Mike Vandeman - done any good?

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Candt, Apr 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Candt

    Candt Guest

    For the couple of months I've been visiting this group, I've seen people join the IMBA, buy bikes
    for members of the family, promise to ride more, etc. Indeed, I myself will be buying a full susser
    in the next month.

    The thing is - some of these decisions have been made specifically or partially because of MV's
    'contributions' on this group !

    I've not seen anyone say (seriously), 'I'm not riding trails any more', 'I'd better get a carbon
    fibre hardtail frame, to avoid all that extra weight on the trail', or 'No cycling this week - give
    the trails time to recover'.

    So - surely the evidence is plainly showing that his posts to this group are having no effect, or
    possibly - a negative effect...

    Anyway - what I've done is to add his name to my kill filter, so I don't get to see any of his
    comments unless someone quotes it in a reply, and you know what - I almost miss him... Almost.

    CandT
     
    Tags:


  2. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    CandT wrote:
    > For the couple of months I've been visiting this group, I've seen people join the IMBA, buy bikes
    > for members of the family, promise to ride more, etc. Indeed, I myself will be buying a full
    > susser in the next month.
    >
    > The thing is - some of these decisions have been made specifically or partially because of MV's
    > 'contributions' on this group !
    >
    > I've not seen anyone say (seriously), 'I'm not riding trails any more', 'I'd better get a carbon
    > fibre hardtail frame, to avoid all that extra weight on the trail', or 'No cycling this week -
    > give the trails time to recover'.

    Actually, if you stay here a bit longer, you will spot people mentioning that they're letting the
    trails dry out after heavy rain so they don't damage them. Most in this group are responsible riders
    and have as many problems with Barney's (irresponsible bikers) as Mr V.

    > So - surely the evidence is plainly showing that his posts to this group are having no effect, or
    > possibly - a negative effect...

    I don't think Mike really expects his preaching to have any effect on those that don't want to
    be converted. He does, however, wind some people up, and that suffices as entertainment for a
    lonely old man.

    > Anyway - what I've done is to add his name to my kill filter, so I don't get to see any of his
    > comments unless someone quotes it in a reply, and you know what - I almost miss him... Almost.

    I plonked him initially, but I quite enjoy having him about. As long as you regard him as a troll,
    he can be quite entertaining. It's the people that get really wound up by him that bother me...
     
  3. Michael Dart

    Michael Dart Guest

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

    > I plonked him initially, but I quite enjoy having him about. As long as you regard him as a troll,
    > he can be quite entertaining. It's the people that get really wound up by him that bother me...
    >

    Especially those who want to beat him to death with chopsticks. ;^)

    Mike - Oh the humanity!
     
  4. Candt

    Candt Guest

    >Actually, if you stay here a bit longer, you will spot people mentioning that they're letting the
    >trails dry out after heavy rain so they don't damage them. Most in this group are responsible
    >riders and have as many problems with Barney's (irresponsible bikers) as Mr V.

    So he's just tarring us all with the same brush...

    CandT
     
  5. Shaun Rimmer

    Shaun Rimmer Guest

    Michael Dart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > I plonked him initially, but I quite enjoy having him about. As long as you regard him as a
    > > troll, he can be quite entertaining. It's the people that get really wound up by him that
    > > bother me...
    > >
    >
    > Especially those who want to beat him to death with chopsticks. ;^)
    >
    > Mike - Oh the humanity!

    I know! I've been posting from a police cell ever since he reported me for making that death
    threat ;-(

    (With kindness).
     
  6. Peter R .

    Peter R . Guest

    On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:46:02 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

    >entertainment for a lonely old man

    He is old, isn't he ? I think it says in his CV 'I've been a computer programmer since 1462 or
    something.....

    Peter R.
     
  7. Michael Paul

    Michael Paul Guest

    "CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >Actually, if you stay here a bit longer, you will spot people mentioning that they're letting the
    > >trails dry out after heavy rain so they don't damage them. Most in this group are responsible
    > >riders and have as many problems with Barney's (irresponsible bikers) as Mr V.
    >
    > So he's just tarring us all with the same brush...
    >
    > CandT

    He's been around for quite a while. Longer than I've been lurking on this group for sure. Stick
    around and you'll find out for yourself that A) his arguments never change, it's the same old thing
    over and over again. Mountain bikers are all liars and he is God B) he lacks any ability to accept
    his own hypocrisy regarding his own personal damage to the earth. He'll spew on and on about how
    biking is worse than anything but fails to acknowledge that his very existence causes far more
    damage to the earth than biking (Housing, mass trasnportation, reliance on fossil fuels (not just
    gas, but all plastics), etc.) While he does have a minor point in his rebuttals about minimizing
    damage when possible, there are a thousand better ways to reduce human impact on earth that are
    actually beneficial to society as a whole.

    Keep in mind that he throws around his PhD like it makes him an expert in the field of erosion,
    trail damage, etc. but his academic background is in math and psychology. While he most likely has
    studied up on the issues he speaks of, he is not an expert and will retort with teh same "liar liar
    pants on fire" defense when questioned by a real expert in the field.

    He is amusing if you recognize he's just a troll.

    Michael
     
  8. On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:23:02 GMT, CandT <[email protected]> wrote:

    .For the couple of months I've been visiting this group, I've seen people join .the IMBA, buy bikes
    for members of the family, promise to ride more, etc. .Indeed, I myself will be buying a full susser
    in the next month. . .The thing is - some of these decisions have been made specifically or
    partially .because of MV's 'contributions' on this group ! . .I've not seen anyone say (seriously),
    'I'm not riding trails any more', 'I'd .better get a carbon fibre hardtail frame, to avoid all that
    extra weight on the .trail', or 'No cycling this week - give the trails time to recover'. . .So -
    surely the evidence is plainly showing that his posts to this group are .having no effect, or
    possibly - a negative effect...

    That only shows how little mountain bikers CARE about wildlife, the environment, or other people.

    .CandT

    ===
    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
     
  9. On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:46:02 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

    .CandT wrote: .> For the couple of months I've been visiting this group, I've seen people join .>
    the IMBA, buy bikes for members of the family, promise to ride more, etc. .> Indeed, I myself will
    be buying a full susser in the next month. .> .> The thing is - some of these decisions have been
    made specifically or partially .> because of MV's 'contributions' on this group ! .> .> I've not
    seen anyone say (seriously), 'I'm not riding trails any more', 'I'd .> better get a carbon fibre
    hardtail frame, to avoid all that extra weight on the .> trail', or 'No cycling this week - give the
    trails time to recover'. . .Actually, if you stay here a bit longer, you will spot people mentioning
    .that they're letting the trails dry out after heavy rain so they don't .damage them. Most in this
    group are responsible riders and have as many .problems with Barney's (irresponsible bikers)

    Except that you fail to admit that ALL mountain biking, like ALL bulldozer racing, is irresponsible.

    as Mr V. . .> So - surely the evidence is plainly showing that his posts to this group are .>
    having no effect, or possibly - a negative effect... . .I don't think Mike really expects his
    preaching to have any effect on .those that don't want to be converted.

    I can't force anyone to listen or learn, any more than your teachers could.

    He does, however, wind some .people up, and that suffices as entertainment for a lonely old man. .
    .> Anyway - what I've done is to add his name to my kill filter, so I don't get to .> see any of
    his comments unless someone quotes it in a reply, and you know what - .> I almost miss him...
    Almost. . .I plonked him initially, but I quite enjoy having him about. As long as .you regard him
    as a troll, he can be quite entertaining. It's the .people that get really wound up by him that
    bother me...

    Why? They have free will.
    ===
    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
     
  10. Westie

    Westie Guest

    "CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >Actually, if you stay here a bit longer, you will spot people mentioning that they're letting the
    > >trails dry out after heavy rain so they don't damage them. Most in this group are responsible
    > >riders and have as many problems with Barney's (irresponsible bikers) as Mr V.
    >
    > So he's just tarring us all with the same brush...
    >
    > CandT

    He's not even tarring us specifically. It's everyone and anyone that'll have an argument with him.
    Mountainbiker or not. He's unique in that he doesn't even want real, sane, reasonable discussion.
    It's a strange concept to grasp - but you will never win an argument with him. That's not why he
    argues the point. And of course there's the initial paradox in that Mike as a keen hiker causes
    exactly the sort of damage that he claims bikes do. Admittedly it's slower, but what does a tree
    care whether it's killed in 10 years from biking or 20 from hiking?
    --
    Westie --"Life is what happens while you're planning to do other things"--
     
  11. On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:46:34 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . ."CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]4ax.com... .> > .> >Actually, if you stay here a bit
    longer, you will spot people mentioning .> >that they're letting the trails dry out after heavy rain
    so they don't .> >damage them. Most in this group are responsible riders and have as many .>
    >problems with Barney's (irresponsible bikers) as Mr V. .> .> So he's just tarring us all with the
    same brush... .> .> CandT . .He's been around for quite a while. Longer than I've been lurking on
    this .group for sure. Stick around and you'll find out for yourself that A) his .arguments never
    change, it's the same old thing over and over again. .Mountain bikers are all liars and he is God B)
    he lacks any ability to .accept his own hypocrisy regarding his own personal damage to the earth.
    .He'll spew on and on about how biking is worse than anything but fails to .acknowledge that his
    very existence causes far more damage to the earth than .biking (Housing, mass trasnportation,
    reliance on fossil fuels (not just .gas, but all plastics), etc.) While he does have a minor point
    in his .rebuttals about minimizing damage when possible, there are a thousand better .ways to reduce
    human impact on earth that are actually beneficial to society .as a whole. . .Keep in mind that he
    throws around his PhD like it makes him an expert in .the field of erosion, trail damage, etc. but
    his academic background is in .math and psychology. While he most likely has studied up on the
    issues he .speaks of, he is not an expert and will retort with teh same "liar liar .pants on fire"
    defense when questioned by a real expert in the field.

