Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking



On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:12:37 -0500, "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:eek:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:09:13 -0600, "Cosmic Bandito" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman (who seems really ****** off that everyone else won't
..conform
..> .to his version of reality) potificates:
..> .> Neither. Mountain bikers are ALWAYS allowed on trails, liar.
..> .
..> .Here in the state of Colorado, we have "wilderness" areas where motorized
..> .vehicles and mountain bikes are not permitted.
..>
..> So what? Mountain bikers are still allowed on those trails. DUH!
..>
..
..Liar!! They are ONLY allowed if they WALK, and hence are not Mountain
..Bikers! You are REALLY poor at arguing, M.V.

So I guess they are also not men, as long as they aren't screwing, huh? And I'm
not a programmer, if I'm not writing code at this moment. Idiot.
===
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 Thu, 20 May 2004 13:14:23 -0500, "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:26:38 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
..> .says...
..> .>
..> .>
..> .>Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
..> .>Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
..> .>March 5, 2004
..> .>
..> .>1. Why do people mountain bike?
..> .
..> .For fun
..>
..> That's not a good enough reason. So is smoking pot, but that is not a good
..> justification for why the public should provide you a place to do it.
..
..What a terrible straw man you have set up. Smoking pot is ILLEGAL, mountain
..biking is NOT. Did you get your Ph.D. from the internet?

Can't you follow an argument? Look up "analogy" in the dictionary.
===
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:12:37 -0500, "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:eek:[email protected]...
> .> On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:09:13 -0600, "Cosmic Bandito"

<[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .Mike Vandeman (who seems really ****** off that everyone else won't
> .conform
> .> .to his version of reality) potificates:
> .> .> Neither. Mountain bikers are ALWAYS allowed on trails, liar.
> .> .
> .> .Here in the state of Colorado, we have "wilderness" areas where

motorized
> .> .vehicles and mountain bikes are not permitted.
> .>
> .> So what? Mountain bikers are still allowed on those trails. DUH!
> .>
> .
> .Liar!! They are ONLY allowed if they WALK, and hence are not Mountain
> .Bikers! You are REALLY poor at arguing, M.V.
>
> So I guess they are also not men, as long as they aren't screwing, huh?

And I'm
> not a programmer, if I'm not writing code at this moment. Idiot.
> ===


I am only using you idiotic logic, cry-baby. Dont get all pissy when you
get beat at your own game, Mr Ph.D(uh)
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:14:23 -0500, "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:26:38 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> .> .says...
> .> .>
> .> .>
> .> .>Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> .> .>Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> .> .>March 5, 2004
> .> .>
> .> .>1. Why do people mountain bike?
> .> .
> .> .For fun
> .>
> .> That's not a good enough reason. So is smoking pot, but that is not a

good
> .> justification for why the public should provide you a place to do it.
> .
> .What a terrible straw man you have set up. Smoking pot is ILLEGAL,

mountain
> .biking is NOT. Did you get your Ph.D. from the internet?
>
> Can't you follow an argument? Look up "analogy" in the dictionary.
> ===


So you DID get your Ph.D. from the net. Nice job!
 
On Wed, 26 May 2004 01:42:37 GMT, " S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:53:49 GMT, " S o r n i"
..> <[email protected]> wrote:
..
..> .So you think that hikers in general are fitter than mountain bikers?
..>
..> I never said that. I said that it takes less energy, in toto, to bike
..> than to walk. That is pure science, from the Scientific American.
..
..Only if "toto" equals "dreamland".
..
..Bill "care to post a citation or link?" S.

I just did. _Scientific American_. Look for "bicycle". DUH!
===
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 01:42:37 GMT, " S o r n i" <[email protected]>

wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:53:49 GMT, " S o r n i"
> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
> .
> .> .So you think that hikers in general are fitter than mountain bikers?
> .>
> .> I never said that. I said that it takes less energy, in toto, to bike
> .> than to walk. That is pure science, from the Scientific American.
> .
> .Only if "toto" equals "dreamland".
> .
> .Bill "care to post a citation or link?" S.
>
> I just did. _Scientific American_. Look for "bicycle". DUH!


