Another Idiot Mountain Biker Demonstrates Their Stupidity

[Mike Vandeman]

At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
>Mike:

>read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN
and i want to share that although I don't think mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that are
off limits to all humans (I like that idea),

I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in the world.

> we live
in a world with many people. get over your inability to share the trails.

You misunderstood. I am perfectly happy to share the trails with mountain bikers, who are human
beings, but not with bicycles, which aren't human, have no rights, and don't belong there.

> i don't like the flies and soil
effects from horses/riders on trails, and I either avoid those trails or I get over it and use them.

Why? There are good reasons why exotic species shouldn't be allowed in natural areas.

>THere are many trails to travel that don't allow
mountain bikers, and you can use those.

I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about THAT? Ignore it?

>Multi-purpose/user trails compose some of our public
land trail system and although that may suck to you, we have a lot of people on this planet. I wish
we didn't have so many, but that's the way it is.

I have never complained about the people. It's the BIKES I object to. And so far, I have yet to hear
a single good reason why we should permit them. You don't offer one, either.

>Ilana

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

===
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

 

[Dirk Genius]

I agree with some of what Mike says, I've clipped those portions.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
> >Mike:
>
> I need <snip> help. <snip>

There you go, some of what he says IS true.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

Dear Mike, You poor, pathetic little man. You repeatedly call for closure of all trails to mountain
bikers, but in the same breath you say that the bikers are welcome, just not the bikes. If you take
the bikes away, the bikers cease to be bikers, they become hikers at that point. So, you do not
welcome bikers, you only welcome hikers. If you take the vehicles away from drivers, then they
become hikers too, they are no longer drivers if that which the drive is taken away. So, you do not
welcome drivers, you only welcome hikers.

I will give you credit for an accurate statement though. You say that bikers use trails that are
closed, and complain about sharing in this instance. I agree that if a trail is marked as a hiking
trail, bikes ought not be using
it. I have no solution on dealing with this, but it is a valid complaint and a solution is needed.
Your solution is to close all routes in the inventory to all but foot traffic, and your agenda
is to even remove foot traffic. This solution is like chopping your leg off because you have an
ingrown toenail.

Having said that, the vast majority of trails are designated for shared use, bikes and foot traffic.
Motor vehicle routes are generaly kept separate, and pedestrians generally do not walk on motor
vehicle routes, so the conflicts over use do not arise. Motor cycles are another separate problem,
but in California, motorcycles without street legal license plates are restricted to offroad vehicle
areas, and are heavily regulated from forest and park routes, nearly eliminating the conflicts that
arise from multi-use.

Now that I am done top posting, please allow me to comment on each point below ...

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
> >Mike:
>
> >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN
> and i want to share that although I don't think mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that
> are off limits to all humans (I like that idea),
>
> I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in
the
> world.
>
The poster is agreeing with you, yet you have hurled an insult.

> > we live
> in a world with many people. get over your inability to share the trails.
>
> You misunderstood. I am perfectly happy to share the trails with mountain bikers, who are human
> beings, but not with bicycles, which aren't human,
have no
> rights, and don't belong there.
>
You pathetic liar, if you ban the bikes, the bikers become hikers at that point. You are not happy
to share trails with mountain bikers, you liar.

> > i don't like the flies and soil
> effects from horses/riders on trails, and I either avoid those trails or I get over it and
> use them.
>
> Why? There are good reasons why exotic species shouldn't be allowed in
natural
> areas.
>
Your meds must be wearing off, this makes no sense at all. Where did anybody suggest an
exotic species?

> >THere are many trails to travel that don't allow
> mountain bikers, and you can use those.
>
> I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about THAT?
Ignore
> it?
>
This is the only thing you have EVER said that I agree with. Clearly, bikes are not banned from
every trail you have ever hiked on, but they are and should be banned from certain trails as
determined by local officials.

> >Multi-purpose/user trails compose some of our public
> land trail system and although that may suck to you, we have a lot of people on this planet. I
> wish we didn't have so many, but that's the way it is.
>
> I have never complained about the people. It's the BIKES I object to. And
so
> far, I have yet to hear a single good reason why we should permit them.
You
> don't offer one, either.
>
So far, except for the limited instances of having a route that local officials have deemed to be
routes where bikes ought not be but go anyway, you have failed to provide a single good reason to
not permit them.

The problem we have before us is, should local officials close routes for environmental reasons, or
should they be closed because of crybabies like you that can't seem to get along with everybody
else. I think the poster you responded to here and I both know the answer, you think that trails
should be closed just because you are a crybaby.

A trail that is 2ft wide takes less than a quarter acre for every mile that it runs. If the
entirety of the trail was a total wasteland, that wasteland would amount to less than 0.04% of
the environment. The reality is that a tiny fraction of the route is even a problem, let alone an
environmental wasteland, so for every route-mile, the impact on the environment is soemwhere down
around 0.001%, almost a number so small as to be incalcuable, certainly an insignificant amount
of damage.

 

[Igor]

Dear Mike,

What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that made you prefer company of
cockroaches and weeds to human interaction? Did the other kids try to run you over with their bikes
while you were planting your flower garden? You need help, dude. BTW, how did those "previous years"
that you spent "fighting auto dependence and road construction" pan out?

There's not a goddamn thing you can do about any of this, so give up - get a job and try to find a
woman (Pay special attention to hippy chicks, they love this ****!)

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about THAT? Ignore it?

>This is the only thing you have EVER said that I agree with. Clearly, bikes are not banned from
>every trail you have ever hiked on, but they are and should be banned from certain trails as
>determined by local officials.

And of course there are those hikers who leave the marked trails and hike into areas which are
marked as off-limits...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I do, but mountain bikers ride there anyway! What should I do about
THAT?
> >>Ignore it?
>
> >This is the only thing you have EVER said that I agree with. Clearly,
bikes
> >are not banned from every trail you have ever hiked on, but they are and should be banned from
> >certain trails as determined by local officials.
>
> And of course there are those hikers who leave the marked trails and hike into areas which are
> marked as off-limits...
>

Absolutely! Violators are not limited to travel modes that we like or dislike.

 

[Twisties]

Mike i have read the other threads you have started, now u are annoing the hell out of me!

U stupid #@%$ head!

u suffer from ATTENTION DEFICITE DISORDER!!!!

U NEED TO FIND A FRIEND!

GO AWAY AND STOP ANNOING US!!! GO TO ONE OF THE OTHER CYCLING SITES THAT ARE ALL ABOUT MTB!!! WHY ARE YOU ANNOING ONE SITE THAT HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE DEVOTED TO MTBIKING???


GO AWAY!

 

[Zilla]

The way to stop him is to ignore him. You just gave him what he wanted...

--
- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

"Twisties" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike i have read the other threads you have started, now u are annoing the hell out of me!
>
> U stupid #@%$ head!
>
> u suffer from ATTENTION DEFICITE DISORDER!!!!
>
> U NEED TO FIND A FRIEND!
>
> GO AWAY AND STOP ANNOING US!!! GO TO ONE OF THE OTHER CYCLING SITES THAT ARE ALL ABOUT MTB!!! WHY
> ARE YOU ANNOING ONE SITE THAT HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE DEVOTED TO MTBIKING???
>
>
> GO AWAY!
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com

 

[Reco Diver]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote:
> >Mike:
>
> >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN
> and i want to share that although I don't think mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that
> are off limits to all humans (I like that idea),
>
> I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in the world.
>

<snip>

B.S. Places like “Castrovalva” (off limits to all humans) have been brought to your
attention before. Sure it’s not on the maps anymore ... that was the first step. Do your
homework. You should even be able to google it up ... If you actually cared.

R

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

.Dear Mike, .You poor, pathetic little man. You repeatedly call for closure of all trails .to
mountain bikers,

No, only to BIKES, LIAR.

but in the same breath you say that the bikers are .welcome, just not the bikes. If you take the
bikes away, the bikers cease to .be bikers, they become hikers at that point.

BS.

