"Mountain biker dies from fall off cliff": Evolution in Action!

On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:30:59 GMT, "Is this trip REALLY necessary?"
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote in
:
..
..Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical interpretations.
..It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how it should
..be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done nothing but
..insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop the act.
..
..Done. Later.
..
..Ikonicus
..1-202-518-1515
..415-203-1513

Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously. MAYBE.
===
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" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:30:59 GMT, "Is this trip REALLY necessary?"
wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote in
:
.
.Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical
interpretations.
.It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how it
should
.be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done nothing
but
.insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop the
act.
.
.Done. Later.
.
.Ikonicus
.1-202-518-1515
.415-203-1513

Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously. MAYBE.

As you are someone with links to a cult, namely synanon, with a history of
violent retribution against people disagreeing with them, I find it
interesting you constantly ask this same question, wanting personal details.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:14:25 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
.. On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:30:59 GMT, "Is this trip REALLY necessary?"
.. wrote:
..
.. .Mike Vandeman wrote in
.. :
.. .
.. .Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical
..interpretations.
.. .It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how it
..should
.. .be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done nothing
..but
.. .insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop the
..act.
.. .
.. .Done. Later.
.. .
.. .Ikonicus
.. .1-202-518-1515
.. .415-203-1513
..
.. Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously. MAYBE.
..
..As you are someone with links to a cult, namely synanon, with a history of
..violent retribution against people disagreeing with them, I find it
..interesting you constantly ask this same question, wanting personal details.

I take it back. Stay as paranoid as you are.
===
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 wrote in
. :
. .
. .Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical
.interpretations.
. .It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how it
.should
. .be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done
nothing
.but
. .insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop the
.act.
. .
. .Done. Later.
. .
. .Ikonicus
. .1-202-518-1515
. .415-203-1513
.
. Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously. MAYBE.
.
.As you are someone with links to a cult, namely synanon, with a history
of
.violent retribution against people disagreeing with them, I find it
.interesting you constantly ask this same question, wanting personal
details.

I take it back. Stay as paranoid as you are.


Paranoid?

I think you fail to understand the meaning of that word, personally , I
think its sensible not to give someone with obvious mental problems my
personal details, the fact you have in the last couple of weeks, asked
several people for thir names to go along with thier email and isp detail
you get from headers is telling in itself.

On Sun, 29 May 2005 08:48:13 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

..
.." .
.. . .Mike Vandeman wrote in
.. . :
.. . .
.. . .Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical
.. .interpretations.
.. . .It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how it
.. .should
.. . .be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done
..nothing
.. .but
.. . .insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop the
.. .act.
.. . .
.. . .Done. Later.
.. . .
.. . .Ikonicus
.. . .1-202-518-1515
.. . .415-203-1513
.. .
.. . Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously. MAYBE.
.. .
.. .As you are someone with links to a cult, namely synanon, with a history
..of
.. .violent retribution against people disagreeing with them, I find it
.. .interesting you constantly ask this same question, wanting personal
..details.
..
.. I take it back. Stay as paranoid as you are.
..
..
..Paranoid?
..
..I think you fail to understand the meaning of that word, personally , I
..think its sensible not to give someone with obvious mental problems my
..personal details, the fact you have in the last couple of weeks, asked
..several people for thir names to go along with thier email and isp detail
..you get from headers is telling in itself.

Failure to give one's real name is a sure sign of dishonesty.
===
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" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2005 08:48:13 GMT, "Mark"
wrote:

.
." .
. . .Mike Vandeman wrote in
. . :
. . .
. . .Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical
. .interpretations.
. . .It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how
it
. .should
. . .be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done
.nothing
. .but
. . .insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop
the
. .act.
. . .
. . .Done. Later.
. . .
. . .Ikonicus
. . .1-202-518-1515
. . .415-203-1513
. .
. . Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously.
MAYBE.
. .
. .As you are someone with links to a cult, namely synanon, with a
history
.of
. .violent retribution against people disagreeing with them, I find it
. .interesting you constantly ask this same question, wanting personal
.details.
.
. I take it back. Stay as paranoid as you are.
.
.
.Paranoid?
.
.I think you fail to understand the meaning of that word, personally , I
.think its sensible not to give someone with obvious mental problems my
.personal details, the fact you have in the last couple of weeks, asked
.several people for thir names to go along with thier email and isp detail
.you get from headers is telling in itself.

Failure to give one's real name is a sure sign of dishonesty.

When dealing with a normal, rational person, maybe.

