain bike; you are still cross-posting this
to
the four winds.
2) If I breathe their oxygen and they photosynthesize my carbon
dioxide, I haven't excluded myself from contact with them now
have
I? You just named the method of contact, in fact.

So you are in contact with every species in the world? That's not
what "contact" means. Idiot.
--
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.)

Contact means among other things:

"Connection or interaction; communication: still in contact with my
former employer.
Visual observation: The pilot made contact with the ship.
Association; relationship: came into contact with new ideas at
college."

So you're wrong there too. Breathing someone else's air is being in
contact with them. QED.

Now you ghoulish, cross-posting fruitcake, what in the hell do
photosynthesizing bacteria have to do with your offlimits habitat?
Is
that just a red herring or was it relevant in any way at all? You
want to make a habitat that is a net producer of oxygen? Again I
ask:
what benefits are humans supposed to derive from your lunatic idea
to
create an environment off limits to humans?

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!


Mike,
All species are dependent on the species that are in it surrounding
environment. The lion is dependent upon it's food source in the same
way we are, but I dont see lions protecting its prey.

They don't need to. their prey has had millions of years to adapt to
them, and they know how to protect themselves. Humans haven't been
around long enough for that to happen. DUH!

Chris Foster
(100% off the grid)

PS You appear like a fool every time you use the DUH phrase



Mike,
Lets stay focused on the subject at hand.

You stated :
Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!


I stated :
All species are dependent on the species that are in it surrounding
environment......... but I dont see lions protecting its prey.


PS You still look like a fool every time you use the DUH phrase


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:00:50 -0700, wrote:

On Jul 4, 1:41 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:03:38 -0700, wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:56 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:27:58 -0700, wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:42 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Since humans are 100% dependent on other species, we need to protect
them. DUH!

This is ludicrous. We don't need to protect every species

Name one species that we don't need to protect. Idiot.

Yersinia.

And you failed to answer the point of how humans being dependent on
SOME species to survive, not Yersinia, doesn't relate at all to ruling
a habitat off limits to humans. You are chock full of non sequiturs,
genius.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/disea...ersinia_g.htm:

"Only a few strains of Y. enterocolitica cause illness in humans."

So how do you know that this species isn't important to our survival?

How do you know that it is?

Easy: all species are important to the maintenance of our ecosystem.
This has been proven over and over. To believe otherwise is the
height of arrogance, especially without any evidence. That's why the
Endangered Species Act protects them. Humans just don't understand
anything as complex as an ecosystem, and thus can never be sure that a
given species is not important.

The evidence here is that it is counter
to survival causing little things like the plague. Your evidence that
it is vital to humanity? Nothing at all, just pointless naysaying?
Ah, I thought so. Thanks for playing, try again.

The evidence is that not every species has anything at all to do with
human survival. Anyway, are you proposing to set up an environment
for the plague to live happily? Not all species are vital to
humanity; that only comes from the evidence that exists, not your wild
eyed thought experiments, so pardon my fuddy duddy empiricism.

I don't think you've given it even a moment's thought, much less any
real investigation. That's the kind of ignorance that has led to the
current extinction crisis.

Says the guy who delights in dead cyclists

Liar. I am just warning people. You'd rather that people be killed and
that we keep quiet about it, so that it happens again.

and presents no counter
arguments. Real genius.

--
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
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