author: Mike Vandeman

text:
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
October 12, 1997

"Of what avail are forty freedoms, without a blank spot on the map?" Aldo
Leopold

"For every living creature [including humans!], there are places where it does
not belong." p.251 "I believe it is a public responsibility to safeguard what we
can of wilderness before the great push of man's numbers; and to safeguard with
it ... the shy wild ones that need man-less expanses in which to thrive." p.262.
Paul L. Errington, Of Predation and Life

"I confess to further disquieting thoughts as to how much moral right man
actually has to regard the Earth as his exclusive possession, to despoil or
befoul as he will. Man has or should have some minimal responsibility toward the
Earth he claims and toward the other forms of life that have been on the Earth
as long as or longer than he has." Paul Errington, A Question of Values, p.153.

The Problem

	Human beings think that we own, and have the right to dominate, every
square inch of the Earth. That, besides being an absurd idea, is the basic
reason why we are losing, worldwide, about 100 species per day. Habitat loss is
at the top of every list of the primary reasons why species have become extinct
or are in danger of becoming extinct.

	Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning it
into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not the only way
that an area can become untenable (useless) as habitat. Anything that makes it
unattractive or unavailable to a given species causes habitat loss. Have you
ever wondered why most animals run away when we come near? It certainly isn't
because they love having us around! Many animals simply will not tolerate the
presence of humans. The grizzly bear and mountain lion are just two examples.
The grizzly needs a huge territory, can smell and hear a human being from a
great distance, and will avoid going near a road.

	Humans are the ants at every other species' picnic. One of the first
things that children learn about wild animals is that most of them run (fly,
swim, slither, hop) away whenever we get close to them. (A few, such as
mosquitoes, like having us around.) Some are more tolerant of us than others,
but in any given area, there are at least some that don't like having us around.

	Let's take as a premise that we do not want to cause any extinctions. I
think that most people agree with that. But what follows, is that we have to set
aside adequate habitat for all existing species, and that much of it must be
human-free. That is not understood by most people, even most biologists. We
claim to believe in the Golden Rule, but we apply it only to fellow humans. It
has been said that "The measure of a culture is how well it treats its least
powerful members". By this, our own measure, human society is a failure in its
relations with the rest of creation.

	In 4 million years of human evolution, there has never been an area off
limits to humans -- an area which we deliberately choose not to enter so that
the species that live there can flourish unmolested by humans. There are places
called "wildlife sanctuaries", where human recreation, hunting, logging, oil
drilling, or even mining are usually allowed. There are a few places where only
biologists and land managers are allowed (e.g. California's condor sanctuary).
There have been places called "sacred", where only priests could go (in other
words, they were "sacred" only to ordinary people). But to my knowledge, there
has never been any place, however small, from which the human community has
voluntarily excluded itself.

	There has been a lot of talk in recent years about looking for life on
other planets. For its sake, I hope we never find it! Why, after the
inconsiderate way we have treated wildlife on this planet, should we be allowed
to invade the even more fragile habitats that may be found in other places?
While the thought of finding such life is intriguing, I haven't heard anyone
suggest that we consider its feelings and wishes, e.g. the likelihood that it
would want to be left alone (quite reasonable, considering our history!). How
are we going to communicate with intelligent life on other planets, when we
can't even communicate with the intelligent life on this planet? Besides, since
the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is unlikely that any such
organisms would be dramatically different from those on Earth.

	What scientific evidence do we have that wildlife need to be free of
human intrusion? Not much, probably because scientists are people, and like the
rest of us are instinctively curious about every thing and every place, and
don't care to be excluded from anywhere. For most of us, travel is just
entertainment, but scientists probably see their livelihood and success as
depending on being able to travel to any part of the globe and "collect" (i.e.,
kill) any organism they find there. I doubt that there are many scientific
studies of the environmental harm done by the pursuit of science.

	(As recently as 1979 (Wilkins and Peterson, p. 178), we find statements
like "Populations of wild animals can have the annual surplus cropped without
harm". Insect field guides, e.g. Powell and Hogue (1979), also recommend
collecting insects as "an exciting and satisfying hobby for anyone" (p. 359).
Does that mean that collecting grizzlies or tigers is also an acceptable
"hobby"?)

	However, there is recent research (e.g. Knight and Gutzwiller, 1995)
showing that recreation, even activity traditionally thought of as harmless to
wildlife, can be harmful, or even deadly: "Traditionally, observing, feeding,
and photographing wildlife were considered to be 'nonconsumptive' activities
because removal of animals from their natural habitats did not occur....
nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign in terms of
its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a growing recognition that
wildlife-viewing recreation can have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (p.
257). "Activities [involving] nonmotorized travel ... [have] caused the creation
of more ... trails in wildlands.... These activities are extensive in nature and
have the ability to disrupt wildlife in many ways, particularly by displacing
animals from an area" (p. 56). "Recreational disturbance has traditionally been
viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it
has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal's breeding season may
have equally severe effects" (p. 73). "People have an impact on wildlife habitat
and all that depends on it, no matter what the activity" (p. 157). "Perhaps the
major way that people have influenced wildlife populations is through
encroachment into wildlife areas" (p. 160). "Recreationists are, ironically,
destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion of
nature.... The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing fertile
topsoils into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere" (p.340). (Note: wildlife have a hard time distinguishing between
biologists and recreationists!)

	In other words, if we are to preserve the other species with which we
share the Earth, we need to set aside large, interconnected areas of habitat
that are entirely off limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Our idea of what
constitutes viable habitat is not important; what matters is how the wildlife
who live there think. When a road is built through a habitat area, many species
will not cross it, even though they are physically capable of doing so. For
example, a bird that prefers dense forest may be afraid to cross such an open
area where they may be vulnerable to attack by their predators. The result is a
loss of habitat: a portion of their preferred mates, foods, and other resources
have become effectively unavailable. This can reduce population sizes, cause
inbreeding, impoverish their gene pool, and impair their ability to adapt to
changing circumstances (such as global warming). It can lead to local (and
eventually, final) extinction. Small, isolated populations can easily be wiped
out by a fire or other disaster. Other species are not as flexible as we are. We
can survive practically anywhere on Earth, and perhaps other places as well!

What Wildlife Need

	Wildlife are not that different from us. Chimpanzees, for example, are
genetically 98% identical with us. Therefore, we should expect that they need
just what we need: a place to live that contains all necessary resources (food,
water, shelter, potential mates, etc.). It is not too hard to tell when animals
are dissatisfied -- they vote with their feet; they die, or leave. The key is to
look at things from the wildlife's point of view. As simple and obvious as it
sounds, it is rarely done. For example, how often do road builders consider how
wildlife will get across the road? My cat communicates clearly what he wants:
when he wants to go out, he whines and then goes to the door and stares at the
doorknob; when he is hungry, he leads me to the refrigerator or his dish. We are
proud of our power of empathy, but rarely apply it to wildlife. We don't want to
be bothered by wildlife in our homes; wildlife apparently feel the same.

"Pure Habitat"

	Go to any library, and try to find a book on human-free habitat.
Apparently, there aren't any! There isn't even a subject heading for it in the
Library of Congress subject index. I spent two days in the University of
California's Biology Library (in Berkeley), a very prestigious collection,
without success. The closest subject is probably "wilderness", but wilderness is
always considered a place for human recreation. So-called "wildlife sanctuaries"
encourage recreation, and often allow hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even
mining. The category "animal-human relationships" should contain such a book,
but doesn't. The idea is conceivable, because I just did it, but apparently no
one has even considered it important enough to write about, since we "own the
entire Earth".

	I once read Dolores LaChapelle's Sacred Land Sacred Sex (1988), hoping
to learn what sacred land is. I didn't find an answer in the book, but I took
the fact that sacred land is often restricted to the "priesthood" to imply that
sacred land is honored by not going there! So we could say that human-free
habitat is "sacred" land, except to priests and scientists (a type of "priest"),
who are always allowed to go there. (This is another indication that science
desacralizes whatever it touches. Ironically, it is science that has proven the
need for sacred land!) Probably the simplest term is "pure [wildlife] habitat",
but "wilderness" and "wildlife sanctuary" should be synonymous with it.
("Wildlife" is "all non-human, nondomesticated species", and thus doesn't
include us.)

	(Note: I am not talking about de facto human-free habitat, that is
off-limits simply because it is difficult to get to, such as the inside of a
volcano or the bottom of the ocean. Such areas will all be visited in time, as
technology becomes available that makes them accessible. The key is the
conscious decision of the human community to restrain itself from going there.)

Why Create Pure Habitat?

	Some wildlife are sensitive to the presence of people. In order to
preserve them, we need to create areas off-limits to humans.

	It's educational. Publicity about areas where people aren't allowed
teaches people about what wildlife need, and how to preserve them.

	Some animals are more dangerous to people or livestock than humans are
willing to accept (e.g. tigers or grizzlies). The only way we can preserve such
species is to grant them a place to live where there are no people or livestock.
Otherwise, whenever they attack someone, we kill them, as recently happened to a
tiger that attacked a zoo employee in India.

	The more accessible an area is to people, the less it is respected.
"Sacred" land is accorded the highest respect. "Terra incognito" was not even
mapped. A map tells people (nonverbally) that it is okay to go there. So do
trails. Roads, which are built by bulldozer, "say" that we can do anything we
want to the land. Many park trails are now created by bulldozer. Even when bikes
aren't allowed there, it is hard to keep them out, because the use of a
bulldozer indicates that the land is not important, and that rough treatment
won't hurt it. Part of being sacred is the feeling of mystery. Mapping, roads,
and other aids to human access destroy much of that feeling of mystery. For
example, a map trivializes all areas and reduces them to a few lines and colors
on paper. Beauty (except for some "scenic highways") and biodiversity are
generally ignored.

	Wildlife generally prefer human-free habitat. Since they are so similar
to us (98%, in the case of the chimpanzee, and probably a similar large
percentage for every other species), we have very little excuse to treat them
differently. If we deserve to be unmolested in our homes, so do they.

	There are too many species on the Earth, and too little time, to study
them all and determine their precise habitat requirements. The only safe course
is to assume that they all need at least the habitat that they now occupy, and
preferably, access to their traditional territory. Or, as Aldo Leopold said, we
need to "save all the pieces".

	Obviously, we need to experience wilderness in order to appreciate it.
But equally obviously, we need to practice restraint, if we are to preserve that
wilderness. Having areas completely off-limits to humans will remind us of that
need to practice restraint. It is a reminder of the importance of humility, like
the practice of saying grace before meals.

	It is the right thing to do. Why not ask for what we want?

Practical Considerations

	Parks, because they already provide some protection, are a good place to
start building a network of wildlife sanctuaries. They provide the "seeds" of a
"full-function" habitat-and-corridor matrix designed to preserve our biological
heritage. But they need to be changed and renamed, because "parks" are, by
definition and practice, places for pleasuring humans. Many parks should be
allowed to revert to wilderness, and wilderness should be a place that we enter
rarely, reverently, and on its own terms.

	It is obviously nearly always impractical to maintain an area free of
people by force. Probably the best that we can do is to remove all human
artifacts, including nearby trails and roads. (This should be done soon, because
it will become enormously more expensive, as soon as we run out of oil!) Then a
few people may be able to enter the area, but at least it will be at their own
risk (no helicopter rescues!). If we aren't going to go there, then we don't
need to retain the area on maps; they can be "de-mapped" and replaced with a
blank spot and the words "terra incognito".

	Roads and other rights-of-way are a particular problem. Due to the
fragmenting effect of any such corridor, where it cannot avoid crossing a
habitat area, it should, if possible, tunnel under the wildlife area, so that
wildlife can travel freely across it.

Where Should Wildlife Sanctuaries Be Located?

	Everywhere. In large wilderness areas, there should be large wildlife
sanctuaries, but even in cities, and back yards, where there is less viable
habitat available, some of it should still be set aside for the exclusive use of
wildlife, because (a) it is fair, and (b) it would serve to remind us to always
keep wildlife in mind, just as indoor shrines in Japanese homes (and photos on
our fireplace mantels) serve as a constant cue to remember gods and deceased
relatives. After all, most human habitations are located on land that was also
attractive to wildlife (e.g., near a source of drinking water). (Remember, we
are 98% identical ....) And cities form significant barriers to wildlife travel.

	Having pure habitat nearby is very educational. I am experimenting with
setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard as pure habitat. It gives me a
good opportunity to learn how to cope with my feelings of curiosity about what
is going on there, desire to "improve" it as habitat, the need for a way to
maintain its pristinity in perpetuity, etc. Creating travel corridors is a major
difficulty. However, recently I have heard that some San Francisco residents are
tearing down their backyard fences in order to make it easier for wildlife to
travel across the city.

Difficulties

	What will wildlife and wildlands "managers" do for a living? Not all
wildlife habitat will be closed to humans. They can manage the remainder. For
those that will be closed, they can remove all human artifacts and invasive
non-native species, restore the area to its "wild" condition, and educate the
public about what they are doing.

	Roads, as we discussed, fragment habitat. How can it be prevented?
Probably most major roads should be replaced by rail lines, which are much
narrower in relation to their carrying capacity, and present much less of a
barrier to wildlife. For example, the time between trains is much greater than
the interval between motor vehicles on a road. Besides, we will soon be running
out of oil, and won't be able to justify keeping so many lane miles of roadway
open for the dwindling number of cars and trucks.

	Many people may have to move. But compared to wildlife, people can
pretty well take care of themselves. Wildlife, if we are to preserve them, must
be given priority. They cannot protect themselves from us.

	"People will not appreciate what they can't see and use". This is an
obvious myth. Many people appreciate and work to protect areas that they may
never experience directly. I don't need to visit every wilderness area in the
world, to know that they need to be protected. I don't need to see every Alameda
whipsnake to want to save the entire species. Why cater to, and hence promote,
selfishness? Besides, we need to protect many areas (e.g. Antarctica and the
bottom of the ocean) long before we are able to bring people there to learn to
appreciate them directly. The relationship between the number of visitors, and
the degree of protection given the area, is not linear!

	We have an instinct to explore; if an area is closed to us, that is
exactly where we want to go! There are many areas of life where we need to
practice restraint, and where we all benefit from it -- for example, in our
relations with our family, friends, and community. Margulis and Sagan (1986)
argue convincingly that cooperation (e.g. between eukaryotic cells and their
symbiotic mitochondria), just as much as competition, has been responsible for
our successful evolution. If we compete with other species, we will surely "win"
-- and then doom ourselves to extinction, just like a symbiont that destroys its
host. We don't have to indulge all of our "instincts"; in fact, we are better
off if we don't!

	We still need access to wilderness in order to learn to appreciate it,
but since we aren't closing all wilderness to people, that need can still be
satisfied. In fact, all children should be taken to see wilderness soon after
they are born, because it is the only place they can see how things are supposed
to be in this world! If they grow up around nothing but concrete, then concrete
may become their ideal!

How Pure Habitat Benefits Us

	It preserves species that are an essential part of our own ecosystems,
and on whom we are dependent for essential (e.g. foods) or desired (e.g. a
variety of foods) products and services. It provides a source of individuals to
repopulate or revitalize depleted local populations (assuming that connecting
wildlife corridors are maintained).

	Knowing that wildlife are safe and healthy gives us a feeling of safety
and security (like the canary in the mine), as well as the satisfaction we get
from cherishing others (satisfying our "maternal/paternal" instincts?). We must
carry a heavy load of guilt when we learn that our lifestyle is causing the
suffering, death, or even extinction of our fellow Earthlings (e.g. from
clearcutting tropical forests)!

	Wildlife, even if we don't utilize it directly, can teach us by giving
us an independent view of reality and examples of different values (assuming
that we listen).

	For the sake of the environment, for our own health and happiness, and
for our children, we need to move toward a more sustainable lifestyle. The
primary obstacle is our reliance on technology. Coincidentally, the primary
threat to wildlife is also technology -- e.g. tools that make wildlife habitat
more accessible, such as maps, GPS sensors, satellites, bulldozers,
4-wheel-drive vehicles, mountain bikes, rafts, climbing equipment, night-vision
goggles, etc. Banning the use of such technologies in order to protect wildlife
can at the same time help us move toward a more sustainable future.

	Perhaps the greatest benefit of all, is distracting us from our selfish,
petty concerns, and giving us something more meaningful to work on. Remember "We
Are the World"? People from all over the world united to come to the aid of a
third party: the world's starving children. While working together, they were
able to forget their own needs, and focus wholly on rescuing children who were
in trouble. Well, wildlife are in even more trouble! We all (according to E.O.
Wilson) instinctively love nature. Why not focus on this common value, work
together to rescue the large proportion of the world's wildlife that are in
serious danger (according to the IUCN, one fourth of the world's animals are
threatened with extinction), and put aside our relatively petty squabbles --
e.g. those causing wars all over the world?

	Human groups often fight over things so subtle that outsiders have
trouble understanding what all the fuss is about. For example, Canadians have
long been bickering over which language to speak, while their forests are being
clearcut and their water contaminated with mercury! Language and culture are
important, but not in comparison to what wildlife have to endure, including
extinction!

Conclusion

	The existence of life on the Earth is probably inevitable, given the
laws of chemistry and physics and the range of conditions and elements available
here. However, at the same time, the life of any given individual is exceedingly
fragile. A hair's breadth separates the living state from the dead. In fact,
there is apparently no difference between living and inanimate matter.

	The proof is a seed. Take, for example, one of the seeds that germinated
after being in an Egyptian pyramid for 3000 years. What was that seed doing for
3000 years? Obviously, nothing! If it did anything, it would consume energy, and
use up its store of nutrients. Therefore, it was "alive" (viable), but
undetectably so. (Similarly, there are frogs that yearly survive being frozen
solid! Viruses and prions are two other examples of dead matter that engages in
processes usually associated only with being alive.) In other words, life is
simply a process, like the flowing of water, that can stop and start. (Or
perhaps we should say that we are all dead, but sometimes undergo processes that
are usually associated with, and called, "being alive".) And it also follows
that we are essentially indistinguishable from inanimate matter.

	As I discussed earlier, we are also essentially indistinguishable from
other organisms. Every lever by which we have attempted to separate ourselves
from other species has, in the end, failed. So how should we treat them? We have
no rational basis for treating them any different from ourselves. We need a
place to live that is satisfactory to us, and wildlife need, and deserve, the
same.

	When I enjoy nature, I feel that I incur a debt. What better way to
repay that debt, than to grant wildlife a human-free habitat -- to which they
were adapted and accustomed for 4 billion years?! Are we big (generous) enough
to give other species what they want and need, and share the Earth with them? Do
we really have a choice?!

References:

Boyle, Stephen A. and Fred B. Samson, Nonconsumptive Outdoor Recreation: An
Annotated Bibliography of Human-Wildlife Interactions. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report
-- Wildlife No. 252, 1983.

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences
of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981.

Errington, Paul L., Of Predation and Life. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press, 1967.

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.

Grumbine, R. Edward, Ghost Bears. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992.

Hammitt, William E. and David N. Cole, Wildland Recreation -- Ecology and
Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Harrod, Howard L., The Animals Came Dancing. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press, 2000.

Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists.
Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.

LaChapelle, Dolores, Sacred Land Sacred Sex -- Rapture of the Deep. Durango,
Colorado: Kivaki Press, c.1988.

Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London, c.1997.

Life on the Edge. A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources:
Wildlife. Santa Cruz, California: BioSystem Books, 1994.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos -- Four Billion Years of Microbial
Evolution. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, c. 1986.

Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books, 1984.

Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads", Earth
First!

Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and
Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994.

Powell, Jerry A. and Charles L. Hogue, California Insects. Berkeley: University
of California Press, c. 1979.

Pryde, Philip R., Conservation in the Soviet Union. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1972.

Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for
Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.

Vandeman, Michael J., http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially "Wildlife and the Ecocity" and
"'Harmless' Recreation Kills Wildlife!"

Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

Weiner, Douglas R., A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature Protection from
Stalin to Gorbachev. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society,
1994.

Wilkins, Bruce J. and Steven R. Peterson, "Nongame Wildlife", in Wildlife
Conservation: Principles and Practices, Richard D. Teague and Eugene Decker,
eds. Washington, D. C.: The Wildlife Society, c. 1979.

Wilson, Edward O., The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1992.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


subject: Re: Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!

text:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

Ok, so is your goal(pipe dream) "Habitat Off-Limits to *all* Humans" or
"Habitat Off-Limits to all *lazy* Humans? because not having nearby
roads, trails etc won't keep people out.

Actually it was an inquisition of need, "Do you *need*. . ."  A threat
would consist of a mention of my own actions i.e. "I'm gonna. . . "
Also, this was a good samaritan offer of help.  I'm trying to help you
stop wasting your life trying to acheive unnattainable goals.  Perhaps
if you let go of trying to acheive something impossible, you might do
something *usefull* with your life and have something to be proud of
when you look back on your life, instead of looking back and seeing you
wasted your time, and that you never acheived one acre of human free
land.

x1134x


author: di

text:
"Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
                            |
                            |
A great amount of BS was clipped from this space
                            |
                            |
                            |

Yawn!!!


author: tillio

text:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

<snip 4th grade science report>

What a stupid idea. Tear down that house and make the whole property
habitat if your serious about it, otherwise you're just another selfish
asshole who won't sacrifice for the good of wildlife.

A song written by a child molester, how fitting.


author: S Curtiss

subject: NFS declares new rules for Public Lands

text:
"Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Urban sprawl destroys wilderness. It is not the occasional venture into
wilderness - It is the total destruction for pavement and buildings.
Visiting wilderness (hiking, mt biking, kayaking, etc) and completely
removing wilderness (construction, sprawl) are two completely different
things. One is appreciative - the other is destructive.

The information gathering process is complete and the National Forest
Service has the new rules posted on their website. (http://www.fs.fed.us/)
I'm sure you sent your comments to them in the process - possibly this same
piece you post in the ng repeatedly. Below pulled directly from the NFS
rules:
"Comment. Some respondents suggested that all routes closed to motor
vehicles should also be closed to horses, bicycles, and all nonpedestrian
access.

Response. The Department disagrees. Some poorly located, unauthorized routes
causing considerable environmental damage may have to be closed to all uses.
However, other routes are better suited to some uses than others. In some
areas of high concentrations of use, maintaining separate trail networks for
different uses may reduce conflict and enhance public safety and the
recreational experience. In other areas, multiple-use trails work well. The
Department believes these decisions are best made at the local level, with
public participation."

The new rules are quite specific and counter many of your "arguments".
National Forests are designated for Multi-Use and bicycles are NOT
classified as "OHV"s (motorized)

"Comment. Some respondents stated that OHVs should not be allowed on
National Forests at all. These respondents suggested that National Forests
should be managed primarily for preservation of natural values, water
quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological diversity, quiet,
and spiritual renewal.

Response. The Department disagrees. National Forests are managed by law for
multiple use. They are managed not only for the purposes stated in these
comments, but for timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation. These
uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over another.

Comment. Some respondents suggested that bicycles should be included in the
prohibition on use of motor vehicles off designated roads and trails and
outside designated areas.

Response. The Department disagrees that bicycles should be regulated under
the same provisions as motor vehicle use. The Department believes that
bicycles are distinct from motor vehicles and should be managed separately
from them and that a nation-wide prohibition on cross-country bicycle use is
unwarranted at this time."

The new rules are posted for all to see: USDA Forest Service website:
http://www.fs.fed.us/

See "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf

Now it is up to efforts on the local level to cooperate with Rangers and
enforcement to maintain, and possibly gain, access for off-road cycling.
These new rules can be printed and circulated and used to educate trail
users and wildlife enthusiasts so we can keep and enjoy these areas for
those who visit and live there.


text:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
<snip>
<summing up the rest of mike's post: "Mike V is an idiot">

Mike we established threads ago that your pipe dream is an
impossibility.

Who's going to ENFORCE the of limits part?  If there is enforcement
present, there can not be habitat with no humans, if there is no
enforcement, then humans will be present anyway, there's no enforcement
to stop them.

Do you get the catch-22 yet? Or do you need someone to punch you in the
head after each word of the previous sentence?

x1134x


text:
On 14 Nov 2005 21:26:14 -0800, "x1134x" <[email]> wrote:

.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> .Who's going to ENFORCE the of limits part?
.>
.> No one. If we remove all nearby roads and trails, there won't be any way for the
.> typical lazy human to get there.
.>
.
.Ok, so is your goal(pipe dream) "Habitat Off-Limits to *all* Humans" or
."Habitat Off-Limits to all *lazy* Humans? because not having nearby
.roads, trails etc won't keep people out.
.
.> .
.> .Do you get the catch-22 yet? Or do you need someone to punch you in the
.> .head after each word of the previous sentence?
.>
.> Your threat of physical violence is duly noted.
.>
.
.Actually it was an inquisition of need, "Do you *need*. . ."  A threat
.would consist of a mention of my own actions i.e. "I'm gonna. . . "
.Also, this was a good samaritan offer of help.  I'm trying to help you
.stop wasting your life trying to acheive unnattainable goals.  Perhaps
.if you let go of trying to acheive something impossible, you might do
.something *usefull* with your life and have something to be proud of
.when you look back on your life, instead of looking back and seeing you
.wasted your time, and that you never acheived one acre of human free
.land.

That's not the only way to do something worthwhile. Education is also
worthwhile. You should try it.

.x1134x

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


author: Andy H

text:
"di" <[email]> wrote in message news:%2bdf.345$QW2.187@dukeread08...
Morning Mike, not dead yet then I see..

Andy H


subject: Re: NFS declares new rules for Public Lands

text:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:10:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
.news:[email]...
.> Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
.> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
.> October 12, 1997
.>
.> "Of what avail are forty freedoms, without a blank spot on the map?" Aldo
.> Leopold
.>
.> "For every living creature [including humans!], there are places where it
.> does
.> not belong." p.251 "I believe it is a public responsibility to safeguard
.> what we
.> can of wilderness before the great push of man's numbers; and to safeguard
.> with
.> it ... the shy wild ones that need man-less expanses in which to thrive."
.> p.262.
.> Paul L. Errington, Of Predation and Life
.Urban sprawl destroys wilderness. It is not the occasional venture into
.wilderness - It is the total destruction for pavement and buildings.
.>
.> "I confess to further disquieting thoughts as to how much moral right man
.> actually has to regard the Earth as his exclusive possession, to despoil
.> or
.> befoul as he will. Man has or should have some minimal responsibility
.> toward the
.> Earth he claims and toward the other forms of life that have been on the
.> Earth
.> as long as or longer than he has." Paul Errington, A Question of Values,
.> p.153.
.>
.Visiting wilderness (hiking, mt biking, kayaking, etc) and completely
.removing wilderness (construction, sprawl) are two completely different
.things. One is appreciative - the other is destructive.

BS. Visiting wilderness (illegal for mountain biking) is also destructive. See
_Wildlife and Recreationists_.

.The information gathering process is complete and the National Forest
.Service has the new rules posted on their website. (http://www.fs.fed.us/)
.I'm sure you sent your comments to them in the process - possibly this same
.piece you post in the ng repeatedly. Below pulled directly from the NFS
.rules:
."Comment. Some respondents suggested that all routes closed to motor
.vehicles should also be closed to horses, bicycles, and all nonpedestrian
.access.
.
.Response. The Department disagrees. Some poorly located, unauthorized routes

Including illegal mountain biking trails.

.causing considerable environmental damage may have to be closed to all uses.
.However, other routes are better suited to some uses than others. In some
.areas of high concentrations of use, maintaining separate trail networks for
.different uses may reduce conflict and enhance public safety and the
.recreational experience. In other areas, multiple-use trails work well. The
.Department believes these decisions are best made at the local level, with
.public participation."
.
.The new rules are quite specific and counter many of your "arguments".
.National Forests are designated for Multi-Use

That violates the Endangered Species Act.

 and bicycles are NOT
.classified as "OHV"s (motorized)
.
."Comment. Some respondents stated that OHVs should not be allowed on
.National Forests at all. These respondents suggested that National Forests
.should be managed primarily for preservation of natural values, water
.quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological diversity, quiet,
.and spiritual renewal.
.
.Response. The Department disagrees. National Forests are managed by law for
.multiple use.

That doesn't require access for OHVs,including mountain bikes. It violates the
Endangered Species Act.

 They are managed not only for the purposes stated in these
.comments, but for timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation. These
.uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over another.
.
.Comment. Some respondents suggested that bicycles should be included in the
.prohibition on use of motor vehicles off designated roads and trails and
.outside designated areas.
.
.Response. The Department disagrees that bicycles should be regulated under
.the same provisions as motor vehicle use. The Department believes that
.bicycles are distinct from motor vehicles and should be managed separately
.from them and that a nation-wide prohibition on cross-country bicycle use is
.unwarranted at this time."
.
.The new rules are posted for all to see: USDA Forest Service website:
.http://www.fs.fed.us/
.
.See "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
.http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
.
.Now it is up to efforts on the local level to cooperate with Rangers and
.enforcement to maintain, and possibly gain, access for off-road cycling.
.These new rules can be printed and circulated and used to educate trail
.users and wildlife enthusiasts so we can keep and enjoy these areas for
.those who visit and live there.
.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


author: Noh Phu Ling

text:
x1134x wrote:

This has all been established many, many times. I've been scanning these
newsgroups about 12 years or so & there are posters who assert MV's
semi-psychotic blatherings have been going on - seemingly word for word
- several years before that.

Pete H


text:
On 13 Nov 2005 04:27:22 -0800, "x1134x" <[email]> wrote:

.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
.<snip>
.<summing up the rest of mike's post: "Mike V is an idiot">
.
.Mike we established threads ago that your pipe dream is an
.impossibility.
.
.Who's going to ENFORCE the of limits part?

No one. If we remove all nearby roads and trails, there won't be any way for the
typical lazy human to get there.

  If there is enforcement
.present, there can not be habitat with no humans, if there is no
.enforcement, then humans will be present anyway, there's no enforcement
.to stop them.
.
.Do you get the catch-22 yet? Or do you need someone to punch you in the
.head after each word of the previous sentence?

Your threat of physical violence is duly noted.

.x1134x

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


text:
"Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<clipped>> .>
At least you point at something other than your own website.
In this regard, perhaps I miss-spoke. I'll rephrase: "Visiting forest areas
and green areas and having them completely removed are two seperate things"
These situations are addressed in the rules as quoted below...  can you not
read?
Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....
OHVs and bicycles are NOT the same. Nevertheless, the new rules grant both
access to degrees determined by local authorities.
Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....


text:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:38:04 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
.news:[email]...
.> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:10:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:
.>
.<clipped>> .>
.> .Visiting wilderness (hiking, mt biking, kayaking, etc) and completely
.> .removing wilderness (construction, sprawl) are two completely different
.> .things. One is appreciative - the other is destructive.
.>
.> BS. Visiting wilderness (illegal for mountain biking) is also destructive.
.> See
.> _Wildlife and Recreationists_.
.At least you point at something other than your own website.
.In this regard, perhaps I miss-spoke. I'll rephrase: "Visiting forest areas
.and green areas and having them completely removed are two seperate things"
.>
.> .The information gathering process is complete and the National Forest
.> .Service has the new rules posted on their website.
.> (http://www.fs.fed.us/)
.> .I'm sure you sent your comments to them in the process - possibly this
.> same
.> .piece you post in the ng repeatedly. Below pulled directly from the NFS
.> .rules:
.> ."Comment. Some respondents suggested that all routes closed to motor
.> .vehicles should also be closed to horses, bicycles, and all nonpedestrian
.> .access.
.> .
.> .Response. The Department disagrees. Some poorly located, unauthorized
.> routes
.>
.> Including illegal mountain biking trails.
.These situations are addressed in the rules as quoted below...  can you not
.read?
.>
.> .causing considerable environmental damage may have to be closed to all
.> uses.
.> .However, other routes are better suited to some uses than others. In some
.> .areas of high concentrations of use, maintaining separate trail networks
.> for
.> .different uses may reduce conflict and enhance public safety and the
.> .recreational experience. In other areas, multiple-use trails work well.
.> The
.> .Department believes these decisions are best made at the local level,
.> with
.> .public participation."
.> .
.> .The new rules are quite specific and counter many of your "arguments".
.> .National Forests are designated for Multi-Use
.>
.> That violates the Endangered Species Act.
.Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....

They all contain POTENTIALLY ENDANGERED wildlife.

.> and bicycles are NOT
.> .classified as "OHV"s (motorized)
.> .
.> ."Comment. Some respondents stated that OHVs should not be allowed on
.> .National Forests at all. These respondents suggested that National
.> Forests
.> .should be managed primarily for preservation of natural values, water
.> .quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological diversity,
.> quiet,
.> .and spiritual renewal.
.> .
.> .Response. The Department disagrees. National Forests are managed by law
.> for
.> .multiple use.
.>
.> That doesn't require access for OHVs,including mountain bikes. It violates
.> the
.> Endangered Species Act.
.OHVs and bicycles are NOT the same. Nevertheless, the new rules grant both
.access to degrees determined by local authorities.
.Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....

You missed my point. Multiple use doesn't require MTB access.

.> They are managed not only for the purposes stated in these
.> .comments, but for timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation. These
.> .uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over another.
.> .
.> .Comment. Some respondents suggested that bicycles should be included in
.> the
.> .prohibition on use of motor vehicles off designated roads and trails and
.> .outside designated areas.
.> .
.> .Response. The Department disagrees that bicycles should be regulated
.> under
.> .the same provisions as motor vehicle use. The Department believes that
.> .bicycles are distinct from motor vehicles and should be managed
.> separately
.> .from them and that a nation-wide prohibition on cross-country bicycle use
.> is
.> .unwarranted at this time."
.
.> .
.> .The new rules are posted for all to see: USDA Forest Service website:
.> http://www.fs.fed.us/
.> .
.> .See "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
.> http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
.> .
.> .Now it is up to efforts on the local level to cooperate with Rangers and
.> .enforcement to maintain, and possibly gain, access for off-road cycling.
.> .These new rules can be printed and circulated and used to educate trail
.> .users and wildlife enthusiasts so we can keep and enjoy these areas for
.> .those who visit and live there.
.> .
.>
.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


text:
"Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<clipped>
Bicycles will not erase a species - but the eradication of habitat for
building can. Habitat gone, trails gone, wildlife gone...
It also does not require it be excluded.


text:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:38:43 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
.news:[email]...
.> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:38:04 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:
.>
.<clipped>
.> .> .
.> .> .The new rules are quite specific and counter many of your "arguments".
.> .> .National Forests are designated for Multi-Use
.> .>
.> .> That violates the Endangered Species Act.
.> .Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....
.>
.> They all contain POTENTIALLY ENDANGERED wildlife.
.Bicycles will not erase a species - but the eradication of habitat for
.building can. Habitat gone, trails gone, wildlife gone...

You don't know that. If you run over the last member of a species, you WILL
cause extincton.

.> .> and bicycles are NOT
.> .> .classified as "OHV"s (motorized)
.> .> .
.> .> ."Comment. Some respondents stated that OHVs should not be allowed on
.> .> .National Forests at all. These respondents suggested that National
.> .> Forests should be managed primarily for preservation of natural values,
.> water
.> .> .quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological diversity,
.> .> quiet, and spiritual renewal.
.> .> .
.> .> .Response. The Department disagrees. National Forests are managed by
.> law
.> .> for multiple use.
.> .>
.> .> That doesn't require access for OHVs,including mountain bikes. It
.> violates
.> .> the
.> .> Endangered Species Act.
.> .OHVs and bicycles are NOT the same. Nevertheless, the new rules grant
.> both
.> .access to degrees determined by local authorities.
.> .Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....
.>
.> You missed my point. Multiple use doesn't require MTB access.
.It also does not require it be excluded.

But it still allows bikes to be banned.

.> .> They are managed not only for the purposes stated in these
.> .> .comments, but for timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation.
.> These
.> .> .uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over another.
.> .> .
.> .> .Comment. Some respondents suggested that bicycles should be included
.> in
.> .> the prohibition on use of motor vehicles off designated roads and
.> trails and
.> .> .outside designated areas.
.> .> .
.> .> .Response. The Department disagrees that bicycles should be regulated
.> .> under the same provisions as motor vehicle use. The Department believes
.> that
.> .> .bicycles are distinct from motor vehicles and should be managed
.> separately
.> .> .from them and that a nation-wide prohibition on cross-country bicycle
.> use
.> .> is unwarranted at this time."
.> .
.> .> .
.> .> .The new rules are posted for all to see: USDA Forest Service website:
.> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/
.> .> .
.> .> .See "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
.> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
.> .> .
.> .> .Now it is up to efforts on the local level to cooperate with Rangers
.> and
.> .> .enforcement to maintain, and possibly gain, access for off-road
.> cycling.
.> .> .These new rules can be printed and circulated and used to educate
.> trail
.> .> .users and wildlife enthusiasts so we can keep and enjoy these areas
.> for
.> .> .those who visit and live there.
.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


text:
"Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Actually, if there was only one member of the species left - the species
would already be dead. No way to re-populate....
And the only way that could even begin to happen is IF sprawl and
construction forced everything into a tiny space AND I did not know how to
brake and steer.
It will be the loss of habitat that destroys species as they are forced onto
smaller tracts of contiguous land to survive. It will NOT be bicycles on
available trails. Maybe the last of a species will die from eating some
contaminated trash left behind by a hiker....
In some cases, of course. .  However, cycling is not an "ORV" (no motor), a
"nation-wide prohibition on cross country bicycle use is unwarranted..." and
the Forest Service can determine the access for activities at the local
level. In short, off-road cycling is an acceptable recreation activity and
an acceptable activity on many public lands. Haven't you read the thing yet?
Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues to
permanently destroy habitat...
At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
with getting bicycles out of the woods.


text:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:17:50 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
.news:[email]...
.> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:38:43 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:
.>
.> .>
.> .<clipped>
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .The new rules are quite specific and counter many of your
.> "arguments".
.> .> .> .National Forests are designated for Multi-Use
.> .> .>
.> .> .> That violates the Endangered Species Act.
.> .> .Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....
.> .>
.> .> They all contain POTENTIALLY ENDANGERED wildlife.
.> .Bicycles will not erase a species - but the eradication of habitat for
.> .building can. Habitat gone, trails gone, wildlife gone...
.>
.> You don't know that. If you run over the last member of a species, you
.> WILL
.> cause extincton.
.Actually, if there was only one member of the species left - the species
.would already be dead. No way to re-populate....

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of basic biology. Many species
reproduce asexually ("vegetatively"), such as aspen and bacteria. Also, a
pregnant female could have offspring of both sexes, and the species wouldn't be
extinct.

.And the only way that could even begin to happen is IF sprawl and
.construction forced everything into a tiny space AND I did not know how to
.brake and steer.
.It will be the loss of habitat that destroys species as they are forced onto
.smaller tracts of contiguous land to survive. It will NOT be bicycles on
.available trails.

Mountain bikers are always building new trails, legally or illegally, which
destroys habitat. Human presence also destroys habitat, by making it
unattractive to wildlife. Mountain bikers kill threatened species and thereby
contribute to extinction.

 Maybe the last of a species will die from eating some
.contaminated trash left behind by a hiker....
.>
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> ."Comment. Some respondents stated that OHVs should not be allowed
.> on National Forests at all. These respondents suggested that National
.> Forests should be managed primarily for preservation of natural values,
.> water quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological diversity,
.> quiet, and spiritual renewal.
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .Response. The Department disagrees. National Forests are managed by
.> law for multiple use.
.> .> .>
.> .> .> That doesn't require access for OHVs,including mountain bikes. It
.> .> violates
.> .> .> the
.> .> .> Endangered Species Act.
.> .> .OHVs and bicycles are NOT the same. Nevertheless, the new rules grant
.> both access to degrees determined by local authorities.
.> .> .Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....
.> .>
.> .> You missed my point. Multiple use doesn't require MTB access.
.> .It also does not require it be excluded.
.>
.> But it still allows bikes to be banned.
.In some cases, of course. .  However, cycling is not an "ORV" (no motor), a
."nation-wide prohibition on cross country bicycle use is unwarranted..." and
.the Forest Service can determine the access for activities at the local
.level. In short, off-road cycling is an acceptable recreation activity and
.an acceptable activity on many public lands. Haven't you read the thing yet?
.>
.> .> .> They are managed not only for the purposes stated in these comments,
.> but for timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation.
.> .> These uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over
.> another.
.> .> .> .Comment. Some respondents suggested that bicycles should be
.> included in the prohibition on use of motor vehicles off designated roads
.> and trails and outside designated areas.
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .Response. The Department disagrees that bicycles should be
.> regulated under the same provisions as motor vehicle use. The Department
.> believes that bicycles are distinct from motor vehicles and should be
.> managed separately from them and that a nation-wide prohibition on
.> cross-country bicycle use is unwarranted at this time."
.> .> .
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .The new rules are posted for all to see: USDA Forest Service
.> website:
.> .> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .See "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
.> .> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
.>
.> ===
.> 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.)
.Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues to
.permanently destroy habitat...
.At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
.with getting bicycles out of the woods.
.
.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


text:
"Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of recognition of sarcasm. Besides, if a
species has been dwindled down to only a few members, it would take
extraordinary circumstances to replenish their numbers. It would certainly
be better to safeguard as much habitat from sprawl as possible to prevent
the scenerio in the first place. Every building that goes up expanding
civilization cuts into that habitat and by doing so has a side effect of
cuttting into available places to hike and ride.
Since hiking and offroad cycling have similar impact on wildlife and
"trails", the allowance of cycling where hiking is acceptable is the issue.
The only possible scenerio to settle your argument is to close the woods to
everybody, every activity, every instance. Hikers would NEVER be able to
venture into any wooded areas, either. If the mere human presence is
destructive, that can be the only possible solution to fit your situation.
No offroad cycling, then No hiking, NO equestrians, NO anything.


text:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:34:12 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
.news:[email]...
.> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:17:50 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email]> wrote:
.>
.> .> .<clipped>
.> .> .>
.> .> .> They all contain POTENTIALLY ENDANGERED wildlife.
.> .> .Bicycles will not erase a species - but the eradication of habitat for
.> .> .building can. Habitat gone, trails gone, wildlife gone...
.> .>
.> .> You don't know that. If you run over the last member of a species, you
.> .> WILL
.> .> cause extincton.
.> .Actually, if there was only one member of the species left - the species
.> .would already be dead. No way to re-populate....
.>
.> Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of basic biology. Many
.> species
.> reproduce asexually ("vegetatively"), such as aspen and bacteria. Also, a
.> pregnant female could have offspring of both sexes, and the species
.> wouldn't be
.> extinct.
.Thanks for demonstrating your lack of recognition of sarcasm. Besides, if a
.species has been dwindled down to only a few members, it would take
.extraordinary circumstances to replenish their numbers. It would certainly
.be better to safeguard as much habitat from sprawl as possible to prevent
.the scenerio in the first place. Every building that goes up expanding
.civilization cuts into that habitat and by doing so has a side effect of
.cuttting into available places to hike and ride.
.>
.> .And the only way that could even begin to happen is IF sprawl and
.> .construction forced everything into a tiny space AND I did not know how
.> to
.> .brake and steer.
.> .It will be the loss of habitat that destroys species as they are forced
.> onto
.> .smaller tracts of contiguous land to survive. It will NOT be bicycles on
.> .available trails.
.>
.> Mountain bikers are always building new trails, legally or illegally,
.> which
.> destroys habitat. Human presence also destroys habitat, by making it
.> unattractive to wildlife. Mountain bikers kill threatened species and
.> thereby
.> contribute to extinction.
.Since hiking and offroad cycling have similar impact on wildlife and
."trails",

BS. I refuted that lie long ago.

 the allowance of cycling where hiking is acceptable is the issue.
.The only possible scenerio to settle your argument is to close the woods to
.everybody, every activity, every instance. Hikers would NEVER be able to
.venture into any wooded areas, either. If the mere human presence is
.destructive, that can be the only possible solution to fit your situation.
.No offroad cycling, then No hiking, NO equestrians, NO anything.
.>
.> Maybe the last of a species will die from eating some
.> .contaminated trash left behind by a hiker....
.> .>
.> .> .> .> .
.> .> .> .> ."Comment. Some respondents stated that OHVs should not be
.> allowed
.> .> on National Forests at all. These respondents suggested that National
.> .> Forests should be managed primarily for preservation of natural values,
.> .> water quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological
.> diversity,
.> .> quiet, and spiritual renewal.
.> .> .> .> .
.> .> .> .> .Response. The Department disagrees. National Forests are managed
.> by
.> .> law for multiple use.
.> .> .> .>
.> .> .> .> That doesn't require access for OHVs,including mountain bikes. It
.> .> .> violates
.> .> .> .> the
.> .> .> .> Endangered Species Act.
.> .> .> .OHVs and bicycles are NOT the same. Nevertheless, the new rules
.> grant
.> .> both access to degrees determined by local authorities.
.> .> .> .Not all areas contain "Endangered Species" habitat....
.> .> .>
.> .> .> You missed my point. Multiple use doesn't require MTB access.
.> .> .It also does not require it be excluded.
.> .>
.> .> But it still allows bikes to be banned.
.> .In some cases, of course. .  However, cycling is not an "ORV" (no motor),
.> a
.> ."nation-wide prohibition on cross country bicycle use is unwarranted..."
.> and
.> .the Forest Service can determine the access for activities at the local
.> .level. In short, off-road cycling is an acceptable recreation activity
.> and
.> .an acceptable activity on many public lands. Haven't you read the thing
.> yet?
.> .>
.> .> .> .> They are managed not only for the purposes stated in these
.> comments,
.> .> but for timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation.
.> .> .> These uses must be balanced, rather than one given preference over
.> .> another.
.> .> .> .> .Comment. Some respondents suggested that bicycles should be
.> .> included in the prohibition on use of motor vehicles off designated
.> roads
.> .> and trails and outside designated areas.
.> .> .> .> .
.> .> .> .> .Response. The Department disagrees that bicycles should be
.> .> regulated under the same provisions as motor vehicle use. The
.> Department
.> .> believes that bicycles are distinct from motor vehicles and should be
.> .> managed separately from them and that a nation-wide prohibition on
.> .> cross-country bicycle use is unwarranted at this time."
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .> .
.> .> .> .> .The new rules are posted for all to see: USDA Forest Service
.> .> website:
.> .> .> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/
.> .> .> .> .
.> .> .> .> .See "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
.> .> .> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
.> .>
.> .> ===
.> .> 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.)
.> .Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues
.> to
.> .permanently destroy habitat...
.> .At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
.> .with getting bicycles out of the woods.
.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


text:
"Mike Vandeman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Your opinions and exxagerated claims have no value. YOU can say your
opinions are fact all you want but it does not change the status of your
opinions.

The lack of response here says volumes.

<clipped>


author: elgoog

subject: Re: 1957 virus sent by mistake Thank you Canada for good work!!

text:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
<<snip>>

No, it shows that people sometimes make stupid mistakes and that God is
not responsible for every bad thing that befalls us.


author: William Wagner

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "elgoog" <[email]> wrote:

  I was redundant on purpose with the first few lines.  Seems a simple
clerical mistake got by.  Something of this potential magnitude.  Scary.
No one born after 1968 would have any immunity .  Itï¿½s a sci-fi movie
where all the young people are gone.   I hope we donï¿½t hear anymore
about this!

 We used to say that most of our quality problems can often be traced to
the loose nut in front of the device.   Trying for humor  !

Bill


text:
GENEVAï¿½Apr 20, 2005 ï¿½ï¿½All samples of the killer influenza virus
mistakenly sent outside the United States have been destroyed except for
one in Lebanon, the U.N. health agency said Wednesday.

The sample that had gone missing in Beirut "was found at the airport,"
said Maria Cheng, spokeswoman for the World Health Organization. "That
will be destroyed soon."

Previously unaccounted for samples sent to Mexico and South Korea also
have been destroyed, she said.

Edited for brevity.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=686496


author: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

text:
William Wagner wrote:

Only if it is God's will.

At His service,

Andrew


author: ed kyle

subject: Shuttle RCC Redesign Required? (Revisited)

text:
According to report of 6/24/03 CAIB press conference at
<www.spaceflightnow.com>, CAIB chairman Harold Gehman
said the following.

"I believe the report is going to suggest that you have
to take action in each of four areas.  First, you have
to take action to either minimize or prevent as best you
can foam loss and certainly you have to prevent the
egregious foam loss, the big pieces."

"But we're also going to suggest you have to toughen the
orbiter's ability to take debris hits because the orbiter
is going to continue to take debris hits. It was designed
not to, but that's now proven to be not the case. So you
have to increase the orbiter's ability to take hits."

Several in this group have scoffed at the idea, but I'm
happy to hear the CAIB talk about toughing up the orbiter.
It may delay the next launch a few months more, but I
presume this means doing something about the RCC.

 - Ed Kyle


author: jeff findley

subject: Re: Shuttle RCC Redesign Required? (Revisited)

text:
Brian Thorn <[email]> writes:

Other than one or two more Hubble missions, I don't think there will
necessarily be anymore non-ISS missions.

Jeff


author: Abrigon Gusiq

text:
One way to deal with the shuttle and like vehicles that take damage on
the way up, or while in orbit or even possibly extra-orbital. Is to turn
the ISS or even build a new one, into a space DOCK. To be able to build
or repair Shuttles, Soyuz and more. And maybe even build new Mars and
like explorers.

Mike

ed kyle wrote:


text:
Seems to me that with today's spiffy NC machining technology, you could
imagine NASA getting someone to produce leading edge panels out of stainless
steel that could be protected by one of several available ablative materials
and refurbished between flights. At 6 shuttle flights per year, each orbiter
flies every six months, assuming all three birds are available. Six months
is plenty of time to replace the charred ablator with fresh material.

As far as manufacturing the steel substrates, maybe six to nine months to
produce three leading edge panel sets plus spares, assuming that NASA put
the pedal to the metal (16/6 schedule, expedited procurement and material
handling, possibly some type of higher government priority that would shake
loose the necessary assets to do something like this).

However, I don't see any sign that something like this is happening or is
likely. I think we're stuck with making RCC work safely enough to finish the
ISS flights and the Hubble servicing mission.

Later
Ray Schmitt

"ed kyle" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


text:
"rschmitt23" <[email]> writes:

Considering all the fuss being made about how foam (or anything else)
should never impact the tiles (or the RCC), I don't see you getting
away with bolting on ablative materials onto the leading edges.  At
least, not without tests to show what those ablative materials do to
the tiles during a re-entry.

Jeff


author: Jorge R. Frank

text:
[email] (ed kyle) wrote in
news:[email]:

I don't scoff at the idea of an eventual RCC redesign, but I do scoff at
the notion of it being a constraint to return-to-flight. For return-to-
flight, you're going to get the most mileage out of reducing the debris
environment in the first place. I do see some modest steps being taken
before return-to-flight, such as perhaps adding layers of Nextel fabric
behind the RCC as a "sacrificial ablator", or replacing the HRSI landing
gear/ET umbilical door frame tiles with TUFI. But a complete redesign is
probably years, and hundreds of millions of dollars, away.

Yes, the CAIB is talking about orbiter hardening. But they are also
embracing incrementalism. Gehman also said in the same article you quoted:

"I don't speculate on the date of return to flight," he told reporters at a
news conference. "I would say that having read every word of the draft
report and having gone over what might be possible recommendations, I don't
see any recommendations which are so difficult to accomplish that they
shouldn't be able to return to flight in six to nine months. Other than
that, I wouldn't put any numbers on it."

Gehman was also quoted by the NY Times:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/national/24SHUT.html?ex=1057457084&ei=1&
en=77740e06183dd77d>

(watch URL wor
dwrap...)

The idea of a relatively prompt return to flight did not appear to disturb
Admiral Gehman, who has repeatedly noted that the existence of the space
station ï¿½which was not a factor after the Challenger disaster ï¿½creates an
incentive to fly quickly. He has raised the idea that some changes might
have to be made before the first post-accident flight, while others ï¿½still
important for the balance of the shuttle's operating life ï¿½might wait a bit
longer. Other improvements might wait until the successor to the shuttle,
he said.


text:
"Brian Gaff" <[email]> writes:

While this is true, one has to revisit issues (crit-1 waivers) over
the years and re-evaluate if they need to be addressed.  Over time,
equipment can degrade, adjacent hardware can be changed, and etc.
Things change that can turn something that used to be o.k. to ignore
into something that really needs to be fixed soon.

The shuttle gets the worst of both worlds.  Time wise, the airframes
and equipment is aging, yet the flight rate is so low that issues keep
popping up that could be classified as development issues.  It's
really aging before it's even had a chance to mature into an
operational system.

Jeff


text:
jeff findley <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

The original poster was suggesting a space dock for *all* manned
spacecraft, present and future.  While shuttle and Soyuz are pretty much
devoted to ISS, that will probably not be the case forever.


author: LooseChanj

text:
On or about 27 Jun 2003 11:15:24 -0400, jeff findley
<[email]> made the sensational claim that:

You could still end up with an abort to orbit on a station mission, and be
incapable of reaching the ISS.


author: dave schneider

text:
Abrigon Gusiq <[email]> wrote in to say:

Yep.  Got your checkbook out?

This might be, following up on someone else's comment, a reason to
take ETs up -- cut up the tanks to make the hanger.  It would take a
bunch, though, to make a hanger big enough to hold a complete shuttle
(I'll get around to checking the dimensions of Soyuz Any Day Now  ;-)
), and a lot of air to make a breathable work enviornment.  An
alternative would be like a Quonset hut parked over the work site, but
then you have the issues of how to seal the "soft dock" without making
more damage.  My first idea is some sort of skirt of soft material,
perhaps inflatable.

BTW, you still have the issue of ET debris around the ISS, so you need
to park it a ways away and you better have a taxi for the ride over.

/dps


text:
On or about Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:47:43 GMT, Abrigon Gusiq <[email]> made the sensational claim that:

You've been watching too much star trek, mm'k?


author: Brian Thorn

text:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:47:43 GMT, Abrigon Gusiq <[email]>
wrote:

That's fine for missions already heading to the Space Station. But
what about other flights? What if the Shuttle can't reach the Space
Station because of engine failure?

Brian


author: Brian Gaff

text:
"Jorge R. Frank" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns93A4EFAC2B980jrfrank@216.39.221.8...
| [email] (ed kyle) wrote in
| news:[email]:
|
| > According to report of 6/24/03 CAIB press conference at
| ><www.spaceflightnow.com>, CAIB chairman Harold Gehman
| > said the following.
| >
| > "I believe the report is going to suggest that you have
| > to take action in each of four areas.  First, you have
| > to take action to either minimize or prevent as best you
| > can foam loss and certainly you have to prevent the
| > egregious foam loss, the big pieces."
| >
| > "But we're also going to suggest you have to toughen the
| > orbiter's ability to take debris hits because the orbiter
| > is going to continue to take debris hits. It was designed
| > not to, but that's now proven to be not the case. So you
| > have to increase the orbiter's ability to take hits."
| >
| > Several in this group have scoffed at the idea, but I'm
| > happy to hear the CAIB talk about toughing up the orbiter.
| > It may delay the next launch a few months more, but I
| > presume this means doing something about the RCC.
|
| I don't scoff at the idea of an eventual RCC redesign, but I do scoff at
| the notion of it being a constraint to return-to-flight. For return-to-
| flight, you're going to get the most mileage out of reducing the debris
| environment in the first place. I do see some modest steps being taken
| before return-to-flight, such as perhaps adding layers of Nextel fabric
| behind the RCC as a "sacrificial ablator", or replacing the HRSI landing
| gear/ET umbilical door frame tiles with TUFI. But a complete redesign is
| probably years, and hundreds of millions of dollars, away.
|
| Yes, the CAIB is talking about orbiter hardening. But they are also
| embracing incrementalism. Gehman also said in the same article you quoted:
|
| "I don't speculate on the date of return to flight," he told reporters at
a
| news conference. "I would say that having read every word of the draft
| report and having gone over what might be possible recommendations, I
don't
| see any recommendations which are so difficult to accomplish that they
| shouldn't be able to return to flight in six to nine months. Other than
| that, I wouldn't put any numbers on it."
|
| Gehman was also quoted by the NY Times:
|
|
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/national/24SHUT.html?ex=1057457084&ei=1&
| en=77740e06183dd77d>
|
| (watch URL wor
| dwrap...)
|
| The idea of a relatively prompt return to flight did not appear to disturb
| Admiral Gehman, who has repeatedly noted that the existence of the space
| station ï¿½which was not a factor after the Challenger disaster ï¿½creates an
| incentive to fly quickly. He has raised the idea that some changes might
| have to be made before the first post-accident flight, while others ï¿½still
| important for the balance of the shuttle's operating life ï¿½might wait a
bit
| longer. Other improvements might wait until the successor to the shuttle,
| he said.
| --
| JRF
|
| Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
| check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
| think one step ahead of IBM.

I think this sounds like common sense. After all, you in the end have to
take a decision of how safe is safe. Its something that seems often to be
missing  in this black and white culture that seems to have evolved in
recent years.

Brian

Still working on that zero G Lawnmower- Well, having a problem getting the
lawn to grow in the right direction...:-)


author: OM

text:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:05:22 GMT, LooseChanj <[email]>
wrote:

...And what, pray tell, is wrong with *that*, LC? :-P

				OM


author: Hallerb

text:
Thats a excellent point. We need a FAST way to get emergency supplies like
parts or a shuttle power module to orbit. It would be useful for ISS too.

Plugging a stranded orbiter into a emergency power source while repairs are
attempted woiuld be just one good use.


text:
On or about Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:37:19 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
made the sensational claim that:

Plenty, if it's Voyager or Enterprise. :-P


author: [redacted]

subject: What was your first job out of college?

text:
And, did you like it? What did you do and where are you now?

Thanks.


author: John

subject: Re: What was your first job out of college?

text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:54:29 -0700, [email] wrote:

I didn't finsh college until after I retired.

I've worked for 3 different companies since then and now do
consulting/programming - mostly on PDA's used for interfacing and
control.

I'm quite happy to be working at home and only when the project is
interesting ;-)

John


author: HapticZ

text:
first job after graduation?  that was FINDING THE JOB!  not just A job, THE
job,

u know, the one that will actually pay bills, allow me to live happily and
be a useful contributor to society.

so far, after 45 years THAT job has yet to be created.

:-))

<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Michael A. Terrell

text:
terryS wrote:

   My english isn't perfect, but at least I try.  I took Latin in high
school, all those decades ago. :(

   I have nerve damage in my left hand, and carpal tunnel in my right,
so my fingers don't do what I tell them.  i read what i've written, and
correct it, then run the spell checker.  that doesn't get everything,
but it does get enough to make the messages readable.

   I have taken test procedures back to the engineers who wrote them,
and they couldn't figure out what they wrote.  They also had a bad habit
of specifying test equipment not available on the production floor. They
expected the cal lab to find something suitable, but at one time several
specified a network analyzer, and the only one in the company was locked
in that engineer's office.  This was before they went ISO 9001.  One of
the things we did during that time was to remove all references, except
to test fixtures.

   Eventually, I was allowed to rewrite these useless documents.  Before
I sent them to be signed off by the engineer in charge of that product,
I would have a technician who had never worked with that item sit down
and run through an actual test.  The idea was to make each test
procedure clear enough that any technician they hired who was worth
keeping could do almost any job, without outside help.

   A lot of original test procedures were so convoluted that it took you
through the same steps, several times.  One AGC board averaged 5.5 hours
to test.  A slight change to the test fixture, and streamlining the
directions took the average test time to 18 minutes.  (Some of the
integration ranges had to be measured with a period counter, and
calculate the actual frequencies.)

   Constructive criticism is a useful tool, to those who aren't 100%
ego. :)  There is no hope for that small group. :(


author: John Larkin

text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:54:29 -0700, [email] wrote:

Electronics design engineer. Same thing as I've always done. It's been
fun so far.

John


author: Paul E. Schoen

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

While I went to college, I worked at the same company where my father
worked, and I was variously employed as a draftsman/illustrator, technical
writer (for a military manual), and QC inspector. When I left college, I
worked at this same place as a draftsman, at a very low hourly wage. I
often helped one of the other draftsmen to do his job, and when I found out
he was making about twice what I was, I asked for a raise. It was refused,
because the personnel director said that the other draftsman had a family
to support, while I was still living at home and didn't need the money.
IIRC, I quit immediately.

So, I found a job supervising newspaper boys selling new subscriptions, at
a higher pay than I was getting, and then I found a better job as a
draftsman again at a job-shop. Their contract ended and I enjoyed
unemployment for 26 weeks.

Three years out of college, after also running a part-time TV/stereo repair
business, I got a "real" job as an instrument technician, and about three
years later, I became an electronics design engineer, which was what I
always wanted to do. The company was sold 15 years later, to a company in
Dallas, but I didn't want to relocate (or work for them), so in 1989 I
started my own business in electronic design (www.pstech-inc.com), and
still enjoy it.

Paul


author: terryS

text:
On Sep 28, 3:30 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <[email]>
wrote in part:

I tend to agree with Michael. In my mind no matter what job one does
one should be professional enough to be able to communicate
effectively and accurately in at least one language.

For most of us that is English; sadly too like most I have no other
language capability which is certainly a limitation. With time back
would certainly have learnt French or maybe Spanish. Although the way
the world is developing Chines or Farsi (India) might be better but
much more difficult for a westerner (and an older one at that) to
learn even a smattering.

That doesn't mean we don't all, occasionally, in haste, misspell a
word or don't use 'Spell-check' correctly. But bad sentence
construction etc. only obfuscates and tells the reader that YOU don't
communicate very well!

For example: I had a graduate engineer working for me at one time who
couldn't write even to follow a pre-set format. We (myself and other
managers) wondered how he ever passed his engineering courses. We gave
him a low performance review for that and other reasons and he
eventually straightened himself out.

These days much communication is direct (email, MSN, ng postings etc.)
i.e. no secretarial involvement at all, such as this item that I type
and post myself. Must spell check it before sending and read over to
spot the worst of any grammatical errors.

Criticism welcomed. Always willing to learn.


author: Charles

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Pumping gas.  It was interesting because it was sort of like the show
"Cheers" with the repeat customers and all of the weird personalities.

Went to graduate school and ended up making a lot more money and retired
early.  The gas station was actually more fun, but no money there.

Why do you ask?


author: Jamie

text:
[email] wrote:

Working at a text style mill in the electrical department where
I became the EE and thus upgraded the antique machines with modern
electronics thus, removing many of the hardware dependent apertures
of the machines.
    Things were not as easy as they are now for electronic controls and
special devices. Back then, you had to design and build a lot of your
component assemblies in house. Doing the mechanical hardware engineering
was up to the machinists, which we had some very talented people working
there.

   Then we graduated in to designing complete pieces of equipment etc.
Got a better job offer and then moved out of that state.

   That was over 20 years ago. Now we work at a facility that not only
has a production operation going on continuously, they also have a
EE, ME department with a large machine and electronics work area for
staging of new equipment, maintenance and upgrades of existing.

   We design and modify equipment that is used through out the rest of
our other locations.

   We also do lots of military, some special and some generic. In many
cases, we have to design special devices to get the process of these
exotic products properly assembled and tested.

   In between all of that, I had a several side adventures doing
embedded micro processor, analog devices where they were used in
products related mostly to computer interfaces and submitted many
to electronic manufactures. Now since every thing on that line is
made in China., that end of it has gone belly up..


author: Al in Dallas

text:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:23:22 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen"
<[email]> wrote:

It took you SIX years to get the job you were educated to do?


author: Bob Myers

text:
"terryS" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Can't disagree with that.  I have been known to go so far as
to tell newbie engineers that their top priority as an engineer
is to communicate clearly, and their most important product
is documentation.

Engineers do not make products as such; that is the job of the
manufacturing line.  It is the job of the engineer to clearly and
unambiguously communicate HOW to make those products,
and what to do about it when the production goes wrong.
That's "documentation."

Some argue that the engineer's main job is the creation of new
designs - but the design itself, the new idea that the engineer comes
up with, is utterly useless until it is written down, drawn, made
into a schematic, etc. - and note that those latter two also almost
always have to have some accompanying verbage to explain them.
That's "documentation."

Bottom line - I don't especially care how well you know your theory
or how creative you can be when it comes to inventing something
new, if you can't express those ideas clearly.  If that's the case,
then I don't want you.

Bob M.


author: John Popelish

text:
Jamie wrote:
(snip)
(snip)
(snip)
(snip)
(snip)

How many are you?  ;-)


author: Rich Grise

text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:16:52 -0400, Jamie wrote:
...

A "text style" mill? Is that, say, as opposed to a "graphics style" mill?

You wouldn't mean "textile", would you? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich


text:
"Al in Dallas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I had some very interesting adventures in the early 70s, that were much
more educational and rewarding than a boring 9-5 job. I had originally
planned to work as an instrument tech for a while to get enough money to
set up a shop for self-employment, but the job got more interesting and it
was good to have a steady income, so I finally entered the corporate
mainstream.

Paul


text:
John Popelish wrote:

How many? what's that suppose to mean? Ok, I miss used the
term "WE" with "I".. I apologize.! English grammar was never
my strong point, even though it's my native tongue.
   That's why I throw my reports over to the secretary for review
before I submit them.
   After all, they are an appliance aren't they ? :)


text:
Rich Grise wrote:

Hmm, looks like i'm not paying much attention to my spell checker.
   guess I shouldn't be using the auto function. And I thought it
was such a good feature.

   yes, you are correct, Textile mill. (years ago).

  Thanks for bringing this little error up. I just turned off the
auto function.

    I wonder how many other post i've made lately like that with out
first proof reading it.!
   Oh well.

Bye for now.


text:
Jamie wrote:

  No, they aren't, and they shouldn't have to do your work.


author: Ross Herbert

text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:48:54 -0400, Jamie
<[email]> wrote:

became
mill?

For this sort of typo the spell checker is no good since both words,
"text" and "style", are valid, and spelled correctly.


text:
do wonder how many military projects documents have been released with
correct spell but with completely non contextual content?

"Jamie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:8RYKi.105$[email]...
mill?


text:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Well, if that was the case, she'd be out of a job.


author: Nobody

text:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:07:32 +0000, Ross Herbert wrote:

AFAICT, the issue is that the spell-checker didn't just detect the typo,
but tried to fix it (incorrectly).

My guess is that the original was something like "textyle".

Auto-correction is usually a bad idea. For anything other than the most
obvious typos (e.g. "teh"), not only is the chance of the replacement
being wrong high, but an incorrect replacement is likely to be more
confusing than if the original typo had been left intact.


text:
HapticZ wrote:

  I don't submit reports for military branches. QC, PD and Process
Engineering handle that area.

    I'm in the area where we(the group) have to design, upgrade or
modify production equipment to manufacture the products the military buy
from us among of course, non-military customers. We did have a special case
at one time where a special piece of equipment had to be made to generate
this military product. After the product was complete, tested and
varified. As part of the contract, we had to destroy the machine
afterwards and show proof of destruction.
   I never understood that.


text:
Jamie wrote:

   It sounds like they should keep her and get rid of you, if she's
doing both jobs.


text:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

  Oh well, No one is complaining. And no, she doesn't do my job, she does
what she was hired for.


author: Isaac Wingfield

subject: Re: Interlaced pictures

text:
In article <5de2fp$[email]>, [email]
(Iakovos Stamoulis) wrote:

Actually, the *only* real difference between interlaced and non- is that in
an interlaced display, the number of horizontal lines in *two* fields (one
frame) is odd; for non-interlaced, it's even. There are some minor sync
differences, but the above is the real issue.

The display is just a high-ratio Lissajous figure made with sawtooth waves
instead of sines. The "extra half-line" in interlace is a manifestation of
the odd number of lines in two fields; it makes every other Vsync fall in
the middle of a line. Automatically. Again: in interlaced, the H and V sync
signals are *absolutely regular*; there is no fiddling around with
advancing or retarding pulses in any way.

For a designer, the hard part is keeping the H and V signals from talking
to each other in the receiver; if they do, the two fields tend to overlap.
All that stuff about "equalizing pulses" and such is just to keep the
integrated DC levels constant between a field that ends on a whole line and
one that ends on a half-line. Early sets used very simple R-C filters to
separate H and V sync pulses; any DC drift showed up as an unwanted advance
or retard of the vertical sync.

Isaac