"Responsible" Mountain Biker Supports MTB Racing!

[Corvus Corvax]

[email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote
>
> I guess Kathleen just likes the kind of cop who beats up suspects in handcuffs just for fun.

I know I do, especially if she's dressed like this:

http://www.hevanet.com/springer/latex-cop.jpg

It's ok if she dresses like a stewardess too. Hubba hubba.

CC

 

[John G]

Terri Alvillar wrote:
> I guess Kathleen just likes the kind of cop who beats up suspects in handcuffs just for fun.

You say that like it's a "bad thing"!?!?!?!

 

[John G]

Hey Terri... how come there is no "Alvillar" listed on http://www.odmp.org/

 

[..::Tbf::..]

--
http://members.rogers.com/theblackfoxx/ "Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote
> >
> > I guess Kathleen just likes the kind of cop who beats up suspects in handcuffs just for fun.
>
> I know I do, especially if she's dressed like this:
>
> http://www.hevanet.com/springer/latex-cop.jpg
>
> It's ok if she dresses like a stewardess too. Hubba hubba.
>
> CC

LMAO

 

[Michael Jones]

"John G" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Hey Terri... how come there is no "Alvillar" listed on http://www.odmp.org/
>

Because that site is dedicated to good officers in good standing with the department,(hence fallen
heros), not a lying drunk with a whackjob wife.

mj

 

[Peterh]

Jeremy Widner wrote:

>(Mike it is called satire)
>
>
As such, it goes right over the top. As does any other form of reality.

Pete H

--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.

 

[Kathleen]

Terri Alvillar wrote:
> Kathleen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Terri Alvillar wrote: <snip>
>>
>>>Regarding Ric Alvillar, the best, most respected and loved police officer that Fairfax has ever
>>>had and ever will have, watch Case No. C02 5828 in the US District Court, Northern District of
>>>California, Judge Jeffrey S. White, my complaint for damages for civil rights violations under
>>>color of law against the Town of Fairfax, Police Chief Hughes, and former Sgts. James Providenza
>>>(now of San Anselmo) and Dan Johnston (now of Truckee). Causes of action, Ethnic-Based
>>>Discrimination, Ethnic-Based Discrimination/Hostile Environment, Retaliation for Exercise of
>>>Protected Speech, Denial of Substantive Due Process, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
>>>Distress, Wrongful Death, and Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, Supervision and Discipline.
>>
>>
>> Geeze. You know, sometimes bad things happen to good people. Lightning strikes, an innocent
>> person gets caught in the machine. But "lightning", or in this case, an unjust firing,
>> rarely strikes twice. Methinks that Officer Avillar must've made a habit of wearing copper
>> underwear and standing on hilltops during thunderstorms. I feel very sorry for Terri for the
>> loss of her husband, and, to a certain extent, I can understand where all that pent up rage
>> is coming from. Imagine doing some guy's dirty laundry for years, he goes and freakin'
>> *dies* on you, and you're STILL cleaning up his messes...
>>
>>Kathleen
>
>
>
> I guess Kathleen just likes the kind of cop who beats up suspects in handcuffs just for fun.

Actually, I don't remember expressing any kind of preference for any kind of cop.

When I hear hoofbeats (or see post-holed trails), I think horses, not zebras. And when I
smell smoke, the first thing to jump mind is not "synthetic simulated essence of carbonized
plant matter, planted by evil, selfish racist consirators in order to discredit the
innocent". Nope. I think "fire". And apparently, so did the town of Fairfax. To the tune of
about 18 grand, if I recall correctly. Which goes way beyond what most folks are willing to
shell out on a personal vendetta. It only makes sense to spend that much to get rid of an
employee when you consider what a truly bad cop could end up costing a community.

Kathleen

 

[Clydesdalemtb]

Michael Jones wrote:
> "John G" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Hey Terri... how come there is no "Alvillar" listed on http://www.odmp.org/
>>
>
>
> Because that site is dedicated to good officers in good standing with the department,(hence fallen
> heros), not a lying drunk with a whackjob wife.

My point, exaclty!

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> .BS. IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails that slow down users, .making them cover less
> terrain overall,
>
> So you admit that mountain bikers have no self-control. They need someone
else
> to force them to slow down and ride less. Hogwash.
>

A switchback trail allows accents to be easier, walking or riding up a 5% grade in a switchback is
much better than walking up a 45% grade in a straignt line. Going down has obvious benefits.

We have already exposed the truth that a singe bike path 5 ft wide by 1 mile long uses only 0.0009%
of a square mile. It would take a thousand such trails to be an utter wasteland in the same square
mile to equal destruction of less than 1% of the habitat. No trail anywhere is a total destruction
of habitat, and there is no place on the planet where there are a thousand trails in the same
square mile. So, it is impossible to acheive the destruction rate of even 1% of habitat by the
trail system.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Jeremy Widner wrote:
>
> >(Mike it is called satire)
> >
> >
> As such, it goes right over the top. As does any other form of reality.
>
> Pete H

And, I thought it was impossible to make a reference to Mike, AND use the word "reality" all in the
same sentence.

 

[L Hays]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > .BS. IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails that slow down users, .making them cover less
> > terrain overall,
> >
> > So you admit that mountain bikers have no self-control. They need
someone
> else
> > to force them to slow down and ride less. Hogwash.
> >
>
> A switchback trail allows accents to be easier, walking or riding up a 5% grade in a switchback is
> much better than walking up a 45% grade in a straignt line. Going down has obvious benefits.
>
> We have already exposed the truth that a singe bike path 5 ft wide by 1
mile
> long uses only 0.0009% of a square mile. It would take a thousand such trails to be an utter
> wasteland in the same square mile to equal
destruction
> of less than 1% of the habitat. No trail anywhere is a total destruction
of
> habitat, and there is no place on the planet where there are a thousand trails in the same
> square mile. So, it is impossible to acheive the destruction rate of even 1% of habitat by the
> trail system.
>
>

Switchbacks are mainly created to prevent a fall line trail and creating a new drainage line which
will ultimately lead to severe erosion and in the end, inaccessibility. IMBA teaches the Half Rule:
trail grade, or steepness, shouldn't exceed half the grade, or steepness, of the hillside; and the
10 Percent Rule: overall trail grade should be 10 percent or less. In some situations switchbacks
are necessary. They are one of the more laborious trail features to create, but one of the most
beneficial.

Lance

 

[L Hays]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > .BS. IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails that slow down users, .making them cover less
> > terrain overall,
> >
> > So you admit that mountain bikers have no self-control. They need
someone
> else
> > to force them to slow down and ride less. Hogwash.
> >
>
> A switchback trail allows accents to be easier, walking or riding up a 5% grade in a switchback is
> much better than walking up a 45% grade in a straignt line. Going down has obvious benefits.
>
> We have already exposed the truth that a singe bike path 5 ft wide by 1
mile
> long uses only 0.0009% of a square mile. It would take a thousand such trails to be an utter
> wasteland in the same square mile to equal
destruction
> of less than 1% of the habitat. No trail anywhere is a total destruction
of
> habitat, and there is no place on the planet where there are a thousand trails in the same
> square mile. So, it is impossible to acheive the destruction rate of even 1% of habitat by the
> trail system.
>
More about switchbacks:

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/switchbacks.html

Lance

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:42:03 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

.> .BS. IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails that slow down users, .> .making them cover less
terrain overall, .> .> So you admit that mountain bikers have no self-control. They need someone
.else .> to force them to slow down and ride less. Hogwash. .> . .A switchback trail allows accents
to be easier, walking or riding up a 5% .grade in a switchback is much better than walking up a 45%
grade in a .straignt line. Going down has obvious benefits. . .We have already exposed the truth
that a singe bike path 5 ft wide by 1 mile .long uses only 0.0009% of a square mile. It would take a
thousand such .trails to be an utter wasteland in the same square mile to equal destruction .of less
than 1% of the habitat. No trail anywhere is a total destruction of .habitat, and there is no place
on the planet where there are a thousand .trails in the same square mile. So, it is impossible to
acheive the .destruction rate of even 1% of habitat by the trail system.

Did you say something?
===
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:57:56 -0600, "L Hays" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message .news:[email protected]...
.> > .BS. IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails that slow down users, .> > .making them cover
less terrain overall, .> > .> > So you admit that mountain bikers have no self-control. They need
.someone .> else .> > to force them to slow down and ride less. Hogwash. .> > .> .> A switchback
trail allows accents to be easier, walking or riding up a 5% .> grade in a switchback is much better
than walking up a 45% grade in a .> straignt line. Going down has obvious benefits. .> .> We have
already exposed the truth that a singe bike path 5 ft wide by 1 .mile .> long uses only 0.0009% of a
square mile. It would take a thousand such .> trails to be an utter wasteland in the same square
mile to equal .destruction .> of less than 1% of the habitat. No trail anywhere is a total
destruction .of .> habitat, and there is no place on the planet where there are a thousand .> trails
in the same square mile. So, it is impossible to acheive the .> destruction rate of even 1% of
habitat by the trail system. .> .> . .Switchbacks are mainly created to prevent a fall line trail
and creating a .new drainage line which will ultimately lead to severe erosion and in the .end,
inaccessibility. IMBA teaches the Half Rule: trail grade, or .steepness, shouldn't exceed half the
grade, or steepness, of the hillside; .and the 10 Percent Rule: overall trail grade should be 10
percent or less. .In some situations switchbacks are necessary. They are one of the more .laborious
trail features to create, but one of the most beneficial.

I wasn't referring to switchbacks, but to "twisty" trails that destroy much more habitat than
necessary, due to not being straight.

.Lance .

===
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

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>.
>
>I wasn't referring to switchbacks, but to "twisty" trails that destroy much more habitat than
>necessary, due to not being straight.
>
>
>
>
It would seem from the above posts that switchbacks might be described as "twisty" by someone not
familiar with the terminology.

Pete H

--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:42:03 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>.> .BS. IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails that slow down users, .> .making them cover less
>terrain overall, .> .> So you admit that mountain bikers have no self-control. They need someone
>.else .> to force them to slow down and ride less. Hogwash. .> . .A switchback trail allows accents
>to be easier, walking or riding up a 5% .grade in a switchback is much better than walking up a 45%
>grade in a .straignt line. Going down has obvious benefits. . .We have already exposed the truth
>that a singe bike path 5 ft wide by 1 mile .long uses only 0.0009% of a square mile. It would take
>a thousand such .trails to be an utter wasteland in the same square mile to equal destruction .of
>less than 1% of the habitat. No trail anywhere is a total destruction of .habitat, and there is no
>place on the planet where there are a thousand .trails in the same square mile. So, it is
>impossible to acheive the .destruction rate of even 1% of habitat by the trail system.
>
>Did you say something?
>
>
>
Yes, he did. But for some it seems to have gone right over the top.

Pete H

--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 05:49:34 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:42:03 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .>.> .BS. IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails that slow down users, .>.> .making them
cover less terrain overall, .>.> .>.> So you admit that mountain bikers have no self-control. They
need someone .>.else .>.> to force them to slow down and ride less. Hogwash. .>.> .>. .>.A
switchback trail allows accents to be easier, walking or riding up a 5% .>.grade in a switchback is
much better than walking up a 45% grade in a .>.straignt line. Going down has obvious benefits. .>.
.>.We have already exposed the truth that a singe bike path 5 ft wide by 1 mile .>.long uses only
0.0009% of a square mile. It would take a thousand such .>.trails to be an utter wasteland in the
same square mile to equal destruction .>.of less than 1% of the habitat. No trail anywhere is a
total destruction of .>.habitat, and there is no place on the planet where there are a thousand
.>.trails in the same square mile. So, it is impossible to acheive the .>.destruction rate of even
1% of habitat by the trail system. .> .>Did you say something? .> .> .> .Yes, he did. But for some
it seems to have gone right over the top.

Or under the bottom.

.Pete H

===
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

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>.> .>Did you say something? .> .> .> .Yes, he did. But for some it seems to have gone right
>over the top.
>
>Or under the bottom.
>
>
>
>
>
>
And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse someone else of non sequitors?

Pete H

--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.

 

[Randal R. Gray]

Actually, 'twisty' trails take up less space in relation to their overall length. A 'twisty' trail
nearby which takes 3 hours to ride is situated on about 20 km/sq, another non-twisty trail nearby
which takes the same length of time to ride is located on about 100km/sq.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:47:43 GMT, Trekkie Dad <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Terri, your blatant bias is showing again. . .In article
> <[email protected]>,
> . [email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote: . .> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message .> news:<[email protected]>... .> .> > When we are talking about 30 or
> 40, or 100 visitor trips on a weekend, the .> > impact on habitat is negligible. Proof is that
> the habitat continues to .> > thrive on either side of the trail even though the trail has been
> on the .> > ground for several decades. .> .> What habitat? Lichens on granite boulders? See
> page 2 where proof of .> wildlife habitat destruction is shown just to build illegal mountain .>
> bike trails. Mountain bike singletrack is the most destructive and .> invasive form of trail
> building because it requires the greatest .> excavation and the greatest number of switchbacks.
> The switchbacks .> are built not for access but for entertainment. .> Terri Alvillar . ."Illegal
> mountain bike trails" subtly implies that all mountain bike .trails are illegal. . .Less subtle
> is the assertion that the construction of "mountain bike .trails" is significantly different
> from other trail building and is far .more damaging. Quite the oppostite is true. One need only
> read the .extensive trail building resources found at:
> .http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/index.html
>
> If you could read, you would know that IMBA recommends creating "twisty" trails -- in other words,
> they recommend destroying much more habitat than necessary. Twisty trails add considerable length.
>
> .Of course Terri and mikey cannot be expected to recant even their most .outlandish claims. It's
> just not in the cards.
>
> The shoe is in the other mouth -- YOURS, fool.
>
> .TD
>
> ===
> 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