Do Mountain Bikers Have Any Balls?



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 13:31:15 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:43:04 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . .>On a steep slope,
it's impossible not to skid. Bikes don't have enough .>traction to prevent skidding. . .Ah, like you
said further up - you mountain biked once. I see now .that you mean exactly that: once. Clearly you
never developed the .skill necessary to ride without skidding;

It's not a matter of skill. The laws of physics require skidding on steep slopes.
===
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
 
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:53:02 -0500, Ken B <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:36:49 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" .<[email protected]> wrote: . .<snip> .> .>I
would suggest the Mike is not qualified to pass judgement upon the rest of .>civilization, and he
should leave damage assessment to the professionals, .>like our park and forest service employees.
.> . .Aw, come on! If he did THAT then we'd be short of our entertainment .quota. . .I mean
seriously, Mike makes his "cause" (whatever the hell it is -- .genocide, I think) look soooo bad
that everyone will advocate opening .trails to even the most extreme free-riding in the mere hope
that one .of the riders will run his sorry ass over. . .

===
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
 
On 9 Dec 2002 15:03:14 -0800, [email protected] (Muddy) wrote:

.Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, .Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, . .I was trying really hard to keep out of this one but
thats just making .me **** my sides... . .Well Mike, are you not going to retaliate? . .You lot are
such a bunch of pussies. You argue over such bollocks, .everyone here must be a liar...which would
include me then. Ah well, I .can handle being a liar. . .But you to just crack me up....keep up the
good work, I'll be .spectating. . .Muddy - "Its not the topic, its the abuse that counts!"

Did you say something?

.> .> >.Now, ****head, before you ever accuse me of lying again, be just as .> >.prepared to backup
your case as I am, you worthless waste of sperm. .> > .> >You just lied. :) .> .> In what, that
you're a waste of sperm? No, that's a fact. You are. I .> know it must be hard for you to accept but
it is, indeed, the truth. .> Anyone here think that Mike ISN'T a waste of sperm??? .> .> Face it
dude, you should have been a blow job.

===
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
 
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:13:40 GMT, Idontwantspam@net (Gary S.) wrote:

.On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:48:55 GMT, "Lou W" <[email protected]> wrote: . .>> > Besides, you
shouldn't be moving species around. .>> .> I should remain stationary by that logic. .>OMG I should
move back to PA!! .> .Mikey considers all humans to be a non-native species in the Americas, .and
therefore he wants to remove all humans from these continents.

Also mountain bikers.

.Happy trails, .Gary (net.yogi.bear) .------------------------------------------------ .at the 51st
percentile of ursine intelligence . .Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA .Please reply to:
garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

===
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 says that all bikes are worse than all boots, but this completely .ignores facts such as,
> boots make new trails where it isn't possible to .ride, while bikes more often than not will
> remain on an established
trail.
>
> Except when they are riding on the shoulder or creating bootleg trals,
which is
> most of the time.
>
> .He completely ignores the fact that many hikers are much more destructive .than most bikers.
>
> Complete BS.
>
> .While it is true that there are destructive bikers,
>
> Yeah -- like ALL of them.
>
> not .all bikers are destructive. While it is true that hiking is not always as .destructive as
> biking, there are many hikers that destroy more in a
single
> .outing than some bikers will destroy in an entire year of going out. Mike .uses brash
> generalizations that are easily refuted, and almost never true .when generally applied.
>
> Generalizations in this case are valid. We have ALL seen gonzo mountain
bikers
> ripping up nature. In fact, I see them whenever I hike.
>
> .His generaliztions are derived from the actions of one or two bike riders
>
> BS. More like THOUSANDS.
>
> .and spread across the entire population of bike riders, or (as in the
case
> .of hiking) he extrapolates the positive effects of his own experience and .spreads them over an
> entire population of hikers.
>
> I have also seen thousands of hikers, not ONE of whom was doing anything destructive. The
> conclusion is OBVIOUS: mountain bikers are FAR more destructive, both individually and as a group,
> than hikers.
>

Thank you for confirming my point. You indict entire populations that are not like you based upon
the actions of a minority, and you ignore the disgressions of another minority because it is among
your population. Talk about hypocritical!

