Do Mountain Bikers Have Any Balls?

[Surgius]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:59:35 GMT, "Joshua E. Rodd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> By the way, I have NEVER heard any mountain biker talk about the issue
of
> .> overpopulation in their newsgroup. You are just trying to change the
subject
> .> away from the destruction that mountain biking does. . .Yes they have. See
> <[email protected]>, .posted to several of the newsgroups you've
> annoyingly crossposted your .latest troll to: . ."Why spend so much energy on denying people from
> having .fun,
>
> Because you are denying willdife and other trail users fun.

I have never denied another person or animal access to any trail. So I guess you are again proven to
be a liar.

>
> ===
> 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

 

[Surgius]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> BS. Walking gives a much BETTER experience of nature. It's selfish to
bike,
> because bikes drive away wildlife and other trail users. Tell the truth,
for
> once. (I know, you CAN'T.)

In your opinion...

> ===
> 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

 

[James M . Lane]

On 29 Nov 2002 15:55:29 -0800, [email protected] (Michael Silver) wrote:

>"Michael Dart" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

snip

>> You talking to yourself now Mike?
>
>I think this computer stuff is kinda new to him, or perhaps he has two personalities. One that does
>all the talking and another that listens.
>
>...Michael...

Nah, the second was stillborne. He only talks and does not keep his facts straight.

jim

 

[Guy Chapman]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:28:16 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>It's selfish to bike, because bikes drive away wildlife and other trail users.

Seems like you've never visited the New Forest[1] in England, then, where bikes and hikers mingle
perfectly happily and the wildlife is manifestly not driven away.

[1] That's new as in created by King William in 1079.

Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!

** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting) Above email is a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from
[email protected] to reply by mail

 

[Guy Chapman]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:23:07 GMT, Bill Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:

>His PhD is in psychology.

Hard to believe - looking at his behaviour here you would assume that it was the work of a man who
had absolutely no clue about how the human psyche works. How many people has he brought round to his
position? Not the work of an expert in human psychology, methinks.

Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!

** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting) Above email is a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from
[email protected] to reply by mail

 

[Guy Chapman]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:53:49 GMT, "Surgius" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The creation of said trail does more damage to the environment that does damage to the trail.

$1 says you get a DUH! for that

Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!

** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting) Above email is a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from
[email protected] to reply by mail

 

[Chris McMartin]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .You have repeatedly stated that it is intentional. You have said that all .mountain bikers are
> thugs, and the definition of a thug is one that .intentionally does destructive things.
>
> To PEOPLE. Their destruction of the environment MAY not be intentional (I
am
> being generous).

You need to look up the definition of "thug." It comes from Hindi for "deceiver, robber." No mention
of target made.

> BS. Walking gives a much BETTER experience of nature. It's selfish to
bike,
> because bikes drive away wildlife and other trail users.

Prove this. Demonstrate how walking gives a much better experience of nature. Demonstrate how it's
selfish to bike. Demonstrate how bikes drive away wildlife. Demonstrate how bikes drive away other
trail users. Anecdotal evidence need not be submitted.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:36:41 GMT, "Surgius" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:32:09 GMT, "Chris
McMartin" .> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]>
wrote in message .> .news:[email protected]... .> .> Good. So keep your
bikes on pavement, and HIKE in nature. .> . .> .I thought you were against hiking? You can't have it
both ways. .> .> Do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you idiots? Hiking reduces impacts. . .Hiking
frightens wildlife. Hiking INCREASES impact over non-use. Therefore .hiking is bad for the
environment.

I agree, of course, but mountain biking is much MORE destructive, obviously.
===
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 Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:01:19 GMT, "Chris McMartin" <[email protected]> wrote:

."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> .I thought you were against hiking? You can't
have it both ways. .> .> Do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you idiots? Hiking reduces impacts. .
.So we should hike in your "human-free habitat" because it, in your own .words, reduces impacts?
Your encouragement is duly noted. . .> You are projecting again. T state an OPINION, you have to say
so. His was .an .> assertion of fact. DUH! . .I'm assuming you're attempting to use "projecting" in
a psychological sense. .I don't have my old psychology book in front of me, but a quick definition
.from dictionary.com: . ."To externalize and attribute (an emotion or motive, for example)
.unconsciously to someone or something else in order to avoid anxiety." . .This doesn't apply to the
argument here. I'm not doing what I do .unconsciously (though you seem to be), and I'm not anxious.

So you ADMIT that you are talking about yourself, not me.

Plus, I'm not .attributing an emotion or motive. I'm telling it like it is. The original .comment
said "should," rather than "shall" or "will," and was not .substantiated with facts. Therefore,
it's opinion.

That's not what I am talking about. He said bikers are excluded. That was a lie.

===
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 Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:39:07 -0000, "Andy Chequer"
<bicycle.repair.man@(removethisbittosend)secretworldgovernment.org> wrote:

.> I have BALLS! . .Talking is not the same as having. . .<snipped the bulk of your silliest post so
far> . .> But to me, Mountain biking is a rebelious sport. Its more than just .> XC, its an extreme
sport. . .Aha - that magic word "extreme" - the hallmark of the clueless *******. . .<snipped
further confused agenda> . .>Im not saying WE should stop doing it, but someone SHOULD .>stop us.
Before the sport gets out of hand. . .You want to be nannyed for the rest of your life? If you've
got ethical .problems with mountain biking, don't do it. Otherwise, put a sock in it.

Careful! Mountain bikers don't like to hear the truth about their selfish, destructive sport.

.Andy Chequer

===
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 Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:40:15 GMT, "Surgius" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message . .> .The plain and simple fact of the
matter is that if ANYTHING is .> .detructive, it is the hikers. They are the ones who leave trash
all .> .along the trails. They are the ones who cut down trees to block access .> .to the trails .>
.> Where? .> . .On the trails idiot. Learn to read!

WHICH trails?
===
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 Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:53:49 GMT, "Surgius" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:44:27 -0500, Ken B
.<[email protected]> .> wrote: .> .> . .> .I'd like to see one shred of proof that
mountain biking is destroing .> .the environment. .> .> That's easy. Just look at any mountain
biking trail. . .The creation of said trail does more damage to the environment that does .damage to
the trail. .> .> Ha! I've seen no evidence WHAT SO EVER here,or .> .anywhere else for that matter,
proving that statement. None. .> .> Your nose is growing. .> .> .The latest attempt at proof of
environmental destruction is: .> .http://www.santabarbarahikes.com/ComparisonTrails/damage.shtml.
Nice .> .try, but no luck there. All I see are perfectly normal mountiain .> .biking trails. .> .>
Yeah, with huge ruts and other erosion. . .Which a trail crew can repair.

BS. Lost and destroyed soil cannot be replaced. It's GONE.
===
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

 

[Ken B]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:58:52 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:32:48 +0000, Guy Chapman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>.On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:44:27 -0500, Ken B .<[email protected]> wrote: . .>The
>latest attempt at proof of environmental destruction is:
>.>http://www.santabarbarahikes.com/ComparisonTrails/damage.shtml. Nice .>try, but no luck there. .
>.I have seen much more serious damage done by sheep and water on Welsh .mountainsides. To say
>nothing of the huge erosion caused by hikers, .as you point out. . .Ultimately, though, the fact
>that hikers and bikers use these areas is .a major driver for conservation work. Over here the
>National Parks .Authority spends large sums of money protecting wildlife habitats from .the real
>threats - industrialisation and pollution - and the payback .is that we get to walk or ride into
>the areas to see the animals and .plants. It's much better to find out about nature by observation
>.rather than by looking at pictures in a book. . .In any case, Mikey-boy is completely missing the
>target. The numbers .of species threatened by small-scale (and it is small-scale) human .access to
>North American wilderness is a spit in the bucket compared .with the danger posed by rain forest
>logging, commerical fishing, .heavy metals extraction and so on. . .I think it's likely that those
>people who experience the natural .environment by biking and walking are likely to gain an
>appreciation .of natural diversity and become more sympathetic to moves aimed at .restricting the
>destruction of the world's habitats,
>
>BS. The only think mountan bikers ever protest is the closure of trails to bikes.

You are such a liar. I can't believe you made it through our educational system. Where'd you
mail-order your PhD from? I bet you don't even have a real PhD, do you?

Get your facts straight, retard. Hikers are the primary cause of trail destruction and they always
have been. You cut trees to block trails, you litter, you do nothing to maintain the trails and you
promote environmental ignorance. You're probably a racist too. What's next, only white hikers
allowed on the trails?

Get lost, ******.

>
> but I'm a known .optimist. . .Guy .=== .Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours! . .**
> WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. .http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting) .Above email is a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from
> [email protected] to reply by mail
>
>===
>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

 

[Ken B]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:18:00 GMT, "Joshua E. Rodd" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Guy Chapman wrote:
>> In any case, Mikey-boy is completely missing the target. The numbers of species threatened by
>> small-scale (and it is small-scale) human access to North American wilderness is a spit in the
>> bucket compared with the danger posed by rain forest logging, commerical fishing, heavy metals
>> extraction and so on.
>
>I'm not convinced Mike Vandemann isn't actually secretly working for an evil cabal of
>industrial-military interests, whose goal is to completely remove all mountain bikers from parks so
>that they can can trash the ecosystem in the parks and not have anyone notice. DUH!

If he is, it's as an unwitting pawn. He does not have the mental capacity to be a real player in
such a scheme. He's too much of a pathological liar -- the military/government/corporate sector
would spot that and pluck him like the weed he is before they'd ever trust him.

 

[Ken B]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:48:22 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 30 Nov 2002 04:48:21 -0800, [email protected] (Muddy) wrote:
>
>.I have BALLS! . .I mountain bike. And mountain biking IS destructive. .Therfore, should be banned.
>. .Carrying a gun around with you in Britain is illegal without a .licence. There's nothing wrong
>with the gun, or target pratice. Its .the destruction caused when used improperly. . .Mountain
>bikes can be used careful, if proper care is taken to ensure .like MX bikes, they never touch our
>countryside and national parks. . .But to me, Mountain biking is a rebelious sport. Its more than
>just .XC, its an extreme sport. Not to say I tear-**** though the .countryside. But just riding the
>countryside on bridleways should be .banned. . .Tell me Mike. Kinderscout, The Downs, Windermere,
>etc... How many .walkers visit these tourist locations in a year/month/week? And how .much
>devastation would be caused if there were that many mountain .bikes visiting that same location
>instead? . .Mountain bikers forget the amount of destruction we do cause... Why .can't anyone see
>this? . .And that is why anyone involed in mountain biking is nothing more than .a rebel. Im not
>saying WE should stop doing it, but someone SHOULD .stop us. Before the sport gets out of hand.
>
>It already IS out of hand.

Your lies are out of hand. Moron.

>
>.Muddy. . .P.S.... . .> > By the way, I have NEVER heard any mountain biker talk about the issue of
>.> > overpopulation in their newsgroup. You are just trying to change the subject .> > away from
>the destruction that mountain biking does. .> .> Yes they have. See
><[email protected]>, .> posted to several of the newsgroups you've
>annoyingly crossposted your .> latest troll to: .> .> "Why spend so much energy on denying people
>from having .> fun, when the real problem this Earth faces is overpopulation?" .> .> This proves
>that Mike Vandemann is a LIAR. He LIES, or else is such .> a DUM-DUM he can't do a simple Google
>Groups search. DUH! . .How does this prove Mike is a liar? It simply proves you'll use any .petty
>excuse to get back at Mike. Maybe he didn't realise. . .I quote "DUM-DUM"
>
>===
>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 Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:41:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:49:57 GMT, Mike
> Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> .At 06:37 PM 11/28/02 -0700, Gunther, Jeff wrote: .>
> . .> .> Mike, .> . .> .> Just so you know, I am a mountain biker and a mountaineer who cares .>
> .deeply about the environment. .> . .> .Caring is as caring DOES. People who truly care reflect
> that in their .ACTIONS. .> . .> .> I think it is wrong to say that mountain .> .bikers are out to
> harm the environment. .> . .> .I never said it is INTENTIONAL! But it is still destructive. .> . .
> .You have repeatedly stated that it is intentional. You have said that all .mountain bikers are
> thugs, and the definition of a thug is one that .intentionally does destructive things.
>
> To PEOPLE. Their destruction of the environment MAY not be intentional (I
am
> being generous).
>
That is not what you have said in the past. Are you a liar, or are you being swayed by logic and
truth to change your opinion?

> . .> .>Everyone that I ride with is very .> .conscious of leaving no trace when we are out and we
> frequently pick
up
> .> .after hikers that have left wrappers, tissues, etc. on the trail. .> . .> .Good. So keep your
> bikes on pavement, and HIKE in nature. .> . . .How can concerned bikers pick up trash left on the
> trail by hikers if
they
> .are forced to keep the bikes on the pavement?
>
> By WALKING. DUH!
>

But, a bike rider without his bike is not a bike rider.

> Your own position makes no .sense.
>
> BS. YOU make no sense.
>

I make perfect sense. A bike route that is 5 feet wide by one mile long takes up just over one-half
acre. Given this, ten miles of trails take up just a shade over 6 acres, but pass through 6400 acres
of land. The impact is negligible.

> .> .> As you know, getting outside and into the mountains is a very .> .fulfilling and uplifting
> experience that should not be off limits to .someone .> .just because they are on a bike. .> . .>
> .You are LYING. There isn't a single trail in the world closed to
mountain
> .> .bikers. It is only BIKES that are banned. You CAN walk, can't you? .> . . .There is no point
> in walking when we can ride.
>
> Thanks for demonstrating just how stupid you are. People walk so they can actually SEE something,
> rather than just go from point A to point B
faster.
>

I drive so that I can see something. I drive at nearly the same speed as you can walk, so getting
there quicker is of no concern to me.

> The statement made was that .the "uplifting experience that should not be off limits to someone
> just .because they are on a bike." And your response is that the off limits is
not
> .imposed if a person is walking. That makes no sense, because if the .uplifting experience is
> denied because someone is riding, then walking
will
> .not provide the same experience, and your solution is unrealistic. It is .selfish too, but that
> is another topic.
>
> BS. Walking gives a much BETTER experience of nature. It's selfish to
bike,
> because bikes drive away wildlife and other trail users. Tell the truth,
for
> once. (I know, you CAN'T.)

Walking might give you a better experience, but you shouldn't measure everybody else by your
yardstick. You have no proof that a bike drives animals away more than a person on foot might do the
very same thing. So, that argument is ********. Indeed, animals are less frightened by machines than
by people on foot, so you should ban hiking in order to accomplish your agenda ...

 

[Ken B]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:18:00 GMT, "Joshua E. Rodd" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Guy Chapman wrote:
>> In any case, Mikey-boy is completely missing the target. The numbers of species threatened by
>> small-scale (and it is small-scale) human access to North American wilderness is a spit in the
>> bucket compared with the danger posed by rain forest logging, commerical fishing, heavy metals
>> extraction and so on.
>
>I'm not convinced Mike Vandemann isn't actually secretly working for an evil cabal of
>industrial-military interests, whose goal is to completely remove all mountain bikers from parks so
>that they can can trash the ecosystem in the parks and not have anyone notice. DUH!

If he is, it's as an unwitting pawn. He does not have the mental capacity to be a real player in
such a scheme. He's too much of a pathological liar -- the military/government/corporate sector
would spot that and pluck him like the weed he is before they'd ever trust him.

 

[Muddy]

Ok Ken. If there are thousands of walkers walking Snowdon each week, for hundreds of years. You not
honestly think if Mountain bikes turned up in there thousands it would cause any more destruction?

Walkers/Hikers cause destruction, and so do bikers. But where do you draw the line. You can't. Its
impossible.

LETS BAN EVERYONE FROM THE COUNTRYSIDE!!!!!!!

Muddy - 'Minded'

'Still stirring strong'

 

[Jd]

"penny s" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> since you are new here. and you've already wasted tons of bandwidth replying to you know
> who...here's a hint. Don't bother. You'd be much better off either killfiling or ignoring MV
> threads. Read Jonathan Harris' AMB FAQ.

He's too e-tarded to read and comprehend. Maybe we have a British version of duhski here.

> "Muddy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I have BALLS!
> <snip>
>
> > But to me, Mountain biking is a rebelious sport. Its more than just XC, its an extreme
> > sport.<snip>>
>
> oh, brother.

If my brother wrote something like that, I'd *****slap and disown him. I'm going to have to agree
with another's notion that "muddy" is descriptive of his (lack of) grey matter.

JD

 

[Michael Silver]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> BS. The only think mountan bikers ever protest is the closure of trails to bikes.
>

Translation: I couldn't really think of an intelligent response, and you are probably right, but I
have to maintain this "flood" of posts in a mountain bike newsgroup (among others) on the Internet
to give the appearance of actually serving a purpose in society and accomplishing something. Please
don't fight with me. What I actually need is help from a mental hospital, not logical, scienticfic
proof that I make so sense.

...Michael...