Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???

Bill Z.

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On 18 Jun 2008 21:45:28 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 14 Jun 2008 23:47:17 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> No one knows what it means, including the author. Surely, you must
> >> >> have more important things to do? Oh, I forgot, it's you. Forget I
> >> >> said that. I KNOW you don't have anything better to do.
> >> >
> >> >ROTFLMAO. *You* get caught violating U.S. copyright laws and instead
> >> >of cleaning up your act, you try to attack the messenger. Both of them.
> >>
> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
> >
> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
> >at least in principle.
>
> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
> that email! This should be good!

Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
crime and it clearly isn't.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman

On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> On 18 Jun 2008 21:45:28 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 14 Jun 2008 23:47:17 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> No one knows what it means, including the author. Surely, you must
>> >> >> have more important things to do? Oh, I forgot, it's you. Forget I
>> >> >> said that. I KNOW you don't have anything better to do.
>> >> >
>> >> >ROTFLMAO. *You* get caught violating U.S. copyright laws and instead
>> >> >of cleaning up your act, you try to attack the messenger. Both of them.
>> >>
>> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
>> >
>> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
>> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
>> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
>> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
>> >at least in principle.
>>
>> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
>> that email! This should be good!
>
>Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>crime and it clearly isn't.

If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
only victim is ME.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Bill Z.

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
> >> >
> >> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
> >> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
> >> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
> >> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
> >> >at least in principle.
> >>
> >> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
> >> that email! This should be good!
> >
> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>
> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> only victim is ME.

If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
worthless.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

ensenadajim

Yeah, he lied and were I that person running, I would be suing the OP
for defamation of character for linking my pic to you.

Of course, you have never lied.


j.


On Jun 14, 2:05*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "maguahi...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <maguahi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 14, 2:32*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> > On 13 Jun 2008 18:10:26 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >> > >> X-Apparently-To: mjva...@pacbell.net via 68.142.199.94; Fri, 13 Jun
> >> > >> 2008 11:15:29 -0700
> >> > ><email from someone else posted to newsgroup snipped>
>
> >> > >You might want to read <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html>
> >> > >before posting (and therefore publishing) *email authored by someone
> >> > >else. *You should note that a copyright notice is no longer
> >> > >required and that registration is no longer required:
>
> >> > > * * * *"Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This
> >> > > * * * *requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to
> >> > > * * * *the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989."
>
> >> > The best way to deal with harassment is to make it public. DUH! Did
> >> > you have a valid) point? It's interesting that you would side with the
> >> > person doing the harassment, rather than the person being harassed.....
>
> >> Suggesting that you think about obeying copyright laws is somehow
> >> siding with someone harassing you? *Vandeman, you are truly an idiot..
>
> >> You could have complied with the law by simply paraphrasing what he
> >> sent you, or if it was a bona fide attempt at harassment, you could
> >> have simply reported it to the police.
>
> >> --
> >> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >If you want copyright violations. Check out his entire site. No
> >oriiginal content at all. all quotes from others because he hasn't a
> >bit of info himself...He even claimed to write a book on mountain
> >biking but has yet to produce the name. He does "reviews of
> >literature" which anyone can do...probably learned most of his
> >reviewing when working for that technology company he works for...the
> >same one that RAPES the wild in the name of new technology. He's a
> >fraud and fake...Oh yeah...and he can't tell the difference between
> >his name and Mike VANDERMAN which is always his defense against my
> >posts. He's an asshole.
>
> Still waiting for your explanation of why you deliberately LIED:
>
> "I found this picture of Mike Vanderman protesting a bike race...he is
> trying to run down the biker...that crazy Mike!! He's always good for
> a laugh.
>
> http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/nugget-thumb.jpg"
>
> You aren't going to live this down, until you admit your dishonesty.
> --
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On 21 Jun 2008 12:50:54 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
>> >> >
>> >> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
>> >> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
>> >> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
>> >> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
>> >> >at least in principle.
>> >>
>> >> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
>> >> that email! This should be good!
>> >
>> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>>
>> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> only victim is ME.
>
>If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>worthless.

WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
victimless crime.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT), ensenadajim
<ensenadajim@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Yeah, he lied and were I that person running, I would be suing the OP
>for defamation of character for linking my pic to you.

