jeff wrote:

> R. Lander wrote:
> > I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
> > header, not your altered one.
> >
> > You forget that the *****....
>
> Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.

Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
liar, not the corrector.

R. Lander

 

jeff wrote:

> R. Lander wrote:
> > I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
> > header, not your altered one.
> >
> > You forget that the *****....
>
> Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.

Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
liar, not the corrector.

R. Lander

 

jeff wrote:

> R. Lander wrote:
> > I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
> > header, not your altered one.
> >
> > You forget that the *****....
>
> Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.

Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
liar, not the corrector.

R. Lander

 

Why do you insist the ****'s were right wing when Hitler himself publicly
said otherwise?



"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149270011.637556.283340@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> jeff wrote:
>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>> > I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
>> > header, not your altered one.
>> >
>> > You forget that the *****....
>>
>> Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.
>
> Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
> original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
> right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
> liar, not the corrector.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Why do you insist the ****'s were right wing when Hitler himself publicly
said otherwise?



"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149270011.637556.283340@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> jeff wrote:
>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>> > I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
>> > header, not your altered one.
>> >
>> > You forget that the *****....
>>
>> Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.
>
> Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
> original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
> right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
> liar, not the corrector.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Why do you insist the ****'s were right wing when Hitler himself publicly
said otherwise?



"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149270011.637556.283340@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> jeff wrote:
>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>> > I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
>> > header, not your altered one.
>> >
>> > You forget that the *****....
>>
>> Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.
>
> Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
> original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
> right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
> liar, not the corrector.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Corey Shuman wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, how many people with opinions on both sides,
> actually get out into the remote area, wander around, 4 wheel, hike,
> etc... Cause my take on R. Lander is that he has probably never even
> been to any of the areas he speaks of, but rather reads bits and peices
> on the internet propaganda sites and then trolls for a place to spout
> off...

You assume a lot, don't you? You have some fantasy of a guy in a Jeep
as the Lone Ranger on horseback. Do you think it takes some great
effort to drive on a dirt road? Like hell it does. You can get much
closer to nature by traveling silently through it on foot. You can't
define wilderness knowledge as the sheer distance travelled through it
in a given time frame. I also have a lot more respect for horseback
riders that some fool trying to prove that he's the master of granite
in a Jeep.

I spend as much time as possible in remote areas (mostly the Sierra
Nevada and Cascades). I even own a 4WD vehicle, which I take to
trail-heads as needed. I don't drive in pristine areas and I don't
think the Rubicon Trail should be open to vehicular traffic. It's just
too crowded now. Convoys of partiers and gearheads make a mockery of
the wilderness it passes through. Many go to test their vehicles, first
and foremost. Nature just provides some scenery for the hoedown.

The problem is that people keep wanting to invade more wild places with
more roads and vehicles and it's already excessive. In North America,
there's not much significant wilderness left, except for Canada and
Alaska where it's too cold or remote to experience. Population growth
drives the constant increase in land-use pressure (something you show
no concern over). Cities in rural areas keep growing, creating more
visitors within easy driving reach. Instead of admitting that they are
overcrowding the land, they blame environmentalists for blocking
access. All you want to talk about is your "right" to drive on more
land. If you had real respect for wilderness you'd voluntarily leave it
alone. There are places hikers don't need to be, either.

And whether or not you choose to call it passive exploring, the only
way to get a true picture of land usage IS to look at a map or photo.
Many trails give a false appearance of being "wilderness" because trees
or ridges are screening out a mine or highway on the other side. Rural
dwellers suffer from the same delusion since they don't feel crowded
conditions directly. The concept of Man's "ecological footprint" is
what this is all about. Do a search on that topic to see why "plenty of
land" is an illusion.

> Dont get me wrong, there is trash here and there, but you cant
> blame that on the 4 wheelers anymore than you can blame the clap on the
> hippies. There is a random correlation with no proof.
> If you are upset about something, do something, dont just sit around
> and bitch....

Cite these places where you claim hikers are doing an equal amount of
littering. I don't buy it. Off-roaders as a group are less ecologically
conscious and more likely to litter. It goes with the attitude and
territory.

R. Lander

 

Corey Shuman wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, how many people with opinions on both sides,
> actually get out into the remote area, wander around, 4 wheel, hike,
> etc... Cause my take on R. Lander is that he has probably never even
> been to any of the areas he speaks of, but rather reads bits and peices
> on the internet propaganda sites and then trolls for a place to spout
> off...

You assume a lot, don't you? You have some fantasy of a guy in a Jeep
as the Lone Ranger on horseback. Do you think it takes some great
effort to drive on a dirt road? Like hell it does. You can get much
closer to nature by traveling silently through it on foot. You can't
define wilderness knowledge as the sheer distance travelled through it
in a given time frame. I also have a lot more respect for horseback
riders that some fool trying to prove that he's the master of granite
in a Jeep.

I spend as much time as possible in remote areas (mostly the Sierra
Nevada and Cascades). I even own a 4WD vehicle, which I take to
trail-heads as needed. I don't drive in pristine areas and I don't
think the Rubicon Trail should be open to vehicular traffic. It's just
too crowded now. Convoys of partiers and gearheads make a mockery of
the wilderness it passes through. Many go to test their vehicles, first
and foremost. Nature just provides some scenery for the hoedown.

The problem is that people keep wanting to invade more wild places with
more roads and vehicles and it's already excessive. In North America,
there's not much significant wilderness left, except for Canada and
Alaska where it's too cold or remote to experience. Population growth
drives the constant increase in land-use pressure (something you show
no concern over). Cities in rural areas keep growing, creating more
visitors within easy driving reach. Instead of admitting that they are
overcrowding the land, they blame environmentalists for blocking
access. All you want to talk about is your "right" to drive on more
land. If you had real respect for wilderness you'd voluntarily leave it
alone. There are places hikers don't need to be, either.

And whether or not you choose to call it passive exploring, the only
way to get a true picture of land usage IS to look at a map or photo.
Many trails give a false appearance of being "wilderness" because trees
or ridges are screening out a mine or highway on the other side. Rural
dwellers suffer from the same delusion since they don't feel crowded
conditions directly. The concept of Man's "ecological footprint" is
what this is all about. Do a search on that topic to see why "plenty of
land" is an illusion.

> Dont get me wrong, there is trash here and there, but you cant
> blame that on the 4 wheelers anymore than you can blame the clap on the
> hippies. There is a random correlation with no proof.
> If you are upset about something, do something, dont just sit around
> and bitch....

Cite these places where you claim hikers are doing an equal amount of
littering. I don't buy it. Off-roaders as a group are less ecologically
conscious and more likely to litter. It goes with the attitude and
territory.

R. Lander

 

Corey Shuman wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, how many people with opinions on both sides,
> actually get out into the remote area, wander around, 4 wheel, hike,
> etc... Cause my take on R. Lander is that he has probably never even
> been to any of the areas he speaks of, but rather reads bits and peices
> on the internet propaganda sites and then trolls for a place to spout
> off...

You assume a lot, don't you? You have some fantasy of a guy in a Jeep
as the Lone Ranger on horseback. Do you think it takes some great
effort to drive on a dirt road? Like hell it does. You can get much
closer to nature by traveling silently through it on foot. You can't
define wilderness knowledge as the sheer distance travelled through it
in a given time frame. I also have a lot more respect for horseback
riders that some fool trying to prove that he's the master of granite
in a Jeep.

I spend as much time as possible in remote areas (mostly the Sierra
Nevada and Cascades). I even own a 4WD vehicle, which I take to
trail-heads as needed. I don't drive in pristine areas and I don't
think the Rubicon Trail should be open to vehicular traffic. It's just
too crowded now. Convoys of partiers and gearheads make a mockery of
the wilderness it passes through. Many go to test their vehicles, first
and foremost. Nature just provides some scenery for the hoedown.

The problem is that people keep wanting to invade more wild places with
more roads and vehicles and it's already excessive. In North America,
there's not much significant wilderness left, except for Canada and
Alaska where it's too cold or remote to experience. Population growth
drives the constant increase in land-use pressure (something you show
no concern over). Cities in rural areas keep growing, creating more
visitors within easy driving reach. Instead of admitting that they are
overcrowding the land, they blame environmentalists for blocking
access. All you want to talk about is your "right" to drive on more
land. If you had real respect for wilderness you'd voluntarily leave it
alone. There are places hikers don't need to be, either.

And whether or not you choose to call it passive exploring, the only
way to get a true picture of land usage IS to look at a map or photo.
Many trails give a false appearance of being "wilderness" because trees
or ridges are screening out a mine or highway on the other side. Rural
dwellers suffer from the same delusion since they don't feel crowded
conditions directly. The concept of Man's "ecological footprint" is
what this is all about. Do a search on that topic to see why "plenty of
land" is an illusion.

> Dont get me wrong, there is trash here and there, but you cant
> blame that on the 4 wheelers anymore than you can blame the clap on the
> hippies. There is a random correlation with no proof.
> If you are upset about something, do something, dont just sit around
> and bitch....

Cite these places where you claim hikers are doing an equal amount of
littering. I don't buy it. Off-roaders as a group are less ecologically
conscious and more likely to litter. It goes with the attitude and
territory.

R. Lander

 

billy ray wrote:

> Personally I find this story a bit far fetched.
>
> Not about an occasional yabbo driving through 'your fields' but that the
> same people do it week after week after week and you do nothing about it
> other than politely ask them to leave.

Maybe because those types will vandalize your property if you threaten
their "right" to do whatever the hell they want. The off-road
subculture is full of degenerates and egomaniacs, in my experience. I
don't mean anyone who owns a 4WD vehicle, I mean the people who are
into it for no practical reason other than proving what the machinery
can do. They are a shallow group of folks who spend a lot of money on
stuff that really doesn't matter.

I can walk a granite sluice faster than a Jeep can crawl it, so what's
the point? On foot, you can get plenty of wilderness time without
traveling 30 miles, hauling in loads of garbage and polluting the air
with fumes and noise.

R. Lander