Re: Sierra Club HypocrisyOn Apr 15, 3:23 pm, Beryl <flyingterra...@chillybits.org> wrote:
> KW wrote:
> > "XR650L Dave" <spamTHIS...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
> >news:3f67f58a-4b6c-4602-8a06-844060c686ac@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
> >> On Apr 15, 1:22 am, Beryl <flyingterra...@chillybits.org> wrote:
> >>> XR650L Dave wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 14, 3:53 pm, Beryl <flyingterra...@chillybits.org> wrote:
> >>>>> XR650L Dave wrote:
> >>>>>> On Apr 14, 12:09 am, Beryl <flyingterra...@chillybits.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Mike W. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:11:05 -0700, Beryl
> >>>>>>>> <flyingterra...@chillybits.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Pot <-> Kettle
> >>>>>>>>> Care to discuss the supposed eco-terrorist how-to guide that
> >>>>>>>>> illustrates
> >>>>>>>>> how to rig up booby traps to maim and kill dirtbikers? You know
> >>>>>>>>> the one,
> >>>>>>>>> written by dirtbikers.
> >>>>>>>> Clearly... your parents doomed you the life of a petty snickering
> >>>>>>>> asshole
> >>>>>>>> in the corner of real discussions when they gave you that name. I'm
> >>>>>>>> sorry.
> >>>>>>>> And, I noticed you didn't deal with the direct quote from the
> >>>>>>>> Sierra web
> >>>>>>>> site encouraging the membership to lie... got a problem with data,
> >>>>>>>> asshole?
> >>>>>>>> Speaking of pots, all you're trying to do is stir it, so fuck off
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> This thread BEGAN with a twit trying to stir the pot. That was the
> >>>>>>> sole
> >>>>>>> purpose.
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> EVERYONE plonk this moron....
> >>>>>>> Bye-bye, Mike
> >>>>>> No, this all started with a factual post to a factual article.
> >>>>>> In case you forgot.
> >>>>> A factual post, but missing necessary elements. Woodschick quoted only
> >>>>> the bit about Andy Serrano in an effort to miscast the story.
> >>>>> I wasn't wearing her filtered lenses when I read the actual article.
> >>>>>> Dave
> >>>> No missing elements. The sierra club is full of people that love
> >>>> plants/animals/dirt more than they love people, and the world'd be a
> >>>> better place if most of 'em were dead.
> >>>> Clear enough?
> >>> Hahahaha, NO. You write nonsense. Was your second sentence meant to
> >>> somehow support your first? What's wrong with you guys?
>
> >> No, its a test.
> >> If you don't think we'd be better off if people who think dirt,
> >> plants, and animals are more important than people were dead, then you
> >> fail the test to see if what you say is even worth consideration.
>
> >> 'bye now.
>
> >> Dave
>
> > With ya there Dave. Always figured anybody who thinks the planet would be
> > better off without people on it, should remove themselves from it in order
> > to prove their theory. Save the rest of us a lot of headaches.
>
> Since we're veering off on a tangent...
> The planet is more than the people on it.
> Interesting story on the front page of the Sunday Times about physicists
> in Europe getting ready to throw the switch on their shiny new atom
> smasher, which could conceivably produce an unstoppable black hole right
> here on earth, eventually sucking us all into a vanishingly small point
> of nothingness.
Yes, it is more than the people on it.
Good stewardship is very important- so what's here can be enjoyed by
the people on it..
Happy avoidin'-the-question to ya.
Dave