    IS there a "real expert" around here? I doubt it. I have read what those so-called "experts" write,
    and it's all junk science. ALL of it. After all, mountain bikers are the ONLY people motivated to
    rationalize mountain biking.

    .He is amusing if you recognize he's just a troll. . .Michael .

    ===
    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
     
  12. Per LöWdin

    Per LöWdin Guest

    > Anyway - what I've done is to add his name to my kill filter,

    Welcome to the club, don´t think there are many regular participants in this group who has not
    blocked his crap out long since.

    Per http://user.tninet.se/~ipg289h/English.html
     
  13. On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 03:46:56 +0000, Mike Vandeman wrote:

    > IS there a "real expert" around here? I doubt it. I have read what those so-called "experts"
    > write, and it's all junk science. ALL of it. After all, mountain bikers are the ONLY people
    > motivated to rationalize mountain biking.
    >
    >

    Well, actually, that's wrong. I don't own a mountain bike, and I don't own a horse, yet I feel that
    horse and bike access is justified to some trails.

    For a great example of shared use, look up Tsali trails in the Nantahela National Forest.

    When the foot trails are 8' wide (like some in the Smoky Mountains) why can't mountain bikers use
    them? What would be the harm?

    What you're talking about is tolerance, which most people have, and you most emphatically do not.
    Remeber that "pursuit of happiness" thing in some old document?

    -Dondo
     
  14. Bb

    Bb Guest

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:34:11 +1200, Westie wrote:

    > He's unique in that he doesn't even want real, sane, reasonable discussion. It's a strange concept
    > to grasp - but you will never win an argument with him. That's not why he argues the point.

    Part of its a Usenet thing. You rarely see anyone have the balls to admit they were wrong; they'll
    just stop replying. Take a look at the history of Vandeman threads, and you'll see that most of them
    ended with SOMEONE ELSE replying - he just ignores that thread and picks up another one.

    FWIW, I lurk on four newsgroups, and each has its own troll. He's not so unique, just more
    experienced at trolling. Considering how he keeps repeating things that are quite ludicrous, I tend
    to think here's here mainly here for his own entertainment; all he has to do is type in some
    well-worn catch phrases at least a few people will get all worked up. Anyone who's had a 2-year-old
    has already seen his behavior.

    --
    -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
     
  15. Michael Paul

    Michael Paul Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:46:34 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    <snip>

    > IS there a "real expert" around here? I doubt it. I have read what those so-called "experts"
    > write, and it's all junk science. ALL of it. After
    all,
    > mountain bikers are the ONLY people motivated to rationalize mountain
    biking.

    Case in point. Others disagree with your views so their expert opinions become pure junk science (as
    opposed to your totally unscientific opinions and views). Although your use of circular logic to
    rationalize your own points never ceases to amaze me. You're good at reciting retoric but none of
    your arguments are based on any scientific knowledge. They're all merely your opinion.

    Taken from this link: http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/DogsInWaterfrontPark.html

    First he says that the area consists of low value wildlife habitat, which I accept. He is, I assume,
    an expert on this. But then he leaves his field of expertise to conclude that therefore it is okay
    to degrade the area further by allowing dogs there. If it is messed up a little, then that makes it
    okay to mess it up some more! It seems to me that it is more logical to conclude that therefore the
    area should be restored to a condition that will make it good habitat for wildlife. After all,
    before man came here, it was perfectly good habitat!

    You criticize somebody for leaving his field of expertise. Hmmmmm, sounds familiar. Maybe similiar
    to somebody with math and psych degrees relaying his lack of wisdom and actual scientific knowledge
    onto others? Sure, you say the studies disproving your opinions are flawed because they don't
    support your opinions but at least these people are publishing actual studies (both for and against)
    instead of relaying retoric and nothing but.

    I'm especially fond though when you wish to restore a park to a condition to make it good habititat
    becuase it was after all perfectly good before man arrived. I'm sure your house was also good
    habitat, as was all of the land that U.C. Bezerkely, U.C.L.A, and everything else that supports your
    annoying, yet moderately amusing existence

    Michael
     
  16. Baxter

    Baxter Guest

    > 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.)
    >

    What's most important to my eyes is the FACT that he has done literally nothing to further his
    cause. He uses this crap line about "pure habitat" and has for years. The funny thing is, he has no
    land, probably no funds and no prosepct for land acquision. He is just a fool with a big mouth and
    nothing to back it up. If he was somewhat serious about what his enviormental religion, you think he
    would have done SOMETHING by now. As he throws around the title of "liar" on everyone of us, he is
    at the height of hyprocacy as he is has no evidence of his "working" on his habitat. He's a fraud, a
    enviormental zealot, a liar and doing nothing productive for his cause. He's funny!

    Greg
     
  17. Westie

    Westie Guest

    "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:34:11 +1200, Westie wrote:
    >
    > > He's unique in that he doesn't even want real, sane, reasonable
    discussion.
    > > It's a strange concept to grasp - but you will never win an argument
    with
    > > him. That's not why he argues the point.
    >
    > Part of its a Usenet thing. You rarely see anyone have the balls to admit they were wrong; they'll
    > just stop replying. Take a look at the history of Vandeman threads, and you'll see that most of
    > them ended with SOMEONE ELSE replying - he just ignores that thread and picks up another one.
    >
    > FWIW, I lurk on four newsgroups, and each has its own troll. He's not so unique, just more
    > experienced at trolling. Considering how he keeps repeating things that are quite ludicrous, I
    > tend to think here's here mainly here for his own entertainment; all he has to do is type in some
    > well-worn catch phrases at least a few people will get all worked up. Anyone who's had a
    > 2-year-old has already seen his behavior.
    >
    > --
    > -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

    I agree. I've been floating around the newsgroups for years too and seen plenty of trolls. You just
    don't get it real life, but on the web and Usenet it's all too common. In real life you can usually
    take a debate to it's conclusion. Rarely can you just walk away. And that's what takes some getting
    used to. I must admit that MV is very good at what he does.
    --
    Westie "Life is what happens while you're planning to do other things"
     
  18. On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:34:11 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . ."CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .> > .> >Actually, if you stay here a bit
    longer, you will spot people mentioning .> >that they're letting the trails dry out after heavy rain
    so they don't .> >damage them. Most in this group are responsible riders and have as many .>
    >problems with Barney's (irresponsible bikers) as Mr V. .> .> So he's just tarring us all with the
    same brush... .> .> CandT . .He's not even tarring us specifically. It's everyone and anyone that'll
    .have an argument with him. Mountainbiker or not. .He's unique in that he doesn't even want real,
    sane, reasonable discussion. .It's a strange concept to grasp - but you will never win an argument
    with .him.

    Of course! Because I am RIGHT!

    ===
    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
     
  19. On 12 Apr 2003 15:49:54 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:34:11 +1200, Westie wrote: . .> He's unique in that he doesn't even want
    real, sane, reasonable discussion. .> It's a strange concept to grasp - but you will never win an
    argument with .> him. That's not why he argues the point. . .Part of its a Usenet thing. You rarely
    see anyone have the balls to admit .they were wrong; they'll just stop replying. Take a look at the
    history of .Vandeman threads, and you'll see that most of them ended with SOMEONE ELSE .replying -
    he just ignores that thread and picks up another one. . .FWIW, I lurk on four newsgroups, and each
    has its own troll. He's not so .unique, just more experienced at trolling. Considering how he keeps
    .repeating things that are quite ludicrous, I tend to think here's here .mainly here for his own
    entertainment; all he has to do is type in some .well-worn catch phrases at least a few people will
    get all worked up. .Anyone who's had a 2-year-old has already seen his behavior.

    Interesting. In all the years I have know this idiot, I have never seen him post anything with
    any CONTENT!

    By the way, I never have to admit to being wrong, because I do my homework to make sure that I am
    never wrong! It's really very easy, but hard for mountain bikers: it's called "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
     
  20. On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 06:41:37 -0400, "Captain Dondo" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 03:46:56 +0000, Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> IS there a "real expert" around here?
    I doubt it. I have read what those .> so-called "experts" write, and it's all junk science. ALL of
    it. After .> all, mountain bikers are the ONLY people motivated to rationalize .> mountain biking.
    .> .> . .Well, actually, that's wrong. I don't own a mountain bike, and I don't .own a horse, yet I
    feel that horse and bike access is justified to some .trails.

    I can't help it if you've been brainwashed by mountain bikers.

    .For a great example of shared use, look up Tsali trails in the Nantahela .National Forest. . .When
    the foot trails are 8' wide (like some in the Smoky Mountains) why .can't mountain bikers use them?
    What would be the harm?

    Are you kidding? The exact same damage that happens when they bike on hiking trails! In fact, MORE
    damage, because wide roads let you travel much faster.

    .What you're talking about is tolerance, which most people have, and you .most emphatically do not.
    Remeber that "pursuit of happiness" thing in .some old document?

    You have to be smart enough to know that there are limits to your selfish pursuit of "happiness":
    namely, harming wildlife and other people. DUH! Are you pretending to be that stupid?

    .-Dondo

    ===
    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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...