Thanks for telling the truth. I wonder why HE can't do that?

>Of course, you have never lied.

Sure. If a woman asks me if she's pretty, I always say "yes",
regardless of how I feel. Anything else would be stupid.

>j.
>
>
>On Jun 14, 2:05*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "maguahi...@gmail.com"
>>
>>
>>
>> <maguahi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 14, 2:32*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> >> Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> > On 13 Jun 2008 18:10:26 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > >Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> >> > >> X-Apparently-To: mjva...@pacbell.net via 68.142.199.94; Fri, 13 Jun
>> >> > >> 2008 11:15:29 -0700
>> >> > ><email from someone else posted to newsgroup snipped>
>>
>> >> > >You might want to read <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html>
>> >> > >before posting (and therefore publishing) *email authored by someone
>> >> > >else. *You should note that a copyright notice is no longer
>> >> > >required and that registration is no longer required:
>>
>> >> > > * * * *"Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This
>> >> > > * * * *requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to
>> >> > > * * * *the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989."
>>
>> >> > The best way to deal with harassment is to make it public. DUH! Did
>> >> > you have a valid) point? It's interesting that you would side with the
>> >> > person doing the harassment, rather than the person being harassed....
>>
>> >> Suggesting that you think about obeying copyright laws is somehow
>> >> siding with someone harassing you? *Vandeman, you are truly an idiot.
>>
>> >> You could have complied with the law by simply paraphrasing what he
>> >> sent you, or if it was a bona fide attempt at harassment, you could
>> >> have simply reported it to the police.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >If you want copyright violations. Check out his entire site. No
>> >oriiginal content at all. all quotes from others because he hasn't a
>> >bit of info himself...He even claimed to write a book on mountain
>> >biking but has yet to produce the name. He does "reviews of
>> >literature" which anyone can do...probably learned most of his
>> >reviewing when working for that technology company he works for...the
>> >same one that RAPES the wild in the name of new technology. He's a
>> >fraud and fake...Oh yeah...and he can't tell the difference between
>> >his name and Mike VANDERMAN which is always his defense against my
>> >posts. He's an asshole.
>>
>> Still waiting for your explanation of why you deliberately LIED:
>>
>> "I found this picture of Mike Vanderman protesting a bike race...he is
>> trying to run down the biker...that crazy Mike!! He's always good for
>> a laugh.
>>
>> http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/nugget-thumb.jpg"
>>
>> You aren't going to live this down, until you admit your dishonesty.
>> --
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Bill Z.

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On 21 Jun 2008 12:50:54 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
> >> >> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
> >> >> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
> >> >> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
> >> >> >at least in principle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
> >> >> that email! This should be good!
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >>
> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> only victim is ME.
> >
> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >worthless.
>
> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> victimless crime.

Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
spared from your presense on usenet for some time.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman

On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> On 21 Jun 2008 12:50:54 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
>> >> >> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
>> >> >> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
>> >> >> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
>> >> >> >at least in principle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
>> >> >> that email! This should be good!
>> >> >
>> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >>
>> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> only victim is ME.
>> >
>> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >worthless.
>>
>> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> victimless crime.
>
>Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>spared from your presense on usenet for some time.

I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
excuse for living?
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Bill Z.

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >
> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >worthless.
> >>
> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> victimless crime.
> >
> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>
> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> excuse for living?

Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
disregard for human life.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman

On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >worthless.
>> >>
>> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> victimless crime.
>> >
>> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>>
>> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> excuse for living?
>
>Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>disregard for human life.

I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Bill Z.

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >> >worthless.
> >> >>
> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> >> victimless crime.
> >> >
> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
> >>
> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> excuse for living?
> >
> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
> >disregard for human life.
>
> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.

Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman

On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >> >worthless.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> >> victimless crime.
>> >> >
>> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>> >>
>> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> >> excuse for living?
>> >
>> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> >disregard for human life.
>>
>> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>
>Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.

Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Bill Z.

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >> >> >worthless.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> >> >> victimless crime.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> >> excuse for living?
> >> >
> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
> >> >disregard for human life.
> >>
> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
> >
> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
>
> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.

No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman

On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >> >> >worthless.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> >> >> excuse for living?
>> >> >
>> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> >> >disregard for human life.
>> >>
>> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>> >
>> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>
>No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
>of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.

Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande