Abusive Email from another Typical Mountain Biker

[Sohn]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:08:18 -0400, "Sohn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:00:48 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .>>On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:05:24 -0600, "TJ" <[email protected]>
> .>>wrote:
> .>
> .>>.Typical mountainbiker??? You don't know any mountainbikers. How do
> you
> .>>.know it was from a typical mountainbiker.
> .>>
> .>>It's obvious.
> .>>
> .> Only to you, not to sane and rational people.
> .>
> .> You are really desperate to think that your thought process is normal
> .> if you think that this is obvious to anyone who is not a clone of you
> .> (a frightening thought).
> .>
> .> No other person in the world shares your opinions, is there any
> .> possibility, that you might possibly not be correct about everything?
> .>
> .> Can you conceive of the possibility that someone could be intelligent
> .> and well meaning and truthful without agreeing with you 100%?
> .>
> .> Or is your ego and mental illness such that you are more infallible
> .> and all-knowing than G-d?
> .>
> .> You are getting more frantic to find someone who agrees with anything
> .> you say, and less amusing. Please work harder to be entertaining, your
> .> only value in the world, or seek the professional help you so
> .> obviously need.
> .>
> .> You are spending all of a holiday weekend indoors, replying to all of
> .> the people who take a few minutes each to provoke you into making a
> .> fool of yourself (again).
> .>
> .> Also, you should apologize to the environmental movement for stifling
> .> all discussion of environmental impact, and making _real_
> .> environmentalists look bad by association with you. The Sierra Club
> .> had the right idea by permanently banning you from all elected or
> .> appointed leadership positions.
> .>
> .> You would do much more for the environment by shutting up, but that is
> .> not the point of your crusade, is it?
> .>
> .> You like to argue with people and pretend that you have won or
> .> accomplished something. You say you are trying to convince people, but
> .> all you do is insult everyone you can.
> .>
> .> What a sad joke you are. Just think of how many people would be helped
> .> if you went into therapy. Please consider it.
> .>
> .> Happy trails,
> .> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
> .> --
> .> At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
> .>
> .> Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
> .> Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
> .
> .Mikey does seem to have some sort of problem. I feel sorry for him and
> hope
> .he seeks out professional help.
> .http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00045000.html Read the definition
> .for "Grandiose". Please note the I am NOT a mountain biker nor do a
> claim
> .to be an expert.
> .
> .http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter2/sec2.html
> .
> .Ron
>
> People afraid to use their real name aren't trustworthy.
> ===
> 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

What? Now you're really grasping at straws. These sites may be useful to
you http://www.mentalhealth.com/
http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/ Please note: I do NOT work in the
health industry and I am NOT mountain biker. I'll be praying for you.
Ron

 

[Gary S.]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:15:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:37:05 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>
>.Also, you should apologize to the environmental movement for stifling
>.all discussion of environmental impact, and making _real_
>.environmentalists look bad by association with you. The Sierra Club
>.had the right idea by permanently banning you from all elected or
>.appointed leadership positions.
>
>You don't know what you are talking about. They had to retract their decision,
>for missing their own deadline.
>
That is what happened with the decision to revoke your MEMBERSHIP,
most likely because they took pity on you, and decided to allow you to
retain your membership. Frequently happens in these cases.

However, it is a FACT that you are no longer Chair of the Wildlife
Subcommittee of your SC Chapter. This was not your choice to leave,
but you have not addressed this matter publicly here despite many
opportunities. You must be very embarrassed to ignore and deny the
publicly recorded facts.

Can you honestly say that you are presently eligible to hold elected
or appointed office in the Sierra Club, or will you admit the TRUTH,
which is that you were removed by the National Board of Directors of
SC for "Breach of Leadership Trust", and that you can longer hold any
office in that organization?

I, and many others, have seen the minutes of that meeting, where your
leadership status was decided, as well as the followup meeting related
to your membership status.

Not to worry. I hear that your replacement as Wildlife Subcommittee
Chair has actual credentials as a wildlife biologist. I also hear that
he has gotten more actual things accomplished in his first year, than
you accomplished in several years. Amazing what you can do with actual
specific subject matter knowledge and the ability to communicate and
work with others.

Just because I live on the East Coast, and belong to a different
environmental organization, doesn't mean I can't find out what happens
in your Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[[email protected]]

You hit upon the most glaring problem with Vandeman's crusade - lack of
results. No significant accomplishments while in the Sierra Club. No
significant accomplishments in his so-called 8 year attempt to decrease
auto dependence and road construction (for proof, look at auto usage
and road construction in the very area Vandeman lives). No significant
accomplishments in creating "pure habitat" - oh, I've got to give him
credit for his back yard, which he's left unmanaged for years, making
it an eyesore (good excuse for not doing yardwork, you gotta give him
credit).

But the biggest failure is his lack of any significant accomplishments
in reducing the thorn in his side, mountain biking. Over the past 15+
years he's been railing against it, it has continued to expand. More
trails, more biking choices (look at the explosion of cyclocross bikes,
for an example), more participants. And has the disaster that Vandeman
predicted occured? Of course not. Trails I've ridden on in several
areas of the country look exactly the same as they did 15 years ago.
Same animal life present there in the same abundance as before. Even
the Alameda Whipsnake made a comeback, despite continued biking in that
area that Vandeman predicted would cause its extinction.

Glad to hear the Sierra Club in the Bay Area is rid of this deadweight
and has found good leadership. I'm sure that with a person who is
rational and inclusive, they will continue to make progress where
Vandeman failed.

CritPOSER

 

[Gary S.]

On 29 May 2005 18:20:45 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Glad to hear the Sierra Club in the Bay Area is rid of this deadweight
>and has found good leadership. I'm sure that with a person who is
>rational and inclusive, they will continue to make progress where
>Vandeman failed.
>
The reason for the SC "Breach of Leadership Trust" action against him
was that he approached the employer of another Bay Area SC volunteer
who had disagreed with him, and tried to get this other person fired
from his job.

The new Chair seems like the real deal, and getting quite a few
projects going from scratch. The former efforts consisted primarily of
sending rambling letters to park managers.

Of course, a dead whipsnake could have done a better, more effective
job than Mikey.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:46:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:13:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote in message <[email protected]>:
..
..>.>.Clearly you are unaware of the "fair comment" defence in libel.
..>.>BS. Maybe you are thinking of copyright law.
..
..>.http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/writing/libel.html
..>."FAIR COMMENT is another libel defense..."
..
..>Don't you wish?
..
..As documented, it is. You said that this was only a defence in
..copyright; actually I am not aware of any such defence in copyright,
..though it may exist - hard to see how, but the law, like you, often
..uses words in a way radically different to their everyday usage.
..Whatever, your statement was false on at least one and possibly both
..counts.
..
..>You conveniently left out the fact that this has to do with
..>politicians in regard to their public duties, not ordinary folks:
..
..No, it has to do with anything where the comment is fair.

I read the statement. It was very clear about applying ONLY to public officials,
and ONLY while performing their public duties. You can't get away with lying
about it, because I just quoted it from the source you referred to.

Once again
..your inability to distinguish the general from the specific has let
..you down. Sure, the example applies to politicians (and other public
..figures), but that does not mean it applies only to them. I have been
..libelled and fought it, they tried the "fair comment" defence and I
..won. It is a defence in law against the charge of libel.
..
..But, hey, try it and see how far you get. Please let us know the
..court date, we'll want a transcript. It should provide some real
..belly laughs.

Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness.

..Guy

===
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:13:02 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:15:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:37:05 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
..>
..>.Also, you should apologize to the environmental movement for stifling
..>.all discussion of environmental impact, and making _real_
..>.environmentalists look bad by association with you. The Sierra Club
..>.had the right idea by permanently banning you from all elected or
..>.appointed leadership positions.
..>
..>You don't know what you are talking about. They had to retract their decision,
..>for missing their own deadline.
..>
..That is what happened with the decision to revoke your MEMBERSHIP,

No, you are wrong. You don't know what tyou are talking about.

..most likely because they took pity on you, and decided to allow you to
..retain your membership.

That is a separate issue.

.. Frequently happens in these cases.
..
..However, it is a FACT that you are no longer Chair of the Wildlife
..Subcommittee of your SC Chapter. This was not your choice to leave,
..but you have not addressed this matter publicly here despite many
..opportunities. You must be very embarrassed to ignore and deny the
..publicly recorded facts.

You have no idea what you are talking about, obviously.

..Can you honestly say that you are presently eligible to hold elected
..or appointed office in the Sierra Club, or will you admit the TRUTH,
..which is that you were removed by the National Board of Directors of
..SC for "Breach of Leadership Trust", and that you can longer hold any
..office in that organization?

False, as I explained before.

..I, and many others, have seen the minutes of that meeting, where your
..leadership status was decided, as well as the followup meeting related
..to your membership status.
..
..Not to worry. I hear that your replacement as Wildlife Subcommittee
..Chair has actual credentials as a wildlife biologist. I also hear that
..he has gotten more actual things accomplished in his first year, than
..you accomplished in several years. Amazing what you can do with actual
..specific subject matter knowledge and the ability to communicate and
..work with others.
..
..Just because I live on the East Coast, and belong to a different
..environmental organization, doesn't mean I can't find out what happens
..in your Chapter of the Sierra Club.

From an unreliable source, ovioiusly.

..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)

===
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

 

[Reyd]

In article <[email protected]>, "Sohn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Here's a sport you may want to try.
> http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/

that looks like so much fun
I've always liked the idea of BASE jumping in general now if only I
could find somewhere to actually try it near here
any base jumpers bike up jump off?
cause that could be a whole nother sport,(like skydiving in kayaks)
but instead a parachute jump while clipped in on a bike to land on.
its way too late and I should be sleeping, but I still want to try that
now.

--
All they do is slap some lipstick on and try to
pretend it's not a pig.
Peter H. Proctor

this couple is gets attacked by... uh... *grabs lamp*
a lamp monster! *waves lamp around* Woooooooooo!"

-Delta Nine

 

[GaryG]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:46:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:13:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> .wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> .
> .>.>.Clearly you are unaware of the "fair comment" defence in libel.
> .>.>BS. Maybe you are thinking of copyright law.
> .
> .>.http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/writing/libel.html
> .>."FAIR COMMENT is another libel defense..."
> .
> .>Don't you wish?
> .
> .As documented, it is. You said that this was only a defence in
> .copyright; actually I am not aware of any such defence in copyright,
> .though it may exist - hard to see how, but the law, like you, often
> .uses words in a way radically different to their everyday usage.
> .Whatever, your statement was false on at least one and possibly both
> .counts.
> .
> .>You conveniently left out the fact that this has to do with
> .>politicians in regard to their public duties, not ordinary folks:
> .
> .No, it has to do with anything where the comment is fair.
>
> I read the statement. It was very clear about applying ONLY to public
officials,
> and ONLY while performing their public duties. You can't get away with
lying
> about it, because I just quoted it from the source you referred to.
>
> Once again
> .your inability to distinguish the general from the specific has let
> .you down. Sure, the example applies to politicians (and other public
> .figures), but that does not mean it applies only to them. I have been
> .libelled and fought it, they tried the "fair comment" defence and I
> .won. It is a defence in law against the charge of libel.
> .
> .But, hey, try it and see how far you get. Please let us know the
> .court date, we'll want a transcript. It should provide some real
> .belly laughs.
>
> Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness.

Hey, Mikie...are you ever going to figure out how to quote properly?

FWIW, this ">" is standard. Your use of the period just makes you look
(more) stupid.

GG

>
> .Guy

 

[Cyli]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 05:39:06 GMT, Reyd <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, "Sohn" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> Here's a sport you may want to try.
>> http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/
>
>that looks like so much fun
>I've always liked the idea of BASE jumping in general now if only I
>could find somewhere to actually try it near here
>any base jumpers bike up jump off?
>cause that could be a whole nother sport,(like skydiving in kayaks)
>but instead a parachute jump while clipped in on a bike to land on.
>its way too late and I should be sleeping, but I still want to try that
>now.


Sorry. Been done. Not for real, so you could be the first there.
There was a commercial like that on TV a few years back. Much vertigo
involved for me, which is why it stuck in my mind.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 05:09:43 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

[of fair comment defence]

>.>You conveniently left out the fact that this has to do with
>.>politicians in regard to their public duties, not ordinary folks:

>.No, it has to do with anything where the comment is fair.

>I read the statement. It was very clear about applying ONLY to public officials,
>and ONLY while performing their public duties. You can't get away with lying
>about it, because I just quoted it from the source you referred to.

Once again your inability to distinguish between the specific and the
general has let you down. The example they gave was just that: an
example. Neither is the linked source the sole authority.

This is a public debate in a public forum, and is covered (as I know
from personal experience, having been libelled and taken action).

But please do feel free to sue and give us all a laugh.

>Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness.

LOL! Got a mirror handy, Mike?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Gary S.]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 05:14:36 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:13:02 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>
>.On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:15:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
>.wrote:
>.
>.>On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:37:05 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>.>
>.>.Also, you should apologize to the environmental movement for stifling
>.>.all discussion of environmental impact, and making _real_
>.>.environmentalists look bad by association with you. The Sierra Club
>.>.had the right idea by permanently banning you from all elected or
>.>.appointed leadership positions.
>.>
>.>You don't know what you are talking about. They had to retract their decision,
>.>for missing their own deadline.
>.>
>.That is what happened with the decision to revoke your MEMBERSHIP,
>
>No, you are wrong. You don't know what tyou are talking about.
>
Any proof of that assertion? The minutes read that a decision was made
regarding leadership revocation, and an assessment was going to be
made regarding membership revocation. That "deadline" is what you are
referring to.

>.most likely because they took pity on you, and decided to allow you to
>.retain your membership.
>
>That is a separate issue.
>
As I said, the membership revocation was separate from the BOLT
action.

>. Frequently happens in these cases.
>.
>.However, it is a FACT that you are no longer Chair of the Wildlife
>.Subcommittee of your SC Chapter. This was not your choice to leave,
>.but you have not addressed this matter publicly here despite many
>.opportunities. You must be very embarrassed to ignore and deny the
>.publicly recorded facts.
>
>You have no idea what you are talking about, obviously.
>
You are no longer in that position, are you? You have not ever said
anything about choosing to step down, have you?

>.Can you honestly say that you are presently eligible to hold elected
>.or appointed office in the Sierra Club, or will you admit the TRUTH,
>.which is that you were removed by the National Board of Directors of
>.SC for "Breach of Leadership Trust", and that you can longer hold any
>.office in that organization?
>
>False, as I explained before.
>
You are saying something that contradicts published records of that
Board of Directors. You will need to provide some evidence that there
was a later action of that Board that supercedes the first action.

>.I, and many others, have seen the minutes of that meeting, where your
>.leadership status was decided, as well as the followup meeting related
>.to your membership status.
>.
>.Not to worry. I hear that your replacement as Wildlife Subcommittee
>.Chair has actual credentials as a wildlife biologist. I also hear that
>.he has gotten more actual things accomplished in his first year, than
>.you accomplished in several years. Amazing what you can do with actual
>.specific subject matter knowledge and the ability to communicate and
>.work with others.
>.
>.Just because I live on the East Coast, and belong to a different
>.environmental organization, doesn't mean I can't find out what happens
>.in your Chapter of the Sierra Club.
>
>From an unreliable source, ovioiusly.
>
Am I wrong about the new Subcommittee Chair, his qualifications,
background, or accomplishments?

Or are you too embarassed?

In the past few weeks, you have managed to make yourself look even
more pathetic than ever before, by losing every exchange with another
person replying to you. You eventually either ignore people, any
questions they ask or issue they raise. Then you post the highly
intellectual "DUH", "Yawn", or "Did you say something", because you
lack the capacity to admit to reality.

You are getting less amusing.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[S Curtiss]

> .
> .>.>.Clearly you are unaware of the "fair comment" defence in libel.
> .>.>BS. Maybe you are thinking of copyright law.
> .
> .>.http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/writing/libel.html
> .>."FAIR COMMENT is another libel defense..."
> .
> .>Don't you wish?
> .
> .As documented, it is. You said that this was only a defence in
> .copyright; actually I am not aware of any such defence in copyright,
> .though it may exist - hard to see how, but the law, like you, often
> .uses words in a way radically different to their everyday usage.
> .Whatever, your statement was false on at least one and possibly both
> .counts.
> .
> .>You conveniently left out the fact that this has to do with
> .>politicians in regard to their public duties, not ordinary folks:
> .
> .No, it has to do with anything where the comment is fair.
>
> I read the statement. It was very clear about applying ONLY to public
> officials,
> and ONLY while performing their public duties. You can't get away with
> lying
> about it, because I just quoted it from the source you referred to.
>
> Once again
> .your inability to distinguish the general from the specific has let
> .you down. Sure, the example applies to politicians (and other public
> .figures), but that does not mean it applies only to them. I have been
> .libelled and fought it, they tried the "fair comment" defence and I
> .won. It is a defence in law against the charge of libel.
> .
> .But, hey, try it and see how far you get. Please let us know the
> .court date, we'll want a transcript. It should provide some real
> .belly laughs.
>
> Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness.

Just so I have it straight... somebody sends you an email that you post
here claiming it is abusive. I and several others challenge the "abusive"
nature. You say you were referring to the word "mendacity" in the email:
".the original post miss-spelled "facilitate". Unless you count bad
spelling,
..there is no abuse or threat. Unless his telling you to "practice what you
..preach" is abusive..."
....and your (MV) reply:
"I was referring to the word "mendacity". DUH!"

Yet you reply to the person here (Guy - who was not the original sender of
the email) with:
"Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness"

so... just so I understand because I don't have a PhD in ethnic fast food
like you do, "abusive" is "abusive" when you claim it in the context of
"abusive" and "typical mt biker" but not "abusive" when you use "abusive" in
a reply questioning the content and intent of an alleged "abusive" email. I
see... perfectly clear once the "MV Double Standard" is applied.
>
> .Guy
>
> ===

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:18:22 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Mon, 30 May 2005 05:14:36 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:13:02 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
..>
..>.On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:15:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..>.wrote:
..>.
..>.>On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:37:05 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
..>.>
..>.>.Also, you should apologize to the environmental movement for stifling
..>.>.all discussion of environmental impact, and making _real_
..>.>.environmentalists look bad by association with you. The Sierra Club
..>.>.had the right idea by permanently banning you from all elected or
..>.>.appointed leadership positions.
..>.>
..>.>You don't know what you are talking about. They had to retract their decision,
..>.>for missing their own deadline.
..>.>
..>.That is what happened with the decision to revoke your MEMBERSHIP,
..>
..>No, you are wrong. You don't know what tyou are talking about.
..>
..Any proof of that assertion? The minutes read that a decision was made
..regarding leadership revocation, and an assessment was going to be
..made regarding membership revocation. That "deadline" is what you are
..referring to.

Nope. The first "decision" wasn't communicated to me by the deadline in the
Sierra Club Bylaws, and so had to be cancelled. You are dealing with outdated
information.

..>.most likely because they took pity on you, and decided to allow you to
..>.retain your membership.
..>
..>That is a separate issue.
..>
..As I said, the membership revocation was separate from the BOLT
..action.
..
..>. Frequently happens in these cases.
..>.
..>.However, it is a FACT that you are no longer Chair of the Wildlife
..>.Subcommittee of your SC Chapter. This was not your choice to leave,
..>.but you have not addressed this matter publicly here despite many
..>.opportunities. You must be very embarrassed to ignore and deny the
..>.publicly recorded facts.
..>
..>You have no idea what you are talking about, obviously.
..>
..You are no longer in that position, are you? You have not ever said
..anything about choosing to step down, have you?
..
..>.Can you honestly say that you are presently eligible to hold elected
..>.or appointed office in the Sierra Club, or will you admit the TRUTH,
..>.which is that you were removed by the National Board of Directors of
..>.SC for "Breach of Leadership Trust", and that you can longer hold any
..>.office in that organization?
..>
..>False, as I explained before.
..>
..You are saying something that contradicts published records of that
..Board of Directors. You will need to provide some evidence that there
..was a later action of that Board that supercedes the first action.
..
..>.I, and many others, have seen the minutes of that meeting, where your
..>.leadership status was decided, as well as the followup meeting related
..>.to your membership status.
..>.
..>.Not to worry. I hear that your replacement as Wildlife Subcommittee
..>.Chair has actual credentials as a wildlife biologist. I also hear that
..>.he has gotten more actual things accomplished in his first year, than
..>.you accomplished in several years. Amazing what you can do with actual
..>.specific subject matter knowledge and the ability to communicate and
..>.work with others.
..>.
..>.Just because I live on the East Coast, and belong to a different
..>.environmental organization, doesn't mean I can't find out what happens
..>.in your Chapter of the Sierra Club.
..>
..>From an unreliable source, ovioiusly.
..>
..Am I wrong about the new Subcommittee Chair, his qualifications,
..background, or accomplishments?
..
..Or are you too embarassed?
..
..In the past few weeks, you have managed to make yourself look even
..more pathetic than ever before, by losing every exchange with another
..person replying to you. You eventually either ignore people, any
..questions they ask or issue they raise. Then you post the highly
..intellectual "DUH", "Yawn", or "Did you say something", because you
..lack the capacity to admit to reality.
..
..You are getting less amusing.
..
..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)

===
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 08:30:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..> .
..> .>.>.Clearly you are unaware of the "fair comment" defence in libel.
..> .>.>BS. Maybe you are thinking of copyright law.
..> .
..> .>.http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/writing/libel.html
..> .>."FAIR COMMENT is another libel defense..."
..> .
..> .>Don't you wish?
..> .
..> .As documented, it is. You said that this was only a defence in
..> .copyright; actually I am not aware of any such defence in copyright,
..> .though it may exist - hard to see how, but the law, like you, often
..> .uses words in a way radically different to their everyday usage.
..> .Whatever, your statement was false on at least one and possibly both
..> .counts.
..> .
..> .>You conveniently left out the fact that this has to do with
..> .>politicians in regard to their public duties, not ordinary folks:
..> .
..> .No, it has to do with anything where the comment is fair.
..>
..> I read the statement. It was very clear about applying ONLY to public
..> officials,
..> and ONLY while performing their public duties. You can't get away with
..> lying
..> about it, because I just quoted it from the source you referred to.
..>
..> Once again
..> .your inability to distinguish the general from the specific has let
..> .you down. Sure, the example applies to politicians (and other public
..> .figures), but that does not mean it applies only to them. I have been
..> .libelled and fought it, they tried the "fair comment" defence and I
..> .won. It is a defence in law against the charge of libel.
..> .
..> .But, hey, try it and see how far you get. Please let us know the
..> .court date, we'll want a transcript. It should provide some real
..> .belly laughs.
..>
..> Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness.
..
..Just so I have it straight... somebody sends you an email that you post
..here claiming it is abusive. I and several others challenge the "abusive"
..nature. You say you were referring to the word "mendacity" in the email:
..".the original post miss-spelled "facilitate". Unless you count bad
..spelling,
...there is no abuse or threat. Unless his telling you to "practice what you
...preach" is abusive..."
.....and your (MV) reply:
.."I was referring to the word "mendacity". DUH!"
..
..Yet you reply to the person here (Guy - who was not the original sender of
..the email) with:
.."Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness"
..
..so... just so I understand because I don't have a PhD in ethnic fast food
..like you do, "abusive" is "abusive" when you claim it in the context of
.."abusive" and "typical mt biker" but not "abusive" when you use "abusive" in
..a reply questioning the content and intent of an alleged "abusive" email. I
..see... perfectly clear once the "MV Double Standard" is applied.

Nope. Calling a liar a "liar" is just telling the truth, and is protected by the
First Amendment.
===
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

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> Nope. Calling a liar a "liar" is just telling the truth, and is protected by the
> First Amendment.

Liar.

Jason

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:33:10 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Nope. Calling a liar a "liar" is just telling the truth, and is protected by the
>First Amendment.

FFS show a bit of consistency! In one post you claim that the word
"mendacious" is abuse and libel, in the next you claim that your
"special" definition of liar (i.e. one who disagrees with you) is
protected by the First Amendment!

Jeez, Mike, you're losing it big time!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 08:30:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .> .
> .> .>.>.Clearly you are unaware of the "fair comment" defence in libel.
> .> .>.>BS. Maybe you are thinking of copyright law.
> .> .
> .> .>.http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/writing/libel.html
> .> .>."FAIR COMMENT is another libel defense..."
> .> .
> .> .>Don't you wish?
> .> .
> .> .As documented, it is. You said that this was only a defence in
> .> .copyright; actually I am not aware of any such defence in copyright,
> .> .though it may exist - hard to see how, but the law, like you, often
> .> .uses words in a way radically different to their everyday usage.
> .> .Whatever, your statement was false on at least one and possibly both
> .> .counts.
> .> .
> .> .>You conveniently left out the fact that this has to do with
> .> .>politicians in regard to their public duties, not ordinary folks:
> .> .
> .> .No, it has to do with anything where the comment is fair.
> .>
> .> I read the statement. It was very clear about applying ONLY to public
> .> officials,
> .> and ONLY while performing their public duties. You can't get away with
> .> lying
> .> about it, because I just quoted it from the source you referred to.
> .>
> .> Once again
> .> .your inability to distinguish the general from the specific has let
> .> .you down. Sure, the example applies to politicians (and other public
> .> .figures), but that does not mean it applies only to them. I have been
> .> .libelled and fought it, they tried the "fair comment" defence and I
> .> .won. It is a defence in law against the charge of libel.
> .> .
> .> .But, hey, try it and see how far you get. Please let us know the
> .> .court date, we'll want a transcript. It should provide some real
> .> .belly laughs.
> .>
> .> Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness.
> .
> .Just so I have it straight... somebody sends you an email that you post
> .here claiming it is abusive. I and several others challenge the "abusive"
> .nature. You say you were referring to the word "mendacity" in the email:
> .".the original post miss-spelled "facilitate". Unless you count bad
> .spelling,
> ..there is no abuse or threat. Unless his telling you to "practice what
> you
> ..preach" is abusive..."
> ....and your (MV) reply:
> ."I was referring to the word "mendacity". DUH!"
> .
> .Yet you reply to the person here (Guy - who was not the original sender
> of
> .the email) with:
> ."Your mendacity is exceeded only by your boringness"
> .
> .so... just so I understand because I don't have a PhD in ethnic fast food
> .like you do, "abusive" is "abusive" when you claim it in the context of
> ."abusive" and "typical mt biker" but not "abusive" when you use "abusive"
> in
> .a reply questioning the content and intent of an alleged "abusive" email.
> I
> .see... perfectly clear once the "MV Double Standard" is applied.
>
> Nope. Calling a liar a "liar" is just telling the truth, and is protected
> by the
> First Amendment.
Again with the misdirection, smoke and mirrors... However, I know you
aren't a real magician because you can't even make a bicycle disappear. You
don't like his comment so he is a "liar". Even though the references he
cited back him up to the letter, and the law. It is still quite clear,
however, that a tactic used by you is only fair and reasonable until that
same tactic is turned on you. You can use "mendacity" to describe someone,
but they can not use it to describe you? No wonder you are no closer to that
"human free" habitat... Nobody can communicate with you because words have
their own meaning in MV World.

> ===
> 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

 

[Reyd]

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyli <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 05:39:06 GMT, Reyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, "Sohn" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Here's a sport you may want to try.
> >> http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/
> >
> >that looks like so much fun
> >I've always liked the idea of BASE jumping in general now if only I
> >could find somewhere to actually try it near here
> >any base jumpers bike up jump off?
> >cause that could be a whole nother sport,(like skydiving in kayaks)
> >but instead a parachute jump while clipped in on a bike to land on.
> >its way too late and I should be sleeping, but I still want to try that
> >now.
>
>
> Sorry. Been done. Not for real, so you could be the first there.
> There was a commercial like that on TV a few years back. Much vertigo
> involved for me, which is why it stuck in my mind.
its so hard to find something new to do:-/
what it talked about at the begining of the article is the sort of thing
I'm wanting to find to do, something worthwhile(in that case, testing
gear and experimenting with something that was unknown much more
exciting IMO then doing the same thing thats been done over and over)
if I ever get the chance, I'm going to try it though.

> Cyli
> r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
> Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli
> email: [email protected]lid (strip the .invalid to email)

--
All they do is slap some lipstick on and try to
pretend it's not a pig.
Peter H. Proctor

this couple is gets attacked by... uh... *grabs lamp*
a lamp monster! *waves lamp around* Woooooooooo!"

-Delta Nine

 

[Gary S.]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:33:10 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Nope. Calling a liar a "liar" is just telling the truth, and is protected by the
>First Amendment.
>
That is your opinion, and you can only support it by restating your
opinion, or by namecalling.

If your statement of opinion is not true, and you are the only person
in the world who believes that you always tell the truth, (even when
you contradict yourself), then you can be sued for libel or slander,
which are not protected by the Constitution.

If your opinion is protected speech, why do you think that disagreeing
opinions are not equally protected? Why do you think that you can call
people names and make up things that you call facts? and no one can
call you on it?

What a joke. You cannot even reason with people you consider your
inferiors.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Gary S.]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:09:39 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:18:22 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>
>.On Mon, 30 May 2005 05:14:36 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
>.wrote:
>.
>.>On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:13:02 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>.>
>.>.On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:15:14 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
>.>.wrote:
>.>.
>.>.>On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:37:05 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>.>.>
>.>.>.Also, you should apologize to the environmental movement for stifling
>.>.>.all discussion of environmental impact, and making _real_
>.>.>.environmentalists look bad by association with you. The Sierra Club
>.>.>.had the right idea by permanently banning you from all elected or
>.>.>.appointed leadership positions.
>.>.>
>.>.>You don't know what you are talking about. They had to retract their decision,
>.>.>for missing their own deadline.
>.>.>
>.>.That is what happened with the decision to revoke your MEMBERSHIP,
>.>
>.>No, you are wrong. You don't know what tyou are talking about.
>.>
>.Any proof of that assertion? The minutes read that a decision was made
>.regarding leadership revocation, and an assessment was going to be
>.made regarding membership revocation. That "deadline" is what you are
>.referring to.
>
>Nope. The first "decision" wasn't communicated to me by the deadline in the
>Sierra Club Bylaws, and so had to be cancelled. You are dealing with outdated
>information.
>
So, you admit that this action took place, and that they felt
justified in banning you from all leadership positions.

You got off on a technicality, not because anyone thought that you are
a suitable representative of the Sierra Club. Funny how the minutes
for that or later meetings mention the requirement to notify you.

Why did you put "decision" in quotes? Because you do not recognize the
authority of the SC Board over the Sierra Club?

You were not reinstated to your position after you allege that the
decision was cancelled.

>.>.most likely because they took pity on you, and decided to allow you to
>.>.retain your membership.
>.>
>.>That is a separate issue.
>.>
>.As I said, the membership revocation was separate from the BOLT
>.action.
>.
>.>. Frequently happens in these cases.
>.>.
>.>.However, it is a FACT that you are no longer Chair of the Wildlife
>.>.Subcommittee of your SC Chapter. This was not your choice to leave,
>.>.but you have not addressed this matter publicly here despite many
>.>.opportunities. You must be very embarrassed to ignore and deny the
>.>.publicly recorded facts.
>.>
>.>You have no idea what you are talking about, obviously.
>.>
>.You are no longer in that position, are you? You have not ever said
>.anything about choosing to step down, have you?
>.
Still nothing to say?

>.>.Can you honestly say that you are presently eligible to hold elected
>.>.or appointed office in the Sierra Club, or will you admit the TRUTH,
>.>.which is that you were removed by the National Board of Directors of
>.>.SC for "Breach of Leadership Trust", and that you can longer hold any
>.>.office in that organization?
>.>
>.>False, as I explained before.
>.>
>.You are saying something that contradicts published records of that
>.Board of Directors. You will need to provide some evidence that there
>.was a later action of that Board that supercedes the first action.
>.
Still waiting for real proof from you.

>.>.I, and many others, have seen the minutes of that meeting, where your
>.>.leadership status was decided, as well as the followup meeting related
>.>.to your membership status.
>.>.
>.>.Not to worry. I hear that your replacement as Wildlife Subcommittee
>.>.Chair has actual credentials as a wildlife biologist. I also hear that
>.>.he has gotten more actual things accomplished in his first year, than
>.>.you accomplished in several years. Amazing what you can do with actual
>.>.specific subject matter knowledge and the ability to communicate and
>.>.work with others.
>.>.
>.>.Just because I live on the East Coast, and belong to a different
>.>.environmental organization, doesn't mean I can't find out what happens
>.>.in your Chapter of the Sierra Club.
>.>
>.>From an unreliable source, ovioiusly.
>.>
>.Am I wrong about the new Subcommittee Chair, his qualifications,
>.background, or accomplishments?
>.
>.Or are you too embarassed?
>.
Still nothing to say?

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom