Re: The TRUTH about Mountain Biking

[Jeff Strickland]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
>>>>>
>>>>>> The TRUTH about <insert your rant target here> is, you wouldn't know
>>>>>> the truth if it landed on your head.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why post the entire previous post in order to say nothing at all?
>>>>> Please get some brains, why don't you? It is idiots like you who are
>>>>> ruining RBS.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ruining???
>>>>
>>>> If a few random top post si all it takes ...
>>>>
>>>> Come on Ed, we all know better than that.
>>>
>>> You not only top posted, but you included all of the previous very long
>>> post. It was not necessary to include all of that message as you were
>>> not really responding to any of it. You should have merely extracted the
>>> first sentence or so and then posted your response. That would have made
>>> sense and given everyone enough context for your message.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry Ed,
>> I give you more credit than you deserve. Surely you can see that my reply
>> to Vandeman was all there was to say. You would have had to read his
>> entire post again, or at least scroll through it, to get to my comment if
>> it was at the end.
>
> There are dozens of excuses for top posting but none them are any good. It
> is more work to post in the correct format and it is only the lazy and/or
> dishonest who top post. It is OK, even good, to edit, but it is NEVER OK
> to top post. This is usenet, not email.
>

Give it a rest Ed.



>> Mike needs me to say <top post> and </top post> to deliniate my comments
>> from the rest of his drivel, I expected that you would not need such
>> mundane guidance. I expected that you would be happy to see several
>> carriage breaks (line spaces), and know what I think of anything Mike has
>> to say.
>
> Vandeman posts correctly and it saves him time not to do any editing. He
> is always fair to others regardless of what you may think of his content.
> The beauty of correct formatting is that it provides the entire context,
> ever the most important thing on these messages that go back and forth on
> Usenet like flashes of lightning.
>

Vandeman posts correctly? That's a laugh. He posts **** from responses to
his Website, and NEVER (I generally avoid the use of absolutes like never
and always) trims the useless header information. And, he posts Subject
Lines and includes Subjects that have nothing at all to do with his subject,
and it includes the useless header material.



> I use to be a great letter writer in the old days from another century.
> Alas, it all seems so quaint now. The computer with its' email and Usenet
> has changed everything for me. Believe me, I used to be a gentleman and I
> knew how to write the kind of letter that would cause others to think kind
> thoughts about me. But that was then, this is now. Politeness has gone out
> of our culture. We are getting coarser and coarser with every passing
> generation. We are becoming the new barbarians.
>

Perhaps, but asserting that top posters are the bane of society doesn't slow
the steady march of barbarianism at all. Pretend to get along, and
barbariansim will go away.



>> I don't know if you've noticed, but Mike never responds directly to me,
>> because I tend to make too much sense to him and most of the rest of the
>> world. He will make comments about me to other posters, but he seldom
>> addresses me directly. This ought to give you some insight into the
>> weakness of his agenda.
>
> I seriously doubt Vandeman is fearful of confronting anyone for any reason
> whatsoever. That is not my impression of him at all!
>


Vandeman is a loon, and he seldom (it ever) will maintain a civil
discussion, especially when one confronts his version of fact. He seems to
relish the give and take that comes from ascribing the poor behavior of one
to an entire group, and the back and forth that grows from calling people a
liar -- in ALLCAPS, no less.

If you want to hold a discussion in ANY of the groups that Vandeman posts
in, use your own facts and figures, do not use Vandeman as your support. He
is a quack, and refers to his own past editorials as the proof that his
current rant is factual.

Do the math. If Vandeman is 100% effective in his agenda to completely
eliminate bikes, AND bikes are the sole cause of the damage he seeks to
correct, then his efforts will result in the protection and preservation of
LESS THAN 0.04% of the habitat. It seems that your agenda is to create a
carefree afternoon once in a while, but the goal should be to protect
habitat, not Sunday afternoons. Be careful with an ally like Vandeman
because he wants you to stay home too, not just bike riders.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[...]
>> Vandeman posts correctly and it saves him time not to do any editing. He
>> is always fair to others regardless of what you may think of his content.
>> The beauty of correct formatting is that it provides the entire context,
>> ever the most important thing on these messages that go back and forth on
>> Usenet like flashes of lightning.
>>
>
> Vandeman posts correctly? That's a laugh. He posts **** from responses to
> his Website, and NEVER (I generally avoid the use of absolutes like never
> and always) trims the useless header information. And, he posts Subject
> Lines and includes Subjects that have nothing at all to do with his
> subject, and it includes the useless header material.

I am not talking about websites, but only about what appears on these
newsgroups. A website is completely different than Usenet.

>> I use to be a great letter writer in the old days from another century.
>> Alas, it all seems so quaint now. The computer with its' email and Usenet
>> has changed everything for me. Believe me, I used to be a gentleman and I
>> knew how to write the kind of letter that would cause others to think
>> kind thoughts about me. But that was then, this is now. Politeness has
>> gone out of our culture. We are getting coarser and coarser with every
>> passing generation. We are becoming the new barbarians.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but asserting that top posters are the bane of society doesn't
> slow the steady march of barbarianism at all. Pretend to get along, and
> barbariansim will go away.

Never! Never! Never!

>>> I don't know if you've noticed, but Mike never responds directly to me,
>>> because I tend to make too much sense to him and most of the rest of the
>>> world. He will make comments about me to other posters, but he seldom
>>> addresses me directly. This ought to give you some insight into the
>>> weakness of his agenda.
>>
>> I seriously doubt Vandeman is fearful of confronting anyone for any
>> reason whatsoever. That is not my impression of him at all!
>
> Vandeman is a loon, and he seldom (it ever) will maintain a civil
> discussion, especially when one confronts his version of fact. He seems to
> relish the give and take that comes from ascribing the poor behavior of
> one to an entire group, and the back and forth that grows from calling
> people a liar -- in ALLCAPS, no less.

Jeff, you obviously are prejudiced against him. I do not see what you see
based on these newsgroups. I feel that he has gotten a very bad rap. He has
become an expert on the subject and he has lost all patience with those who
just reiterate the same old **** over and over. Surely, you can understand
that. All experts tend to be like this.

Believe me, I know what Vandeman is doing and it is just a technique that
has no ulterior motives whatsoever. Why not cut him some slack and see how
he reacts.

> If you want to hold a discussion in ANY of the groups that Vandeman posts
> in, use your own facts and figures, do not use Vandeman as your support.
> He is a quack, and refers to his own past editorials as the proof that his
> current rant is factual.

But if he has become the expert, then who better to go to for the facts.
Most folks who do any so-called research on the impact of moutain bikes on
hiking trails have no real interest in the matter, but Vandeman does. Why
not get on the side of the angels for once in your life.

> Do the math. If Vandeman is 100% effective in his agenda to completely
> eliminate bikes, AND bikes are the sole cause of the damage he seeks to
> correct, then his efforts will result in the protection and preservation
> of LESS THAN 0.04% of the habitat. It seems that your agenda is to create
> a carefree afternoon once in a while, but the goal should be to protect
> habitat, not Sunday afternoons. Be careful with an ally like Vandeman
> because he wants you to stay home too, not just bike riders.

No, you are quite wrong about everything you say above. I have known
hundreds of folks like Vandeman. They are called hikers and all they want to
do is to preserve nature because they revere it. Mountain bikers are our
mortal enemies because they see nature as an arena for their fun and games.
They do not revere nature and they do not want to preserve it. Their
mentality is all wrong.

Curtiss tells me he does not want to invade my sacred wilderness, but I do
not trust him. His motives are all wrong. l do trust Vandeman because his
motives are pure. He wants what is best for all of us if only we had the wit
to appreciate what he is doing. I wish him good health and many long years
to continue his campaign.

I do not regard mountain bikers as evil, only very badly informed. After
all, I was once young myself and know what motivates the young. But it is
for older and wiser heads to determine policy. You do not want the young to
ever be making decisions about anything that matters.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 00:24:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>[...]
>>> Vandeman posts correctly and it saves him time not to do any editing. He
>>> is always fair to others regardless of what you may think of his content.
>>> The beauty of correct formatting is that it provides the entire context,
>>> ever the most important thing on these messages that go back and forth on
>>> Usenet like flashes of lightning.
>>>
>>
>> Vandeman posts correctly? That's a laugh. He posts **** from responses to
>> his Website, and NEVER (I generally avoid the use of absolutes like never
>> and always) trims the useless header information. And, he posts Subject
>> Lines and includes Subjects that have nothing at all to do with his
>> subject, and it includes the useless header material.
>
>I am not talking about websites, but only about what appears on these
>newsgroups. A website is completely different than Usenet.
>
>>> I use to be a great letter writer in the old days from another century.
>>> Alas, it all seems so quaint now. The computer with its' email and Usenet
>>> has changed everything for me. Believe me, I used to be a gentleman and I
>>> knew how to write the kind of letter that would cause others to think
>>> kind thoughts about me. But that was then, this is now. Politeness has
>>> gone out of our culture. We are getting coarser and coarser with every
>>> passing generation. We are becoming the new barbarians.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps, but asserting that top posters are the bane of society doesn't
>> slow the steady march of barbarianism at all. Pretend to get along, and
>> barbariansim will go away.
>
>Never! Never! Never!
>
>>>> I don't know if you've noticed, but Mike never responds directly to me,
>>>> because I tend to make too much sense to him and most of the rest of the
>>>> world. He will make comments about me to other posters, but he seldom
>>>> addresses me directly. This ought to give you some insight into the
>>>> weakness of his agenda.
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt Vandeman is fearful of confronting anyone for any
>>> reason whatsoever. That is not my impression of him at all!
>>
>> Vandeman is a loon, and he seldom (it ever) will maintain a civil
>> discussion, especially when one confronts his version of fact. He seems to
>> relish the give and take that comes from ascribing the poor behavior of
>> one to an entire group, and the back and forth that grows from calling
>> people a liar -- in ALLCAPS, no less.
>
>Jeff, you obviously are prejudiced against him. I do not see what you see
>based on these newsgroups. I feel that he has gotten a very bad rap. He has
>become an expert on the subject and he has lost all patience with those who
>just reiterate the same old **** over and over. Surely, you can understand
>that. All experts tend to be like this.
>
>Believe me, I know what Vandeman is doing and it is just a technique that
>has no ulterior motives whatsoever. Why not cut him some slack and see how
>he reacts.
>
>> If you want to hold a discussion in ANY of the groups that Vandeman posts
>> in, use your own facts and figures, do not use Vandeman as your support.
>> He is a quack, and refers to his own past editorials as the proof that his
>> current rant is factual.
>
>But if he has become the expert, then who better to go to for the facts.
>Most folks who do any so-called research on the impact of moutain bikes on
>hiking trails have no real interest in the matter, but Vandeman does. Why
>not get on the side of the angels for once in your life.
>
>> Do the math. If Vandeman is 100% effective in his agenda to completely
>> eliminate bikes, AND bikes are the sole cause of the damage he seeks to
>> correct, then his efforts will result in the protection and preservation
>> of LESS THAN 0.04% of the habitat. It seems that your agenda is to create
>> a carefree afternoon once in a while, but the goal should be to protect
>> habitat, not Sunday afternoons. Be careful with an ally like Vandeman
>> because he wants you to stay home too, not just bike riders.
>
>No, you are quite wrong about everything you say above. I have known
>hundreds of folks like Vandeman. They are called hikers and all they want to
>do is to preserve nature because they revere it. Mountain bikers are our
>mortal enemies because they see nature as an arena for their fun and games.
>They do not revere nature and they do not want to preserve it. Their
>mentality is all wrong.
>
>Curtiss tells me he does not want to invade my sacred wilderness, but I do
>not trust him. His motives are all wrong. l do trust Vandeman because his
>motives are pure. He wants what is best for all of us if only we had the wit
>to appreciate what he is doing. I wish him good health and many long years
>to continue his campaign.
>
>I do not regard mountain bikers as evil, only very badly informed.

Yes, HOWEVER, if they continue desatroying the Earth after being
informed about why it's wrong, THEN they are indeed evil!

After
>all, I was once young myself and know what motivates the young. But it is
>for older and wiser heads to determine policy. You do not want the young to
>ever be making decisions about anything that matters.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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

 

[Geir Eivind Mork]

Mike Vandeman skrev:

>> I do not regard mountain bikers as evil, only very badly informed.
> Yes, HOWEVER, if they continue desatroying the Earth after being
> informed about why it's wrong, THEN they are indeed evil!

Lets see,

"California emitted about 493 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in
2002, the most recent year for which data are available. Eighty-four
percent was carbon dioxide. Cars and other forms of transportation
accounted for 41 percent of the gases emitted, according to the
California Energy Commission. Utilities and power plants produced an
additional 20 percent."
(ref: http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSitePage=1056 )

Yes, it's excessive mountainbikeing who indeed destroy the earth.

It's good that some people fight people who get exercise, because only
about 54.3% of all men from 18-44 are overweight or obese:

ref: http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa_05/pages/0420oo.htm

Lets take other sports, like golf. Golfers take such good care of the
enviroment:

ref:
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/jun/05/golf_project_drawing_criticism_environmental_offic/

Not to mention that even how hazardous the current pollution is - when
going stronger and stronger towards biodiesel the destruction of
rainforest to make room for oil palm and soybean plantations grow bigger.

Stopping mountainbikeing is like trying to stop the bleeding from a
small papercut in the finger when the person is bleeding to death cause
his foot is cut off. Pity you'll never realize it before your grin on
your face turns sour the day you manage to stop a trail from beeing used
by mountainbikes - when you see the vegitation around dies of pollution.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:41:27 +0200, Geir Eivind Mork
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman skrev:
>
>>> I do not regard mountain bikers as evil, only very badly informed.
>> Yes, HOWEVER, if they continue desatroying the Earth after being
>> informed about why it's wrong, THEN they are indeed evil!
>
>Lets see,
>
>"California emitted about 493 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in
>2002, the most recent year for which data are available. Eighty-four
>percent was carbon dioxide. Cars and other forms of transportation
>accounted for 41 percent of the gases emitted, according to the
>California Energy Commission. Utilities and power plants produced an
>additional 20 percent."
>(ref: http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSitePage=1056 )
>
>Yes, it's excessive mountainbikeing who indeed destroy the earth.
>
>It's good that some people fight people who get exercise, because only
>about 54.3% of all men from 18-44 are overweight or obese:
>
>ref: http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa_05/pages/0420oo.htm
>
>Lets take other sports, like golf. Golfers take such good care of the
>enviroment:
>
>ref:
>http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/jun/05/golf_project_drawing_criticism_environmental_offic/
>
>Not to mention that even how hazardous the current pollution is - when
>going stronger and stronger towards biodiesel the destruction of
>rainforest to make room for oil palm and soybean plantations grow bigger.
>
>Stopping mountainbikeing is like trying to stop the bleeding from a
>small papercut in the finger when the person is bleeding to death cause
>his foot is cut off. Pity you'll never realize it before your grin on
>your face turns sour the day you manage to stop a trail from beeing used
> by mountainbikes - when you see the vegitation around dies of pollution.

Mountain bikers are hypocrites, because they aren't interested in
stopping EITHER pollution (they drive their SUVs and trucks to the
trailhead) or the habitat destruction that mountain biking causes. In
all the environmental conferences I have attended, NOT ONE mountain
biker has shown up to fight destruction of the environment. They are
too busy doing it themselves. Try telling the truth for a change.
===
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

 

[Bill Baka]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:41:27 +0200, Geir Eivind Mork
> Mountain bikers are hypocrites, because they aren't interested in
> stopping EITHER pollution (they drive their SUVs and trucks to the
> trailhead) or the habitat destruction that mountain biking causes. In
> all the environmental conferences I have attended, NOT ONE mountain
> biker has shown up to fight destruction of the environment. They are
> too busy doing it themselves. Try telling the truth for a change.
> ===

I don't know who wrote this drivel, but if a trail is far enough for a
mountain biker to take an SUV then how does a hiker get there? Run?
2+2 doesn't add up in this story.
I know that if I ride 30 miles on a bicycle to a good hiking/riding
trail I am not going to be doing stunts and tearing up the trail since I
am out of cell phone range. Breaking a leg or bike out there would not
be so very good. The mere fact that I ride a bike on a trail does not
mean that I am doing any more harm than hikers, and I do pack my trash
back out to the first maintained trash can.
Who are these terrifying mountain bikers, teenagers with a pick me up truck?
Why create a multi-cross-posted thread and irritate everybody?
This is a waste of time to all.
Bill Baka

 

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Mountain bikers are hypocrites, because they aren't interested in
> stopping EITHER pollution (they drive their SUVs and trucks to the
> trailhead) or the habitat destruction that mountain biking causes. In
> all the environmental conferences I have attended, NOT ONE mountain
> biker has shown up to fight destruction of the environment. They are
> too busy doing it themselves. Try telling the truth for a change.
> ===


Thats because you never tell us when and where you'll be at these
alleged conferences there mikey. Personally I think you dreamed them all
up just like you do most things.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:04:43 GMT, jason <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > Mountain bikers are hypocrites, because they aren't interested in
>> stopping EITHER pollution (they drive their SUVs and trucks to the
>> trailhead) or the habitat destruction that mountain biking causes. In
>> all the environmental conferences I have attended, NOT ONE mountain
>> biker has shown up to fight destruction of the environment. They are
>> too busy doing it themselves. Try telling the truth for a change.
>> ===
>
>
>Thats because you never tell us when and where you'll be at these
>alleged conferences there mikey. Personally I think you dreamed them all
> up just like you do most things.

Yawn.
===
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

 

[jason]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Yawn.


Your surrender on all points is duly noted.

 

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:04:43 GMT, jason <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> > Mountain bikers are hypocrites, because they aren't interested in
>>> stopping EITHER pollution (they drive their SUVs and trucks to the
>>> trailhead) or the habitat destruction that mountain biking causes. In
>>> all the environmental conferences I have attended, NOT ONE mountain
>>> biker has shown up to fight destruction of the environment. They are
>>> too busy doing it themselves. Try telling the truth for a change.
>>> ===
>>
>>
>>Thats because you never tell us when and where you'll be at these
>>alleged conferences there mikey. Personally I think you dreamed them all
>> up just like you do most things.
>
> Yawn.
Congratulations Mike! Your first intelligent statement


> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com