Mountain Bikers Destroy Rainforest Area as Large as a Football Field!

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:00:01 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

OK, first of two points. First, I asked you a direct question, which is in
the first paragraph. Did you answer the question? No.....you decided to
quote something else and call me a liar. If you're so truthful, answer the
question.

Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is NOT
virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
old.

I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.


Mike, you are a liar! Here are your exact words and I quote:

It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely
for cheap thrills.
===
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

End Quote:

Once again you have been proven beyiond any doubt that you just plain
lie to suit your warped sense of reality.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

October 26, 2006

The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence

To the Editor:

If you want evidence of human arrogance and stupidity, you need look
no farther than the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence! Proposing to build a
fence between the U.S. and Mexico indicates that, once again, we fail
to recognize that wildlife are important and that they, like we,
require the ability to travel. At the same time that we are causing
global warming, forcing species to move north to find suitable habitat
to which they are acclimated, we are blocking their path!

Building a fence to stop immigration is like tightening your belt to
prevent weight gain. Let's address the causes, not the symptoms:
invest in improving the quality of life for our neighbors. That would
also be a good policy for other regions, such as the Middle East. (Of
course, that may require "regime change" at home.)

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.


Once again fail to answer the any questions and instead spew your constant
stream of rhetoric.

But on to a point that seems to be more important for you than that.

You constantly degrade and deride mountain bikers, calling them liars. You
make blanket statements and post up hearsay as the Gospel truth. Your view
is that you tell the truth, and that mountain bikers lie.

Well, here is the quote from the post you made on September 26 with regards
to the area in the photograph that you reference. Read it again. You have
clearly lied in your statement quoted above. Perhaps by re-reading that
statement, and the one in the quote below, you may finally come to
understand the difference between the truth, and a lie.


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:06:05 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Since when is Canada forestland considered "rainforest"? What are the
coordinates of this alleged destruction? Google sat maps are very detailed
for that region. Where is this? Perhaps the exaggeration is tainted by
emotion as the DNV did not act in such a manner as this absolutist
considered to be called for.

You (and those like you) give only as much information as you feel
necessary
to make your point and exclude real information that counters it. The
exclusion of actual locations to verify this "third party" account is
suspect. The fact that it references residential proximity also makes the
entire account suspect.

Wow! Some kids are riding bikes in a vacant lot adjacent to their
neighborhood...? Rainforest destruction...? Only MV math can arrive at
that answer.

It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely
for cheap thrills.
===
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


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.

Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.

Need any more proof that you are a liar?


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:26:45 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Mein Lieben! I've been to that area - have you?

That is not virgin rainforest - those trees are mere 2nd growth sapplings.

Right. Virgin rainforest, illegally destroyed by mountain bikers for
cheap thrills.



"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:00:01 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:
Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is
NOT
virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
old.

I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.

Do you refute what I am stating? Can you refute it, with proof? Are
you going to say "look at the photo", because if so, then all you are
doing
is proving that I am correct and you are the one who is lying. What about
the residential area beside this photo; you know, the one that consumes a
couple hundred square blocks. Oh, that's right, you've never been there
or
seen it, so you wouldn't know.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:25:44 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.


Once again fail to answer the any questions and instead spew your constant
stream of rhetoric.

I see that you refuse to answer the question.

But on to a point that seems to be more important for you than that.

You constantly degrade and deride mountain bikers, calling them liars. You
make blanket statements and post up hearsay as the Gospel truth. Your view
is that you tell the truth, and that mountain bikers lie.

Well, here is the quote from the post you made on September 26 with regards
to the area in the photograph that you reference. Read it again. You have
clearly lied in your statement quoted above. Perhaps by re-reading that
statement, and the one in the quote below, you may finally come to
understand the difference between the truth, and a lie.

No lie. A difference of terminology. My point was that you converted
rainforest to a clearcut, purely for your own pleasure.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:06:05 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Since when is Canada forestland considered "rainforest"? What are the
coordinates of this alleged destruction? Google sat maps are very detailed
for that region. Where is this? Perhaps the exaggeration is tainted by
emotion as the DNV did not act in such a manner as this absolutist
considered to be called for.

You (and those like you) give only as much information as you feel
necessary
to make your point and exclude real information that counters it. The
exclusion of actual locations to verify this "third party" account is
suspect. The fact that it references residential proximity also makes the
entire account suspect.

Wow! Some kids are riding bikes in a vacant lot adjacent to their
neighborhood...? Rainforest destruction...? Only MV math can arrive at
that answer.

It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely
for cheap thrills.
===
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


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.

===
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, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.

Need any more proof that you are a liar?

No lie. It was virgin rainforest, as far as I'm concerned: no mountain
biking. You destroyed a football-field-sized area purely for your own
selfish pleasure.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:26:45 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Mein Lieben! I've been to that area - have you?

That is not virgin rainforest - those trees are mere 2nd growth sapplings.

Right. Virgin rainforest, illegally destroyed by mountain bikers for
cheap thrills.



"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:00:01 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:
Second point. In the second paragraph, I am clearly and unequivocally
stating that the area in the picture is not pristine rainforest. It is
NOT
virgin rainforest. It IS second growth, and second growth that isn't that
old.

I didn't say it is "virgin" rainforest. I said it is "pristine"
rainforest. Maybe your mommy can explain the difference. The real
question is, WHY DID MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESTROY PRISTINE RAINFOREST
ILLEGALLY JUST FOR A FEW CHEAP THRILLS?????????????? Answer the
question.

Do you refute what I am stating? Can you refute it, with proof? Are
you going to say "look at the photo", because if so, then all you are
doing
is proving that I am correct and you are the one who is lying. What about
the residential area beside this photo; you know, the one that consumes a
couple hundred square blocks. Oh, that's right, you've never been there
or
seen it, so you wouldn't know.

===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.

Need any more proof that you are a liar?

No lie. It was virgin rainforest, as far as I'm concerned:

Your feeble attempt at back-pedaling is funnier that that or a circus clown.

You post that I should ask my mother to explain to me the difference between
"pristine" and "virgin" as I do not know the difference, and because you
never said "virgin". When it is proven that you did state "virgin" on at
least TWO occassions, your retort is "it was virgin rainforest, as far as
I'm concerned".

You know nothing of this ecology, nor what is occuring in this area, and you
are posting lies about it.

You post that I cut down trees, when I did no such thing. Again, another
lie.

You skew reality to conform to your thought process - "as far as I'm
concerned".

You harbour an aberrant hatred towards mountain bikers that causes you to be
a pathological liar.

It is people like you who cause nothing but unnecessary problems and do
nothing positive for the ecology, or humanity, and only live to exacerbate
in order to feed your weak ego.

I should have been smarter and heeded what others have posted about you as
it is clear now that they were correct.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Here's another quote from you stating that the area is virgin rainforest.

Need any more proof that you are a liar?

No lie. It was virgin rainforest, as far as I'm concerned: no mountain
biking. You destroyed a football-field-sized area purely for your own
selfish pleasure.

"as far as I'm concerned..."? You do not get to warp reality simply to fit
your opinion. The reality is that you are ignoring REAL information from a
1st hand observer.
Just like you ignored the entire reference in the original YOU posted
refering to the area "as it is considered more neighbourhood forested areas
at end of streets, cul-de-sacs..."
This is an area within a neighborhood and development, yet you want to call
it "pristine" and "virgin". Is that tree where the bum is sleeping in
Central Park, NY virgin forest, too?
RB has proven you have no interest in reality or truth. That is OBVIOUS.