🚀 go-pugleaf

"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
news:881s80$fn9$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net...
> Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> news:881gkh$7a7@journal.concentric.net...
> >
> > Your "spin" was fallacious from the start and casts doubt upon
> > your motives and the merits of your case.
>
> And your writing "The installation of the gate was a positive thing for
> mountain bikers. Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL
> singletrack, which is pretty scarce in the East Bay"
> isn't the slightest misleading is it?
>
> How is it that the gate caused this Pete?

Tom, please try to follow along with me on this:

Johnny claims that the gate limits cyclist's access to Las Trampas i.e. the
installation of the gate was detrimental to the cycling experience.

Now this part is going to be tough for you to considering your previously
displayed ignorance about mountain biking, but I'm going to try anyway:

The addition of of the gate was a net POSITIVE thing for mountain bikers
because we got some singletrack (albeit a very small segment) opened to us.

Before gate: Cyclists rode on the road to access the park.

After gate: Cyclists ride on the road and then get to ride on singletrack
to access the park.

Get it?

Class dismissed.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
news:881s4g$fn2$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net...
> Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> news:881gmt$7bm@journal.concentric.net...
> > Tom Kunich <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
> > news:8816c4$8k4$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net...
> > > David C�sseres <casseres@apple.com> wrote in message
> > > news:casseres-1002001656390001@cassda2.apple.com...
> > > >
> > > > Oh Tom, you're so sweet to bring my name into your post!
> > >
> > > Well, it's always so refreshing to see you and Peter Fagerlin
> > shooting your
> > > mouths off purely to make argument. I especially liked Peter's
> > comment that
> > > made it sound as if the property owners who have illegally
> > blocked access to
> > > public right-of-way had someone put in a single track on their
> > private
> > > preserve for the likes of us poor, poor bikers.
> >
> > Tom, you are obviously unfamiliar with the details of this
> > situation, which is understandable because it deals, at least in
> > part, with mountain bikes. If that is the way that you
> > interpreted my comments, it speaks volumes about your bias.
> >
> > The single track is on public land and wasn't put there by the
> > homeowners.
>
> Your exact words were:
>
> "The installation of the gate was a positive thing for mountain bikers.
> Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL singletrack, which
is
> pretty scarce in the East Bay".
>
>  Now if that isn't a perfect implication that it was THESE HOMEOWNERS
that
> supplied the single track exactly what is it?

No. It's an assumption on your part.

Sheesh. I can't fathom how Casseres as endured you for all of these years.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

Pete Fagerlin wrote in message ...
>"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
>news:881s80$fn9$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net...
>> Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> news:881gkh$7a7@journal.concentric.net...
>> >
>> > Your "spin" was fallacious from the start and casts doubt upon
>> > your motives and the merits of your case.
>>
>> And your writing "The installation of the gate was a positive thing for
>> mountain bikers. Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL
>> singletrack, which is pretty scarce in the East Bay"
>> isn't the slightest misleading is it?
>>
>> How is it that the gate caused this Pete?
>
>Tom, please try to follow along with me on this:
>
>Johnny claims that the gate limits cyclist's access to Las Trampas i.e. the
>installation of the gate was detrimental to the cycling experience.
>
>Now this part is going to be tough for you to considering your previously
>displayed ignorance about mountain biking, but I'm going to try anyway:
>
>The addition of of the gate was a net POSITIVE thing for mountain bikers
>because we got some singletrack (albeit a very small segment) opened to us.
>
>Before gate: Cyclists rode on the road to access the park.
>
>After gate: Cyclists ride on the road and then get to ride on singletrack
>to access the park.
>
>Get it?
>
>Class dismissed.


Let's try again professor.

Before the gate, the cyclists could easily park at the end of the PUBLIC
ROAD and cycle on the trail immediately. Now, they get to park on the far
side of the gate and ride on the single track. That is the net positive
you're boasting about? Right?

Well gee willikers. What a great deal!!

Hey everybody!! Gather around!! Perhaps we can get this great intellectual
to close the entire access road. Then we can ride on LOTS of single track.
20 miles perhaps. Wouldn't that be great?!

Thanks for my part in your everflowing benificence, moron, but I'd rather
park right at the entrance and bike in the park than ride from my further
parking space on the lovely single track.

Get it?

Class resumed.

"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:U63p4.7857$Ea4.102536@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
>
> Pete Fagerlin wrote in message ...
> >"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
> >news:881s80$fn9$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net...
> >> Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> >> news:881gkh$7a7@journal.concentric.net...
> >> >
> >> > Your "spin" was fallacious from the start and casts doubt upon
> >> > your motives and the merits of your case.
> >>
> >> And your writing "The installation of the gate was a positive thing
for
> >> mountain bikers. Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL
> >> singletrack, which is pretty scarce in the East Bay"
> >> isn't the slightest misleading is it?
> >>
> >> How is it that the gate caused this Pete?
> >
> >Tom, please try to follow along with me on this:
> >
> >Johnny claims that the gate limits cyclist's access to Las Trampas i.e.
the
> >installation of the gate was detrimental to the cycling experience.
> >
> >Now this part is going to be tough for you to considering your
previously
> >displayed ignorance about mountain biking, but I'm going to try anyway:
> >
> >The addition of of the gate was a net POSITIVE thing for mountain bikers
> >because we got some singletrack (albeit a very small segment) opened to
us.
> >
> >Before gate: Cyclists rode on the road to access the park.
> >
> >After gate: Cyclists ride on the road and then get to ride on
singletrack
> >to access the park.
> >
> >Get it?
> >
> >Class dismissed.
>
>
> Let's try again professor.
>
> Before the gate, the cyclists could easily park at the end of the PUBLIC
> ROAD and cycle on the trail immediately. Now, they get to park on the far
> side of the gate and ride on the single track. That is the net positive
> you're boasting about? Right?
>
> Well gee willikers. What a great deal!!
>
> Hey everybody!! Gather around!! Perhaps we can get this great
intellectual
> to close the entire access road. Then we can ride on LOTS of single
track.
> 20 miles perhaps. Wouldn't that be great?!
>
> Thanks for my part in your everflowing benificence, moron, but I'd rather
> park right at the entrance and bike in the park than ride from my further
> parking space on the lovely single track.
>
> Get it?
>
> Class resumed.

Put your dunce cap back on.

It's a quarter mile at most, lazy boy. If you were at all pasionate about
mountain biking you would understand how precious ANY singletrack is in the
East Bay.

This is the best part:

"but I'd rather
park right at the entrance and bike in the park than ride from my further
parking space on the lovely single track."

This speaks volumes. Thanks for sharing.

Now get back in your corner.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

--
--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com


"Johnny King" <johnnyk@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:882jo4$msq$1@nnrp02.primenet.com...
> Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
> : Johnny claims that the gate limits cyclist's access to Las Trampas i.e.
the
> : installation of the gate was detrimental to the cycling experience.
>
> Pete, I never said, wrote, or implied anything of the kind.

Please consider:

I wrote:

": How does that gate affect cyclist's, or hikers for that matter,
: access to Las Trampas?

: The answer:

: It doesn't."

And you replied:

"Wrong again, Pete.  The answer is, it affects all cyclists', hikers', and
horse riders' access to all parks and open space, by prominently
clarifying the law, and making an example of those who break it, and it
encourages and empowers all park users to sue to defend all park access."

