Mike Vandeman

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Ellsworth Truth, Feb 25, 2003.

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

    Bb Guest

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, Phil.Winterbourne wrote:

    > Ignoring this and sticking to the argument that mountain biking does harm therefore it should be
    > banned will not get you anywhere.

    I find it strange that people are still willing to make the assumption that he has any DESIRE to
    accomplish anything (other than irritating people). His past behavior certainly doesn't indicate any
    such desire.

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


  2. Dashi Toshii

    Dashi Toshii Guest

    "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray"
    <[email protected]>
    > > .> wrote: .> .
    > I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a sweeping generalisation. Saying
    > that all mountain bikers "don't like to tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims are
    > terrorists, or all Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true.

    Please don't tease Mike, he doesn't take kindly to reason, he is quite mad you know!

    Dashii
     
  3. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a sweeping generalisation.

    Actually I think he means all mountian bikers in the crazy little world inside his head. I don't
    think he knows any mountain bikers. I think his "human free habitat" means a habitat containing all
    the friends of Mike Vandemann. A lonely place indeed.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  4. Skokatt

    Skokatt Guest

    I think Mike is just acting out because of "bike envy". Why don't we all pitch in a few bucks and
    buy Little Mikey that bike his parents would never get him when he was a kid? Maybe then he would
    see that not *all* of us are eco-shredding, trail blazers. But, I doubt it.

    --
    - Chris - www.skokatt.com
    _____________________________

    People say I'm cruel. But I have the heart of a small child. In a jar. On my desk.
     
  5. Danny

    Danny Guest

    Actually Mike.. "YOU" are irrelevent.

    Resistance is futile....

    Danny

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > (snip) You are quibbling. Mountain bikers, I know, don't like to tell the truth,
    and
    > would rather soften the message. So what? Whether it is enjoyable is
    irrelevant.
    > ===
    > 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
     
  6. On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" .>
    <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> .> On Sun, 8
    Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email protected]> .> .> wrote: .> .> .> . .> .> It
    turns out to be a great way for families to enjoy nature .> .> .> .> > You mean "destroy nature".
    Tell the truth. .> . .> .Mike, .> . .> .Just a friendly bit of advice for you as most mountain
    bikers are a .> .friendly lot: Remarks like this make you look like a petulant child (I .> .know,
    I've got one!). One of the reasons that people here don't take .> .you seriously is that you see
    things in black and white (like the .> .previously mentioned mentioned child), rather than the
    shades of grey .> .that they usually are. For instance your above reply ignores the fact .> .that it
    is very easy to enjoy nature _and_ destroy it, at the same .> .time. I'm sure those 18th century big
    game hunters were having a whale .> .of a time enjoying nature as they happily shot hundreds of
    species on to .> .the 'endangered' list. .> . .> .Had you said "But a way of enjoying nature that
    actually contributes to .> .the destruction of the very nature they have come to see" you would have
    .> .made the same point, but in a more reasoned and balanced manner. .> .> You are quibbling.
    Mountain bikers, I know, don't like to tell the truth, and .> would rather soften the message. So
    what? Whether it is enjoyable is irrelevant. . .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know",
    rather than a .sweeping generalisation. Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .tell the
    truth" would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither
    of which are true.

    Where did you see the word "all" in my statement? But frankly, every mountain biker I have met has
    lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but I haven't met them.

    .In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .(and other forms of out
    door activities) by working with the people .involved to find ways of allowing them to continue to
    enjoy their chosen .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental impact.

    I have: stay on paved roads! People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before mountain biking
    was invented.

    .By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .all that happens is that
    attitudes harden and the various parties become .more entrenched in their views.

    Oh, sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right.

    .Phil

    ===
    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
     
  7. On 16 Jun 2003 14:49:15 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, Phil.Winterbourne wrote: . .> Ignoring this and sticking to the
    argument that mountain biking does .> harm therefore it should be banned will not get you anywhere.
    . .I find it strange that people are still willing to make the assumption .that he has any DESIRE to
    accomplish anything (other than irritating .people). His past behavior certainly doesn't indicate
    any such desire.

    Notice that mountain bikers LOVE making VAGUE accusations, with not a shred of evidence. Saves them
    from certain embarrassment....
    ===
    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
     
  8. On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:59:31 GMT, Skokatt <[email protected][no_spam]skokatt.com> wrote:

    .I think Mike is just acting out because of "bike envy". Why don't we all .pitch in a few bucks and
    buy Little Mikey that bike his parents would never .get him when he was a kid? Maybe then he would
    see that not *all* of us .are eco-shredding, trail blazers. But, I doubt it.

    I was riding a bike long before you were born, sonny.
    ===
    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. Dashi Toshii

    Dashi Toshii Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" .>
    > <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> .> On Sun, 8
    > Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray"
    <[email protected]>
    > .> .> wrote: .> .> .> . .> .> It turns out to be a great way for families to enjoy nature .> .> .>
    > .> > You mean "destroy nature". Tell the truth. .> . .> .Mike, .> . .> .Just a friendly bit of
    > advice for you as most mountain bikers are a .> .friendly lot: Remarks like this make you look
    > like a petulant child
    (I
    > .> .know, I've got one!). One of the reasons that people here don't take .> .you seriously is that
    > you see things in black and white (like the .> .previously mentioned mentioned child), rather than
    > the shades of grey .> .that they usually are. For instance your above reply ignores the fact .>
    > .that it is very easy to enjoy nature _and_ destroy it, at the same .> .time. I'm sure those 18th
    > century big game hunters were having a
    whale
    > .> .of a time enjoying nature as they happily shot hundreds of species on
    to
    > .> .the 'endangered' list. .> . .> .Had you said "But a way of enjoying nature that actually
    > contributes
    to
    > .> .the destruction of the very nature they have come to see" you would
    have
    > .> .made the same point, but in a more reasoned and balanced manner. .> .> You are quibbling.
    > Mountain bikers, I know, don't like to tell the
    truth, and
    > .> would rather soften the message. So what? Whether it is enjoyable is
    irrelevant.
    > . .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a .sweeping generalisation.
    > Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims
    > are terrorists, or all .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true.
    >
    > Where did you see the word "all" in my statement? But frankly, every
    mountain
    > biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but
    I
    > haven't met them.

    Poor guy is paranoid also, everyone lies to him and only he has the ability to discern the
    real truth!

    Possible Narcissistic personality disorder.

    Quite mad really!

    Dashii
     
  10. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:
    [snip]
    > . .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a .sweeping generalisation.
    > Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims
    > are terrorists, or all .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true.
    >
    > Where did you see the word "all" in my statement?

    I didn't, that's why I assumed that you didn't mean all.

    > But frankly, every mountain biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one
    > SOMEWHERE, but
    I
    > haven't met them.

    I wont dispute what you say as I don't know the bikers you have met. I am surprised though as I
    can't recall any lie that any biking friend of mine has told. That being said I doubt than anyone is
    completely truthful all the time so you might be right. But I see no reason to think that mountain
    bikers are any worse in this regard than anyone else.

    >
    > .In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .(and other forms of out
    > door activities) by working with the people .involved to find ways of allowing them to continue to
    > enjoy their chosen .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental impact.
    >
    > I have: stay on paved roads!

    Unless you have arrived at this solution by an ongoing and collaborative discussion with a
    representative group of mountain bikers, and they have agreed that this is the best solution I can't
    really see how you can say "I have".

    > People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before mountain biking was invented.

    I might be wrong, but I think that bicycles pre-dated paved roads? And importantly in large areas of
    the world there are no, or very few paved roads to use. For example many of the small Greek villages
    I rode through in Kos (a small island) in 2001 have no access from paved roads and Donkeys and
    bicycles seemed to be the transport of choice.
    >
    > .By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .all that happens is that
    > attitudes harden and the various parties become .more entrenched in their views.
    >
    > Oh, sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right.

    No, that's not what I said. The theory I describe is that when attempting to negotiate with a
    group that hold views that you wish to change antagonism is unlikely to be productive. It tends
    to make the group more entrenched and less likely to change their views, and at worst can lead to
    them taking a position further away from your desired state than they were before you started. I
    refer here to all parties in the discussion, so that's mountain bikers as well as yourself in
    this example.

    I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your approach you are actually making
    it less likley that mountain bikers will come round to you way of thinking, and in some individual
    cases it is possible that they will move further away form your view.

    Phil
     
  11. Dashi Toshii

    Dashi Toshii Guest

    "Phil Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your
    approach
    > you are actually making it less likley that mountain bikers will come
    round
    > to you way of thinking, and in some individual cases it is possible that they will move further
    > away form your view.
    >
    > Phil

    Please quit teasing Mikey, he is quite mad you know!

    Dashii
     
  12. Gary S .

    Gary S . Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:58:58 +0000 (UTC), "Phil Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I wont dispute what you say as I don't know the bikers you have met. I am surprised though as I
    >can't recall any lie that any biking friend of mine has told. That being said I doubt than anyone
    >is completely truthful all the time so you might be right. But I see no reason to think that
    >mountain bikers are any worse in this regard than anyone else.
    >
    Mikey defines lying as not agreeing with him completely. By that definition, even he is a
    liar at times.

    >>
    >> .In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .(and other forms of
    >> out door activities) by working with the people .involved to find ways of allowing them to
    >> continue to enjoy their chosen .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental
    >> impact.
    >>
    >> I have: stay on paved roads!
    >
    >Unless you have arrived at this solution by an ongoing and collaborative discussion with a
    >representative group of mountain bikers, and they have agreed that this is the best solution I
    >can't really see how you can say "I have".
    >
    He discussed it with the only person whose opinion he respects.

    >> People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before mountain biking was invented.
    >
    >I might be wrong, but I think that bicycles pre-dated paved roads? And importantly in large areas
    >of the world there are no, or very few paved roads to use. For example many of the small Greek
    >villages I rode through in Kos (a small island) in 2001 have no access from paved roads and Donkeys
    >and bicycles seemed to be the transport of choice.
    >>
    In the US, bicycles were the impetus for the paving of roads, as opposed to dirt, gravel or
    cobblestones. Little did they know that the automobile was just a few years behind them.

    >> .By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .all that happens is
    >> that attitudes harden and the various parties become .more entrenched in their views.
    >>
    >> Oh, sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right.
    >
    >No, that's not what I said. The theory I describe is that when attempting to negotiate with a
    >group that hold views that you wish to change antagonism is unlikely to be productive. It tends
    >to make the group more entrenched and less likely to change their views, and at worst can lead to
    >them taking a position further away from your desired state than they were before you started. I
    >refer here to all parties in the discussion, so that's mountain bikers as well as yourself in
    >this example.
    >
    >I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your approach you are actually
    >making it less likley that mountain bikers will come round to you way of thinking, and in some
    >individual cases it is possible that they will move further away form your view.
    >
    Almost everyone, other than Mikey, understands that and agrees with that.

    He obviously does not care about being effective.

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

    Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
     
  13. On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:21:49 GMT, "Dashi Toshii" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100,
    "Phil.Winterbourne" .> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
    .> .> .> .> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" .> .>
    <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> . .> .> . .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> .>
    .> .> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" .<[email protected]> .> .> .> wrote: .>
    .> .> .> .> . .> .> .> It turns out to be a great way for families to enjoy nature .> .> .> .> .> .>
    > You mean "destroy nature". Tell the truth. .> .> . .> .> .Mike, .> .> . .> .> .Just a friendly bit
    of advice for you as most mountain bikers are a .> .> .friendly lot: Remarks like this make you look
    like a petulant child .(I .> .> .know, I've got one!). One of the reasons that people here don't
    take .> .> .you seriously is that you see things in black and white (like the .> .> .previously
    mentioned mentioned child), rather than the shades of grey .> .> .that they usually are. For
    instance your above reply ignores the fact .> .> .that it is very easy to enjoy nature _and_ destroy
    it, at the same .> .> .time. I'm sure those 18th century big game hunters were having a .whale .> .>
    .of a time enjoying nature as they happily shot hundreds of species on .to .> .> .the 'endangered'
    list. .> .> . .> .> .Had you said "But a way of enjoying nature that actually contributes .to .> .>
    .the destruction of the very nature they have come to see" you would .have .> .> .made the same
    point, but in a more reasoned and balanced manner. .> .> .> .> You are quibbling. Mountain bikers, I
    know, don't like to tell the .truth, and .> .> would rather soften the message. So what? Whether it
    is enjoyable is .irrelevant. .> . .> .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than
    a .> .sweeping generalisation. Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .> .tell the truth"
    would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all .> .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of
    which are true. .> .> Where did you see the word "all" in my statement? But frankly, every .mountain
    .> biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but .I .> haven't met them.
    . .Poor guy is paranoid also, everyone lies to him and only he has the ability .to discern the real
    truth! . .Possible Narcissistic personality disorder. . .Quite mad really! . .Dashii

    Thanks for proving my point.
    ===
    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
     
  14. On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:58:58 +0000 (UTC), "Phil Winterbourne" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100,
    "Phil.Winterbourne" .> <[email protected]> wrote: .[snip] .> . .> .I assume you mean
    "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a .> .sweeping generalisation. Saying that all mountain
    bikers "don't like to .> .tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all .>
    .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true. .> .> Where did you see the word "all" in my
    statement? . .I didn't, that's why I assumed that you didn't mean all. . .> But frankly, every
    mountain .> biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but .I .> haven't
    met them. . .I wont dispute what you say as I don't know the bikers you have met. I am .surprised
    though as I can't recall any lie that any biking friend of mine .has told. That being said I doubt
    than anyone is completely truthful all the .time so you might be right. But I see no reason to think
    that mountain .bikers are any worse in this regard than anyone else.

    You are right, used car salesmen probably tell as many lies as mountain bikers. Both are trying to
    do something they shouldn't. If they told the truth, they couldn't be successful!

    .> .In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .> .(and other forms of
    out door activities) by working with the people .> .involved to find ways of allowing them to
    continue to enjoy their chosen .> .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental
    impact. .> .> I have: stay on paved roads! . .Unless you have arrived at this solution by an ongoing
    and collaborative .discussion with a representative group of mountain bikers, and they have .agreed
    that this is the best solution I can't really see how you can say "I .have".

    I have.

    .> People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before .> mountain biking was invented. . .I might be
    wrong, but I think that bicycles pre-dated paved roads? And .importantly in large areas of the world
    there are no, or very few paved .roads to use. For example many of the small Greek villages I rode
    through .in Kos (a small island) in 2001 have no access from paved roads and Donkeys .and bicycles
    seemed to be the transport of choice.

    In that case, at least stay out of natural areas. But dirt roads in Greece don't excuse mountain
    biking in U.S. parks. DUH!

    .> .By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .> .all that happens is
    that attitudes harden and the various parties become .> .more entrenched in their views. .> .> Oh,
    sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right. . .No, that's not what I
    said. The theory I describe is that when attempting .to negotiate with a group that hold views that
    you wish to change antagonism .is unlikely to be productive.

    I don't antagonize. I just tell the truth. Mountain bikers just can't stand that.

    It tends to make the group more entrenched .and less likely to change their views, and at worst can
    lead to them taking .a position further away from your desired state than they were before you
    .started. I refer here to all parties in the discussion, so that's mountain .bikers as well as
    yourself in this example. . .I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your
    approach .you are actually making it less likley that mountain bikers will come round .to you way
    of thinking, and in some individual cases it is possible that .they will move further away form
    your view.

    Like ALL people who make this claim, you CONVENIENTLY have never tried what you are claiming that I
    should do.... Nor will you EVER do it. Hypocrite.

    .Phil .

    ===
    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
     
  15. Martees

    Martees Guest

    "Phil Winterbourne" <[email protected]> once again banged his head on a wall in message
    news:[email protected]...

    Phil, Phil, Phil,

    You feel better yet? Get it out of your system..... take a deep breath..... now go out and ride.

    Marty
     
  16. Martees wrote:
    >
    > "Phil Winterbourne" <[email protected]> once again banged his head on a wall in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Phil, Phil, Phil,
    >
    > You feel better yet? Get it out of your system..... take a deep breath..... now go out and ride.
    >
    > Marty

    Oh I did, apart from being an experiment in rational debate with Mike which as I suspected seems a
    fairly fruitless activity all this got me nicely fired up for the saab/salomon Mountain Mayhem this
    weekend (in the UK). It's the biggest 24 hour race in the world (they claim) and I needed something
    to occupy my brain while dragging up the nastier climbs at three o'clock in the morning :)

    I might try with one more post for MV though, you know just for fun!

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