Left coast roadie this summer?

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:24 pm

Dinsdale wrote:The largest living thing on earth, and the oldest...

Incongruous... the largest living thing is not the oldest.
Nonetheless, I know where you're going with this... and it's not of the 'psychedelic' nature but rather soil-borne.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:27 pm

I meant as opposed to Anderson's if you are going to Solvang, but yes if you are anywhere near VAB do goto the original.

Inside, the restaurant is pretty cool.
There's a resturant? :doh:

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:57 pm

Ken wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:The largest living thing on earth, and the oldest...
Incongruous... the largest living thing is not the oldest.

Why yes... yes it is.

While this doesn't have to be the case by definition, it is indeed the case by fact.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:05 am

I thought the great barrier reef was the largest living thing on the planet.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:29 am

smackaholic wrote:I thought the great barrier reef was the largest living thing on the planet.

The GBR is a collection of billions of distinct organisms with distinct DNA.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:21 am

When did Rumplewife move to my state? :?

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:38 am

So, Dins, whatcha got up there in Oregon that's larger than the General Sherman giant sequoia? I would've guessed Luther was the Oregon thing you have that's the oldest living thing but since you said the oldest and the largest are one and the same I don't think I'm on the right track there...

(Btw, are you talking about that big ass fungus??)

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:53 am

Van wrote:Btw, are you talking about that big ass fungus??

Ahhh... so you are trolling.

That's what I thought, since you apparently are familiar with the oldest, largest organism on earth.

That's one bigazz mushroom.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:02 am

Dins, nope, not trolling...learning. Wasn't sure if or when you'd get back to me on this thing so I got to googling to see if I could find out on my own what you might've been referencing.

Everything I'd previously read said the General Sherman tree was the largest living thing on earth but then when you said, nope, the U&L of course has something even bigger I of course hopped on the ol' puter. Turns out there's that big ass fungus organism in the part of Oregon you despise. There's also an aspen tree (it's its own glade, basically) in Utah that has a bazillion underground stems resulting in what may be a single organism (of sorts) that has the most mass and volume. Then there's a single sequoia (like the Utah aspen, it's its own grove) that dwarfs everything in volume, again if you measure its total volume after including all its shared genetics stems.

Your fungus (but of course) is the largest in sheer area but there's a lot of debate as to whether or not it should be considered an individual organism. Some say it's a "clonal colony," since its mycelium may not all be connected.

Whatever. Nobody on earth is qualified to answer that one.

Anyway, these large fungi and connected grove trees were news to me. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that among "no dispute" single living organisms the General Sherman giant sequoia is the current undisputed heavy weight champ, having taken the crown from the previous champ, a coastal redwood called the Lindsey Creek Tree. Apparently it fell down and went boom in 1905.

Fascinating!

socal · Post by **socal** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:52 am

Van wrote:Dins, nope, not trolling...learning. Wasn't sure if or when you'd get back to me on this thing so I got to googling to see if I could find out on my own what you might've been referencing.

Everything I'd previously read said the General Sherman tree was the largest living thing on earth but then when you said, nope, the U&L of course has something even bigger I of course hopped on the ol' puter. Turns out there's that big ass fungus organism in the part of Oregon you despise. There's also an aspen tree (it's its own glade, basically) in Utah that has a bazillion underground stems resulting in what may be a single organism (of sorts) that has the most mass and volume. Then there's a single sequoia (like the Utah aspen, it's its own grove) that dwarfs everything in volume, again if you measure its total volume after including all its shared genetics stems.

Your fungus (but of course) is the largest in sheer area but there's a lot of debate as to whether or not it should be considered an individual organism. Some say it's a "clonal colony," since its mycelium may not all be conected.

Whatever. Nobody on earth is qualified to answer that one.

Anyway, these large fungi and connected grove trees were news to me. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that among "no dispute" single living organisms the General Sherman giant sequoia is the current undisputed heavy weight champ, having taken the crown from the previous champ, a coastal redwood called the Lindsey Creek Tree. Apparently it fell down and went boom in 1905.

Fascinating!

:angrygermankid:
:angrygermankid:
:angrygermankid:

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:36 am

Van wrote:The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that among "no dispute" single living organisms the General Sherman giant sequoia is the current undisputed heavy weight champ, having taken the crown from the previous champ, a coastal redwood called the Lindsey Creek Tree.

Everyone?

A tree is mostly dead. The Bark sans a few cells* and The Wood sans a few cells** are both mostly dead. This means that The General is mostly dead. Think of how your skin is mostly dead and extrapolate out. Sure the leaves are alive and the Xylem and Phloem*** are alive but that's about it. Same thing with the roots, sans the part about the leaves. How much of its estimated 6,167 tons is dead? 99%.

Warning Math ahead...
6,167 Times 2000 Times .01 = 123,340 pounds. Blue whales**** weigh twice that and are mostly alive.

Everyone?

* Since this seems to be a 5th grade class we'll call them Phloem cells.
** Xylem cells
*** It is more complicated than that but let's stick to the basics first.
**** Which may or may not weigh more than anything else alive.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:43 am

That's all true but a still living and growing tree is still considered by everyone to be a living thing, as a single entity. The fact is, like Monty Python's parrot, there's a very definite and obvious point in time when even that "mostly dead" but still relatively healthy tree becomes a truly dead tree.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:56 am

The living part of the General weighs less than the living part of a Blue whale. Since you seem to be a dumbshit let me put it this way. The General is carrying a 12,210,660 pound turd in and on its body. If you want to call that 12 million pounds of crap alive you go right ahead. That don't make it true and saying everyone says it's true when I just SHOWED you it wasn't also doesn't make it true you clueless fucktard.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:20 am

You're fucking retarded, TVO, and basically beyond hope. You would rather argue the most pointless minutiae than simply resist the temptation of being a contrarian cunt.

Here's a simple little concept for you, pinhead: Those green leaves, on the very top of the tree? The skin of the tree, which continually changes over time and has the ability to recuperate following outward stresses? Those new growth rings a tree trunk adds each year...while it's still alive?

Are you aware of these things, you gibbering disease? May we at least assume this?

Now, follow along, dipshit...

Go ahead and cut the tree down. Poison it. Hell, just wait for nature to take its course. Come back in three thousand years and witness that tree now lying on its side in the forest.

Something's different about it in those latter scenarios, isn't there, you goddamn vile blowhard?

Yes, there is. The tree used to be ALIVE and now it's DEAD!

Percentages of living tissue vs non living tissue, within the living tree? WGARA, you fucking simp. Scientists don't. Scientists universally (that means all of them, without exception) consider the General Sherman tree to be a living thing. As to whether or not they consider the organism to be alive they don't differentiate between tissue types within the living organism. No, they universally consider that tree to be a living organism; a living organism that's larger than the largest blue whale ever recorded.

The entire width and breadth of that tree's continuing existence? It's dependent on the tree being alive.

Why? Because everything about that tree's existence ends, for good, when the tree dies.

On planet earth that would be a fairly safe definition of a living thing: It will eventually die.

That's how we can tell the difference between a hammer and a hummingbird, a street sign and a sequoia. Even a twisted jerk off like you will notice a permanence in the difference of those two states of being.

The tree is alive in the roots, well beneath the soil. It's alive in the middle branches, a hundred and fifty feet up the trunk of the tree. Three hundred feet in the air, it's alive up there too, and it's all dependent on what's happening all throughout the tree, all the way down to the roots. It's all one entity, one living entity.

If you can't admit there's a difference between a living tree and a dead tree and that the General Sherman tree is in fact considered by everyone (with a brain) to be a living thing and a larger living thing than a blue whale then you're truly without merit and not worth engaging in further discussion.

You are one incredibly petty, shallow and tedious waste of bandwidth.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:28 pm

Van wrote:You're fucking retarded, TVO, and basically beyond hope. You would rather argue the most pointless minutiae than simply resist the temptation of being a contrarian cunt.

Here's a simple little concept for you, pinhead: Those green leaves, on the very top of the tree? The skin of the tree, which continually changes over time and has the ability to recuperate following outward stresses? Those new growth rings a tree trunk adds each year...while it's still alive?

Are you aware of these things, you gibbering disease? May we at least assume this?

Now, follow along, dipshit...

Go ahead and cut the tree down. Poison it. Hell, just wait for nature to take its course. Come back in three thousand years and witness that tree now lying on its side in the forest.

Something's different about it in those latter scenarios, isn't there, you goddamn vile blowhard?

Yes, there is. The tree used to be ALIVE and now it's DEAD!

Percentages of living tissue vs non living tissue, within the living tree? WGARA, you fucking simp. Scientists don't. Scientists universally (that means all of them, without exception) consider the General Sherman tree to be a living thing. As to whether or not they consider the organism to be alive they don't differentiate between tissue types within the living organism. No, they universally consider that tree to be a living organism; a living organism that's larger than the largest blue whale ever recorded.

The entire width and breadth of that tree's continuing existence? It's dependent on the tree being alive.

Why? Because everything about that tree's existence ends, for good, when the tree dies.

On planet earth that would be a fairly safe definition of a living thing: It will eventually die.

That's how we can tell the difference between a hammer and a hummingbird, a street sign and a sequoia. Even a twisted jerk off like you will notice a permanence in the difference of those two states of being.

The tree is alive in the roots, well beneath the soil. It's alive in the middle branches, a hundred and fifty feet up the trunk of the tree. Three hundred feet in the air, it's alive up there too, and it's all dependent on what's happening all throughout the tree, all the way down to the roots. It's all one entity, one living entity.

If you can't admit there's a difference between a living tree and a dead tree and that the General Sherman tree is in fact considered by everyone (with a brain) to be a living thing and a larger living thing than a blue whale then you're truly without merit and not worth engaging in further discussion.

You are one incredibly petty, shallow and tedious waste of bandwidth.

He's a fukking ~~parasite~~ lawyer, Van.

He can't hep it. It's what they do. Throw out common sense, use some fancy latin words and bullshit everyone for a few hundred bucks an hour.

Wonder if Obammy will want to change this part of america and make us more like the euros, who, to their credit, atleast have some reign over their lawyers. Somehow I doubt it.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Moving Sale wrote:A tree is mostly dead. The Bark sans a few cells* and The Wood sans a few cells** are both mostly dead. This means that The General is mostly dead. Think of how your skin is mostly dead and extrapolate out.

I prefer to think about how your brain is mostly dead, and tune you out.

What a ridiculous fucking argument.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:13 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Van wrote:The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that among "no dispute" single living organisms the General Sherman giant sequoia is the current undisputed heavy weight champ, having taken the crown from the previous champ, a coastal redwood called the Lindsey Creek Tree.
Everyone?

A tree is mostly dead. The Bark sans a few cells* and The Wood sans a few cells** are both mostly dead. This means that The General is mostly dead. Think of how your skin is mostly dead and extrapolate out. Sure the leaves are alive and the Xylem and Phloem*** are alive but that's about it. Same thing with the roots, sans the part about the leaves. How much of its estimated 6,167 tons is dead? 99%.

Warning Math ahead...
6,167 Times 2000 Times .01 = 123,340 pounds. Blue whales**** weigh twice that and are mostly alive.

Everyone?

* Since this seems to be a 5th grade class we'll call them Phloem cells.
** Xylem cells
*** It is more complicated than that but let's stick to the basics first.
**** Which may or may not weigh more than anything else alive.

#1. Idiocy-- in all its glory. Before you delve into this any further, you DO understand that you're making the argument that a tree is not a living organism, right? You really didn't think about this much, did'ya?

#2. The bark is not phloem. Well, let me back up a bit... actually PART of it is, but the cambium is more closely associated as being a component of the bark of a tree. Some of the phloem may or may not be bark. Further, the cambium is in fact comprised of living cells while the phloem may or may NOT be. Try cutting a 2" deep ring around the circumference of a tree someday (preferably next to your house). Guess what'll happen? It'll eventually, no... hopefully, crush your skull... cuz it's now dead since the flow of sugars, h20, starches, etc. has been cut.*

#3. The xylem is not living. Dead cells. Sure, it is the main conduit for the passage of h20 UP the tree, but it's not living.

Google like a champ, my friend (something I didn't have to do). Do your best to refute. You'll fail.

* Try cutting a 2" ring around the circumference of your neck someday.
Q: Guess what'll happen?
A: Nothing, seeing as how your balloon knot contains plenty more life supporting functions than your brain.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:19 pm

Dayum check out the big brain on Ken.

Rack the Forestry lesson.

All this talk of trees being dead reminds me of one thing .....

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:40 pm

Tom, for an avowed tree hugger like me that's one sad fucking story. Sounds like a Rush song too, which makes it even sadder, when I picture Geddy reaching for high notes.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:05 pm

Goober McTuber wrote: I prefer to think about how your brain is mostly dead, and tune you out.

What a ridiculous fucking argument.

The sad part is... this ridiculous fucking argument (full agreement here), would probably be pretty funny... coming from M2.

He'd at least have the good sense to make the argument so far over the top of believability, that the readers would just shake their heads and say "damn, M2 is a fucking dork."

But not The VerticallyChallengedOne. I think it's quite possible that he actually believes the shit coming off his keyboard.

When M2 has megaBODE over you... it's time to pipe down.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:23 pm

big ass fungus

IN. I really need to wipe better.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:54 pm

Dear Botany/English challanged tards,
Since Ken has at least a little Sicence in his answer I'll direct my retort to him, but the rest of you losers can consider this my answer to you too.

Ken wrote: #1. Idiocy-- in all its glory. Before you delve into this any further, you DO understand that you're making the argument that a tree is not a living organism, right? You really didn't think about this much, did'ya?

Can you fucking read English? I said 99% of a tree was dead. Can you refute that? I said that the living part of the tree weighs less than the living part of a whale. I understand you are an idiot, but how did you ever get a tree is not living from a tree is 99% dead?

#2. The bark is not phloem.

Can you fucking read? I said I was dumbing it down to Van's level.

Well, let me back up a bit... actually PART of it is, but the cambium is more closely associated as being a component of the bark of a tree.

Oh I see so basically what I said is right, at least on a 5th grade level which is what I said in my post.

Some of the phloem may or may not be bark. Further, the cambium is in fact comprised of living cells while the phloem may or may NOT be. Try cutting a 2" deep ring around the circumference of a tree someday (preferably next to your house).

And?

Guess what'll happen? It'll eventually, no... hopefully, crush your skull... cuz it's now dead since the flow of sugars, h20, starches, etc. has been cut.*

I've seen Beavers work thank you.

#3. The xylem is not living.

So what they are produced as dead cells? How dumb are you? No part of the living part of a tree is Xylem? Good going dumbass.

Google like a champ, my friend (something I didn't have to do). Do your best to refute. You'll fail.

Projection much you stupid fag?

You might be an expert on floral arrangements but you suck at any other horticultural related subject.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:06 pm

TVO, for all your boorish hot air the fact remains that everything you're saying is in fact a wrong headed attempt to refute the notion that the General Sherman tree is recognized by everyone as being a larger living organism than a blue whale.

That's what you quoted: "living organism." Your comments are directed against that quote.

You fail. Miserably. You fail for the same reason you always fail here. Your only motivation for ever posting anything is to drop in and shit on things; in a self serving, boorish manner. You never offer anything of value. Your whole game is predicated on dispensing non sequitur bits of pointless minutiae, solely for the purposes of making yourself feel better.

In that, you succeed. In terms of winning a debate, as always, you fail. Miserably.

Miserably.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:12 pm

I like how he randomly (yes, it was random, and he cited no evidence to back any of his bullshit) assigned a percentage of living tissue to trees, and multiplied their mass by a factor to his liking, yet made no such arbitrary estimate as to the same factor regarding blue whales, save for "mostly living," and made no such mathematic correction for them.

That was a nice little bonus for me to laugh at. As is the idea of being able to remove 99% of a tree's tissue and expecting it to live (which is essentially what his scientifically-challenged ass just implied, but he wasn't quite smart enough to realize what he was implying).

Par for the course for Little Napolean.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:30 pm

I wonder how much of the blue whale's weight is water.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:49 pm

Mikey wrote:I wonder how much of the blue whale's weight is water.

if it's a chick whale, it depends on the time of the month.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:52 pm

If TVO comes in here claiming fat cells are dead, I'm driving to SLO to beat his ass.

Sin,
KFCPaul300+.0

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:53 pm

VanDumbass,
The GS is not recognized by me as being the largest living organism, so your shit quote is knocked down right there.
The natural world is complex. The English language is sometimes not a very good tool to describe it. Add to that the fact that the words 'largest' and 'living' can mean a lot of things and you'll get different opinions about what it means. Even you were struggling to decide what it meant. You picked the GS. Fine I couldn't care less, but just because you picked the definition that leads to the GS doesn't mean I have to.
This was all really fun and you thought learning was "fascinating" until I tried to teach you something. Being a hippocrate is way worse than being boring you vapid fuckstain.

Dumbsdale,
It wasn't anymore arbitrary than anything else posted (without) links in this thread. Hippocrate much?

Mikey,
About as much %wise as in the living cells of the GS. Why did you want to know?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:14 pm

Moving Sale wrote:The English language is sometimes not a very good tool

Don't blame the tool for your own monolithic failings, you miniature jackass.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:43 am

One helluva prescient poster wrote:the General Sherman tree is in fact considered by everyone (with a brain) to be a living thing and a larger living thing than a blue whale

~note: spoiler alert, indicated in bold~

Defining himself with unusual eloquence wrote:The GS is not recognized by me as being the largest living organism

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:58 am

It really shouldn't be this difficult wrote:The English language is sometimes not a very good tool

...followed up by this gem...

Priceless, just fucking priceless, wrote:Being a hippocrate is way worse than being boring you vapid fuckstain.

Yeah, I guess for some particularly dimwitted types the English language is a very imperfect tool...as are its poorest practitioners.

Wow. Just...wow. You probably ought to hang on to those scathing "fuckstain" rejoinders, champ. Even the neanderthal managed to get by having only the crudest of implements at his disposal.

You debate for shit. You can't write to save your life. You can't spell...at all. Basic concepts of logic escape you. You're not so much thick headed as just plain thick. To top it all off you're an ineffectual, malevolent little troll.

God, dude, you're really awful at this. You're truly and surprisingly awful.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:27 am

....and a fukkin' midget. Just kill yourself.

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:40 am

Vannie,

This doesn't need to be a PM.

Thanks for jogging my memory...

Sent at: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:27 pm
From: Van
To: Blueblood

Until you mentioned it I hadn't even thought of Muir Woods for many a year. After you mentioned it though I thought to myself, "Yeah, that was an awesome place..."[/i]

I hadn't been there since 1994, the first year I moved up here.

So, with today being a shitty, rainy day (the best time to hike as far as I'm concerned, since I hate heat) I drove down and hiked a few Muir Woods trails today.

Very cool. I had the place all to myself once I got off the main trail. I didn't see a single other soul for awhile, until finally on The Lost Trail I ran into two teenage German lesbians making out against a tree adjacent to a little stream. They just smiled and said hello as I walked on by and then they went back to kissing each other and talking in German, and that was that.

Bitchin' place. Sucks that that big ass Kent memorial tree (the huge Douglas Fir) fell over. It was still upright when I was there in '94 but apparently it developed a crack and then it fell over in '03.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder. The Bay Area really does rule. No argument from me there. Muir Woods still can't compare, trees wise, to the much larger coastal redwoods groves up north but then again Muir Woods is also tiny enough to have numerous hike-able trails and those other places aren't. At least with Muir Woods you can actually get to most of what's there while with those other, larger groves up north you really have to be a pro in order to hike in and locate the biggest of the big trees...

I'm a brilliant motherfucker.... you can feel safe posting your thoughts on "redwoods" with the truth in public.

I have just one question.... did you take "Lucas Valley Road" or did you go through Mill Valley?

... and how long did it take you ?

If you went the Mill Valley route..... then you spent an hour longer getting there than normal from Sacramento.

Just curious

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:33 am

101 south to Hwy 1 and Stinson Beach. I left my house at a little after 11:00am and it was 12:45pm when I pulled into the parking lot at Muir Woods. Took about an hour and a half, maybe an hour and forty five minutes.

So, no, it didn't take me an additional hour to get there, vs taking Lucas Valley Rd. Even if I took Lucas Valley Rd there's no way in hell it only takes me thirty to forty five minutes to get from my house in Sac to Muir Woods. It's always going to take me an hour and a half to get to SF, regardless.

I don't know the Lucas Valley Rd route to Muir Woods but no matter, I wanted to also check out some other things on Hwy 1 while I was down there.

Btw, odd that you didn't bold this part of that PM...

Muir Woods still can't compare, trees wise, to the much larger coastal redwoods groves up north

...considering that was the only portion of the PM that is germane to the conversation we were having in this thread.

Btw, odder still that you went ahead and posted a PM, without first asking for my permission to do so. You're old enough to know better so I shouldn't have to tell you this but as a general rule of thumb it's not for the recipient of a PM to decide whether or not that PM is to be made public. See, that's why people send PMs, as opposed to simply posting the items publicly. By definition, if they're sending you a PM it means that for whatever reason they've chosen to keep it private. As the recipient it's not your call as to whether or not to go public with it.

That's a very basic "class" and "integrity" thing, m2. You don't make unilateral decisions to post PMs you receive.

Is this news to you, or what? Foreign concept?

Moreover, what was the point in posting it? You could've and should've simply given me your Lucas Valley Rd tip in a PM. Nobody else here cares about what I said in that PM and nobody else here cares about your route tips.

See, that's why I sent it as a PM rather than post it on the board. It was only meant for you because it pertained to something (our Muir Woods conversation) about which only you might give a rat's ass.

.m2 · Post by **.m2** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:36 am

Van wrote:101 south to Hwy 1 and Stinson Beach.

This is where is gets very Sad.

I don't mean to call you out on a lie.... but, I must.

These roads don't cross anywhere... in Marin County.

Van wrote:I left my house at a little after 11:00am and it was 12:45pm when I pulled into the parking lot at Muir Woods. Took about an hour and a half, maybe an hour and forty five minutes.

Ok, Vannie..... it's time to come clean.

Pssst... I live in San Francisco and have a shop in Marin.

the truth

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:59 am

.m2 wrote:
Van wrote:101 south to Hwy 1 and Stinson Beach.

This is where is gets very Sad.

I don't mean to call you out on a lie.... but, I must.

These roads don't cross anywhere... in Marin County.

I don't mean to call you an imbecile...wait, yes I do. You're an imbecile.

mapquest.com

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1c=Sacrame ... each&2s=CA

Sacramento, California to Stinson Beach, Ca.

4: Merge onto US-50 W/CAPITAL CITY FWY. 3.2 mi Map Avoid

5: US-50 W/CAPITAL CITY FWY becomes I-80 W. 48.2 mi Map Avoid

6: Merge onto CA-37 W toward SAN RAFAEL. 21.3 mi Map Avoid

7: Merge onto US-101 S via the exit on the LEFT toward SAN RAFAEL/SAN FRANCISCO. 15.2 mi Map Avoid

8: Take the CA-1 N exit toward STINSON BEACH. 0.2 mi Map Avoid

9: Turn RIGHT onto CA-1/SHORELINE HWY.

101 south to Hwy 1 is precisely how one gets to Stinson Beach. The Muir Woods exit is off of Hwy 1, right before the Stinson Beach turn off to the left.

I was just there you toadstool. Hwy 1 off of 101 is how most people arrive at the beginning of the "Sunday Morning Ride."

Van wrote:I left my house at a little after 11:00am and it was 12:45pm when I pulled into the parking lot at Muir Woods. Took about an hour and a half, maybe an hour and forty five minutes.

Ok, Vannie..... it's time to come clean.

Pssst... I live in San Francisco and have a shop in Marin.

Yeah? So? I know precisely how long it takes to get to Muir Woods from my house.

I was just there. My watch works really well, too. Sac to SF is anywhere from an hour and a half to two hours. Bypassing 80 west through Berkeley and Oakland and also bypassing the GGB to the north nets me nearly a half hour of time saved.

.m2 · Post by **.m2** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:12 am

Psssst.... I commute 101 from San Francisco to Novato and back.... and I don't need Map Quest.

The commute between Novato (where highway 37 enters 101 from Black Point) and San Rafael is around an hour and a half commute over the 7 mile drive.... due to adding 3 lanes between Terra Linda and central San Rafael.(this has been going on for the last 4 years).

Let me know when you want to come clean.

the truth

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:05 am

I wasn't commuting. 11:00am-ish to 1:00pm-ish, you know. Minimal traffic. Nice, clear shot, the whole way. Hour and forty five minutes, door to door.

Btw, what happened to this...

m2 wrote:
Van wrote: 101 south to Hwy 1 and Stinson Beach.
This is where is gets very Sad.

I don't mean to call you out on a lie.... but, I must.

These roads don't cross anywhere... in Marin County.

You just got buried, again. You just got caught in the type of error NO Bay Area local would make.

Anyone traveling south on 101 passes the Hwy 1/Stinson Beach exit every time, right before they continue on to the GGB.

Anyone who's ever gone to Stinson Beach via 101 knows you exit off the 101 and then bend right before making a left onto Hwy 1. You then head north on Hwy 1 and after a couple miles or so you come to a fork in the road. Left keeps you on Hwy 1, to Stinson Beach. Right takes you off Hwy 1, to Muir Woods.

How are you not aware of this??

Still wanna contend that you can't take the 101 to get to Hwy 1, just below Muir Woods and Stinson Beach?

Amazing how quickly you backed off that one, dumbshit. First you call me a liar and then when you're presented with incontrovertible fact you simply change the subject...onto another equally erroneous point.

When are you gonna realize that your "I'm a local!" shtick simply doesn't work when there's someone right there on the ground to call you on your bullshit?

You simply don't have any of this shit right! How is that even possible, you tool?

.m2 · Post by **.m2** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:53 am

Poor Vannie, doesn't realize that section is locked down all day long.(Novato to San Rafael)

As far as Vannie saying highway 1 and 101 cross .....

I can't stop laughing.

Here's Highway 1 in Marin County (Stinson Beach to Bolinas).... you dipshit!

Poor Vannie.... you'll get to Muir Woods one day.

Roger_the_Shrubber · Post by **Roger_the_Shrubber** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:06 am

I'm with you fellers.

And I found Van's mistake in his directions. "You then head north on Hwy 1 and after a couple miles or so you come to a fork in the road." They must have moved this:

It would have messed me up too.............