So, you do not welcome bikers, .you only welcome hikers. If you take the vehicles away from
drivers, then .they become hikers too, they are no longer drivers if that which the drive .is taken
away. So, you do not welcome drivers, you only welcome hikers. . .I will give you credit for an
accurate statement though. You say that bikers .use trails that are closed, and complain about
sharing in this instance. I .agree that if a trail is marked as a hiking trail, bikes ought not be
using .it. I have no solution on dealing with this, but it is a valid complaint and .a solution is
needed. Your solution is to close all routes in the inventory .to all but foot traffic, and your
agenda is to even remove foot traffic. .This solution is like chopping your leg off because you
have an ingrown .toenail. . .Having said that, the vast majority of trails are designated for
shared use, .bikes and foot traffic. Motor vehicle routes are generaly kept separate, and
.pedestrians generally do not walk on motor vehicle routes, so the conflicts .over use do not
arise. Motor cycles are another separate problem, but in .California, motorcycles without street
legal license plates are restricted .to offroad vehicle areas, and are heavily regulated from
forest and park .routes, nearly eliminating the conflicts that arise from multi-use. . .Now that I
am done top posting, please allow me to comment on each point .below ... . . ."Mike Vandeman"
<[email protected]> wrote in message .news:[email protected]... .> At
08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin wrote: .> >Mike: .> .> >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth
Tenney at ESAN .> and i want to share that although I don't think .> mountain bikers should be
allowed in areas that are .> off limits to all humans (I like that idea), .> .> I need your help.
So far, I know of no such areas confirmed anywhere in .the .> world. .> .The poster is agreeing
with you, yet you have hurled an insult. . . .> > we live .> in a world with many people. get over
your inability .> to share the trails. .> .> You misunderstood. I am perfectly happy to share the
trails with mountain .> bikers, who are human beings, but not with bicycles, which aren't human,
.have no .> rights, and don't belong there. .> .You pathetic liar, if you ban the bikes, the bikers
become hikers at that .point. You are not happy to share trails with mountain bikers, you liar. . .
. .> > i don't like the flies and soil .> effects from horses/riders on trails, and I either .>
avoid those trails or I get over it and use them. .> .> Why? There are good reasons why exotic
species shouldn't be allowed in .natural .> areas. .> .Your meds must be wearing off, this makes no
sense at all. Where did anybody .suggest an exotic species? . . .> >THere are many trails to travel
that don't allow .> mountain bikers, and you can use those. .> .> I do, but mountain bikers ride
there anyway! What should I do about THAT? .Ignore .> it? .> .This is the only thing you have EVER
said that I agree with. Clearly, bikes .are not banned from every trail you have ever hiked on, but
they are and .should be banned from certain trails as determined by local officials. . . . .>
>Multi-purpose/user trails compose some of our public .> land trail system and although that may
suck to you, .> we have a lot of people on this planet. I wish we .> didn't have so many, but
that's the way it is. .> .> I have never complained about the people. It's the BIKES I object to.
And .so .> far, I have yet to hear a single good reason why we should permit them. .You .> don't
offer one, either. .> .So far, except for the limited instances of having a route that local
.officials have deemed to be routes where bikes ought not be but go anyway, .you have failed to
provide a single good reason to not permit them.

They aren't human, so they don't have rights. QED

.The problem we have before us is, should local officials close routes for .environmental reasons,
or should they be closed because of crybabies like .you that can't seem to get along with everybody
else. I think the poster you .responded to here and I both know the answer, you think that trails
should .be closed just because you are a crybaby. . .A trail that is 2ft wide takes less than a
quarter acre for every mile that .it runs. If the entirety of the trail was a total wasteland, that
wasteland .would amount to less than 0.04% of the environment. The reality is that a .tiny fraction
of the route is even a problem, let alone an environmental .wasteland, so for every route-mile, the
impact on the environment is .soemwhere down around 0.001%, almost a number so small as to be
incalcuable, .certainly an insignificant amount of damage. .

===
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 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote:

.Dear Mike, . .What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .made you
prefer company of cockroaches and weeds to human interaction?

None. I just believe in telling the truth.
===
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 28 Jun 2003 11:00:17 -0700, [email protected] (Reco Diver) wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... .> At 08:37 AM 6/25/03 -0700, Ilana Levin
wrote: .> >Mike: .> .> >read your notes forwarded by Elizabeth Tenney at ESAN .> and i want to share
that although I don't think .> mountain bikers should be allowed in areas that are .> off limits to
all humans (I like that idea), .> .> I need your help. So far, I know of no such areas confirmed
anywhere in the .> world. .> . .<snip> . .B.S. Places like “Castrovalva” (off limits to
all humans)

Where is it? Who is the land manager? Please reply via email.

.have been brought to your attention before. Sure it’s not on the .maps anymore ... that was
the first step. Do your homework. You should .even be able to google it up ... If you actually
cared. . .R

===
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 28 Jun 2003 21:00:04 +0950, Twisties <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike i have read the other threads you have started, now u are annoing .the hell out of me! . .U
stupid #@%$ head! . .u suffer from ATTENTION DEFICITE DISORDER!!!! . .U NEED TO FIND A FRIEND! . .GO
AWAY AND STOP ANNOING US!!! GO TO ONE OF THE OTHER CYCLING SITES THAT .ARE ALL ABOUT MTB!!! WHY ARE
YOU ANNOING ONE SITE THAT HAS A SMALL .PERCENTAGE DEVOTED TO MTBIKING??? . . .GO AWAY!

Did you say something?
===
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 L.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote:
>
> .Dear Mike, . .What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .made you
> prefer company of cockroaches and weeds to human interaction?
>
> None. I just believe in telling the truth.

The truth as only you wish to see it, as misinformed and distorted as your perception of it is.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:06:54 -0000, "Mike L." <notmy@email> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in .news:[email protected]: . .>
On 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote: .> .> .Dear Mike, .> . .> .What
kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .> .made you prefer company of
cockroaches and weeds to human interaction? .> .> None. I just believe in telling the truth. . .The
truth as only you wish to see it, as misinformed and distorted as your .perception of it is.

No, the TRUTH. I assume that you learned what that is, in kindergarten, if not earlier.
===
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

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .Dear Mike, .You poor, pathetic little man. You repeatedly call for closure of all
trails
> .to mountain bikers,
>
> No, only to BIKES, LIAR.
>
> but in the same breath you say that the bikers are .welcome, just not the bikes. If you take the
> bikes away, the bikers cease
to
> .be bikers, they become hikers at that point.
>
> BS.
>
BS? Really? If a biker is not riding a bike but is walking instead, then he is not a biker at that
point, he is a hiker. If a driver is not driving, but is walking instead, he is not a driver at that
point, he is a hiker. If a glofer is not playing golf at the moment bu tis bolwing instead, he is
not a glofer at that point, he is a bowler. In each and every case where we label a person as
belonging to a group because of the activity the group engages in, but we change that activity for a
member of that group, then that member will then belong to a different group for the purposes of
describing him because of the activity he is engaged in. Hikers can be bikers on a different day,
and bikers can be hikers on a different day. Bikers can leave the bike on the back of the car and
become hikers for a few hours. But, the moment the biker gets off his bike and travels by foot, he
is a hiker until he gets back on the bike again. A biker retains his biker status while walking his
bike -- thank you Captain Obvious for pointing this out.

It would be much easier to hold a conversation with you if you would use the same dictionary as
everybody else. Your penchant for making up definitions to words makes it quite difficult to
talk to you.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:06:54 -0000, "Mike L." <notmy@email> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in .news:[email protected]: .
> .> On 26 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0700, [email protected] (Igor) wrote: .> .> .Dear Mike, .> . .>
> .What kind of psychological trauma did you experience as a child, that .> .made you prefer company
> of cockroaches and weeds to human interaction? .> .> None. I just believe in telling the truth. .
> .The truth as only you wish to see it, as misinformed and distorted as
your
> .perception of it is.
>
> No, the TRUTH. I assume that you learned what that is, in kindergarten, if
not
> earlier.

Clearly, your truth is not the same truth shared by nearly everybody else on the planet. Your truth
is unique to your perspective. Your perspective is distorted and warped, caused by years of being
misinformed.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:17:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:31:00 -0700, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> .Dear Mike, .> .You poor, pathetic little man. You
repeatedly call for closure of all .trails .> .to mountain bikers, .> .> No, only to BIKES, LIAR. .>
.> but in the same breath you say that the bikers are .> .welcome, just not the bikes. If you take
the bikes away, the bikers cease .to .> .be bikers, they become hikers at that point. .> .> BS. .>
.BS? Really? If a biker is not riding a bike but is walking instead, then he .is not a biker at that
point, he is a hiker.

It would help if you learned to read English. If you aren't a mountain biker, then what are you
doing in this newsgroup? And owning and riding a mountain bike. Obviously, you didn't read your
dictionary. Idiot!

If a driver is not driving, but .is walking instead, he is not a driver at that point, he is a
hiker. If a .glofer is not playing golf at the moment bu tis bolwing instead, he is not a .glofer
at that point, he is a bowler. In each and every case where we label .a person as belonging to a
group because of the activity the group engages .in, but we change that activity for a member of
that group, then that member .will then belong to a different group for the purposes of describing
him .because of the activity he is engaged in. Hikers can be bikers on a .different day, and bikers
can be hikers on a different day. Bikers can leave .the bike on the back of the car and become
hikers for a few hours. But, the .moment the biker gets off his bike and travels by foot, he is a
hiker until .he gets back on the bike again. A biker retains his biker status while .walking his
bike -- thank you Captain Obvious for pointing this out. . .It would be much easier to hold a
conversation with you if you would use the .same dictionary as everybody else. Your penchant for
making up definitions .to words makes it quite difficult to talk to you. .

===
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

 

[Sorni]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If you aren't a mountain biker, then what are you doing in this newsgroup?

Bwa.

Ha.

Guffaw.

Snork.

BBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHhhaHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Oh, man.

Maybe I'll refrain from filtering (the big fish, anyway) for a little while longer.

Bill

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:01:22 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>If you aren't a mountain biker, then what are you doing in this newsgroup?

Obviously you've forgotten which ngs you're trolling.

alt.mountain-bike rec.bicycles.soc rec.backcountry sci.environment
ca.environment

If all these imply that one must be a mountain biker then your cause is forever doomed. Actually,
it's forever doomed anyway due to your crass idiocy.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]