>You're a
> malicious, lying sack of shit.

See the paragraph above, the one that starts with, "wrong again, Pete..."
for an exaple of such a sack. It's really too bad that your first round of
posts aren't available in the archives, but then again, you display more
hypocrisy with every post. Keep up the could work.

>There's no polite way to say it.

Bad day in court Johnny?

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

Pete Fagerlin wrote in message ...
>"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:U63p4.7857$Ea4.102536@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
>>
>> Pete Fagerlin wrote in message ...
>> >"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
>> >news:881s80$fn9$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net...
>> >> Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:881gkh$7a7@journal.concentric.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > Your "spin" was fallacious from the start and casts doubt upon
>> >> > your motives and the merits of your case.
>> >>
>> >> And your writing "The installation of the gate was a positive thing
>for
>> >> mountain bikers. Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL
>> >> singletrack, which is pretty scarce in the East Bay"
>> >> isn't the slightest misleading is it?
>> >>
>> >> How is it that the gate caused this Pete?
>> >
>> >Tom, please try to follow along with me on this:
>> >
>> >Johnny claims that the gate limits cyclist's access to Las Trampas i.e.
>the
>> >installation of the gate was detrimental to the cycling experience.
>> >
>> >Now this part is going to be tough for you to considering your
>previously
>> >displayed ignorance about mountain biking, but I'm going to try anyway:
>> >
>> >The addition of of the gate was a net POSITIVE thing for mountain bikers
>> >because we got some singletrack (albeit a very small segment) opened to
>us.
>> >
>> >Before gate: Cyclists rode on the road to access the park.
>> >
>> >After gate: Cyclists ride on the road and then get to ride on
>singletrack
>> >to access the park.
>> >
>> >Get it?
>> >
>> >Class dismissed.
>>
>>
>> Let's try again professor.
>>
>> Before the gate, the cyclists could easily park at the end of the PUBLIC
>> ROAD and cycle on the trail immediately. Now, they get to park on the far
>> side of the gate and ride on the single track. That is the net positive
>> you're boasting about? Right?
>>
>> Well gee willikers. What a great deal!!
>>
>> Hey everybody!! Gather around!! Perhaps we can get this great
>intellectual
>> to close the entire access road. Then we can ride on LOTS of single
>track.
>> 20 miles perhaps. Wouldn't that be great?!
>>
>> Thanks for my part in your everflowing benificence, moron, but I'd rather
>> park right at the entrance and bike in the park than ride from my further
>> parking space on the lovely single track.
>>
>> Get it?
>>
>> Class resumed.


Try again, loonyboy.

>Put your dunce cap back on.

Perhaps if it weren't so firmly in your ass...

>It's a quarter mile at most, lazy boy. If you were at all pasionate about
>mountain biking you would understand how precious ANY singletrack is in the
>East Bay.


Maybe to you. Do you speak for ALL mountain bikers now, oh Grand Poobah? Are
you my appointed representative on all things cycling? A whole quarter mile?
Boy, I feel real lucky about that... Get some more PRECIOUS singletrack for
me, please... Maybe some from downtown Oakland would be nice. It isn't about
single track, it's about the right to access those things which are ours.
Get it?

Shut up, Pete. Everytime you post, you demean the human race.

>This is the best part:
>
>"but I'd rather
>park right at the entrance and bike in the park than ride from my further
>parking space on the lovely single track."
>
>This speaks volumes. Thanks for sharing.


Oooohhhh, now it's the political correctness nazis for the mountain biking
crowd, headed by Pete, "Hey i'm a complete fool" Fagerlin.

Do try to follow along. Forego that next crack hit for 30 seconds or so. I
don't want to ride a quarter mile on your precious single track. I want the
access that is my right as a citizen of this country. Eh?

>Now get back in your corner.


I'm sure this corner is for you, Pete. Maybe we can get you some single
track to it...

Mike

"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:G_4p4.8121$Ea4.104606@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...

<snip>

Sorry Mike.

After reading your latest love note I realized that you most likely don't
ride mountain bikes and have no idea about the significance of single
track.

It explains your lazy boy attitude and your latest retarded ramblings. I
should have checked deja as soon as my "wacko radar" went off. I would have
known much earlier that you post to ba.mountain-folk, live in the SC area
and have no idea about the situation.

Have a nice life!

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

"Tom Holub" <doosh@best.com> wrote in message
news:38a4e12a$0$230@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> In article <Eu2p4.349$A34.12520@news.swbell.net>,
> Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
> )"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
> >
> )> Your exact words were:
> )>
> )> "The installation of the gate was a positive thing for mountain
bikers.
> )> Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL singletrack,
which
> )is
> )> pretty scarce in the East Bay".
> )>
> )>  Now if that isn't a perfect implication that it was THESE HOMEOWNERS
> )that
> )> supplied the single track exactly what is it?
> )
> )No. It's an assumption on your part.
>
> That's ridiculous.  If the singletrack was there and legal before the
> gate was installed, the installation of the gate makes no difference
> to mountain bikers.  The clear implication of your wording above is that
> the singletrack was put there as an alternative to the road ("Instead of
> riding the road we get to ride singletrack").

Another assumption. Where do I write *anything* about the HOMEOWNERS
supplying the singletrack, as Tom claims??

> )> "The installation of the gate was a positive thing for mountain
bikers.
> )> Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL singletrack,
which
> )is
> )> pretty scarce in the East Bay".

As I understand it, the trail was put in by the EBRPD, after the gate was
installed. Hence my statement above.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

Pete Fagerlin wrote in message <4j5p4.562$0g.13855@news.swbell.net>...
>"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:G_4p4.8121$Ea4.104606@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
>
><snip>
>
>Sorry Mike.
>
>After reading your latest love note I realized that you most likely don't
>ride mountain bikes and have no idea about the significance of single
>track.

And I'd have to say that anyone who thinks that a quarter mile of single
track excuses the closing of the public road has no grip on reality.

>It explains your lazy boy attitude and your latest retarded ramblings. I
>should have checked deja as soon as my "wacko radar" went off. I would have
>known much earlier that you post to ba.mountain-folk, live in the SC area
>and have no idea about the situation.

Right. My "retarded ramblings"... Coming from you.... Rich.

Let's see. You propose that the denial of access is a net positive since you
got one quarter mile of single track. I disagree. Who has no concept of
reality? Eh?

I'm sure that my living in the Santa Cruz mountains has some bearing on
whether I ride. I'm sure that whether I post to ba.mountain-folk has some
bearing on whether I ride. You're just pissed because someone disagreed with
you and called you on the carpet for the fool you are and now you're trying
to obscure the issue with false regionalism. More disingenuous crap from
someone on the losing end of the argument.

>Have a nice life!


Ta ta for now. Class is closed pending a brain transplant for Professor
Fagerlin.

I see an interesting misunderstanding.  Let's take a look dispassionately.

I have posted to bicycling newsgroups that this gate closes off access to
Las Trampas Regional Wilderness.

I have been accused of being deliberately deceptive with these words, to
try to obscure the fact that the gate restricts only vehicles, and not
bicyclists, hikers, or horseriders.

I have not been deliberately deceptive.  I use words precicely,
particularly when speaking about laws and rights.  It's important to do
so.  I used the words I used in the way I used them because I thought that
was the best way to express the most important truth of the situation.

It would help you to understand if you know that I did not post to
bicycling newsgroups because I thought that a post deceptively vague would
make bicyclists believe that bicycle access was restricted, and therefore
support the cause.

I posted to bicycling newsgroups because I felt bicyclists, as trail
users, would be sympathetic to the concept of lost access, and I felt that
bicyclists, as generally well-educated and well-informed, would appreciate
the civil rights aspect of the situation, which rises above all others.

In my mind, the most serious wrong of the gate, which every citizen,
cyclist, hiker, whatever, whether or not they are affected by the gate,
should be concerned about, is the taking of a public highway by private
landowners.  That highway belongs to all the people of the State of
California, and the taking of a public highway by private landowners is a
serious violatoin of the law and the civil rights of all persons.

IT NEVER OCCURED TO ME THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE SO SHORT SIGHTED AS TO CARE
WHETHER THE GATE BLOCKED BICYCLES OR NOT.

The reason I didn't specify what _kind_ of access the gate blocked is
because it doesn't matter.  _Acces_, _any_access, being blocked, is the
same as any other, or all access being blocked.  Only a small mind or an
uninformed person would care what kind of access.

If I say, "They're hacking thousands of people up in Rwanda", are you
going to come back to me and say, "Well, you've been deceptive, they're
only hacking up BLACK people".

I'm puzzled by the whining about taking things to court, as though it was
a "sore loser" response.  Isn't that what courts are for?  To settle
disputes about the law?  

I think it's obvious what the issues are, and it's only those who don't
have an argument on the issues who attack the man and his motives.  It's
called "ad hominem argument", and one of the classical fallacies of formal
logic.




=================================
johnny king
northern california usa
johnnyk@primenet.com
=================================

On 10 Feb 2000 15:13:38 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Johnny King
<johnnyk@primenet.com> wrote:

<yeah, yeah, yeah.  I don't care>

Just wanted it understood that I saw this here.  I just can't get
up the energy to respond to any of this drivel.  Perhaps when my
health improves a bit ...

Glen (I musta eaten a bad bicyclist) Appleby
--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

David C�sseres <casseres@apple.com> wrote in message
news:casseres-1002001800140001@cassda2.apple.com...
>
> I'm complaining that through a long series of posts a while back, he
> somehow never mentioned what the restriction actually was: a gate denying
> access to motor vehicles only.  His posts to ba.backcountry and
> ba.bicycles disingenuously made it look like *everyone* was being denied
> access to the park, which is not the case.  All I ask is that someone who
> wants me to help with a cause be open and honest about exactly what is at
> stake.

And I was also reading that thread and never for a moment got the idea that
the public was forbidden to use the public street.

Perhaps you people don't understand -- a public highway is a public highway.
If someone comes along and paves it over that doesn't change the ownership
of that right-of-way.

Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:87vho2$h2o@journal.concentric.net...
>
> It has nothing to do with negotiating. The homeowners followed
> the rules that the county has established for installing a gate
> on their private road.

I'll bet that the courts will most likely find otherwise.

David C�sseres <casseres@apple.com> wrote in message
news:casseres-1002001656390001@cassda2.apple.com...
>
> Oh Tom, you're so sweet to bring my name into your post!

Well, it's always so refreshing to see you and Peter Fagerlin shooting your
mouths off purely to make argument. I especially liked Peter's comment that
made it sound as if the property owners who have illegally blocked access to
public right-of-way had someone put in a single track on their private
preserve for the likes of us poor, poor bikers.

And I also liked your claim that Johnny King had misrepresented his (our!)
position somehow despite the fact that some of us actually followed that
discussion and were not able to detect the misrepresentation that you so
clearly saw. But then, some of us actually read for content rather than
looking for something to argue about.

In article <880mtt$9f1$1@nnrp03.primenet.com>, Johnny King
<johnnyk@primenet.com> wrote:

[long explanation of how Johnny didn't mean to deceive anyone when he
didn't mention, in many posts, that the restriction was only for motor
vehicles]


> I think it's obvious what the issues are, and it's only those who don't
> have an argument on the issues who attack the man and his motives.  It's
> called "ad hominem argument", and one of the classical fallacies of formal
> logic.


Sounds like you don't want my support on this issue, even though I do in
fact agree with you about the larger issue of closing an established
right-of-way.

-- 
David C�sseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Johnny King <johnnyk@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:880mtt$9f1$1@nnrp03.primenet.com...
<snip tear jerking prose>

> I posted to bicycling newsgroups because I felt bicyclists, as
trail
> users, would be sympathetic to the concept of lost access, and
I felt that
> bicyclists, as generally well-educated and well-informed, would
appreciate
> the civil rights aspect of the situation, which rises above all
others.

And you didn't learn anything after you got the exact same
reaction after posting the same misleading crap the last
time............

> In my mind, the most serious wrong of the gate, which every
citizen,
> cyclist, hiker, whatever, whether or not they are affected by
the gate,
> should be concerned about, is the taking of a public highway by
private
> landowners.

>
> IT NEVER OCCURED TO ME THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE SO SHORT SIGHTED AS
TO CARE
> WHETHER THE GATE BLOCKED BICYCLES OR NOT.

Obviously. You didn't think about how phony you would appear to
be after plastering this newgroup (twice now) with your bogus
threat to cycling access at Las Trampas.

Your "spin" was fallacious from the start and casts doubt upon
your motives and the merits of your case.


> The reason I didn't specify what _kind_ of access the gate
blocked is
> because it doesn't matter.  _Acces_, _any_access, being
blocked, is the
> same as any other, or all access being blocked.  Only a small
mind or an
> uninformed person would care what kind of access.

Only an increbibly naive person would post a message, in a
cycling newsgroup, seeking support from cyclists to fight for
their access to Las Trampas, when they still have full access.

> If I say, "They're hacking thousands of people up in Rwanda",
are you
> going to come back to me and say, "Well, you've been deceptive,
they're
> only hacking up BLACK people".

No. A more appropriate analogy would be you saying, "They're
hacking thousands of people up in Rwanda", and when someone
visits Rwanda, nobody is being hacked up, in fact the country is
peaceful, except for one loony running around in the streets
screaming at everyone that they're being hacked up.

> I'm puzzled by the whining about taking things to court, as
though it was
> a "sore loser" response.  Isn't that what courts are for?  To
settle
> disputes about the law?

Absolutely. I think you might have confused your whining with
comments regarding your "spin."

> I think it's obvious what the issues are, and it's only those
who don't
> have an argument on the issues who attack the man and his
motives.  It's
> called "ad hominem argument", and one of the classical
fallacies of formal
> logic.

Issue: Cyclists still have access to Las Trampas, despite what
Jonny claims.

Ad hominem? I don't think so.

As far as the *real* attacks on your character........you are the
one that created the character problem with this second round of
disingenuous posts.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

In article <8815o8$8ef$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net>, "Tom Kunich"
<tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote:

> David C�sseres <casseres@apple.com> wrote in message
> news:casseres-1002001800140001@cassda2.apple.com...
> >
> > I'm complaining that through a long series of posts a while back, he
> > somehow never mentioned what the restriction actually was: a gate denying
> > access to motor vehicles only.  His posts to ba.backcountry and
> > ba.bicycles disingenuously made it look like *everyone* was being denied
> > access to the park, which is not the case.  All I ask is that someone who
> > wants me to help with a cause be open and honest about exactly what is at
> > stake.
> 
> And I was also reading that thread and never for a moment got the idea that
> the public was forbidden to use the public street.

