The Mike Vandeman "FAQ"



On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:52:28 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> .> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers --
..> .enough
..> .> .to
..> .> .> .> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only
..trail!
..> .OF
..> .> .> .> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there?
..This
..> .only
..> .> .> .means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Mountain bikers have no problem asking that the rule be changed.
..Hilers
..> .> .don't
..> .> .> like sharing trails with bikes. Period.
..> .> .
..> .> .So now you're asking for the rule to be changed, instead of enforced?
..> .Mike,
..> .> .for the third time, what question(s) did you ask? You mentioned
..> .signatures
..> .> .earlier. Was this a petition?
..> .>
..> .> Yes.
..> .>
..> .> If so, did you count the people who refused to
..> .> .sign,
..> .>
..> .> Not formally. It's approximate.
..> .
..> .Then it's not statistically valid. And you still haven't said what the
..> .petition was for.
..>
..> To keep bikes off of the trails.
..
..But it was already a hiking-only trail. That tends to skew things somewhat.

Yeah, it means that most of the hikers haven't been scared away, so they are
able to vote. DUH!
===
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
 
> .> .> Not formally. It's approximate.
> .> .
> .> .Then it's not statistically valid. And you still haven't said what the
> .> .petition was for.
> .>
> .> To keep bikes off of the trails.
> .
> .But it was already a hiking-only trail. That tends to skew things
somewhat.
>
> Yeah, it means that most of the hikers haven't been scared away, so they
are
> able to vote. DUH!

I've heard of people being disenfranchised recently, but this is ridiculous.


--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:52:29 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:56:34 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> .<[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .> .> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
> .> .> .> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
then
> .> .> .neither
> .> .> .> .do
> .> .> .> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense
> .you're
> .> .> .going
> .> .> .> .to
> .> .> .> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring
> .their
> .> .> .bikes.
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted
in
> .> .> .advance.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
> .> .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
> .> .>
> .> .> Read the decision.
> .> .
> .> .Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain bike.
> .>
> .> That shows how ignorant you are. It is THE court decision determining
that
> .there
> .> is no right to mountain bike.
> .
> .As I said before, since when do courts grant and deny rights?
>
> They didn't "deny" any right. They just pointed out that there IS no right
to
> mountain bike. DUH!

You've been pointing it out for years, and yet you get ignored, while they
don't. What gives?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 07:14:18 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> Not formally. It's approximate.
..> .> .
..> .> .Then it's not statistically valid. And you still haven't said what the
..> .> .petition was for.
..> .>
..> .> To keep bikes off of the trails.
..> .
..> .But it was already a hiking-only trail. That tends to skew things
..somewhat.
..>
..> Yeah, it means that most of the hikers haven't been scared away, so they
..are
..> able to vote. DUH!
..
..I've heard of people being disenfranchised recently, but this is ridiculous.

WHAT'S ridiculous? You don't communicate worth beans.
===
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
 
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 07:14:19 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:52:29 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:56:34 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..> .<[email protected]>
..> .> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .> .> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
..> .> .> .> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
..then
..> .> .> .neither
..> .> .> .> .do
..> .> .> .> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense
..> .you're
..> .> .> .going
..> .> .> .> .to
..> .> .> .> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring
..> .their
..> .> .> .bikes.
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted
..in
..> .> .> .advance.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
..> .> .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Read the decision.
..> .> .
..> .> .Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain bike.
..> .>
..> .> That shows how ignorant you are. It is THE court decision determining
..that
..> .there
..> .> is no right to mountain bike.
..> .
..> .As I said before, since when do courts grant and deny rights?
..>
..> They didn't "deny" any right. They just pointed out that there IS no right
..to
..> mountain bike. DUH!
..
..You've been pointing it out for years, and yet you get ignored, while they
..don't. What gives?

BS. There are many places where bikes are banned from trails.
===
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 out of 10 Mike Vandemans agree:

> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 07:14:18 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .> .> .> Not formally. It's approximate.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Then it's not statistically valid. And you still haven't said
> what the .> .> .petition was for.
> .> .>
> .> .> To keep bikes off of the trails.
> .> .
> .> .But it was already a hiking-only trail. That tends to skew things
> .somewhat.
> .>
> .> Yeah, it means that most of the hikers haven't been scared away, so
> they .are
> .> able to vote. DUH!
> .
> .I've heard of people being disenfranchised recently, but this is
> ridiculous.
>
> WHAT'S ridiculous? You don't communicate worth beans.