My reality is that I have been driving offroad in my Jeep for going on 5 years, and have never seen
a mountain bike "ripping up" the country side. I have only seen hikers on the trails where I drive
on a very few occasions, and in every case they stopped to watch what we were doing so skillfully
with our vehicles. We, the Jeep people that I hang out with, have shown backcountry areas to
disabled people, we have gained support and admiration of forest and park rangers (both federal and
state), we are always courteous to pedestrians, and we give them water or rides if they need it.

The single most ignorant display of understanding habitat came from a group of hikers that we
encountered in the desert near Barstow, CA., these hikers were rolling huge rocks down canyon walls
while other hikers were still traversing the walls trying to get to the bottom, and while still
others (our Jeep group included) were already on the bottom. I would be ignorant to say that all
hikers would behave in this reprehensible (and dangerous) manner, just as you are ignorant to say
that all vehicle operators behave improperly.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> .and spread across the entire population of bike riders, or (as in the
case
> .of hiking) he extrapolates the positive effects of his own experience and .spreads them over an
> entire population of hikers.
>
> I have also seen thousands of hikers, not ONE of whom was doing anything destructive. The
> conclusion is OBVIOUS: mountain bikers are FAR more destructive, both individually and as a group,
> than hikers.

Hello?!? You are such a liar, and obviously a hypocrite.
____________________________

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

BS. I agree that hiking is harmful, but it is much LESS harmful than mountain biking.
Learn to think.
 
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:55:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:eek:[email protected]... .> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:28:57 +0000, "Just zis
Guy, you know?" .> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:49:00 GMT, Mike
Vandeman <[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> . .> .>.Just as well the New Forest fauna don't know
that - and I'm not about .> .>.to tell them either. The thing which drives them away is motor .>
.>.traffic. They don't like the noise, and they don't like the smell. .> .>.Fair enough, neither do
I. They seem not to care too much about .> .>.walkers and cyclists - follow the trails far enough
from the roads and .> .>.you start to see all the butterflies, mammals, birds, occasional .>
.>.snakes - all the things you claim we've driven off. .> . .> .>BS. You are seeing only the ones
that hold their noses and tolerate .human .> .>presence. .> . .> .Strange - this thousand-year-old
forest doesn't seem to be suffering .> .any reduction in species diversity due to cyclists, walkers
and .> .equestrians using it. Maybe the vast logging machines are more .> .significant - but no, the
wildlife doesn't seem to care too much about .> .them either. Whaddya know. It's a managed forest,
man made and used .> .for the enjoyment of all kinds of people, and it's full of wildlife, .>
.including some rare species. .> .> So you ADMIT that it is reducing wildlife populations. QED .
.???? . .I don't understand your response, Mike. He specifically said, " ...this .thousand-year-old
forest doesn't seem to be suffering any reduction in .species ..." He went on to say that "maybe"
the vast logging machines are .more significant, but he seems to discount them also because the
animals .don't seem to care. He finally states that it is a managed forest with lots .of wildlife,
and used for the enjoyment of all kinds of human activities. . .Everything he said makes sense, and
you come along with, "So you ADMIT that .it is reducing wildlife populations. QED", proving once
again that you can't .read. . .It seems to me that perhaps my confusion on your statements comes
from the .fact that you cross-post from several different groups into groups that are .not
participants in the discussions. I just noticed that I am replying to .what appears to be your reply
to yourself because of your insistance on .cross-posting. Please stop cross-posting.

1. Learn to read: "including some rare species" implies that populations have been reduced.
Otherwise, how did they get to be rare????

2. Cross-posting is appropriate, when articles cross topic boundaries. DUH!

3. Why do you care? I guess you don't want too many people to become aware of the damage that
mountain bikers do....
===
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
 
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:10:37 GMT, "Cameron" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Lou W" <[email protected]> wrote in message .news:D[email protected]...
.> .> "Cameron" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
news:[email protected]... .> > .> > "Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
.> > news:[email protected]... .> > > On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:09:04 GMT, "Lou
W" <[email protected]> wrote: .> > > .> > > > .> > > >"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in
message .> > > >news:[email protected]... .> > > >> Mikey considers all humans
to be a non-native species in the .> Americas, .> > > >> and therefore he wants to remove all humans
from these continents. .> > > >> .> > > > Great! Now where do I go? .> > > > .> > > I think he wants
the human race reduced to a few thousand primitive .> > > hunter-gatherers in Kenya's Oldavia Gorge,
just the way it was 100,000 .> > > years ago. That is the only form of humanity that fits his
definition .> > > of "natural". .> > > .> > > Mikey has not yet described what would happen to the
extra 7 billion .> > > people, or how the world would be restored to his version. .> > > .> > .> >
He's probably a member of that volantary extinction group. They believe .> > that humans have no
business being on this planet, and that all men .> > should be snipped and all women tied. Then we
could all happily live the .> > rest of our natural lives until we die and eventually become
extinct. .> Utopia .> > in 90 years! .> > .> > -- .> > Cameron .> > .> .> If that's the case he
should lead by example and be the 1st to "off" .> himself. .> . .I agree. But their excuse for not
doing so is, "We need to educate the rest .of the world". . .Can you spell "Hypocritical weeny"?

You misspelled "weenie", hypocrite.
===
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 wrote:

> It's not a matter of skill. The laws of physics require skidding on steep slopes.

The laws of physics do not, however, require cyclists to ride down slopes so steep that skidding is
unavoidable.

DUH!

Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> .I mean seriously, Mike makes his "cause" (whatever the hell it is -- .genocide, I think) look
> soooo bad that everyone will advocate opening .trails to even the most extreme free-riding in the
> mere hope that one .of the riders will run his sorry ass over.

Oh, what a surprise - Mikey LIED again. Well, Mike, the problem of Vandespamm is not "every" problem
(DUH!) and these mountain bikers are not representative of all mountain bikers (DUH!), commenting
that your **** is likely to cause people to react by behaving even worse is not violence, it's
simply stating the blindingly obvious (DUH!) and hoping that when a ped gets run over as a
consequence it's you rather than someone with family, friends, a life or a positive contribution to
make to society could be put down to a desire for justice rather than violence.

Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> It's not a matter of skill. The laws of physics require skidding on steep slopes.

They do? Care to point out which law that is?

There isn't some angle at which the coefficient of static friction magically becomes zero. DUH!
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> .Ah, like you said further up - you mountain biked once. I see now .that you mean exactly that:
> once. Clearly you never developed the .skill necessary to ride without skidding;
>
> It's not a matter of skill. The laws of physics require skidding on steep slopes.

That is the dumbest ****ing thing I have ever heard. You have no clue what you are talking about do
you. The laws of physics also demand that I ***** slap you for being such a dumb ass.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:21:06 GMT, "Surgius" <[email protected]> wrote: .> BS. On a steep slope,
> it's impossible not to skid. Bikes don't have
enough
> .> traction to prevent skidding. . .In your opinion, I do just fine on slopes without skidding.
>
> That's a good example of mountain biker LYING.
___________________________

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

> .Ah, like you said further up - you mountain biked once. I see now .that you mean exactly that:
> once. Clearly you never developed the .skill necessary to ride without skidding;
>
> It's not a matter of skill. The laws of physics require skidding on steep slopes.

Pot, meet kettle.
 
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:45:22 GMT, "Surgius" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> .and spread across the entire population of bike riders, or (as in the
>case
>> .of hiking) he extrapolates the positive effects of his own experience and .spreads them over an
>> entire population of hikers.
>>
>> I have also seen thousands of hikers, not ONE of whom was doing anything destructive. The
>> conclusion is OBVIOUS: mountain bikers are FAR more destructive, both individually and as a
>> group, than hikers.
>
>Hello?!? You are such a liar, and obviously a hypocrite.

No kidding he's a liar -- there aren't that many hikers for him to have seen thousands.

>____________________________
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>BS. I agree that hiking is harmful, but it is much LESS harmful than mountain biking. Learn
>to think.
 
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:56:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:53:02 -0500, Ken B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>.On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:36:49 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" .<[email protected]> wrote: . .<snip> .>
>.>I would suggest the Mike is not qualified to pass judgement upon the rest of .>civilization, and
>he should leave damage assessment to the professionals, .>like our park and forest service
>employees. .> . .Aw, come on! If he did THAT then we'd be short of our entertainment .quota. . .I
>mean seriously, Mike makes his "cause" (whatever the hell it is -- .genocide, I think) look soooo
>bad that everyone will advocate opening .trails to even the most extreme free-riding in the mere
>hope that one .of the riders will run his sorry ass over. . .
>

<snore>

Come on Mikey.... is this the best we can expect from you this weekend?

You're going to have to do better than that or I'm going to bed. And if I go to bed early, I'll be
up early. If I'm up early, I'm going riding and that's not good because it's been raining all day
and the trails are all soaked. But I'm going to ride on (actually IN) them and really mess them up
all because THIS lousy thread is the best you could come up with. So you better get cracking or the
ruts I leave in the morning will be on your conscience.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:55:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:eek:[email protected]... .> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:28:57 +0000, "Just
> zis Guy, you know?" .> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:49:00 GMT,
> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> . .> .>.Just as well the New Forest fauna don't
> know that - and I'm not
about
> .> .>.to tell them either. The thing which drives them away is motor .> .>.traffic. They don't
> like the noise, and they don't like the smell. .> .>.Fair enough, neither do I. They seem not to
> care too much about .> .>.walkers and cyclists - follow the trails far enough from the roads
and
> .> .>.you start to see all the butterflies, mammals, birds, occasional .> .>.snakes - all the
> things you claim we've driven off. .> . .> .>BS. You are seeing only the ones that hold their
> noses and tolerate .human .> .>presence. .> . .> .Strange - this thousand-year-old forest doesn't
> seem to be suffering .> .any reduction in species diversity due to cyclists, walkers and .>
> .equestrians using it. Maybe the vast logging machines are more .> .significant - but no, the
> wildlife doesn't seem to care too much about .> .them either. Whaddya know. It's a managed forest,
> man made and used .> .for the enjoyment of all kinds of people, and it's full of wildlife, .>
> .including some rare species. .> .> So you ADMIT that it is reducing wildlife populations. QED .
> .???? . .I don't understand your response, Mike. He specifically said, " ...this
> .thousand-year-old forest doesn't seem to be suffering any reduction in .species ..." He went on
> to say that "maybe" the vast logging machines are .more significant, but he seems to discount them
> also because the animals .don't seem to care. He finally states that it is a managed forest with
lots
> .of wildlife, and used for the enjoyment of all kinds of human activities. . .Everything he said
> makes sense, and you come along with, "So you ADMIT
that
> .it is reducing wildlife populations. QED", proving once again that you
can't
> .read. . .It seems to me that perhaps my confusion on your statements comes from
the
> .fact that you cross-post from several different groups into groups that
are
> .not participants in the discussions. I just noticed that I am replying to .what appears to be
> your reply to yourself because of your insistance on .cross-posting. Please stop cross-posting.
>
> 1. Learn to read: "including some rare species" implies that populations
have
> been reduced. Otherwise, how did they get to be rare????
>

Perhaps the species are rare in other locations, but are bountiful here. Just a thought ...

> 2. Cross-posting is appropriate, when articles cross topic boundaries.
DUH!
>
Cross posting initself isn't so bad, although it is contrary to proper netiquitte. I can overlook
netiquitte improprieties when the topic allpies, but it is impossible to overlook instances where
you crosspost, then a reply on another group is not crossposted, but you reply again in a crosspost.
The result of this ignorance is that in another group, we see you say something stupid, followed by
a disjointed even more stupid thing to say. This particular post is an excellent example ...

> 3. Why do you care? I guess you don't want too many people to become aware
of
> the damage that mountain bikers do....

I care because while I am not a mountain biker, I do operate a vehicle in backcountry areas, and
people like you are wrongly attributing damage to the environment to things that are so
insignificant as to be inconsequential. Environmental damage caused by a bike, or any transient
visitation source, is very very slight. The larger issue to battle is encroachment on the scale of
development. Visitors or all sorts can (and should) be educated to cause minimal lasting impact, and
for the most part, they are. I, personally, am a volunteer organizer for an Adopt-A-Trail that
maintains a trail that has been in the forest road inventory for well over a century, and the
surrounding habitat is doing just fine by every measure. Not some meausres, every measure.

Shrill voices like your's lack sanity and reason in crafting viable solutions to the need for human
recreation and habitat protection. You (YOU personally) are among the largest obsitlces in creating
workable plans that protect habitat while allowing reasonable regulations for access. You demand
that everything be closed without regard to actual facts, and this is wrong. Voices of reason must
be dilligent to keep the shrill cries that the sky is falling from drowning us out. You (YOU
personally) would do better for the environment if you just shut the **** up and let some of the
more moderate in your camp take the lead in discussions.

You have not made a rational argument in more than a year. You post statements that have very little
basis in reality, and any reasonable resonse that would ellicit further conversation from a sane
person causes you to call people a LIAR, or dum-dum, or some other childish retort followed by DUH!
And, you crosspost this ignorant ****. And. to top it all off, you claim to be a PhD, but if my kids
are going to come out of college with your understanding of basic english and math, I'm gonna save
my money and send them to Real Estate school where they can learn to take advantage of the urban
sprawl toat appears to be all but unavoidable in California. Certainly, somebody with your education
should understand how silly you sound, and it embaraces me to have people in other parts of the
world think that all Americans are just like you.
 
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:26:35 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> .I mean seriously, Mike makes his "cause" (whatever the hell it is -- .genocide, I think) look
>> soooo bad that everyone will advocate opening .trails to even the most extreme free-riding in the
>> mere hope that one .of the riders will run his sorry ass over.
>
>Oh, what a surprise - Mikey LIED again. Well, Mike, the problem of Vandespamm is not "every"
>problem (DUH!) and these mountain bikers are not representative of all mountain bikers (DUH!),
>commenting that your **** is

Advocating running over Mikey with a bike must be far worse than his being an advocate for wiping
out the human race. He does not deny his goal of wiping out humanity.

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

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
 
"Joshua E. Rodd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aQrK9.110491$%[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > It's not a matter of skill. The laws of physics require skidding on
steep
> > slopes.
>
> They do? Care to point out which law that is?
>
> There isn't some angle at which the coefficient of static friction
magically
> becomes zero. DUH!
>

You've never ridden a DH race course have you?

Mike - not really defending the other Mike.
 
"Surgius" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:cWvK9.347609$WL3.107472@rwcrnsc54...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > .Ah, like you said further up - you mountain biked once. I see now .that you mean exactly that:
> > once. Clearly you never developed the .skill necessary to ride without skidding;
> >
> > It's not a matter of skill. The laws of physics require skidding on
steep
> > slopes.
>
> That is the dumbest ****ing thing I have ever heard. You have no clue
what
> you are talking about do you. The laws of physics also demand that I ***** slap you for being such
> a dumb ass.
>
>

Ever heard of Newton's Law (gravity)? Murphy's Law ("If it can go wrong, it will"), Vandeman's Law
("If I'm too lame too understand it, it must be wrong")?

He neither knows nor cares about physics. It's all about his agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads