![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike "I've made up my mind, don't bother me with the Truth" V say:
snip verbiage Isn't it strange that rabid folks only agree with the literature that agrees with their viewpoint? A mind is definitely a sad thing to waste, but a closed mind really was wasted to start with... Steve |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() ? You didn't read it, did you? There are places you can learn to read, even after you are too old for school. You don't have to read it to know what it says, just read the first paragraph or two and the credits at the end to know it's mostly BS composed by a group of idiots only interested in promoting their views on others. Besides why waste your time, we've heard it all many times on this NG. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Vandeman writes:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:42:55 GMT, "S o r n i" wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: {42 KB's worth of hot air and cat scat} Did you say something? Bill "bwahaahhahahahahahahahahahha" S. Thanks for proving that mountain bikers aren't interested in FACT. You and facts have been estranged for a long time, Mike...and this mountain biker will be out doing 100 km or so around the south and west fringes of Houston today. (I'm not paying $1.85 a gallon. You are. Have fun.) -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ) Houston, Texas www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Micky Vee says:
You didn't read it, did you? You'd like to think that, Mikey, but you'd be wrong. There are places you can learn to read, even after you are too old for school. There's your second mistake for the week - you are never too old to learn something new, but sadly you personally seem to be too stuck in your ways to want to. ;-( Steve "Grats on writing something new, though...;-)" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10 Jul 2004 12:00:31 GMT, ospam (Stephen Baker) wrote:
..Micky Vee says: .. ..You didn't read it, did you? .. ..You'd like to think that, Mikey, but you'd be wrong. Then how come there's not a shred of evidence that you read it? You don't respond to even ONE WORD! (Hint: it's because you CAN'T!) ..There are places you can learn to read, even after ..you are too old for school. .. ..There's your second mistake for the week - you are never too old to learn ..something new, but sadly you personally seem to be too stuck in your ways to ..want to. ;-( .. ..Steve "Grats on writing something new, though...;-)" === 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Adam H asks (of MV):
Your stated desire is to create a human free wildlife environment, can you explain to me why is it that you only seem to campaign against mountain bikes? Because any Quixotic endeavour requires that the windmills be large enough that they can't be beaten or knocked over. If he started fighting something else, he may just pick on something that can be done and then he would have to stand behind some of his claims and actually try to do something real. It's rather sad, really.... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() That's not called "smart". It's called "prejudiced", which we knew already. So I guess you don't need to read Shakespeare, after the first play. Of course, he would just be repeating the same thing.... Shakespeare you are "not". Prejudiced is forming an opinion of someone without knowing them, we know you very well from your posts, rants, and name calling, our opinions are based on facts as you yourself have presented them time and time again. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Di" says:
Prejudiced is forming an opinion of someone without knowing them, we know you very well from your posts, rants, and name calling, our opinions are based on facts as you yourself have presented them time and time again. "prejudiced" is what Mikey is... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() .. Prejudice by any other name.... Just for fun, how about telling us what I say in that paper, without reading it. I don't care what you said in your paper, I already know what your objectives were. You have already destroyed your credibility by past performances, therefore rendering future discussions useless. Why should I waste my time reading a lengthy paper, the subject line of your NG post already told me all I wanted to know "Science Proves Mountain Biking is More Harmful than Hiking". Also the fact that you posted it to this NG with this subject line was only to attack bikers, not to promote your issue. Mike you are a phony, you are not even an environmentalist, what you are is a radical only interested in promoting a far out idea that you have somehow dreamed up. An idea that is so ridiculous it could never be achieved, but you have became so obsessed with it you have lost contact with reality. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The "Science" on Mountain Biking Impacts | Gary S. | Mountain Biking | 7 | April 24th 04 05:33 PM |
IMBA Tries to Justify Mountain Biking with Junk Science | HCH | Mountain Biking | 4 | April 10th 04 11:38 PM |
Mike Vandeman | qa2 | Mountain Biking | 26 | November 18th 03 12:16 PM |
More Hate Mail from a Typical Mountain Biker | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 11 | October 26th 03 05:14 AM |