On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:49:58 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Jonesy" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
.
news:[email protected]... .> "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]>
wrote in message .news:<
[email protected]>... .> > I don't give a rat's ass that I
change his mind, or not. What I care .about .> > is changing your mind to not roll over and allow
him to steamroll your .> > recreational options into the dust. .> .> You obviously did not read my
posting. All by himself, he will not .> steamroll anything. Even in the community sympathetic to his
goals, .> he is a pariah! Have you not been paying attention? .> .Yes, I did read your post. I may
have missed something, but I read it. . . . . .> I was asking you some serious questions, and you
seem to have blown .> them off. If you are actually interested in *doing something* rather .> than
just jerking off in USENET, start by answering some of my .> questions. .> .I'll see if I can
address them. . . .> > It more than 30 years offroading in Southern California, and watching .much
.> > of the offroad inverntory get closed down, first on a seasonal basis .then .> > later on a year-
around basis, I think that we in the offroading .community do .> > not fight for our rights to
public access to public lands. .> .> Bickering with Mike in the newsgroups is not going to do that.
You .> can now turn your reason on me: explain how it might be possible to .> make changes to land
use restrictions by bickering in USENET. Since .> I can accept logical arguments, you might go ahead
and make one. I .> promise not to change the subject or engage in logical fallacies. .> .Bickering
with Mike may not do anything, but just because Mike himself is a .useless cause, we should all
recognize the pattern that he follows, and work .to derail him at every opportunity.
But you have failed to do that, at EVERY opportunity.
.> > If Mike was 100% effective in his goal, he would protect and preserve .less .> > than 0.0004%
of the open spaces, but would close 100% of the spaces you .use .> > to gain access to the places
you go for recreation. Think about how .> > unsuccessful he needs to be to be a major player in the
recreational .options .> > you and your family have. .> .> Wrong. The majority of *my* biking takes
place on private, timber .> company land (how's that for irony?). The rest takes place on state .>
or county land, and the folks who control access to those lands are .> not swayed by over-blown, emotion-
laden rants (IME.) .> .Maybe *you* personally is a poor example of my particular obsession, but
.bike riders in general fit pretty well into the circumstance that I have .illustrated. . .*You*
personally fit pretty well also, despite your claims otherwise. I .would not want you to think that
your county and state lands are protected .from the moronic MV, because the administrators of these
lands are precisely .the targets of his lunacy. . . . .> > I am not here to change Mike's mind. I am
here to challenge you to fight .> > back against his mentality. .> .> You are failing. .> .> 1.)
Your arguments are addressed to him, in response to his posts. .> .> 2.) They fail to do anything
but offer further forum for his .> zealotry. .> .> 3.) His arguments are self-defeating, and *do not
require YOU to help .> them along!* .> .> 4.) Your continued posting creates noise, reposts his
twaddle such .> that he can circumvent killfiles (by proxy) and elucidates nothing. .> .> I
understand that arguing with him makes you feel good. Like you are .> "doing something." But you
aren't. After reading his (and your) **** .> for these few years, I don't see anything but, well,
****. .> . .Maybe you should consider getting to the land use meetings and voicing .opposition to
people that think just like Mike, and have the ability to .pursuade the lands adminsitrators
(county, state, and fed) to limit access .to your sport of mountain biking. I am not even a mountain
biker, and I .recognize the threat to your sport. I stand up for your sport because my .sport is in
the firing line as well. Perhaps my sport is in even more .danger, but the zealot Vandeman, is so
narrow minded that he just doesn't .get it. . .His goal is to make both of us stay at home on any
given weekend, instead of .go out for some fresh air away from the city lights. . . .> Maybe you can
explain how my request is unreasonable in the face of my .> commentary. Or better yet, if it is the
mind-set against which you .> argue, then maybe you should pick a few key nuggets of Vande-**** from
.> his website and just post those when he goes off. Snip all his .> spewings so that nobody has to
read it, and point out his website as .> the failure it is. Any logical, even-minded person can see
that Mike .> is nothing more than a egocentric religious zealot. All they have to .> do is read his
website. .> .> If Mike is a clown, what does that make the person who argues with .> him? I'm
serious, Jeff - your anti-MJV rants are getting stale. .> Starting actually *doing something.* .
.See you at the next land use meeting. . .
===
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