You mean, you understood from the beginning that only motor vehicles were
excluded?  What DO you mean?

> Perhaps you people don't understand -- a public highway is a public highway.
> If someone comes along and paves it over that doesn't change the ownership
> of that right-of-way.

I've already agreed with that several times.  Why does that piss you off
so much?

-- 
David C�sseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

--
--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com


<magical@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:qs7casg4r3vr4467cnua3rbmkcc08kai7p@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:18:13 -0800, "Pete Fagerlin"
<pete@petefagerlin.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't
been
> >denied access.
>
> Yet.
>
> <quote>
>  When they came for the socialists, I didn't do
> anything, for I wasn't a socialist.
>
> When they came for the Gypsies, I didn't do
> anything for I wasn't a Gypsy.
>
> When they came for the Jews, I didn't do
> anything for I wasn't a Jew.
>
> When they came for me, there wasn't anyone
> left to do anything for me.
> </quote>

USENET 101:

Whenever Hitler or the Nazis are brought into a thread, the thread is
officially dead.

Congrats on killing this one.

The homeowners = Nazis?

Sheesh, talk about demeaning the horror that was the Holocaust.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

: Johnny claims that the gate limits cyclist's access to Las Trampas i.e. the
: installation of the gate was detrimental to the cycling experience.

Pete, I never said, wrote, or implied anything of the kind.  You're a
malicious, lying sack of shit.  There's no polite way to say it.

-Johnny

In article <Eu2p4.349$A34.12520@news.swbell.net>,
Pete Fagerlin <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
)"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote in message
>
)> Your exact words were:
)>
)> "The installation of the gate was a positive thing for mountain bikers.
)> Instead of riding the road we get to ride some LEGAL singletrack, which
)is
)> pretty scarce in the East Bay".
)>
)>  Now if that isn't a perfect implication that it was THESE HOMEOWNERS
)that
)> supplied the single track exactly what is it?
)
)No. It's an assumption on your part.

That's ridiculous.  If the singletrack was there and legal before the 
gate was installed, the installation of the gate makes no difference
to mountain bikers.  The clear implication of your wording above is that
the singletrack was put there as an alternative to the road ("Instead of
riding the road we get to ride singletrack").
 -Tom

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:28:03 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

>It explains your lazy boy attitude and your latest retarded ramblings. I
>should have checked deja as soon as my "wacko radar" went off. I would have
>known much earlier that you post to ba.mountain-folk, live in the SC area
>and have no idea about the situation.

Bada-bing, bada-bang!  Somebody finally almost gets it!

ba.mountain-folk involves people who are quite some distance from
the area under discussion, yet Johnnie keeps posting this bicycle
drivel here anyway.

But the best part of the irony is that when one of our regulars
(a bicyclist -- gawd forgive him) involves himself in the
discussion, he's told that he has no idea of the situation.

It would be nice if you bi-wheeled tards would exclude
ba.mountain-folk from yer lame flames, but this seems not to be
the case.  We are doomed to get the fallout each time that
Johnnie gets a day in court (sometimes just to use the mens
room).

Well, I just decided to plan a biker-fest.  I'm going to invite
all of you folks to my house for a big party.  Then, when you
arrive, I'll simply kill ya and eat ya.  (freeze the excess, of
course, but I can consume one heck of a lot of cyclists -- yer so
damned skinny)

Nah -- I won't post the invitation under my name.  It'll appear
as one of you regulars posting the invitation.

Glen (happy partying) Appleby
--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

"Glen Appleby" <glena@ihwy.com> wrote in message
news:38a532d1.245222399@news.ihwy.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:28:03 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
> Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
<snip>

> It would be nice if you bi-wheeled tards would exclude
> ba.mountain-folk from yer lame flames, but this seems not to be
> the case.  We are doomed to get the fallout each time that
> Johnnie gets a day in court (sometimes just to use the mens
> room).

Perhaps someone could run a mobile software education program from a big
ole school bus, one that traveled to isolated areas and educated folks
about software like Forte Free Agent. They copuld even explain about
filters.

Until that program gets going, you could check your help menu or just
exercise some self control and not read threads that upset you.

You have the power.

> Well, I just decided to plan a biker-fest.  I'm going to invite
> all of you folks to my house for a big party.  Then, when you
> arrive, I'll simply kill ya and eat ya.  (freeze the excess, of
> course, but I can consume one heck of a lot of cyclists -- yer so
> damned skinny)

Nice try Glen, but this tired old troll isn't very effective when one has
seen it a hundred times. You need some new material.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:456p4.8276$Ea4.105885@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
> Pete Fagerlin wrote in message <4j5p4.562$0g.13855@news.swbell.net>...
> >"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:G_4p4.8121$Ea4.104606@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Sorry Mike.
> >
> >After reading your latest love note I realized that you most likely
don't
> >ride mountain bikes and have no idea about the significance of single
> >track.
>
> And I'd have to say that anyone who thinks that a quarter mile of single
> track excuses the closing of the public road has no grip on reality.
>
> >It explains your lazy boy attitude and your latest retarded ramblings. I
> >should have checked deja as soon as my "wacko radar" went off. I would
have
> >known much earlier that you post to ba.mountain-folk, live in the SC
area
> >and have no idea about the situation.
>
> Right. My "retarded ramblings"... Coming from you.... Rich.
>
> Let's see. You propose that the denial of access is a net positive since
you
> got one quarter mile of single track.

Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't been
denied access.

>I disagree. Who has no concept of
> reality? Eh?

>
> I'm sure that my living in the Santa Cruz mountains has some bearing on
> whether I ride. I'm sure that whether I post to ba.mountain-folk has some
> bearing on whether I ride. You're just pissed because someone disagreed
with
> you and called you on the carpet for the fool you are and now you're
trying
> to obscure the issue with false regionalism. More disingenuous crap from
> someone on the losing end of the argument.

You missed the point, which is no big surprise. My comments have nothing to
do with geography and everything to do with newsgroups. It seems You
haven't posted a thing to ba.bicycles and thus were clueless when you
jumped into the interchange between Les and myself. You made a bunch of
assumptions, flamed away at me and ended up looking like an ass. Since
then, you been trying to salve your bruised ego.

Perhaps you should try following your own advice:

"Lurk, then post when you know WTF you're talking about."

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:23:19 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

>"Glen Appleby" <glena@ihwy.com> wrote in message
>news:38a532d1.245222399@news.ihwy.com...
>
>> It would be nice if you bi-wheeled tards would exclude
>> ba.mountain-folk from yer lame flames, but this seems not to be
>> the case.  We are doomed to get the fallout each time that
>> Johnnie gets a day in court (sometimes just to use the mens
>> room).
>
>Perhaps someone could run a mobile software education program from a big
>ole school bus, one that traveled to isolated areas and educated folks
>about software like Forte Free Agent. They copuld even explain about
>filters.
>
>Until that program gets going, you could check your help menu or just
>exercise some self control and not read threads that upset you.

Actually *Free* Agent has no killfile abilities to speak of.  In
my armory account, I have killfile abilities; but the only thing
in my killfile is ... me (good advice for everybody).

Of course I have self control and this inane drivel *hardly*
upsets me.  I just find it amazing that ole Johnnie feels the
need to post this useless (to this group) stuff here, knowing the
sorts of replies that he is gonna get from most of the folks
here.

>> Well, I just decided to plan a biker-fest.  I'm going to invite
>> all of you folks to my house for a big party.  Then, when you
>> arrive, I'll simply kill ya and eat ya.  (freeze the excess, of
>> course, but I can consume one heck of a lot of cyclists -- yer so
>> damned skinny)
>
>Nice try Glen, but this tired old troll isn't very effective when one has
>seen it a hundred times. You need some new material.

Sorry.  I just never seem to tire of the taste of cooked
bicyclist.  Hell, even the spandex serves as dental floss and
those overpriced spokes do well as toothpicks.

--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:18:13 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

>You missed the point, which is no big surprise. My comments have nothing to
>do with geography and everything to do with newsgroups. It seems You
>haven't posted a thing to ba.bicycles and thus were clueless when you
>jumped into the interchange between Les and myself. You made a bunch of
>assumptions, flamed away at me and ended up looking like an ass. 

Mmmmmm.  Bicyclist rump roast.  The fatest part of most cyclists
-- aside from the heads.

Do you still give good head, BTW?

--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

Tell me Pete. What are you going to have to say when Johnny no doubt
wins his case? Are you going to bemoan the loss of 1/4 mile of
singletrack installed at the behest of the homeowners in that area?


Pete Fagerlin wrote:
> 
> "Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:456p4.8276$Ea4.105885@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
> > Pete Fagerlin wrote in message <4j5p4.562$0g.13855@news.swbell.net>...
> > >"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > >news:G_4p4.8121$Ea4.104606@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >Sorry Mike.
> > >
> > >After reading your latest love note I realized that you most likely
> don't
> > >ride mountain bikes and have no idea about the significance of single
> > >track.
> >
> > And I'd have to say that anyone who thinks that a quarter mile of single
> > track excuses the closing of the public road has no grip on reality.
> >
> > >It explains your lazy boy attitude and your latest retarded ramblings. I
> > >should have checked deja as soon as my "wacko radar" went off. I would
> have
> > >known much earlier that you post to ba.mountain-folk, live in the SC
> area
> > >and have no idea about the situation.
> >
> > Right. My "retarded ramblings"... Coming from you.... Rich.
> >
> > Let's see. You propose that the denial of access is a net positive since
> you
> > got one quarter mile of single track.
> 
> Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't been
> denied access.
> 
> >I disagree. Who has no concept of
> > reality? Eh?
> 
> >
> > I'm sure that my living in the Santa Cruz mountains has some bearing on
> > whether I ride. I'm sure that whether I post to ba.mountain-folk has some
> > bearing on whether I ride. You're just pissed because someone disagreed
> with
> > you and called you on the carpet for the fool you are and now you're
> trying
> > to obscure the issue with false regionalism. More disingenuous crap from
> > someone on the losing end of the argument.
> 
> You missed the point, which is no big surprise. My comments have nothing to
> do with geography and everything to do with newsgroups. It seems You
> haven't posted a thing to ba.bicycles and thus were clueless when you
> jumped into the interchange between Les and myself. You made a bunch of
> assumptions, flamed away at me and ended up looking like an ass. Since
> then, you been trying to salve your bruised ego.
> 
> Perhaps you should try following your own advice:
> 
> "Lurk, then post when you know WTF you're talking about."
> 
> --
> Pete Fagerlin
> Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
> usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

Mike Parrish wrote:
> 
> (stupid shit from Pete Fagerlin)
> Try again, loonyboy.
> 
> >Put your dunce cap back on.
> 
> Perhaps if it weren't so firmly in your ass...
> 
> Maybe to you. Do you speak for ALL mountain bikers now, oh Grand Poobah?
> 
> Shut up, Pete. Everytime you post, you demean the human race.
> 
> Oooohhhh, now it's the political correctness nazis for the mountain biking
> crowd, headed by Pete, "Hey i'm a complete fool" Fagerlin.

Well, do far it appears that you've gotten Pete directly in your sights.

> Do try to follow along. Forego that next crack hit for 30 seconds or so. I
> don't want to ride a quarter mile on your precious single track. I want the
> access that is my right as a citizen of this country. Eh?

Rights aren't what this guy is after. What we really need to hear about
is all of that precious singletrack and how Pete is the local MTB Guru.
Well, I'm impressed, aren't you? 

We're stupid and don't know shit about mountain biking and Pete is the
Hero of Mountain Biking. Gee, a quarter of a mile AT THE MOST of single
track is something that we should ignore our civil rights for.

Thanks ever so much Pete.

Pete Fagerlin wrote in message ...
>"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:456p4.8276$Ea4.105885@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
>> Pete Fagerlin wrote in message <4j5p4.562$0g.13855@news.swbell.net>...
>> >"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> >news:G_4p4.8121$Ea4.104606@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
>> >
>> ><snip>


<more snip>

>>
>> Right. My "retarded ramblings"... Coming from you.... Rich.
>>
>> Let's see. You propose that the denial of access is a net positive since
>you
>> got one quarter mile of single track.
>
>Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't been
>denied access.

How stupid can you be? Let's take this analogy just a tad bit further shall
we professor? The homeowners, with the tacit approval of the county, decide
that they don't like the glorious single track. They build a two foot
drainage pipe from the gate to the park and insist that all park users
traverse this pipe to get to the park. Are you denied access yet? I still
have "access", I just don't like the terms. There shouldn't be ANY
conditions on the access. It's a public road.

Get it professor?

>>I disagree. Who has no concept of
>> reality? Eh?
>
>>
>> I'm sure that my living in the Santa Cruz mountains has some bearing on
>> whether I ride. I'm sure that whether I post to ba.mountain-folk has some
>> bearing on whether I ride. You're just pissed because someone disagreed
>with
>> you and called you on the carpet for the fool you are and now you're
>trying
>> to obscure the issue with false regionalism. More disingenuous crap from
>> someone on the losing end of the argument.
>
>You missed the point, which is no big surprise. My comments have nothing to
>do with geography and everything to do with newsgroups. It seems You
>haven't posted a thing to ba.bicycles and thus were clueless when you
>jumped into the interchange between Les and myself. You made a bunch of
>assumptions, flamed away at me and ended up looking like an ass. Since
>then, you been trying to salve your bruised ego.


Well, since I'm getting this via ba.mountain-folk, to which you're replying,
and which has no record of you're ongoing spat, I'd have to say that you're
the total idiot for not even checking the headers for which newsgroups are
included....

Get it professor?

>Perhaps you should try following your own advice:
>
>"Lurk, then post when you know WTF you're talking about."


That's good advice. See above regarding newsgroups involved in conversation.
Let's look closer at this shall we?

What part seems hard to follow:
1) Homeowners illegally erect a gate on public property and deny vehicle
access to the park.
2) People complain, some in court, that this is wrong.
3) Peter "professor" Fagerlin says we're a bunch of whiners because someone
took it to court and it's a "net positive" because the mountain bikers got a
quarter mile of single track.
4) Conversation degenerates as per usenet requirements.