When dealing with a paranoid, obsessed, angry person such as yourself, it's
a sure sign of wisdom.

GG

===
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" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2005 08:48:13 GMT, "Mark"
wrote:

.
." .
. . .Mike Vandeman wrote in
. . :
. . .
. . .Nature is of itself and is not limited to your hypocritical
. .interpretations.
. . .It is not for the likes of you to either define what it is or how
it
. .should
. . .be appreciated by anyone other than for yourself. You have done
.nothing
. .but
. . .insult and degrade the very thing you claim to be protecting. Drop
the
. .act.
. . .
. . .Done. Later.
. . .
. . .Ikonicus
. . .1-202-518-1515
. . .415-203-1513
. .
. . Use your real name, and maybe someone would take you seriously.
MAYBE.
. .
. .As you are someone with links to a cult, namely synanon, with a
history
.of
. .violent retribution against people disagreeing with them, I find it
. .interesting you constantly ask this same question, wanting personal
.details.
.
. I take it back. Stay as paranoid as you are.
.
.
.Paranoid?
.
.I think you fail to understand the meaning of that word, personally , I
.think its sensible not to give someone with obvious mental problems my
.personal details, the fact you have in the last couple of weeks, asked
.several people for thir names to go along with thier email and isp detail
.you get from headers is telling in itself.

Failure to give one's real name is a sure sign of dishonesty.

On what grounds do you make this statement?

Please show, with valid data from a peer reviewed , acknowledged expert that
people who dont include their personal details posting to usenet are more
dishonest than those that do.

Or is that another of your 'truths' that cant be proven because they simply
arent true?

On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:01:23 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

On 24 May 2005 05:36:33 -0700, "ray" wrote:

.Vandeman, you're an imbecile, if were all such liars and no hopers for
.your way of thinking, why dont you just post somewhere else, where
.people actually give a flying F*** about what you think, instead of
.wasting valuable tree hugging time here. Shall I tell you why?

Because sane people also read these newsgroups.

So not only do you post here, but also sane people do?

.You and I both know, you like the attention pure and simple,

Nope. I could care less whether anyone responds or not. If you DON'T, than I win
by default: no one would be here to refute me (not that you can even when you
TRY!).

You desperately want responses, like any other Usenet troll who has no
other life. The only way you make an impact in the world is by
deliberately annoying people.

If you are ignored, you do not "win by default" except in your own
mind. But you don't care about your stated cause, you are only here to
argue with people. Just like the Monty Python sketch, except for the
being funny part.

It is impossible to refute you because you are incapable of respecting
other people and what they say, unless agreeing with you. Your
self-definition of the truth as agreement with you means that you are
completely incapable of acknowledging reality.

Thanks for demonstrating the low-life character of mountain bikers. I couldn't
have said it better myself.

Nothing gets demonstrated except how unreasonable you are.

If there were actual people who agreed with you, you would think that
possibly ONE of them would be as brave and outspoken as you are. But
they only exist in your imagination.

When you use the term "we", I am reminded of a Mark Twain saying. I am
not aware that you are a member of royalty, or that you work as an
editor for a newspaper or magazine. I am therefore forced to conclude
that you have a tapeworm.

Thank you for amusing us today.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:16:51 -0400, reader wrote:

Mark wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

. .Why, then, do you hike with all the inherent dangers involved? Animal
. .attack, dehydration, exhaustion, exposure, falling...?

That's odd, I've hiked for about 54 years without
experiencing even ONE of
those so-called dangers.'

Have you ever heard of hikers experiencing those dangers?

If you pay attention to what Mikey calls "hiking", which many others
might consider going for a walk in a local park, and the type of
hiking shoes he recommends (smooth soles), it is quite obvious that
his actual hiking experience is rather limited in scope, and he has
zero understanding of serious terrain, actual wilderness hiking, or
weather extremes.

No wonder he keeps seeing mountain bikers when he hikes, because he
never gets to the sort of hiking terrain beyond what a mountain bike
can do.

Of course, Mikey giving his opinion, and considering it absolute fact,
on topics where he has limited or no knowledge, is hardly new.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:38:16 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

That's odd, I've hiked for about 54 years without experiencing even ONE of those
so-called dangers. Either you have never hiked, and are lying, or ... you are
lying.

There is some great statistical scientific data: ONE person, with a
very limited range of hiking experience.

54 years of walking in local parks in warm weather is not going to
give you a full range of hiking experience.

Even studies based on purely anecdotal evidence will use more than ONE
data point.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom