"§qu@r3 Wh33£s" <bubonic@germ.net> wrote in message
news:pDFfg.218602$7a.110425@pd7tw1no...

> Thanks for your excellent post; sadly, few here are going to accept it,
> regardless, and will argue facts with attitude and opinion.
>
> Please keep it up until the flames overcome you.
>
> If just /one/ person learns from your factual statements, you've
succeeded.

Actually this is a very well written troll.

Start with name-calling (anthropocentric mouth-breathers, conquer-nature
mentality )

Make sure you've included everyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view
(people who bash environmentalism don't respect the environment)

Divert any responsibility from yourself (If you find those trails
overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism)

Return as a sock-puppet labeling one-sided opinion as fact (" argue facts
with attitude and opinion")

And hide behind an anonymous name.

I give this troll five stars!!

 

"§qu@r3 Wh33£s" <bubonic@germ.net> wrote in message
news:pDFfg.218602$7a.110425@pd7tw1no...

> Thanks for your excellent post; sadly, few here are going to accept it,
> regardless, and will argue facts with attitude and opinion.
>
> Please keep it up until the flames overcome you.
>
> If just /one/ person learns from your factual statements, you've
succeeded.

Actually this is a very well written troll.

Start with name-calling (anthropocentric mouth-breathers, conquer-nature
mentality )

Make sure you've included everyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view
(people who bash environmentalism don't respect the environment)

Divert any responsibility from yourself (If you find those trails
overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism)

Return as a sock-puppet labeling one-sided opinion as fact (" argue facts
with attitude and opinion")

And hide behind an anonymous name.

I give this troll five stars!!

 

"§qu@r3 Wh33£s" <bubonic@germ.net> wrote in message
news:pDFfg.218602$7a.110425@pd7tw1no...

> Thanks for your excellent post; sadly, few here are going to accept it,
> regardless, and will argue facts with attitude and opinion.
>
> Please keep it up until the flames overcome you.
>
> If just /one/ person learns from your factual statements, you've
succeeded.

Actually this is a very well written troll.

Start with name-calling (anthropocentric mouth-breathers, conquer-nature
mentality )

Make sure you've included everyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view
(people who bash environmentalism don't respect the environment)

Divert any responsibility from yourself (If you find those trails
overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism)

Return as a sock-puppet labeling one-sided opinion as fact (" argue facts
with attitude and opinion")

And hide behind an anonymous name.

I give this troll five stars!!

 

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149184562.833916.202840@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...


> Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
> constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
> a park.

I don't feel it needs protection.

> The idea that more land must to be used all the time is illogical.

I disagree.

>We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle always trying
to break down fences for a bigger range.

You put a higher value on open space than on human life?


>
> Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers

You did that

> Noise and wilderness don't mix.

Sure they do

You can raise a ruckus in town

> We are running out of places where the true appeal of nature can be
experienced.

What is so important about experiencing the true appeal of nature?

> Nature is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise.

Your definition, not mine.

> When I hear a powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why
I traveled
> that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.

You would love my airplane.
>
> R. Lander
>

Steve Foley (real name)

 

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149184562.833916.202840@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...


> Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
> constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
> a park.

I don't feel it needs protection.

> The idea that more land must to be used all the time is illogical.

I disagree.

>We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle always trying
to break down fences for a bigger range.

You put a higher value on open space than on human life?


>
> Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers

You did that

> Noise and wilderness don't mix.

Sure they do

You can raise a ruckus in town

> We are running out of places where the true appeal of nature can be
experienced.

What is so important about experiencing the true appeal of nature?

> Nature is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise.

Your definition, not mine.

> When I hear a powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why
I traveled
> that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.

You would love my airplane.
>
> R. Lander
>

Steve Foley (real name)

 

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149184562.833916.202840@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...


> Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
> constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
> a park.

I don't feel it needs protection.

> The idea that more land must to be used all the time is illogical.

I disagree.

>We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle always trying
to break down fences for a bigger range.

You put a higher value on open space than on human life?


>
> Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers

You did that

> Noise and wilderness don't mix.

Sure they do

You can raise a ruckus in town

> We are running out of places where the true appeal of nature can be
experienced.

What is so important about experiencing the true appeal of nature?

> Nature is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise.

Your definition, not mine.

> When I hear a powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why
I traveled
> that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.

You would love my airplane.
>
> R. Lander
>

Steve Foley (real name)

 

Where the hell did you come from? It is SO easy to make so many
generalizations when, in fact, you really don't have a clue about which you
speak. Many of the folks here are the true environmentalists. Since you're
a professed environmentalist, what specifically have YOU done to help the
environment, other that come to a place like this and anonimously bitch
about what we do? The best generalization you come up with is "people who
bash environmentalism don't respect the environment that much." That is so
illogical it's stupid. Someone may like a certain musician's music, but not
the musician himself. Oh, and the made-up name "R. Lander" is just so
typical of someone so far on the fringe that you have put yourself in the
category of "Wacko" without anybody here having to fling that your way.



"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149175697.422954.235760@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
> all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
> Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
> view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
> it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>
> People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
> sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
> Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
> to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
> It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>
> It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
> environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
> protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
> Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
> impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
> the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
> to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>
> In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
> more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
> places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
> trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Where the hell did you come from? It is SO easy to make so many
generalizations when, in fact, you really don't have a clue about which you
speak. Many of the folks here are the true environmentalists. Since you're
a professed environmentalist, what specifically have YOU done to help the
environment, other that come to a place like this and anonimously bitch
about what we do? The best generalization you come up with is "people who
bash environmentalism don't respect the environment that much." That is so
illogical it's stupid. Someone may like a certain musician's music, but not
the musician himself. Oh, and the made-up name "R. Lander" is just so
typical of someone so far on the fringe that you have put yourself in the
category of "Wacko" without anybody here having to fling that your way.



"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149175697.422954.235760@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
> all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
> Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
> view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
> it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>
> People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
> sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
> Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
> to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
> It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>
> It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
> environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
> protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
> Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
> impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
> the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
> to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>
> In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
> more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
> places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
> trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Where the hell did you come from? It is SO easy to make so many
generalizations when, in fact, you really don't have a clue about which you
speak. Many of the folks here are the true environmentalists. Since you're
a professed environmentalist, what specifically have YOU done to help the
environment, other that come to a place like this and anonimously bitch
about what we do? The best generalization you come up with is "people who
bash environmentalism don't respect the environment that much." That is so
illogical it's stupid. Someone may like a certain musician's music, but not
the musician himself. Oh, and the made-up name "R. Lander" is just so
typical of someone so far on the fringe that you have put yourself in the
category of "Wacko" without anybody here having to fling that your way.



"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149175697.422954.235760@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
> all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
> Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
> view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
> it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>
> People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
> sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
> Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
> to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
> It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>
> It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
> environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
> protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
> Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
> impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
> the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
> to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>
> In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
> more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
> places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
> trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>
> R. Lander
>

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:447f1d17@kcnews01...
>I have a lot of dislike of people who like to go "four
>wheeling." I run a
> small farm. Lots of the wannbe four wheeling masters decide my
> fields are
> just perfect for trying out their vehicles. They cruise around
> in my field
> cutting tracks and distributing trash. I've even had then ride
> around in
> unharvested soybean fields. I have stopped and asked them to
> leave only to
> catch them again the next week. Now maybe thius only a small
> (very small)
> percentage of four wwheelers, but they sure make me dislike the
> category as
> a whole. Given that they have no regard for obviously private
> property, I
> can only imagine how they treat "our" land.
>
> Ed
==========================
Excuse me while I don't believe you. In fact, I'll even call it
a lie. I don't 4-wheel, but no farmer I know would be such a
----- about people driving through their bean fields.(I also
don't know any farmers that spcifically say soybean field instead
of just bean field)
Hell, even if you 'accidentally' run off a road and damage crops
around here, you're going to pay for them.




>
>