Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:41:35 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global
warming
featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan.
Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting
changes
of climate.
Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your
sig
(I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.



Yawn.

In accordance with the rules:
"It is a game for the rest of us to see which one can get you to say "yawn",
"did you say something?" or throw a name at us. You are a text driven video
game.
Why do we play the game? So anyone else looking for real information will
know you are not the source of it."

I win again!

S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes
off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as
you
continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.

And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
footprint in nature than hikers.

That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
isn't any!
Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does not
make the statement in any way a "lie".

That's one of his time-honored tactics - to claim there is no research
if none is presented a priori, and from that assume that the poster is
lying. It's neatly circular.

E.P.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:26:07 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:15:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a
human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house"
and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent
presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then
go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing your own writings with references only to materials
carefully
chosen to support your opinions

That's a LIE.



Precisely HOW is it a lie?

Aren't you referencing your own publication?

Don't your publications contain material chosen to support your opinion?

No, they contain ALL relevant research. Only one of the studies
explicitly supports me. They other authors lied about their data and
what they imply.


Perhaps they do, but most of it has been done by you, or carefully weeded
out of the herd of all of the available data and included by you to support
your specific view.

You and your selected research have been pretty well shot down by reality on
the ground, and that which is upheld by reality on the ground is at least
partly CAUSED by the environmentalist agenda. Environmentalists screamed
that the deserts are being destroyed by offroad activity, so they forced
legislation to herd all offroaders into parks, then those environmentalists
ignored the facts that the parks are doing as well -- better in some
cases -- than the rest of the desert where offroading is not allowed or is
required to remain on established routes.

You are guilty of picking and choosing what data to include in your
research. Your guilt is blatant. Worse, you are guilty of including data
that supports your agenda, but which you do not go into the field to verify
yourself. I do not need research to support my view because I have 40 years
of life experience that proves your data set as being seriously flawed. I do
not dispute there are instances where your data set holds true, what I
dispute is your tendency to apply the data in an overly broad manner. You
CONSTANTLY point to damage done to particularly sensitive locations, and
apply the data sample across the landscape where the conditions of the
sensitive locations simply do not exist.

Most of those here do not dispute your data, they dispute your application
of the data far and wide when clearly the data set is very narrow and
focused. Of course, your view is different, but that is the point I am
trying to make.

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...

"JP" wrote in message
newsx%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
See what I mean Steve?

Did you really want to make him feel better?

I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.


I wish you were right .
But I think he is smart enough, though not emotionally mature or fulfilled.
The conferences I've googled are for the most part filled with
other crackpots though in different areas and I have the feeling
that they will always accept a "PhD" in their quest to appear legitimate.
He shares the podium with crystal worshippers, UFO abductees and other
wackos, which on the surface since the participants are never described
makes his resume appear more legitimate.
It's your time and I wish you the best. I hope I'm wrong and that you
somehow
enlighten him but I must confess that my confidence level is not high.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:48:52 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
over the years

Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
my point.
Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves my
point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road
cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been
dropped by the wayside.

continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield
in
making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
move forward.
The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
"research" behind.


Posted exactly one year ago (11/22/05):
"Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows the
rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of being in
auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and develop
an appreciation for the natural environment.

NONE of that is a reason to allow BIKES off-road. Show me where a BIKE
is necessary for off-road exercizing! Idiot. Try again....

The appreciation of any
activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it is
written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, with your opinion
firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or disagree with as being
senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say "give me one good
reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one would ask "give me
one good reason to put your hand in a fire".

Progress has been made while your distorted views show only more holes.

===
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 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes
off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as
you
continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.

And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
footprint in nature than hikers.

That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
isn't any!
Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does not
make the statement in any way a "lie".

"A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the
environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail erosion
and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the southwestern
U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails,
especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails,
and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle
trails."
Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam
Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research project
titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used
"Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing the
ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational
activities."

Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of the
lies being presented.



And since the reality is that nobody
is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
more access to more places. Including National Parks!

I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if it
were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So his
opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of these
things is essentially singular, and of no importance.

E.P.
===
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

"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)

1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain
biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable.
2. Why does the abstract and paper make comparisons between hiking and
mountain biking impacts? They apparently didn't collect any data that
would allow them to make such a comparison. In fact, the only way to
make such a comparison is with an experimental design, not a survey,
as they have done. It is logically impossible to draw any useful
conclusions from a design that includes measurements taken at only a
single point in time. The data (trail width and depth) provide no way
to distinguish between mountain biking impacts and the effects of
trail construction, trail maintenance, wind, rain, hiking, animals, or
any other factors.
3. The comparison of mountain biking vs. hiking impacts seems to rest
on three bits of information: Wilson and Seney (1994), Thurston and
Reader (2001), and a vague, non-statistical judgment about their
measurements being "similar" to those of hiking trails. The Wilson and
Seney study was discredited by Vandeman (2004), because they didn't
measure erosion accurately: they dripped water on the trail and
collected and weighed the solids carried into the collecting pan. This
only takes into account very fine particles able to be transported by
such "artificial rain"; it ignores all of the larger particles
dislodged by feet or tires. The Wilson and Seney study thus provides
no useful comparison between hiking and mountain biking impacts.
4. They also misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results. Actually,
Thurston and Reader found that after 500 passes, mountain biking had
greater impacts on plants than hiking. It doesn't take long to
accumulate 500 passes. Some trails will receive that amount of traffic
(250 visitors) in a day or two. So this study actually provides no
support for White et al's claim that hiking and mountain biking
impacts are "comparable" (whatever that means).
5. The authors provide no other quantitative, statistical comparison
between hiking and mountain biking impacts. The only way to do that
would be to do an experimental study, where all factors except hiking
vs. mountain biking are controlled (in other words, apply equal
amounts of hiking and mountain biking to identical trails and measure
the impacts using before-and-after measurements).
6. Their estimate of the number of mountain bikers ("21% of the
American public") seems grossly exaggerated. I think they need to find
a more reliable source for that information.
7. They make claims about the benefits of mountain biking. This seems
out of place in a scientific paper, especially since they provide no
evidence for any such (net) benefits. Such claims are usually biased
by tallying alleged positive benefits without subtracting the harm
caused by mountain biking (e.g. accidents, environmental damage,
wildlife impacts, and driving other trail users off of the trails).
8. They claim "management actions that limit access can be
controversial and raise issues of equity", but provide no evidence.
I'm not aware of any limited access or issues of equity. Since only
bicycles, not people, have ever been restricted, I don't see how they
can make such a claim. In fact, it is very unlikely that there are any
equity issues, since it was already determined by a federal court that
bikes may be banned from trails (see
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10).
9. I'm glad they mention "questionable studies". There are, indeed, a
lot of them! But I wonder why they included some of them in their
references, such as Wilson and Seney, and presented them without
comment, as if they were sound science (see Vandeman 2004). They also
misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results, as I explained above.
10. On p.24 they mention "visitor-related factors", but omitted
impacts on other trail users. I think that that is one of the major
impacts of mountain biking. I'm aware of many parks where mountain
bikers have driven other trail users off the trails and out of the
parks.
11. On p.26 they claim that "the magnitude of ecological impacts
attributed to mountain biking appear to be comparable to those of
hiking". "Comparable" is vague or meaningless as a scientific term.
The Earth is comparable to the Sun (they can be compared). I think
that they also misrepresent the implications of those studies (see
Vandeman 2004).
12. On p.29 they mention "user-created" trails. Why use a euphemism,
in a scientific paper? Those trails were built illegally. The authors
only add to the impression that their paper is deliberately slanted.
13. They make a good point on p.36 about trail users having to leave
the trail to allow mountain bikers to pass. This is a good reason to
ban bikes from trails: they lead inevitably to trail widening. But the
authors don't suggest banning bikes as an option, even though it is a
very common management tool. This adds to the impression of bias.
14. On p.37 they claim that "the width and depth" of their trails is
"similar" (not a scientific term, since it is so vague) to that of
Marion & Leung, although their trails averaged 32" wide (median 26")
and his median trail width was 17", so theirs was 50% greater. Why be
scientifically precise in some contexts, but totally vague when they
want to advocate for mountain biking? It is scientifically meaningless
to compare trails in different areas, since the differences or
similarities could be caused by many irrelevant factors, such as
differences in soil type, kind and amount of use, management policies,
etc.
15. Also on p.37 they claim that "The findings from our study thus
reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to
mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than
hiking ... trails". On the contrary, they presented zero data on the
width of hiking trails. In fact, they gave evidence (see # 13 above)
that mountain biking tends to widen hiking trails, by forcing hikers
and equestrians off the trail.
16. They also say "average width in our study was similar to lower use
mountain bike trails in Australia ... which [were] from 17 in. to 26
in." "Similar" is not a scientific term. It would appear, on the
contrary, that their trails were much wider than those ones. But as I
mentioned earlier, it is meaningless to compare trails in different
areas. There is no way to determine the cause of any differences or
lack of differences.
17. They claim on p.37 that "mountain biking is likely a sustainable
activity on properly managed trails". What does that mean? They have
just documented erosion and trail widening. Those effects are not
"sustainable"; they constitute environmental damage, in addition to
that of other trail users. They go on to mention several other
negative effects of mountain biking (wildlife impacts and spread of
exotic species) that also contradict the idea that mountain biking is
"sustainable". It would appear that they are bending over backwards to
conclude that mountain biking is acceptable.
18. I fail to see the value of "the introduction of CERs" (Common
Ecological Regions). It seems to have no relevance to policy or
management, unless we are going to prohibit mountain biking in desert
areas where trails can't be clearly delimited. But we already know
that trail widening is harmful: it represents habitat destruction.

In summary, I was bothered most by the authors' unquestioning
acceptance at face value of (or even misrepresenting) some rather
questionable studies, and their drawing conclusions not warranted by
their data. If they really want to do science, and not just promote
mountain biking, I think they should adhere better to what the data
tell us.

Actually, it's much easier than trying to slant results. Permit me to
tell a little story. I was in graduate school at UCLA, was trying to
write a literature-review paper, and was having a terrible time
writing it -- until I realized that I was trying to make the results
come out the way I wanted them to. When I decided to "just tell it
like it was" and let the cards fall as they might, the paper almost
wrote itself. It became easy.

Mountain biking is such a contentious issue that there is a great
temptation to slant the results to support one's preferred management
policy. The result is a lot of questionable studies that don't really
further science and don't really help provide scientific management of
our precious remaining wildlife habitat. I suggest that they first
find out what kind of answers are needed (especially by land
managers), and then design research specifically to answer those
questions.

References:

Thurston, E. and R. J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied
mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous
forest. Environmental Management 27:397-409.

Vandeman, M. J. 2004. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and
People -- A Review of the Literature. Available at
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

White, D. D., M. T. Waskey, G. P. Brodehl, and P. E. Foti. 2006. A
Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common
Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 24:2, 21-41.

Wilson, J. P. and J. Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, horses,
motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana.
Mountain Research and Development. 14:77-88.
===
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 22 Nov 2006 12:41:02 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes
off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as
you
continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.

And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
footprint in nature than hikers.

That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
isn't any!
Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does not
make the statement in any way a "lie".

That's one of his time-honored tactics - to claim there is no research
if none is presented a priori, and from that assume that the poster is
lying. It's neatly circular.

Coincidentally, YOU didn't present any research, either! There isn't
any! Put up or shut up.

E.P.
===
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 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:20:13 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:26:07 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:15:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a
human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house"
and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent
presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then
go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing your own writings with references only to materials
carefully
chosen to support your opinions

That's a LIE.



Precisely HOW is it a lie?

Aren't you referencing your own publication?

Don't your publications contain material chosen to support your opinion?

No, they contain ALL relevant research. Only one of the studies
explicitly supports me. They other authors lied about their data and
what they imply.


Perhaps they do, but most of it has been done by you, or carefully weeded
out of the herd of all of the available data and included by you to support
your specific view.

You are LYING. I did NONE of those studies, and didn't weed anything
out. I reviewed ALL experimental studies comparing hiking & mountain
biking impacts.

You and your selected research have been pretty well shot down by reality on
the ground, and that which is upheld by reality on the ground is at least
partly CAUSED by the environmentalist agenda. Environmentalists screamed
that the deserts are being destroyed by offroad activity, so they forced
legislation to herd all offroaders into parks, then those environmentalists
ignored the facts that the parks are doing as well -- better in some
cases -- than the rest of the desert where offroading is not allowed or is
required to remain on established routes.

You are guilty of picking and choosing what data to include in your
research. Your guilt is blatant. Worse, you are guilty of including data
that supports your agenda, but which you do not go into the field to verify
yourself. I do not need research to support my view because I have 40 years
of life experience that proves your data set as being seriously flawed. I do
not dispute there are instances where your data set holds true, what I
dispute is your tendency to apply the data in an overly broad manner. You
CONSTANTLY point to damage done to particularly sensitive locations, and
apply the data sample across the landscape where the conditions of the
sensitive locations simply do not exist.

Most of those here do not dispute your data, they dispute your application
of the data far and wide when clearly the data set is very narrow and
focused. Of course, your view is different, but that is the point I am
trying to make.


===
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 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:34:43 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"JP" wrote in message
newsx%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
See what I mean Steve?

Did you really want to make him feel better?

I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves.
===
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 Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:52:05 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...

"JP" wrote in message
newsx%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
See what I mean Steve?

Did you really want to make him feel better?

I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.


I wish you were right .
But I think he is smart enough, though not emotionally mature or fulfilled.
The conferences I've googled are for the most part filled with
other crackpots though in different areas and I have the feeling
that they will always accept a "PhD" in their quest to appear legitimate.
He shares the podium with crystal worshippers, UFO abductees and other
wackos, which on the surface since the participants are never described
makes his resume appear more legitimate.

LIAR. These are scientific conferences, full of scientists, land
managers, and other people who are actually doing something worthwhile
with their lives, unlike you guys, who are only looking for cheap
thrills.

It's your time and I wish you the best. I hope I'm wrong and that you
somehow
enlighten him but I must confess that my confidence level is not high.



===
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