Re: Eco terrorist Mike's friend caught.

On Feb 15, 11:26 pm, cc <c...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:13 -0800, cc <c...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 07:51:32 -0800, "Jimster" <jimkerni...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 Feb 2007 11:22:37 -0800, "Beej" <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:16 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you really that dumb? As I have always said, most of the
destructiveness is due to the presence of BIKES. DUH!
You also said mountain bikers were only destructive, that even when
they weren't mountain biking they were probably selfishly destroying
something, and that you are not interested in banning them.
They're your words, not mine. You know, if you start showing too much
inconsistency on AMB, your reputation just might start to suffer.
There's no inconsistency. I am only interested in banning destructive
activities, not people. Your cynicism is showing.
Mike - first off, why are you in a mtn biking group if you hate mtn
biking/bikers? Are you a total loser with nothing better to do?

Secondly, you're argument is so weak - are you telling me a hikier
NEVER stepped on a creature and killed it - small snake, insects, baby
bird, salmanders, worms, ...or maybe those creatures aren't important.
You know hikers have stepped on animals and killed them - animals step
on other animals and kill them - so by using that in your argument
makes you a hypocrite - and way stupid!
Mountain bikers kill a lot more animals & plants, because (1) they go
much faster, (2) they can't see what's on the trail in time to avoid
it, (3) they can't step over things, and (4) they travel several times
as far as a hiker, thus killing a lot more animals & plants. DUH!
You can't say it's so because you say so, dipshit. You should know that.
One could raise any number of equally valid points, such as the fact
that a mountain biker rarely deviates from the exact center of the
trail, and covers a smaller area of it. They also automatically stay on
the treaded, dirt portions of narrow single-track, whereas a hiker MUST
tread on either sides of a narrow trail, trampling vegetation.

My arguments, based on my own personal "common sense", are just as valid
as yours are. See what happens when you argue without any scientific
basis? No conclusions can be made. But you knew that.

cc

Did you say something?

Sucks to lose everytime you argue, doesn't it? Makes one wonder why you
keep trying .

Because, he's ummm, TROLLING?

Are you really this dumb? Maybe you are...

If just YOU stopped responding, these threads would be about a third
less big. Then, if Curtiss would stop, they'd only be a couple of
posts long. AND, they wouldn't keep bumping up to the top of the
thread list!

This ain't rocket science, boys.

E.P.

.