Mountain Bikers TROUNCED in Los Angeles!

[GaryG]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:32:56 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:46:24 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:04:29 -0700, "GaryG"
<[email protected]>
> .> .wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> .> ONE MORE park with Yosemite rules: no bikes off of pavement!
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Mike
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Subject: Griffth Park Master Plan meeting
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Hi Mike,
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> The meeting was last night, so there hasn't been time to talk
about
> .it
> .> .> .much.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> We WON every point that was of concern. The bikers, all white 30
> .> .> .something
> .> .> .> males, came off as rude, aggressive fools. Most of them were
from
> .out
> .> .of
> .> .> .town,
> .> .> .> not even local to the Park. It was a disaster for them.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> It was a wonderful turnout, probably close to 300 people. Plus
some
> .TV
> .> .> .> coverage. I worked hard to get it going and then it took on a
life
> .of
> .> .it's
> .> .> .own
> .> .> .> as
> .> .> .> other people told other friends, etc. As far as I can see, just
> .about
> .> .> .every
> .> .> .> barn was represented with both us old farts and lots of young
people
> .as
> .> .> .well,
> .> .> .> plus we had a nice cross section of income levels and races
present,
> .> .> .Latino,
> .> .> .> black, white, little kids. It made it quite clear that horses
were
> .not
> .> .> .simply
> .> .> .> the province of the wealthy.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .What a bald-faced lie! Does the author really expect us to believe
> .that
> .> .> .there are poor, or working class, horse owners in Los Angeles?
> .> .>
> .> .> You don't need to OWN a horse to ride one. DUH!
> .> .
> .> .The OP is attempting to portray urban equestrians as representative of
a
> .> .cross section of socioeconomic classes. This is an obvious distortion
of
> .> .the truth.
> .> .
> .> .http://www.angelfire.com/la3/gphorserentals/prices.html
> .> .
> .> .$20 / hour / horse...not exactly cheap family fun...duh!
> .> .
> .> .The fact that you are gleefully supporting SUV driving equestrians
> .>
> .> Liar. I never said that. You FABRICATED it. Liar.
> .
> .Most equestrians that I know drive large SUV's (Tahoes, Suburbans, and
> .Escalades, mostly). They need them to haul their horse trailers. Your
post
> .is celebrating a "victory" by these same people, thus you are supporting
SUV
> .drivers. Sorry if you are oblivious to the connection.
>
> BS.
>
> 1. I am not supporting them. I just reported what happened.

Well, I can understand how you would want to think that, given your
extremist philosophy and the power of cognitive dissonance. But, your post
clearly indicates your support for the equestrians in Los Angeles, and it's
well known that equestrians drive big SUV's. Ergo, you are supporting
people who drive big SUV's (and whose activities damage trails in parks).

> 2. It doesn't take an SUV to ride a horse. I've ridden horses, and I have
never
> owned an SUV.

I didn't say you had to own an SUV to ride a horse...but, you do have to own
a big SUV to transport a horse in a horse trailer...DUH!

BTW - when you rode a horse, did you go back and look at how much damage it
did to the trail? Or, did you only ride it on the street?

GG

>
> .GG
> .
> .>
> .> .illustrates the depths of your hypocrisy and obsession, but that's
> .nothing
> .> .new to long-time readers.
> .> .
> .> .BTW - do you have any close relationships in the real world?
> .(girlfriends,
> .> .boyfriends, etc.). Or, is this what your life is all about?
> .> .
> .> .GG
> .> .
> .> .> .GG
> .> .> .
> .> .> .> Not only did we accomplish a lot, but we generated a LOT of good
> .will
> .> .for
> .> .> .the
> .> .> .> equestrians on the part of the Parks. I had received a couple of
> .> ."secret"
> .> .> .> phone calls from people who were sitting on that dais last night
who
> .> .were
> .> .> .> worried about the MB threat and wanted me to make sure and bring
> .people
> .> .to
> .> .> .> support
> .> .> .> them. The horse people out did themselves, were courteous (which
I
> .had
> .> .> .> stressed when I prepped them), well spoken for the most part and
> .> .> .represented all
> .> .> .> kinds of races and income levels as well. It couldn't have been
> .> .better.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> After the presentation had started, I got up to go to the
bathroom
> .(the
> .> .> .curse
> .> .> .> of the teeny bladder) when City Councilperson ... hopped out of
> .his/her
> .> .> .seat
> .> .> .> and grabbed my arm. "Don't you worry about a thing," he/she
> .whispered,
> .> .> ."I'm
> .> .> .> going
> .> .> .> to take care of you horse people. No mountain bikers on my
watch."
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> It was a great moment when he/she got up and stuck it to the
bikers
> .and
> .> .> .everyone
> .> .> .> in the audience cheered! The whole thing was very gratifying to
me.
> .It
> .> .> .was my
> .> .> .> night, a culmination of my years of work, personal credibility
and
> .PR.
> .> .> .The
> .> .> .> mountain bikers were completely out done. Jim Hausenaur was
there,
> .> .> .although I
> .> .> .> didn't see him. I loved that, he's such a lying jerk.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> I didn't speak because everyone else made all the point that were
> .> .needed
> .> .> .to
> .> .> .> be made, plus it's so much better when there's new input instead
of
> .the
> .> .> .same
> .> .> .> old faces all the time. I imagine that I'll probably be on the
> .> .citizens
> .> .> .> oversight committee and will have all the time in the world to
speak
> .> .then.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> I was SO BUSY glad handing and thanking people for being there,
that
> .I
> .> .> .didn't
> .> .> .> even get to see all those who were there, plus afterwards I was
> .mobbed
> .> .and
> .> .> .> was one of the last to leave.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Today I was staggeringly tired. I was too wired to sleep well,
and
> .> .dizzy
> .> .> .when
> .> .> .> I got up. I rode around the trails and encountered lots of folks
> .from
> .> .the
> .> .> .> meeting last night. I made a big point of thanking them and
letting
> .> .them
> .> .> .know
> .> .> .> that without each and every one of them present, we couldn't have
> .> .> .accomplished
> .> .> .> what we did in such a short amount of time. YES!!!
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> We got 6 years worth of work done in a couple of hours. The
meeting
> .> .> .wasn't
> .> .> .> just about MBers on our trails, but was about a Master Plan for
the
> .> .next
> .> .> .25
> .> .> .> years in the Park. There were lots of issues to be dealt with.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> It was a good to see how united our equestrian community was (as
> .well
> .> .as
> .> .> .> home owners associations, the Observatory, the dogwalkers, the
> .hikers,
> .> .and
> .> .> .many
> .> .> .> more who were also opposed to bikes on our trails). The lesson is
> .that
> .> .you
> .> .> .> don't have to put up with bikers on your trails in order to have
> .trail
> .> .> .access
> .> .> .> for
> .> .> .> horses.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> It sort of restored my faith in the process. It looked
discouraging
> .> .there
> .> .> .for
> .> .> .> a while.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Yeeeaaaah! I'm so proud of everyone. Plus they had a good time
> .> .> .participating
> .> .> .> in the planning of their own Park trails, etc. Makes them more
> .willing
> .> .to
> .> .> .do
> .> .> .> it again in the future.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> ===
> .> .> .> 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
> .> .> .
> .> .>
> .> .> ===
> .> .> 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
> .> .
> .>
> .> ===
> .> 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
> .
>
> ===
> 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

 

[GaryG]

"Slack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NeXuS wrote:
> > "Shaun aRe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>"NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>"Slack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>>The Wogster wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>And for those who like to "thrash their guts out" there are other
> >>
> >>issues
> >>
> >>>>>too, first they can wreck it for everyone, second they can wreck
> >>>>>themselves too, I have seen on TV, mountain bikers in action, and um,
> >>>>>that can't be good for a persons body, even with full
> >>>>>suspensions......
> >>>>>Wonder how many of those guys will find that at age 50 they have
> >>
> >>serious
> >>
> >>>>>medical issues.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>W
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That was pretty funny, you little jelly fish.
> >>>
> >>>You don't think he has a valid point?
> >>
> >>*Invalid* point, aka *erectile dysfunction* - HTH.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Very funny.
> >
> >
> Once in awhile, Shaun whips out a decent one.
> --
> Slack

Speaking of whipping out...I wonder when was the last time Vandyman got
laid? I'm guessing it's been a very long time. I've asked him on prior
occasions if he has any close personal relationships in the real world, but
he's chosen to ignore the question. Given the depths of his obsession, it
seems very unlikely that he has a life beyond his incessant posting...thus
his manic spiral into extremism. Even the environmentalists think he's
nuts.

GG

 

[GaryG]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:09:19 GMT, "Scott Ehardt"
> <SCEhardt--((REM@VE))--SCEhardt.com> wrote:
>
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> Proof? In fact, IMBA has a study on their web site showing that the
vast
> .> MAJORITY of mountain bikers don't obey the law.
> .
> .Would you care to provide a link?
>
> They removed it. I guess they realized it wasn't favorable to mountain
biking.
> The study was done in Marin County. The vast majority of mountain bikers
rode
> through a stream, in spite of a sign saying to use the bridge.

Mikey - If this "study" ever really existed, a copy of the page should be
somewhere (e.g., http://www.archive.org/ )...unless you're lying, or deluded
(my bet's on the latter).

GG

> ===
> 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

 

[The Wogster]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:14:50 -0400, The Wogster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Chris Phillipo wrote:
> .> In article <[email protected]>,
> .> [email protected] says...
> .>
> .>>The issue comes down to one, tiny little factor, if everyone can prove,
> .>>that they will leave delicate areas of parks, and natural areas exactly
> .>>the same as they found them, then there would be no issue either way.
> .>>
> .>>The problem is that mountain bikers like to bush whack, or at least
> .>>enough of them do, that others see it as a problem, the damage done by
> .>>one bush whacking mountain biker can take over a decade to recover from,
> .>>put enough of them together doing it, over an extended period of time,
> .>>and you can totally destroy the space for everyone....
> .>>
> .>>Horses and road bikers tend to stick to roads and established trails....
> .>> So mountain bikers find themselves limited to either the same rules,
> .>>or banned outright.
> .>>
> .>>W
> .>>
> .>
> .>
> .> Perhaps you define bush whacking as something other than blazing new
> .> trail where you are but to me I would think a mountain bike is the least
> .> suitable method of doing this compared to a horse or hiker. A bike
> .> simply can not push through waist high pine trees and alders.
> .
> .Nope, blazing new trail would be the correct definition, in many wooded
> .areas, at least around here, once trees get to a certain height, you get
> .underbrush, small plants, some of which, like the Trillium, come out in
> .late April, early may, before hardwoods reach full foliage. They plants
> .are usually protected by the tree canopy above, and can be fairly easily
> .damaged. Then around waist height to head height it's fairly clear, and
> .this is the kind of area, that could easily be bush whacked on an MB.
>
> But highly ILLEGAL.

That's true, it's funny, but at one park, Monocliffs Provincial Park,
here in Ontario, Canada there are signs, the sign typically has a Hiker
(pictograph guy with backpack), Skier (ski poles), Horse rider (horse)
and/or bike rider (bike)on them, pointing to trails where those methods
can be used for access, some will have a circle and line, meaning that
method, can not be used there. Often this is decided based on
conservation, this time of year, horses and bikes might not be allowed,
because everything is kind of boggy, logistics would remove the skier in
many places if not all, so some areas would be limited to hikers only
right now. There will also be trails where the trail has been tied off,
and a sign says to keep out. Generally these are respected. One of the
trails is a section of the Bruce Trail (which has it's own website
www.brucetrail.org ).

Then again often it's a little hazardous to go bush whacking, for
example Ontario parks sees a tree that has died, generally a set of
parks workers with a chain saw will fell the tree, in a controlled
manner so that it does not cross the trail, but they do not remove it,
as the forest needs to recoup the nutrients contained within the now
dead tree. This however creates a big hazard for a mountain biker who
decides to bush whack at high speed and runs into same (ouch).

W

 

[di]

From Mike's post on 04/05/05, 10:42pm


> BS.
>
> 1. I am not supporting them. I just reported what happened.
> 2. It doesn't take an SUV to ride a horse. I've ridden horses, and I have
> never
> owned an SUV.


From an earlier Post, on 04/04/05, 10:15am


>.Just one question that needs to asked Mike.
>
>.Do you ride a horse yourself?
>
>No, I don't believe in using animals as vehicles. What does that have to do
>with
>the harm done to natural areas by mountain biking????
>

What is it Mike, do you ride horses or not? I would even bet you own a
big SUV, Don't lie now!!!

 

[Zilla]

WhoTF cares?

--
- Zilla
Cary, NC
(Remove XSPAM)


"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:yiR4e.17$uQ6.7@okepread02...
> From Mike's post on 04/05/05, 10:42pm
>
>
> > BS.
> >
> > 1. I am not supporting them. I just reported what happened.
> > 2. It doesn't take an SUV to ride a horse. I've ridden horses, and I
have
> > never
> > owned an SUV.
>
>
> From an earlier Post, on 04/04/05, 10:15am
>
>
> >.Just one question that needs to asked Mike.
> >
> >.Do you ride a horse yourself?
> >
> >No, I don't believe in using animals as vehicles. What does that have to
do
> >with
> >the harm done to natural areas by mountain biking????
> >
>
> What is it Mike, do you ride horses or not? I would even bet you own a
> big SUV, Don't lie now!!!
>
>

 

[GaryG]

"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:yiR4e.17$uQ6.7@okepread02...
> From Mike's post on 04/05/05, 10:42pm
>
>
> > BS.
> >
> > 1. I am not supporting them. I just reported what happened.
> > 2. It doesn't take an SUV to ride a horse. I've ridden horses, and I
have
> > never
> > owned an SUV.
>
>
> From an earlier Post, on 04/04/05, 10:15am
>
>
> >.Just one question that needs to asked Mike.
> >
> >.Do you ride a horse yourself?
> >
> >No, I don't believe in using animals as vehicles. What does that have to
do
> >with
> >the harm done to natural areas by mountain biking????
> >
>
> What is it Mike, do you ride horses or not? I would even bet you own a
> big SUV, Don't lie now!!!
>

I suspect that Mikey truly believes that he always "tells the
truth"...unfortunately, his mental state renders him unable to see any other
truth but his own. Due to his obsessions, he sees the world only in black
and white.

GG

 

[Shaun aRe]

"Slack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NeXuS wrote:
> > "Shaun aRe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>"NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>"Slack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>>The Wogster wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>And for those who like to "thrash their guts out" there are other
> >>
> >>issues
> >>
> >>>>>too, first they can wreck it for everyone, second they can wreck
> >>>>>themselves too, I have seen on TV, mountain bikers in action, and um,
> >>>>>that can't be good for a persons body, even with full
> >>>>>suspensions......
> >>>>>Wonder how many of those guys will find that at age 50 they have
> >>
> >>serious
> >>
> >>>>>medical issues.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>W
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That was pretty funny, you little jelly fish.
> >>>
> >>>You don't think he has a valid point?
> >>
> >>*Invalid* point, aka *erectile dysfunction* - HTH.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Very funny.
> >
> >
> Once in awhile,

Once in a freaking WHILE!!! ****! - *always*, if not more often, matey.

> Shaun whips out a decent one.

Blatant Sorni invitation noted ',;~P'''


Shaun aRe

 

[Jeff Strickland]

You want proof that Mike lies, just look at his sigline.

<quote>
..> 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.)
</quote>

Mike hasn't been spending the past 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction. He once worked that way for 8 years, but he hasn't been
working that way for the past 8 years.

Maybe Mike isn't lying, maybe he's just an illiterate buffoon with a PhD
from a box of Cracker Jacks.




"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:yiR4e.17$uQ6.7@okepread02...
> From Mike's post on 04/05/05, 10:42pm
>
>
> > BS.
> >
> > 1. I am not supporting them. I just reported what happened.
> > 2. It doesn't take an SUV to ride a horse. I've ridden horses, and I
have
> > never
> > owned an SUV.
>
>
> From an earlier Post, on 04/04/05, 10:15am
>
>
> >.Just one question that needs to asked Mike.
> >
> >.Do you ride a horse yourself?
> >
> >No, I don't believe in using animals as vehicles. What does that have to
do
> >with
> >the harm done to natural areas by mountain biking????
> >
>
> What is it Mike, do you ride horses or not? I would even bet you own a
> big SUV, Don't lie now!!!
>
>

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:yiR4e.17$uQ6.7@okepread02...
> > From Mike's post on 04/05/05, 10:42pm
> >
> >
> > > BS.
> > >
> > > 1. I am not supporting them. I just reported what happened.
> > > 2. It doesn't take an SUV to ride a horse. I've ridden horses, and I
> have
> > > never
> > > owned an SUV.
> >
> >
> > From an earlier Post, on 04/04/05, 10:15am
> >
> >
> > >.Just one question that needs to asked Mike.
> > >
> > >.Do you ride a horse yourself?
> > >
> > >No, I don't believe in using animals as vehicles. What does that have
to
> do
> > >with
> > >the harm done to natural areas by mountain biking????
> > >
> >
> > What is it Mike, do you ride horses or not? I would even bet you own
a
> > big SUV, Don't lie now!!!
> >
>
> I suspect that Mikey truly believes that he always "tells the
> truth"...unfortunately, his mental state renders him unable to see any
other
> truth but his own. Due to his obsessions, he sees the world only in black
> and white.
>

He only sees the world in black OR white, and the other is lying.

 

[The Wogster]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> You want proof that Mike lies, just look at his sigline.
>
> <quote>
> .> 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.)
> </quote>
>
> Mike hasn't been spending the past 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
> construction. He once worked that way for 8 years, but he hasn't been
> working that way for the past 8 years.
>
> Maybe Mike isn't lying, maybe he's just an illiterate buffoon with a PhD
> from a box of Cracker Jacks.
>

Maybe Mike is just a guy with an opinion, it used to be said, "if you
can't beat 'em, join 'em". Now it seems to be in NG's at least, "if you
can't beat 'em, attack them personally" or "if you can't beat 'em, sling
mud at 'em"

Gee people, if you can't same something nice and intellegent, then don't
say anything at all......

W

 

[di]

"Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:AKR4e.30661$f%[email protected]...
> WhoTF cares?
>
you must, you read it and took time to reply

 

[Bill Sornson]

Shaun aRe wrote:
> "Slack" <[email protected]> wrote
{Buncha others wrote... blah blah}

>>>>> You don't think he has a valid point?
>>>>
>>>> *Invalid* point, aka *erectile dysfunction* - HTH.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very funny.
>>>
>>>
>> Once in awhile,
>
> Once in a freaking WHILE!!! ****! - *always*, if not more often,
> matey.
>
>> Shaun whips out a decent one.
>
> Blatant Sorni invitation noted ',;~P'''

Too easy.

(I know I am but what are you?!?)

D'oh!

 

[Bill Sornson]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>> .Nope, blazing new trail would be the correct definition, in many
>>> wooded .areas, at least around here, once trees get to a certain
>>> height, you get .underbrush, small plants, some of which, like the
>>> Trillium, come out in .late April, early may, before hardwoods
>>> reach full foliage. They plants .are usually protected by the tree
>>> canopy above, and can be fairly easily .damaged. Then around waist
>>> height to head height it's fairly clear, and .this is the kind of
>>> area, that could easily be bush whacked on an MB.
>>>
>>> But highly ILLEGAL.
>>
>>
>
> Around here I guess it's not a problem because once they get to waist
> height there are only two ways through it, be a Moose with 6 ft. long
> legs or rent a bulldozer like mikey does. Since plants have a limited
> time to grow in Canada they tend to make up for it by growing extra
> gnarly

If these two (current) idiots can't see why mountain bikers DON'T like "bush
whacking", then they've never seen a spoked wheel or skinny rear derailleur.

"It's OBVIOUS! DUH!!!"

BS

 

[Zilla]

It was the first item on my news reader.

--
- Zilla
Cary, NC
(Remove XSPAM)


"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0uU4e.2$8d2.1@okepread02...
>
> "Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:AKR4e.30661$f%[email protected]...
> > WhoTF cares?
> >
> you must, you read it and took time to reply
>
>

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > You want proof that Mike lies, just look at his sigline.
> >
> > <quote>
> > .> 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.)
> > </quote>
> >
> > Mike hasn't been spending the past 8 years fighting auto dependence and
road
> > construction. He once worked that way for 8 years, but he hasn't been
> > working that way for the past 8 years.
> >
> > Maybe Mike isn't lying, maybe he's just an illiterate buffoon with a PhD
> > from a box of Cracker Jacks.
> >
>
> Maybe Mike is just a guy with an opinion, it used to be said, "if you
> can't beat 'em, join 'em". Now it seems to be in NG's at least, "if you
> can't beat 'em, attack them personally" or "if you can't beat 'em, sling
> mud at 'em"
>
> Gee people, if you can't same something nice and intellegent, then don't
> say anything at all......
>


You're new here, aren't you?

Mike's opinion is that mountain bike riders deserve to be attacked by
mountain lions, even when the mountain lions in question are in a National
Forest that borders residential neighborhoods where people go to walk the
dog in the afternoon and early evening. The National Forest and an adjacent
wilderness area are actually located in the heart of Orange County, CA., and
the local residents - including children - make use of the nearby open space
for all manner of suitable recreational activities. The mountain lion that
killed a bike rider was somehow provoked by the bike rider, the inferrence
being that a hiker, or a child walking home from school, would not have
provoked the lion.

Mike's opinion is that the police looking into whether or not a tree was
placed in such a position as to ensnare a bike rider should be looking at
whether the bike rider committed suicide. His contention is that the tree
belonged in the area, and the rider intentionally ran into it and killed
himself. The fact seems to be that the tree in question didn't belong in
that particular location, and was placed there with the express intent to
harm or kill somebody. The police are looking at murder charges against
somebody, Mike insists it was suicide.

Let me give you some facts. A square mile equals 640 acres. An acre is
43,560 square feet. If a trail was 2 ft wide and 1 mile long, it would take
up 10,520 square feet. A square mile is 28 million (27,878,400) square feet.
The trail takes up 0.0376% of the space. This means that if Mike were 100%
effective in his agenda, the very best he could hope for is the protection
of less than 0.04% of the environment, and for him to have this much impact,
100% of each and every trail would have to be classified as a complete and
total environmental disaster. This means that Mike is an insignificant
little troll that has no interest in the environment, he only wants
everybody else to stay home so he can go outside in his own little world of
peace ans solitude. You see, Mike isn't out to protect anything, he only
wants everybody else to enjoy the outdoors in the manner he chooses for
himself to enjoy the outdoors.

For this, he endures personal attacks.

 

[The Gist]

Not having paid any attention to his posts before I took a look at his
web page at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ .
Very telling. Done in typical tin foil hat wearing kook style it is page
after page of poorly written screeds. While he claims to be well
educated the material on his web page reveals a complete lack of logic
or application of scientific reasoning. How he earned a Phd is beyond
me, however, since he makes no mention of actual employment using his
claimed credentials one may easily infer that his life has been a
complete professional failure. Most likely due to obvious mental defect.

 

[GaryG]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > > You want proof that Mike lies, just look at his sigline.
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > .> 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.)
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > Mike hasn't been spending the past 8 years fighting auto dependence
and
> road
> > > construction. He once worked that way for 8 years, but he hasn't been
> > > working that way for the past 8 years.
> > >
> > > Maybe Mike isn't lying, maybe he's just an illiterate buffoon with a
PhD
> > > from a box of Cracker Jacks.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe Mike is just a guy with an opinion, it used to be said, "if you
> > can't beat 'em, join 'em". Now it seems to be in NG's at least, "if you
> > can't beat 'em, attack them personally" or "if you can't beat 'em, sling
> > mud at 'em"
> >
> > Gee people, if you can't same something nice and intellegent, then don't
> > say anything at all......
> >
>
>
> You're new here, aren't you?
>
> Mike's opinion is that mountain bike riders deserve to be attacked by
> mountain lions, even when the mountain lions in question are in a National
> Forest that borders residential neighborhoods where people go to walk the
> dog in the afternoon and early evening. The National Forest and an
adjacent
> wilderness area are actually located in the heart of Orange County, CA.,
and
> the local residents - including children - make use of the nearby open
space
> for all manner of suitable recreational activities. The mountain lion that
> killed a bike rider was somehow provoked by the bike rider, the inferrence
> being that a hiker, or a child walking home from school, would not have
> provoked the lion.
>
> Mike's opinion is that the police looking into whether or not a tree was
> placed in such a position as to ensnare a bike rider should be looking at
> whether the bike rider committed suicide. His contention is that the tree
> belonged in the area, and the rider intentionally ran into it and killed
> himself. The fact seems to be that the tree in question didn't belong in
> that particular location, and was placed there with the express intent to
> harm or kill somebody. The police are looking at murder charges against
> somebody, Mike insists it was suicide.
>
> Let me give you some facts. A square mile equals 640 acres. An acre is
> 43,560 square feet. If a trail was 2 ft wide and 1 mile long, it would
take
> up 10,520 square feet. A square mile is 28 million (27,878,400) square
feet.
> The trail takes up 0.0376% of the space. This means that if Mike were 100%
> effective in his agenda, the very best he could hope for is the protection
> of less than 0.04% of the environment, and for him to have this much
impact,
> 100% of each and every trail would have to be classified as a complete and
> total environmental disaster. This means that Mike is an insignificant
> little troll that has no interest in the environment, he only wants
> everybody else to stay home so he can go outside in his own little world
of
> peace ans solitude. You see, Mike isn't out to protect anything, he only
> wants everybody else to enjoy the outdoors in the manner he chooses for
> himself to enjoy the outdoors.
>
> For this, he endures personal attacks.
>

I suspect he actually relishes the personal attacks. They are his life, and
serve to shore up his belief that he's "fighting the good fight". They are
also probably the only significant interpersonal contact he has, given the
degree of his obsessions.

To the Wogster - you can get a sense of Mike's obsessions by using Google
Groups to review his posting history. For instance,

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q="Mike+Vandeman"+troll (or, http://tinyurl.com/44svc if your newsreader
breaks long links).

GG

 

[The Wogster]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>You want proof that Mike lies, just look at his sigline.
>>>
>>><quote>
>>>.> 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.)
>>></quote>
>>>
>>>Mike hasn't been spending the past 8 years fighting auto dependence and
>
> road
>
>>>construction. He once worked that way for 8 years, but he hasn't been
>>>working that way for the past 8 years.
>>>
>>>Maybe Mike isn't lying, maybe he's just an illiterate buffoon with a PhD
>>>from a box of Cracker Jacks.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe Mike is just a guy with an opinion, it used to be said, "if you
>>can't beat 'em, join 'em". Now it seems to be in NG's at least, "if you
>>can't beat 'em, attack them personally" or "if you can't beat 'em, sling
>>mud at 'em"
>>
>>Gee people, if you can't same something nice and intellegent, then don't
>>say anything at all......
>>
>
>
>
> You're new here, aren't you?

Admittedly, yes....
>
> Mike's opinion is that mountain bike riders deserve to be attacked by
> mountain lions, even when the mountain lions in question are in a National
> Forest that borders residential neighborhoods where people go to walk the
> dog in the afternoon and early evening. The National Forest and an adjacent
> wilderness area are actually located in the heart of Orange County, CA., and
> the local residents - including children - make use of the nearby open space
> for all manner of suitable recreational activities. The mountain lion that
> killed a bike rider was somehow provoked by the bike rider, the inferrence
> being that a hiker, or a child walking home from school, would not have
> provoked the lion.


Having read Mikes posts, I don't get that, but maybe it's lost in all
the personal attacks, by people who couldn't give a convincing argument....

> Let me give you some facts. A square mile equals 640 acres. An acre is
> 43,560 square feet. If a trail was 2 ft wide and 1 mile long, it would take
> up 10,520 square feet. A square mile is 28 million (27,878,400) square feet.
> The trail takes up 0.0376% of the space. This means that if Mike were 100%
> effective in his agenda, the very best he could hope for is the protection
> of less than 0.04% of the environment, and for him to have this much impact,
> 100% of each and every trail would have to be classified as a complete and
> total environmental disaster.

I think the issue isn't pre-established trails, it's people who are
bound and determined to create as many new ones as they can, in the
shortest possible time, and that's a problem, whether your on a bike, on
a horse, in a car or even on foot. It still comes down to a group in
this case mountain bikers, not wanting to obey the rules (sticking to
established trails), and they got banned for it.

W

 

[Alpha Male]

> BS. Mountain bikes are not people OR animals, so should be banned.

What about agressive tread on hiking boots? Should that be banned because
it's not an animal or a human? Why not ban footwear altogether? Maybe
bright clothes disrupt wildlife too?

You're a hypocrite! You feel that you're childish desire to gain attention
through pissing people off is going to save the world, you're wrong.

You should stop wasting time trying to convince the rest of the world you're
right when you are clearly NOT.

It's really sad that when you're on your death bed, you might realize that
none of the time you wasted pissing people off changed anything. That you
could have spent more time enjoying the wilderness like everyone else.

You think that even IF you're correct and horses are only 80% as destructive
as bikes that entitles you to point fingers?

For every finger you point at someone, there are 10 pointing back.

Chris Garstin