A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mountain Bikers Prefer to Attack Me, Rather than Discuss the Harm that Mountain Biking Does!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old July 31st 08, 03:54 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:26:55 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:32:30 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:17:49 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
Because the other problems would take much more effort than just
being a keyboard scientist. He choses to spend his time on a very
minor "problem"
MILLIONS of mountain bikers shredding trails every week is not
"minor". Get real.

But Mike, you have stated that the population is not important! You're
contradicting yourself.
No, I didn't, LIAR. I said it's not relevant in comparing the impacts
of mountain biking with those of hiking.

A comparison of the effects of aspirin and Tylenol doesn't require a
count of the number of pills in the world. DUH!

Mike, on July 25 you wrote:

"Nonsense. If we give someone a bike, we multiply their impact by
several times. QED

How many OTHER people are mountain biking or hiking is totally
irrelevant to his impact."

Yet now you say that 'millions of mountain bikers shredding the trails
is not "minor." Get real.'"

So what is it?


You really ARE dense, aren't you? Mountain biking increases one's
impacts. In total, mountain bikers have a very significant impact.
There's no conflict there. DUH!


A mountain bike may increase one's impacts (though there is room to
debate depending on what you are comparing it to and to use "increase"
means there is some form of comparison going on), but you are
extrapolating that to the entire population of "mountain bikers" while
trying to say the number of bikers is irrelevant. If "mountain bikers"
as a group have a significant impact, then the number of participants
must be relevant.


Is there a point there?
--
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
Ads
  #72  
Old July 31st 08, 03:55 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?

Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."

Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????

Michael Halliwell

--
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
  #73  
Old July 31st 08, 07:06 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"





templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????

Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus. He has been
proven wrong hundreds of times. He is also a mountain-biker by his own
definition of the term. Case closed.




He uses commercial avaiation because he is selfish.
and his convenience outweighs damage to the upper atmosphere
  #74  
Old July 31st 08, 10:57 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"





templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????

Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus.


So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big
news to all scientists.

He has been
proven wrong hundreds of times.


BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard
me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking.
--
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
  #75  
Old August 1st 08, 12:32 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"


templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????


Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus.


So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big
news to all scientists.


No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on
par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion.


*He has been

proven wrong hundreds of times.


BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard
me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking.


I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they
restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your
claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research. Deal with
it.

  #76  
Old August 2nd 08, 06:30 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"


templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????


Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus.


So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big
news to all scientists.


No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on
par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion.


*He has been

proven wrong hundreds of times.


BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard
me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking.


I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they
restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your
claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research.


How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific
quality.

--
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
  #77  
Old August 2nd 08, 12:45 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane


wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"


templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????


Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus.


So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big
news to all scientists.


No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on
par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion.


*He has been


proven wrong hundreds of times.


BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard
me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking.


I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they
restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your
claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research.


How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific
quality.


My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of
qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that.

Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real
researchers, I know that must be a tremendous blow to your fragile
ego.
You're
  #78  
Old August 2nd 08, 06:51 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane


wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"


templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????


Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus.


So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big
news to all scientists.


No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on
par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion.


*He has been


proven wrong hundreds of times.


BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard
me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking.


I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they
restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your
claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research.


How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific
quality.


My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of
qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that.

Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real
researchers,


LIAR. Name even ONE "real researcher" who has "debunked" my claims. I
know you can't. You are nothing but hot air.
--
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
  #79  
Old August 2nd 08, 08:29 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane


wrote:
On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane


wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"


templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????


Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus.


So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big
news to all scientists.


No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on
par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion.


*He has been


proven wrong hundreds of times.


BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard
me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking.


I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they
restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your
claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research.


How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific
quality.


My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of
qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that.


Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real
researchers,


LIAR. Name even ONE "real researcher" who has "debunked" my claims. I
know you can't. You are nothing but hot air.


Wilson and Seney debunked you years ago. You tried to refute their
findings with opinion but you never did anything real to back it up,
as usual. Your keyboard research is a farce.


  #80  
Old August 2nd 08, 11:25 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Aug 2, 1:30*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane


wrote:
On Jul 31, 5:57*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane


wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:55*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:17:46 GMT, "M. Halliwell"


templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?


Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."


Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?


NO. It's obvious that I didn't mean a professional. You twisted my
statement to mean that. But what else could we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?????


Michael J. Vandeman is an armchair environmentalist. He does no actual
hands-on research himself so his "findings" are bogus.


So a "review of the literature" isn't science? That would come a big
news to all scientists.


No more than a review of the new Batman movie. Your "reviews" are on
par with Roger Ebert, nothing more than opinion.


*He has been


proven wrong hundreds of times.


BS. Not by any real SCIENTIST. None of the SCIENTISTS who have heard
me speak have found anything wrong with my papers on mountain biking.


I'm sure your papers were just fine for whiping asses when they
restroom was out of toilet paper, but in the real world, ALL your
claims have been refuted and proven false by REAL research.


How would YOU know? You can't even SPELL, much less judge scientific
quality.


My misspelling of the word "wiping" doesn't negate your lack of
qualifications, but you "probaby" knew that.


Sorry that your claims about mountain-bikng were debunked by real
researchers,


LIAR. Name even ONE "real researcher" who has "debunked" my claims. I
know you can't. You are nothing but hot air.


Wilson and Seney debunked you years ago.


That's an OBVIOUS LIE! Their article was published before mine! Their
so-called "erosion study" was pure hokum, and they have NEVER
responded to my critique or email -- obviously because I'm RIGHT! And
NOT ONE of the SCIENTISTS who have heard or received my paper has ever
found anythng wrong with it. You are full of it. I notice that you
didn't respond, when I asked you to state your qualifications --
because you don't HAVE any!

You tried to refute their
findings with opinion but you never did anything real to back it up,
as usual. Your keyboard research is a farce.


It's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are
just blowing how air, like ALL mountain bikers.

Thanks for a good laugh, FRAUD! But what can we expect from someone
afraid to use their real name?!
--
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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 2 April 2nd 08 05:12 PM
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! Mike Vandeman Social Issues 2 April 2nd 08 05:12 PM
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park Mike Vandeman Social Issues 8 March 18th 07 07:24 AM
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 6 March 16th 07 04:35 AM
STILL Unrefuted, after15 Months of Mountain Bikers Fuming!: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature di Mountain Biking 1 October 23rd 05 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.