YEAH?? Well you're just a ~mumble~mumble~mumble~. HA!!

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
9 out of 10 Mike Vandemans agree:

> .> .> .> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Read the decision.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain
> bike. .> .>
> .> .> That shows how ignorant you are. It is THE court decision
> determining .that
> .> .there
> .> .> is no right to mountain bike.
> .> .
> .> .As I said before, since when do courts grant and deny rights?
> .>
> .> They didn't "deny" any right. They just pointed out that there IS
> no right .to
> .> mountain bike. DUH!
> .
> .You've been pointing it out for years, and yet you get ignored, while
> they .don't. What gives?
>
> BS. There are many places where bikes are banned from trails.

And... this is relevant how? So what if a court claims that there is no
right to mountain bike (which is NOT what the case says, at least not so
broadly)? There obviously is a right to mountain bike, and nothing can
change that.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:11:43 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..9 out of 10 Mike Vandemans agree:
..
..> .> .> .> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Read the decision.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain
..> bike. .> .>
..> .> .> That shows how ignorant you are. It is THE court decision
..> determining .that
..> .> .there
..> .> .> is no right to mountain bike.
..> .> .
..> .> .As I said before, since when do courts grant and deny rights?
..> .>
..> .> They didn't "deny" any right. They just pointed out that there IS
..> no right .to
..> .> mountain bike. DUH!
..> .
..> .You've been pointing it out for years, and yet you get ignored, while
..> they .don't. What gives?
..>
..> BS. There are many places where bikes are banned from trails.
..
..And... this is relevant how? So what if a court claims that there is no
..right to mountain bike (which is NOT what the case says, at least not so
..broadly)? There obviously is a right to mountain bike, and nothing can
..change that.

No, you missed the point of the decision. Any land manager can ban bikes, as
long as they give a good reason (user conflict, erosion, etc.). If there were a
right to mountain bike, it couldn't be banned. Re-read the Subject of this
thread....
===
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 wrote:

> If there were a right to mountain bike, it couldn't be banned.

I have a right to carry a gun, but it's banned at airports.

Your wife has a right to vomit at the thought of having sex with you, but
not on your neighbor's lime green shag carpeting.

I have the right to breathe, but not in a vacuum.

Bill "that's some critical thinker ya got there do(r)c" S.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> If there were a right to mountain bike, it couldn't be banned.

I have a right to carry a gun, but it's banned at airports.

Your wife has a right to vomit at the thought of having sex with you, but
not on your neighbor's lime green shag carpeting.

I have the right to breathe, but not in a vacuum.

Bill "that's some critical thinker ya got there do(r)c" S.
 
Hi Scott,
You are wasting your time. Mike V has been bashing everybody who he
feels does not conform to his idea of right and wrong for as long as I
have been on the news groups.

Save your breath. You will not change his mind. He will not change
yours.

-- Brewer


"Scott Burley" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:9kr%[email protected]:

> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:45 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> .> .> .> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
>> .> .> .> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
>> .> .> .> .> .>
>> .> .> .> .> .> Not really.
>> .> .> .> .> .
>> .> .> .> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
>> .> .> .> .>
>> .> .> .> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know
>> the .> .> .difference.
>> .> .> .> .
>> .> .> .> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
>> .> .> .>
>> .> .> .> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain
> bikers
>> .(or
>> .> .> .they
>> .> .> .> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
>> .> .> .
>> .> .> .It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't
>> going to .help.
>> .> .And
>> .> .> .as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your
>> word) .> .trails. I
>> .> .> .only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians)
>> fail to .> .observe
>> .> .> .proper trail etiquette, which is rare.
>> .> .>
>> .> .> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want
>> bikes
> on
>> .> .the
>> .> .> trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
>> environment.
> That
>> .> .wouldn't
>> .> .> surprize me.
>> .> .
>> .> .Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go
>> hiking .> .without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go
>> hiking without .> .seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail,
>> and they have just
> as
>> .> .much a right to be there as I do.
>> .>
>> .> Of course. But we are talking about BICYCLES. BICYCLES have NO
>> rights .> whatsoever. And mountain bikers have no right to bring bike
>> onto the .trail.
>> .
>> .Your clothes have NO rights whatsoever. You must go naked
>> EVERYWHERE.
>>
>> I would, but it's illegal.
>
> More often than not it's legal. (http://home.att.net/~saran/list.htm)
>
>> Going without your bike is NOT illegal.
>
> Theory decides practical application (in this case, law), not the
> other way around.
>
>> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
>> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then
> neither
>> .do
>> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense
>> you're
> going
>> .to
>> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
>> .>
>> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring
>> their
> bikes.
>> .
>> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in
> advance.
>>
>> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
>
> Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
>
> --
> __ __ _ ___ ___
> / _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
> \_ ( (( o | | | |
>|__/\__\_/|_| |_|
>
> [email protected]
>
>
 
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:13:30 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> If there were a right to mountain bike, it couldn't be banned.
..
..I have a right to carry a gun, but it's banned at airports.

So you don't have a right to carry a gun there.
===
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
 
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:57:00 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
<[email protected]> wrote:

..
..For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON
..>
..> There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
..> have yet to meet even ONE.
..>
..Sounds like prejudice.

No, FACT.

..> I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
..> steep
..> slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the damage
..> they
..> cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
..> wilderness
..> trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
..> source of
..> damage to those trails." Dave Foreman
..>
..So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
..been it is okay?

No. DUH.

..> "Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
..> non-motorized
..> trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the
..> board of
..> directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)
..>
..>
..> I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife,
..> and had
..> come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is entirely
..> off-limits to humans,
..>
..yet you still hike?

SOME habitat off-limits to humans.

..> It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
..> presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
..> they are
..> allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other vehicles
..> (and
..> perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).
..>
..Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild animals
..walk!

True.

..> in the case of mountain bikers, many of
..> them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of
..> course,
..> there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall
..> into this
..> category.)
..>
..If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
..enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.

Mountain biking is the most destructive activity in any park.

..> Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
..> committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
..> know which
..> is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question
..> is
..> whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that case,
..> the only
..> relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
..> However,
..> since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison, I
..> will
..> examine the research and try to answer it.
..
..>
..> I'm going to ignore
..> this research,
..Spoken like a true scientist!
..
..>
..> "We found no biological justification for
..> managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).
..just ignore that too.

I didn't ignore it. I told why it was a lie.

..So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all. Your
..real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While you are
..at it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using incandescent light
..bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in wilderness areas, we should
..probably not breathe anymore- wildlife might use that oxygen. the only
..way to solve the problems of this world is to build a giant rocket, and
..take every last person excep for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and send them to
..mars where there is no wildlife to be annoyed with us.

That's the first good idea you've ever had.
===
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:57:00 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON
> .>
> .> There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
> .> have yet to meet even ONE.
> .>
> .Sounds like prejudice.
>
> No, FACT.
>
> .> I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
> .> steep
> .> slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the damage
> .> they
> .> cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
> .> wilderness
> .> trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
> .> source of
> .> damage to those trails." Dave Foreman
> .>
> .So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
> .been it is okay?
>
> No. DUH.
>
> .> "Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
> .> non-motorized
> .> trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the
> .> board of
> .> directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)
> .>
> .>
> .> I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife,
> .> and had
> .> come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is entirely
> .> off-limits to humans,
> .>
> .yet you still hike?
>
> SOME habitat off-limits to humans.
Smells very much of "Do as I say, not as I do". Just not the habitat that
you like to hike in, is that it?
>
> .> It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
> .> presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
> .> they are
> .> allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other vehicles
> .> (and
> .> perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).
> .>
> .Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild animals
> .walk!
>
> True.
>
> .> in the case of mountain bikers, many of
> .> them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of
> .> course,
> .> there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall
> .> into this
> .> category.)
> .>
> .If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
> .enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.
>
> Mountain biking is the most destructive activity in any park.
LIAR, that statement is pure BS.
>
> .> Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
> .> committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
> .> know which
> .> is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question
> .> is
> .> whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that case,
> .> the only
> .> relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
> .> However,
> .> since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison, I
> .> will
> .> examine the research and try to answer it.
> .
> .>
> .> I'm going to ignore
> .> this research,
> .Spoken like a true scientist!
> .
> .>
> .> "We found no biological justification for
> .> managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).
> .just ignore that too.
>
> I didn't ignore it. I told why it was a lie.
>
> .So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all. Your
> .real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While you are
> .at it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using incandescent light
> .bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in wilderness areas, we should
> .probably not breathe anymore- wildlife might use that oxygen. the only
> .way to solve the problems of this world is to build a giant rocket, and
> .take every last person excep for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and send them to
> .mars where there is no wildlife to be annoyed with us.
>
> That's the first good idea you've ever had.
> ===
> 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
 
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:32:15 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:57:00 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
..> <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON
..> .>
..> .> There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
..> .> have yet to meet even ONE.
..> .>
..> .Sounds like prejudice.
..>
..> No, FACT.
..>
..> .> I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
..> .> steep
..> .> slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the damage
..> .> they
..> .> cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
..> .> wilderness
..> .> trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
..> .> source of
..> .> damage to those trails." Dave Foreman
..> .>
..> .So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
..> .been it is okay?
..>
..> No. DUH.
..>
..> .> "Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
..> .> non-motorized
..> .> trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the
..> .> board of
..> .> directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)
..> .>
..> .>
..> .> I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife,
..> .> and had
..> .> come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is entirely
..> .> off-limits to humans,
..> .>
..> .yet you still hike?
..>
..> SOME habitat off-limits to humans.
..Smells very much of "Do as I say, not as I do". Just not the habitat that
..you like to hike in, is that it?

It's more than YOU are willing to advocate.

..> .> It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
..> .> presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
..> .> they are
..> .> allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other vehicles
..> .> (and
..> .> perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).
..> .>
..> .Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild animals
..> .walk!
..>
..> True.
..>
..> .> in the case of mountain bikers, many of
..> .> them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of
..> .> course,
..> .> there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall
..> .> into this
..> .> category.)
..> .>
..> .If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
..> .enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.
..>
..> Mountain biking is the most destructive activity in any park.
..LIAR, that statement is pure BS.

Name a more destructive activity allowed in parks, liar.

..> .> Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
..> .> committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
..> .> know which
..> .> is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question
..> .> is
..> .> whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that case,
..> .> the only
..> .> relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
..> .> However,
..> .> since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison, I
..> .> will
..> .> examine the research and try to answer it.
..> .
..> .>
..> .> I'm going to ignore
..> .> this research,
..> .Spoken like a true scientist!
..> .
..> .>
..> .> "We found no biological justification for
..> .> managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).
..> .just ignore that too.
..>
..> I didn't ignore it. I told why it was a lie.
..>
..> .So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all. Your
..> .real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While you are
..> .at it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using incandescent light
..> .bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in wilderness areas, we should
..> .probably not breathe anymore- wildlife might use that oxygen. the only
..> .way to solve the problems of this world is to build a giant rocket, and
..> .take every last person excep for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and send them to
..> .mars where there is no wildlife to be annoyed with us.
..>
..> That's the first good idea you've ever had.
..> ===
..> 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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:32:15 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:57:00 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> .For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON
> .> .>
> .> .> There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
> .> .> have yet to meet even ONE.
> .> .>
> .> .Sounds like prejudice.
> .>
> .> No, FACT.
> .>
> .> .> I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
> .> .> steep
> .> .> slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the
> damage
> .> .> they
> .> .> cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
> .> .> wilderness
> .> .> trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
> .> .> source of
> .> .> damage to those trails." Dave Foreman
> .> .>
> .> .So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
> .> .been it is okay?
> .>
> .> No. DUH.
> .>
> .> .> "Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
> .> .> non-motorized
> .> .> trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the
> .> .> board of
> .> .> directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)
> .> .>
> .> .>
> .> .> I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on
> wildlife,
> .> .> and had
> .> .> come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is
> entirely
> .> .> off-limits to humans,
> .> .>
> .> .yet you still hike?
> .>
> .> SOME habitat off-limits to humans.
> .Smells very much of "Do as I say, not as I do". Just not the habitat that
> .you like to hike in, is that it?
>
> It's more than YOU are willing to advocate.
PROOF? or pure guess work? Either way you would be wrong and once again a
liar.

>
> .> .> It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
> .> .> presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
> .> .> they are
> .> .> allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other
> vehicles
> .> .> (and
> .> .> perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).
> .> .>
> .> .Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild
> animals
> .> .walk!
> .>
> .> True.
> .>
> .> .> in the case of mountain bikers, many of
> .> .> them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium!
> (Of
> .> .> course,
> .> .> there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who
> fall
> .> .> into this
> .> .> category.)
> .> .>
> .> .If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
> .> .enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.
> .>
> .> Mountain biking is the most destructive activity in any park.
> .LIAR, that statement is pure BS.
>
> Name a more destructive activity allowed in parks, liar.

LIAR again. You did not stipulate Allowed activity, you did not stipulate
recreational activity. If you can't think of any activities more destructive
than mountain biking, it is easy to see how poor a data set you are working
with when you make your ?knowledgable? statements.

Ever visit an off-road recreational area. Canada has lots, in parks, where
mountain biking isn't noticeable in any measure.
>
> .> .> Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
> .> .> committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
> .> .> know which
> .> .> is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the
> question
> .> .> is
> .> .> whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that
> case,
> .> .> the only
> .> .> relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
> .> .> However,
> .> .> since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison,
> I
> .> .> will
> .> .> examine the research and try to answer it.
> .> .
> .> .>
> .> .> I'm going to ignore
> .> .> this research,
> .> .Spoken like a true scientist!
> .> .
> .> .>
> .> .> "We found no biological justification for
> .> .> managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).
> .> .just ignore that too.
> .>
> .> I didn't ignore it. I told why it was a lie.
> .>
> .> .So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all.
> Your
> .> .real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While you are
> .> .at it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using incandescent
> light
> .> .bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in wilderness areas, we
> should
> .> .probably not breathe anymore- wildlife might use that oxygen. the
> only
> .> .way to solve the problems of this world is to build a giant rocket,
> and
> .> .take every last person excep for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and send them to
> .> .mars where there is no wildlife to be annoyed with us.
> .>
> .> That's the first good idea you've ever had.
> .> ===
> .> 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
 
On 24 Sep 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:13:30 GMT, "S o r n i"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> If there were a right to mountain bike, it couldn't be banned.
> .
> .I have a right to carry a gun, but it's banned at airports.
>
> So you don't have a right to carry a gun there.

Mikey, you're back! Where you been? Spouting off on something of which you
know absolutely nothing about again, I see.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On 24 Sep 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:57:00 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON
> .>
> .> There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
> .> have yet to meet even ONE.
> .>
> .Sounds like prejudice.
>
> No, FACT.

No, ZUCHINI.

> .> I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
> .> steep
> .> slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the
> damage .> they
> .> cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
> .> wilderness
> .> trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
> .> source of
> .> damage to those trails." Dave Foreman
> .>
> .So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
> .been it is okay?
>
> No. DUH.

No DUH.

> .> "Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
> .> non-motorized
> .> trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of
> the .> board of
> .> directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)
> .>
> .>
> .> I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on
> wildlife, .> and had
> .> come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is
> entirely .> off-limits to humans,
> .>
> .yet you still hike?
>
> SOME habitat off-limits to humans.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

> .> It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
> .> presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
> .> they are
> .> allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other
> vehicles .> (and
> .> perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).
> .>
> .Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild
> animals .walk!
>
> True.

If, then.

> .> in the case of mountain bikers, many of
> .> them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium!
> (Of .> course,
> .> there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who
> fall .> into this
> .> category.)
> .>
> .If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
> .enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.
>
> Mountain biking is the most destructive activity in any park.

Playing golf with lit sticks of dynamite doesn't even BEGIN to compare.

> .> Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
> .> committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
> .> know which
> .> is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the
> question .> is
> .> whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that
> case, .> the only
> .> relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
> .> However,
> .> since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison,
> I .> will
> .> examine the research and try to answer it.
> .
> .>
> .> I'm going to ignore
> .> this research,
> .Spoken like a true scientist!
> .
> .>
> .> "We found no biological justification for
> .> managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).
> .just ignore that too.
>
> I didn't ignore it. I told why it was a lie.
>
> .So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all.
> Your .real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While
> you are .at it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using
> incandescent light .bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in
> wilderness areas, we should .probably not breathe anymore- wildlife
> might use that oxygen. the only .way to solve the problems of this
> world is to build a giant rocket, and .take every last person excep
> for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and send them to .mars where there is no
> wildlife to be annoyed with us.
>
> That's the first good idea you've ever had.

But Mike, the pollution from such a rocket would be disasterous! Only a
sadistic monster would support such a thing!

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On 25 Sep 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> SOME habitat off-limits to humans.
> .Smells very much of "Do as I say, not as I do". Just not the habitat
> that .you like to hike in, is that it?
>
> It's more than YOU are willing to advocate.

Well I'M willing to advocate that NO humans should be allowed ANYWHERE,
EVER. In fact, we should have negative humans. Negative infinity!

> .> Mountain biking is the most destructive activity in any park.
> .LIAR, that statement is pure BS.
>
> Name a more destructive activity allowed in parks, liar.

Oh, "allowed". Well that just sucks all the fun out of it. Ok, riding ATVs.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:10:08 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:32:15 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:57:00 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
..> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .
..> .> .For a guy with a Ph.D, you are quite the MORON
..> .> .>
..> .> .> There may be an honest mountain biker out there, but I
..> .> .> have yet to meet even ONE.
..> .> .>
..> .> .Sounds like prejudice.
..> .>
..> .> No, FACT.
..> .>
..> .> .> I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
..> .> .> steep
..> .> .> slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the
..> damage
..> .> .> they
..> .> .> cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
..> .> .> wilderness
..> .> .> trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another
..> .> .> source of
..> .> .> damage to those trails." Dave Foreman
..> .> .>
..> .> .So as long as we only damage the enviroment in the same way we have
..> .> .been it is okay?
..> .>
..> .> No. DUH.
..> .>
..> .> .> "Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
..> .> .> non-motorized
..> .> .> trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the
..> .> .> board of
..> .> .> directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)
..> .> .>
..> .> .>
..> .> .> I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on
..> wildlife,
..> .> .> and had
..> .> .> come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is
..> entirely
..> .> .> off-limits to humans,
..> .> .>
..> .> .yet you still hike?
..> .>
..> .> SOME habitat off-limits to humans.
..> .Smells very much of "Do as I say, not as I do". Just not the habitat that
..> .you like to hike in, is that it?
..>
..> It's more than YOU are willing to advocate.
..PROOF? or pure guess work? Either way you would be wrong and once again a
..liar.

Thanks for confirming.

..> .> .> It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
..> .> .> presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that
..> .> .> they are
..> .> .> allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other
..> vehicles
..> .> .> (and
..> .> .> perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).
..> .> .>
..> .> .Pray Jesus, that domesticated animals shall not walk where wild
..> animals
..> .> .walk!
..> .>
..> .> True.
..> .>
..> .> .> in the case of mountain bikers, many of
..> .> .> them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium!
..> (Of
..> .> .> course,
..> .> .> there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who
..> fall
..> .> .> into this
..> .> .> category.)
..> .> .>
..> .> .If you want to save the enviroment you should fight to save the
..> .> .enviroment. Don't use it as an excuse to attack bikers.
..> .>
..> .> Mountain biking is the most destructive activity in any park.
..> .LIAR, that statement is pure BS.
..>
..> Name a more destructive activity allowed in parks, liar.
..
..LIAR again. You did not stipulate Allowed activity, you did not stipulate
..recreational activity. If you can't think of any activities more destructive
..than mountain biking, it is easy to see how poor a data set you are working
..with when you make your ?knowledgable? statements.
..
..Ever visit an off-road recreational area. Canada has lots, in parks, where
..mountain biking isn't noticeable in any measure.

Those aren't parks. They are off-road recreational areas.

..> .> .> Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
..> .> .> committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to
..> .> .> know which
..> .> .> is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the
..> question
..> .> .> is
..> .> .> whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that
..> case,
..> .> .> the only
..> .> .> relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
..> .> .> However,
..> .> .> since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison,
..> I
..> .> .> will
..> .> .> examine the research and try to answer it.
..> .> .
..> .> .>
..> .> .> I'm going to ignore
..> .> .> this research,
..> .> .Spoken like a true scientist!
..> .> .
..> .> .>
..> .> .> "We found no biological justification for
..> .> .> managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).
..> .> .just ignore that too.
..> .>
..> .> I didn't ignore it. I told why it was a lie.
..> .>
..> .> .So what did we all learn here? I think you are not a hiker at all.
..> Your
..> .> .real goal is to stop everyone from enjoying wilderness. While you are
..> .> .at it ban motor vehichles altogether, restrict using incandescent
..> light
..> .> .bulbs at night, ban everyone from walking in wilderness areas, we
..> should
..> .> .probably not breathe anymore- wildlife might use that oxygen. the
..> only
..> .> .way to solve the problems of this world is to build a giant rocket,
..> and
..> .> .take every last person excep for Mike Vandeman Ph.D, and send them to
..> .> .mars where there is no wildlife to be annoyed with us.
..> .>
..> .> That's the first good idea you've ever had.
..> .> ===
..> .> 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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back