Did I miss something professor?

You may feel that the single track addition is worth the loss of generic
access to public lands. Most of the rest of us disagree. You seem SO excited
that the quarter mile single track is in, that you'd forgive the homeowner
the gross taking of access. If I'm incorrect, please state your position on
this clearly for the rest of us.

Mike

"Tom Kunich" <elizabethannk@home.com> wrote in message
news:38A58466.5B595C7E@home.com...
> Tell me Pete. What are you going to have to say when Johnny no doubt
> wins his case? Are you going to bemoan the loss of 1/4 mile of
> singletrack installed at the behest of the homeowners in that area?

Nah, if he wins I'll congratulate him, despite the fact that cyclist's
access to Las Trampas is unaffected.

I'll still ride the singletrack, because it is more interesting than the
road (which I know is difficult for you to grasp).

Have you seen Tomac ride up any vertical slopes lately?  Haha.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Iyjp4.8670$Ea4.115386@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
> Pete Fagerlin wrote in message ...
> >"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:456p4.8276$Ea4.105885@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
> >> Pete Fagerlin wrote in message <4j5p4.562$0g.13855@news.swbell.net>...
> >> >"Mike Parrish" <splork@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:G_4p4.8121$Ea4.104606@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net...
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
>
>
> <more snip>
>
> >>
> >> Right. My "retarded ramblings"... Coming from you.... Rich.
> >>
> >> Let's see. You propose that the denial of access is a net positive
since
> >you
> >> got one quarter mile of single track.
> >
> >Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't
been
> >denied access.
>
> How stupid can you be? Let's take this analogy just a tad bit further
shall
> we professor? The homeowners, with the tacit approval of the county,
decide
> that they don't like the glorious single track. They build a two foot
> drainage pipe from the gate to the park and insist that all park users
> traverse this pipe to get to the park. Are you denied access yet? I still
> have "access", I just don't like the terms. There shouldn't be ANY
> conditions on the access. It's a public road.

Your analogy is flawed, no big surprise there, because you neglect to take
into account the permiting process that is required to make that kind of
change (water/drainage is a touchy subject).

Even if they did, a two foot pipe is a nice technical challenge, which I'm
sure you wouldn't understand.

<snip>

> >You missed the point, which is no big surprise. My comments have nothing
to
> >do with geography and everything to do with newsgroups. It seems You
> >haven't posted a thing to ba.bicycles and thus were clueless when you
> >jumped into the interchange between Les and myself. You made a bunch of
> >assumptions, flamed away at me and ended up looking like an ass. Since
> >then, you been trying to salve your bruised ego.
>
>
> Well, since I'm getting this via ba.mountain-folk, to which you're
replying,
> and which has no record of you're ongoing spat, I'd have to say that
you're
> the total idiot for not even checking the headers for which newsgroups
are
> included....

Oh, I saw the headers all right. I just failed to anticipate that some
bumpkin would stick his nose into the middle of a conversation that he knew
nothing about. The bumpkin should have followed his own advice.

>
> Get it professor?
>
> >Perhaps you should try following your own advice:
> >
> >"Lurk, then post when you know WTF you're talking about."
>
>
> That's good advice. See above regarding newsgroups involved in
conversation.

If it's good advice, why didn't you follow it. Do as I say and not as I do,
eh?

> Let's look closer at this shall we?
>
> What part seems hard to follow:
> 1) Homeowners illegally erect a gate on public property and deny vehicle
> access to the park.

Wrong. Homeowners follow the laws of the County, obtaining all of the
neccessary permits, and erect a gate. The gate is installed per the laws of
the County.

> 2) People complain, some in court, that this is wrong.

You're assumption, once again. The issue is not with the court case, but
with the disengenuous posts of the plaitiff. Please go back and read the
thread from the beginning, I'm getting tired of repeating this point. It's
really not that hard to understand the distinction.


> 3) Peter "professor" Fagerlin says we're a bunch of whiners because
someone
> took it to court and it's a "net positive" because the mountain bikers
got a
> quarter mile of single track.

Wrong again you dolt. Taking it to the courts is not an issue that I've
whined about, or even commented on. You are the idiot who infered that from
my response to Les and the reference that I made to his current appeal.
Please have someone explain this point to you, since you seem incapable of
understanding it.

> 4) Conversation degenerates as per usenet requirements.

Agreed. Amazing isn't it?

>
> Did I miss something professor?

See above for the details of what you missed, again.

>
> You may feel that the single track addition is worth the loss of generic
> access to public lands.

What is this "generic access"? Cyclists haven't lost any access to Las
Trampas.

 >Most of the rest of us disagree.

Who is this "most" that you are speaking for? Have you taken a poll? A
vote? How did you reach all of these people?

>You seem SO excited
> that the quarter mile single track is in, that you'd forgive the
homeowner
> the gross taking of access. If I'm incorrect, please state your position
on
> this clearly for the rest of us.

See above. Better yet, start over from the very beginning of the thread and
make sure you have someone with you that can explain it to you.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:18:13 -0800, "Pete Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com>
wrote:

>Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't been
>denied access.

Yet.

<quote>
 When they came for the socialists, I didn't do  
anything, for I wasn't a socialist.  

When they came for the Gypsies, I didn't do  
anything for I wasn't a Gypsy.   

When they came for the Jews, I didn't do  
anything for I wasn't a Jew.  

When they came for me, there wasn't anyone  
left to do anything for me.
</quote>

If you aren't willing to stand up when trail access, *for anyone*, is
restricted, then don't expect anyone else to stand up for your cause when trail
access for you is restricted.  Just because the restriction that is in place
isn't bothering you right now doesn't mean it is right, or more importantly,
should be left to stand as a precedent.  If the access restriction, however
minor and however few people it really restricts, is illegal, it should be
fought to help prevent this case from becoming a precident to other cases where
the access restriction is greater.  Access is one of those things that, once
lost, is never regained.  Every year we have less and less access to open lands.
No one opens up new lands, only closes off access to lands that were formerly
open...

jc

On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:41:42 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

><magical@rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:qs7casg4r3vr4467cnua3rbmkcc08kai7p@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:18:13 -0800, "Pete Fagerlin"
><pete@petefagerlin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't
>been
>> >denied access.
>>
>> Yet.
>>
>> <quote>
>>  When they came for the socialists, I didn't do
>> anything, for I wasn't a socialist.
<snip>

>USENET 101:
>
>Whenever Hitler or the Nazis are brought into a thread, the thread is
>officially dead.

This is the motto of usenet pussies.  They begin crying these
words (or similar) to be able to escape a discussion when they
are over their heads intellectually.

--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

"Glen Appleby" <glena@ihwy.com> wrote in message
news:38a6a74a.340590163@news.ihwy.com...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:41:42 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
> Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
> ><magical@rahul.net> wrote in message
> >news:qs7casg4r3vr4467cnua3rbmkcc08kai7p@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:18:13 -0800, "Pete Fagerlin"
> ><pete@petefagerlin.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't
> >been
> >> >denied access.
> >>
> >> Yet.
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >>  When they came for the socialists, I didn't do
> >> anything, for I wasn't a socialist.
> <snip>
>
> >USENET 101:
> >
> >Whenever Hitler or the Nazis are brought into a thread, the thread is
> >officially dead.
>
> This is the motto of usenet pussies.  They begin crying these
> words (or similar) to be able to escape a discussion when they
> are over their heads intellectually.

No Glen, it's the response to folks who are intellectually bankrupt.

I take it that you use Hitler/Nazis frequently frequently, eh?

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:20:33 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

>"Glen Appleby" <glena@ihwy.com> wrote in message
>news:38a6a74a.340590163@news.ihwy.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:41:42 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
>> Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><magical@rahul.net> wrote in message
>> >news:qs7casg4r3vr4467cnua3rbmkcc08kai7p@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 06:18:13 -0800, "Pete Fagerlin"
>> ><pete@petefagerlin.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hehe. One more time Mike, I still have access to the park. I haven't
>> >been
>> >> >denied access.
>> >>
>> >> Yet.
>> >>
>> >> <quote>
>> >>  When they came for the socialists, I didn't do
>> >> anything, for I wasn't a socialist.
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Whenever Hitler or the Nazis are brought into a thread, the thread is
>> >officially dead.
>>
>> This is the motto of usenet pussies.  They begin crying these
>> words (or similar) to be able to escape a discussion when they
>> are over their heads intellectually.
>
>No Glen, it's the response to folks who are intellectually bankrupt.

Interesting perspective.  I see your response as one used by
people who just cannot respond to the analogy.  I guess that
"intellectually bankrupt" might be one reason, yes.

If you will check back, I think that you will find that JC didn't
bring Hitler or the Nazis into it directly and definately not to
suggest that anybody is a Nazi or like Hitler (which, if you'll
check back, I think that you will find is the reason that the
wimpering that you used, here, came about).

If you will check into her quote, I also think that you will find
that the originator was not even  Nazi, but a religious leader.

Gosh -- now don't you look even more foolish .... I know --
difficult to imagine.  And you did it without any help form
anybody else.  Quite the DIY, huh?

>I take it that you use Hitler/Nazis frequently frequently, eh?

Seldom, I'm afraid.  You could confirm that yourself by checking
out DejaDrool.  Search for "glena" (I have had a number of ISPs)
and "Nazi" or "Hitler".

I'll expect you to report back on what you have found.

--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

"Glen Appleby" <glena@ihwy.com> wrote in message
news:38a6df11.354870787@news.ihwy.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:20:33 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
> Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
<snip>

> If you will check back, I think that you will find that JC didn't
> bring Hitler or the Nazis into it directly and definately not to
> suggest that anybody is a Nazi or like Hitler (which, if you'll
> check back, I think that you will find is the reason that the
> wimpering that you used, here, came about).
>
> If you will check into her quote, I also think that you will find
> that the originator was not even  Nazi, but a religious leader.

Glen honey, the quote refers to the pograms that were carried out by the
Nazis and obviously wasn't written by a Nazi.

Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture in the
air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized. I would
suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your psychiatrist
ASAP.

Good luck.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:24:39 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

>"Glen Appleby" <glena@ihwy.com> wrote in message
>news:38a6df11.354870787@news.ihwy.com...
>
>> If you will check back, I think that you will find that JC didn't
>> bring Hitler or the Nazis into it directly and definately not to
>> suggest that anybody is a Nazi or like Hitler (which, if you'll
>> check back, I think that you will find is the reason that the
>> wimpering that you used, here, came about).
>>
>> If you will check into her quote, I also think that you will find
>> that the originator was not even  Nazi, but a religious leader.
>
>Glen honey, the quote refers to the pograms that were carried out by the
>Nazis and obviously wasn't written by a Nazi.

Well, then, your trying to invoke Goodwin's Law was misplaced as
I suggested?

So you were simply wimpering, as I suggested?

>Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture in the
>air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized. I would
>suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your psychiatrist
>ASAP.

IOW you have nothing valid to say on the issue of the subject
line, JC's post or much of anything else?

Thought not.

--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

> Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture in the
> air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized. I would
> suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your psychiatrist
> ASAP.
>
> Good luck.
> --
> Pete Fagerlin

Dear Mr. Fagerlin,

Please don your silly little spandex leotard and take your tricycle on a
ride in rush-hour traffic in a blinding rainstorm. Your self righteousness,
ignorance and lack of whit are becoming droll and wearisome.

-whr- (A gnarly bear arising from an early hibernation )

I do not feel obliged to believe that  same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.
--- Galileo Galilei

> If you lack the intelligence to accomplish this simple task, which seems
> likely based upon your "thoughtful" post above, you can always exercise
> some self-restraint and resist the urge to read my posts.
>
> Good luck to you, it's apparent you'll need it to address this amazing
> crisis in the midst of your internet experience.
> --
> Pete Fagerlin

The root of all arrogance is insecurity. Whattsa matter Pete, insecure about
that little "peter"?

-whr-

We give advice by the bucket, but take it by the grain.
--- William Alger

"whr" <whross@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:887bp2$tto$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture in
the
> > air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized. I
would
> > suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your
psychiatrist
> > ASAP.
> >
> > Good luck.
> > --
> > Pete Fagerlin
>
> Dear Mr. Fagerlin,
>
> Please don your silly little spandex leotard and take your tricycle on a
> ride in rush-hour traffic in a blinding rainstorm. Your self
righteousness,
> ignorance and lack of whit are becoming droll and wearisome.
>
> -whr- (A gnarly bear arising from an early hibernation )

Poor little -whr-.........did I poke fun at one of your pals?

If my posts upset you so much that you feel the need to write silly things
(like your little missive above), perhaps you need to figure out how to use
message rules , aka filters.

If you lack the intelligence to accomplish this simple task, which seems
likely based upon your "thoughtful" post above, you can always exercise
some self-restraint and resist the urge to read my posts.

Good luck to you, it's apparent you'll need it to address this amazing
crisis in the midst of your internet experience.

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

"whr" <whross@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:887itu$cr5$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > If you lack the intelligence to accomplish this simple task, which
seems
> > likely based upon your "thoughtful" post above, you can always exercise
> > some self-restraint and resist the urge to read my posts.
> >
> > Good luck to you, it's apparent you'll need it to address this amazing
> > crisis in the midst of your internet experience.
> > --
> > Pete Fagerlin
>
> The root of all arrogance is insecurity. Whattsa matter Pete, insecure
about
> that little "peter"?

Haha. I knew you didn't have the self-control, you were just whining for
the sake of whining.

Thanks for the laughs!

--
Pete Fagerlin
Cycling pictures, videos, and unopinionated diatribes can
usually be found at: http://www.petefagerlin.com

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:35:44 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Pete
Fagerlin" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:

>Poor little -whr-.........did I poke fun at one of your pals?

Nope.  Just wanted to make it clear that I am no friend of
someone who wants to clearcut redwoods and kill off all of the
deer on his ROW.

>If my posts upset you so much that you feel the need to write silly things
>(like your little missive above), perhaps you need to figure out how to use
>message rules , aka filters.

Let me guess -- since you have mentioned this twice (the first
time, showing a total lack of knowledge), I must assume that you
*just* discovered them, yourself, and want to attempt to show
everybody how net.savy you are.

<snicker>

(anybody wanna bet that he is gonna tell us how long he has been
on the net, now?)

>If you lack the intelligence to accomplish this simple task, which seems
>likely based upon your "thoughtful" post above, you can always exercise
>some self-restraint and resist the urge to read my posts.

Your posts?  What *are* you talking about?  I have not seen such
feeble attempts at intellect since Tim May started posting, here.
You are a bit more entertaining, though.  Well,if only in how you
take yourself so seriously.

>Good luck to you, it's apparent you'll need it to address this amazing
>crisis in the midst of your internet experience.

And you believe in luck, too?

Does the fun never stop?

--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

In article <887bp2$tto$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "whr"
<whross@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture in the
> > air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized. I would
> > suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your psychiatrist
> > ASAP.
> >
> > Good luck.
> > --
> > Pete Fagerlin
> 
> Dear Mr. Fagerlin,
> 
> Please don your silly little spandex leotard and take your tricycle on a
> ride in rush-hour traffic in a blinding rainstorm. Your self righteousness,
> ignorance and lack of whit are becoming droll and wearisome.

Don't talk so snotty until you learn to spell "wit."

-- 
David C�sseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:54:29 -0800, in
ba.mountain-folk,casseres@apple.com (David C�sseres) wrote:

>Don't talk so snotty until you learn to spell "wit."

Uh, oh.  A spelling flame (lame as it may be) from the bicycling
contingent?

I really expected nothing better.

--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:16:12 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,"Tom
Kunich" <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote:

>Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote in message
>news:tcmay-1502000830500001@dyn-207-111-242-53.sjc.got.net...
>>
>> You _do_ understand the difference between "droll" and "troll," don't you?
>> Or are just being one or both?
>
>I love it when the fish are biting.

That's hardly sporting!  Tim considers himself to be high on the
intellectual scale and the rest of us are hardly worth his time,
intellectually.  That means that he is not watching for ambush.

You know, of course, that catching him like this is really gonna
piss him off.  He'll be out gunnin for ya.  Ya better keep yer
covers over yer head at night.

Glen (boogeyman patrol) Appleby
--
Do not underestimate your abilities.  That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby glena@armory.com <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>

In article <38A899C0.346A67E9@netscape.com>, Daniel Veditz
<dveditz@netscape.com> wrote:

> "David C�sseres" wrote:
> > 
> > In article <887bp2$tto$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "whr"
> > <whross@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture in the
> > > > air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized.
I would
> > > > suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your psychiatrist
> > > > ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > Good luck.
> > > > --
> > > > Pete Fagerlin
> > >
> > > Dear Mr. Fagerlin,
> > >
> > > Please don your silly little spandex leotard and take your tricycle on a
> > > ride in rush-hour traffic in a blinding rainstorm. Your self
righteousness,
> > > ignorance and lack of whit are becoming droll and wearisome.
> > 
> > Don't talk so snotty until you learn to spell "wit."
> 
> And here I thought Glen was using a creative euphemism for Pete's
> allegedly missing manhood. :-)

In any case, the "becoming droll and wearisome" is the greater error.
Where I come from, being called droll is high praise.

Not that anyone here gives a whit.


--Tim May

-- 
They pulled the pin...now we're all just waiting
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.

Daniel Veditz <dveditz@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:38A899C0.346A67E9@netscape.com...
> "David C�sseres" wrote:
> >
> > In article <887bp2$tto$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "whr"
> > <whross@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture in
the
> > > > air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized. I
would
> > > > suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your
psychiatrist
> > > > ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > Good luck.
> > > > --
> > > > Pete Fagerlin
> > >
> > > Dear Mr. Fagerlin,
> > >
> > > Please don your silly little spandex leotard and take your tricycle on
a
> > > ride in rush-hour traffic in a blinding rainstorm. Your self
righteousness,
> > > ignorance and lack of whit are becoming droll and wearisome.
> >
> > Don't talk so snotty until you learn to spell "wit."
>
> And here I thought Glen was using a creative euphemism for Pete's
> allegedly missing manhood. :-)

I thought that it was a racial epithet.

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote in message
news:tcmay-1402001645180001@dyn-207-111-241-87.sjc.got.net...
> In article <38A899C0.346A67E9@netscape.com>, Daniel Veditz
> <dveditz@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > "David C�sseres" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <887bp2$tto$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "whr"
> > > <whross@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Perhaps all of this rain, and the associated increase in moisture
in the
> > > > > air, is interfering with the way your meds are being metabolized.
> I would
> > > > > suggest that you cut back on your fluid intake and see your
psychiatrist
> > > > > ASAP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good luck.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Pete Fagerlin
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr. Fagerlin,
> > > >
> > > > Please don your silly little spandex leotard and take your tricycle
on a
> > > > ride in rush-hour traffic in a blinding rainstorm. Your self
> righteousness,
> > > > ignorance and lack of whit are becoming droll and wearisome.
> > >
> > > Don't talk so snotty until you learn to spell "wit."
> >
> > And here I thought Glen was using a creative euphemism for Pete's
> > allegedly missing manhood. :-)
>
> In any case, the "becoming droll and wearisome" is the greater error.
> Where I come from, being called droll is high praise.
>
> Not that anyone here gives a whit.

To you it's high praise to live under bridges?

In article <88bl65$4ik$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net>, "Tom Kunich"
<tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote:

> Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote in message
> news:tcmay-1402001645180001@dyn-207-111-241-87.sjc.got.net...

> >
> > In any case, the "becoming droll and wearisome" is the greater error.
> > Where I come from, being called droll is high praise.
> >
> > Not that anyone here gives a whit.
> 
> To you it's high praise to live under bridges?


???

You _do_ understand the difference between "droll" and "troll," don't you?
Or are just being one or both?


--Tim May

-- 
They pulled the pin...now we're all just waiting
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote in message
news:tcmay-1502000830500001@dyn-207-111-242-53.sjc.got.net...
> In article <88bl65$4ik$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net>, "Tom Kunich"
> <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
>
> > Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote in message
> > news:tcmay-1402001645180001@dyn-207-111-241-87.sjc.got.net...
>
> > >
> > > In any case, the "becoming droll and wearisome" is the greater error.
> > > Where I come from, being called droll is high praise.
> > >
> > > Not that anyone here gives a whit.
> >
> > To you it's high praise to live under bridges?
>
>
> ???
>
> You _do_ understand the difference between "droll" and "troll," don't you?
> Or are just being one or both?

I love it when the fish are biting.

In article <88c1pa$ht2$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net>, "Tom Kunich"
<tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote:

> Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote in message
> news:tcmay-1502000830500001@dyn-207-111-242-53.sjc.got.net...
> > In article <88bl65$4ik$1@ffx2nh4.news.uu.net>, "Tom Kunich"
> > <tkunich@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote in message
> > > news:tcmay-1402001645180001@dyn-207-111-241-87.sjc.got.net...
> >
> > > >
> > > > In any case, the "becoming droll and wearisome" is the greater error.
> > > > Where I come from, being called droll is high praise.
> > > >
> > > > Not that anyone here gives a whit.
> > >
> > > To you it's high praise to live under bridges?
> >
> >
> > ???
> >
> > You _do_ understand the difference between "droll" and "troll," don't you?
> > Or are just being one or both?
> 
> I love it when the fish are biting.

The troll of a nitwit.

More spokeheads need to be run off the road. I'll try to make quota today.


--Tim May

-- 
They pulled the pin...now we're all just waiting
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.