Mikey, Mikey...we *all* read that SA article back in 1973. And you know as
well as everyone else that it refers to cycling on a hard, paved surface. In
that instance, yes, cycling can be more efficient than walking. Gears,
mechanical advantage, not much added weight, etc, etc.

Have any data comparing riding off road to hiking and energy expended in
each?

Pete
 
On Thu, 27 May 2004 03:05:18 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 26 May 2004 01:42:37 GMT, " S o r n i" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .> On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:53:49 GMT, " S o r n i"
..> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .
..> .> .So you think that hikers in general are fitter than mountain bikers?
..> .>
..> .> I never said that. I said that it takes less energy, in toto, to bike
..> .> than to walk. That is pure science, from the Scientific American.
..> .
..> .Only if "toto" equals "dreamland".
..> .
..> .Bill "care to post a citation or link?" S.
..>
..> I just did. _Scientific American_. Look for "bicycle". DUH!
..
..Mikey, Mikey...we *all* read that SA article back in 1973. And you know as
..well as everyone else that it refers to cycling on a hard, paved surface. In
..that instance, yes, cycling can be more efficient than walking. Gears,
..mechanical advantage, not much added weight, etc, etc.
..
..Have any data comparing riding off road to hiking and energy expended in
..each?

No. Who cares? It's still obvious that mountain bikers are simply too lazy to
walk.

..Pete
..

===
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 03:05:18 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Have any data comparing riding off road to hiking and energy expended in
> .each?
>
> No. Who cares? It's still obvious that mountain bikers are simply too lazy

to
> walk.


Didn't think so. So your claim of "less energy" is mere supposition on your
part. In truth, you're just spouting your thoughts and biases, claiming them
as fact, hoping no one will notice you're jut blowing smoke.

As usual.

Pete
Thanks for participating in my semi-annual stick poking exercise.
 
On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:53:27 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Thu, 27 May 2004 03:05:18 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .Have any data comparing riding off road to hiking and energy expended in
..> .each?
..>
..> No. Who cares? It's still obvious that mountain bikers are simply too lazy
..to
..> walk.
..
..Didn't think so. So your claim of "less energy" is mere supposition on your
..part. In truth, you're just spouting your thoughts and biases, claiming them
..as fact, hoping no one will notice you're jut blowing smoke.

No, it's based on science.

..As usual.
..
..Pete
..Thanks for participating in my semi-annual stick poking exercise.
..

===
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" <[email protected]> wrote
> .
> .Didn't think so. So your claim of "less energy" is mere supposition on

your
> .part. In truth, you're just spouting your thoughts and biases, claiming

them
> .as fact, hoping no one will notice you're jut blowing smoke.
>
> No, it's based on science.


Science? Show us the data, Mikey. A learned researcher and scientist such as
yourself should be able to produce verification of his claims quite easily,
don't you think?

Or are you claiming that there is no difference between biking on road and
biking off road? If so, why all this folderol for the last decade?

If there is no difference in energy expended between road and mountain
biking, then how is it that mountain biking is so much more destructive than
road biking?

Pete
c'mon, Mikey...you disappoint me. You can do better than this!
 
On Fri, 28 May 2004 05:36:18 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
..> .
..> .Didn't think so. So your claim of "less energy" is mere supposition on
..your
..> .part. In truth, you're just spouting your thoughts and biases, claiming
..them
..> .as fact, hoping no one will notice you're jut blowing smoke.
..>
..> No, it's based on science.
..
..Science? Show us the data, Mikey. A learned researcher and scientist such as
..yourself should be able to produce verification of his claims quite easily,
..don't you think?
..
..Or are you claiming that there is no difference between biking on road and
..biking off road? If so, why all this folderol for the last decade?

Mountain biking takes more energy than road biking, but less than hiking. That's
obvious. Just look at how much energy it takes to ride downhill....

..If there is no difference in energy expended between road and mountain
..biking, then how is it that mountain biking is so much more destructive than
..road biking?


..Pete
..c'mon, Mikey...you disappoint me. You can do better than this!
..

===
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