Trolling for Mike and Terri

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Jonathan Bond, Mar 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. A thought just struck me.

    You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that opinion.

    However, what do you think about the situation with "Vietnam" in Massachusetts? In short: Developer
    goes to buy land that mountain bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are unhappy, talk to regional
    biking association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA collaborate to raise funds to buy
    the land so that the developer can't build massive housing complexes on it. The area becomes
    permanently open to mountain biking (because the bike association owns part of it, and through a
    deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement, lawns, and buildings.

    So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would on the trails, even if it is
    only the mountain bikers that are maintaining them and the surrounding area, and trying to minimize
    environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or trail widening). However, if not for the mountain
    bikers, there would be a large housing complex with runoff from driveways, parking lots, roofs, and
    pesticide from lawns, waste from the houses, and pollution from the cars and heating of the houses.

    Now, tell me how you can be against something like that. Go on. I need a good laugh.

    Jon Bond
     
    Tags:


  2. Jonathan Bond wrote:
    > A thought just struck me.
    >
    > You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that opinion.
    >
    > However, what do you think about the situation with "Vietnam" in Massachusetts? In short:
    > Developer goes to buy land that mountain bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are unhappy, talk
    > to regional biking association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA collaborate to raise
    > funds to buy the land so that the developer can't build massive housing complexes on it. The area
    > becomes permanently open to mountain biking (because the bike association owns part of it, and
    > through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement, lawns, and buildings.
    >
    > So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would on the trails, even if it
    > is only the mountain bikers that are maintaining them and the surrounding area, and trying to
    > minimize environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or trail widening). However, if not for
    > the mountain bikers, there would be a large housing complex with runoff from driveways, parking
    > lots, roofs, and pesticide from lawns, waste from the houses, and pollution from the cars and
    > heating of the houses.
    >
    > Now, tell me how you can be against something like that. Go on. I need a good laugh.
    >
    > Jon Bond
    >

    Oh, and for those who don't know, I usually ignore those two crackpots, I just couldn't resist this
    time (probably because I got 6 hours of sleep after being awake for 25 hours organizing and
    participating in a crit race), so instead of killfiling me, just ignore this thread ;)

    Thanks much, and yes, I am responding to my own posts again.

    Jon Bond
     
  3. Jon Bond says:

    >Now, tell me how you can be against something like that. Go on. I need a good laugh.

    Don't hold your breath, Jon - I think they've probably blocked any post that has good sense
    in it. Steve
     
  4. Simon

    Simon Guest

    "Stephen Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | Jon Bond says:
    |
    | >Now, tell me how you can be against something like that. Go on. I need a good laugh.
    |
    | Don't hold your breath, Jon - I think they've probably blocked any post
    that
    | has good sense in it. Steve

    I agree there. Any valid responses and arguments never get a decent reply as it would require
    brainpower. Reading into MV's signature you could say a habitat created by him might indeed be a
    housing estate and as such he would condemn the mountain bikers.

    Simon.......I had little sleep too.
     
  5. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    Jonathan Bond wrote:
    > A thought just struck me.
    >
    > You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that opinion.
    >

    you didn't cross post that nearly enough

    Penny
     
  6. Penny S. wrote:
    > Jonathan Bond wrote:
    >
    >>A thought just struck me.
    >>
    >>You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that opinion.
    >>
    >
    >
    > you didn't cross post that nearly enough
    >
    > Penny
    >
    >

    I was too lazy to crosspost it to alt.troll, alt.environment.nazis, alt.crackpots, and
    alt.mountain-bike.van-delay (google search that one, apparently its there). My appologies.

    Jon Bond
     
  7. Bb

    Bb Guest

    On 30 Mar 2003 22:55:25 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:

    > Don't hold your breath, Jon - I think they've probably blocked any post that has good sense in it.

    "Blocked" is something that is automatic. They pretend it doesn't exist, a conscious (lame) act.

    Our mountain bike group went to court to stop development in a forested area that didn't even have
    trails (and still doesn't years later). I gave him a reference so he knew I wasn't making it up
    (though its long since expired). Mike pretended this didn't happen either; I have no doubt that
    Terri would do the same.

    --
    -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
     
  8. On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:

    .A thought just struck me. . .You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that
    opinion. . .However, what do you think about the situation with "Vietnam" in .Massachusetts? In
    short: Developer goes to buy land that mountain .bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are unhappy,
    talk to regional .biking association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA .collaborate to
    raise funds to buy the land so that the developer can't .build massive housing complexes on it. The
    area becomes permanently .open to mountain biking (because the bike association owns part of it,
    .and through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement, .lawns, and buildings. . .So,
    maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would .on the trails, even if it is
    only the mountain bikers that are .maintaining them and the surrounding area, and trying to minimize
    .environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or trail widening). .However, if not for the
    mountain bikers, there would be a large housing .complex with runoff from driveways, parking lots,
    roofs, and pesticide .from lawns, waste from the houses, and pollution from the cars and .heating of
    the houses. . .Now, tell me how you can be against something like that. Go on. I need .a good laugh.

    If they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH!

    .Jon Bond

    ===
    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. On 31 Mar 2003 02:06:51 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On 30 Mar 2003 22:55:25 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote: . .> Don't hold your breath, Jon - I think
    they've probably blocked any post that .> has good sense in it. . ."Blocked" is something that is
    automatic. They pretend it doesn't exist, a .conscious (lame) act. . .Our mountain bike group went
    to court to stop development in a forested .area that didn't even have trails (and still doesn't
    years later).

    IF TRUE, it is obvious that you did it so you could bike there. If you can't, it's only because the
    owner has more sense than you do.

    I gave .him a reference so he knew I wasn't making it up (though its long since .expired). Mike
    pretended this didn't happen either; I have no doubt that .Terri would do the same.

    ===
    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
     
  10. Peterh

    Peterh Guest

    Mike Vandeman wrote:

    >On 31 Mar 2003 02:06:51 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >.On 30 Mar 2003 22:55:25 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
    >
    >. .Our mountain bike group went to court to stop development in a forested .area that didn't even
    >have trails (and still doesn't years later).
    >
    >IF TRUE, it is obvious
    >
    To whom is this totally unsupported conclusion obvious?

    >that you did it so you could bike there.
    >
    And you're able to see into the minds of the people in Steve's group?

    >If you can't, it's only because the owner has more sense than you do.
    >
    You know absolutely nothing of the situation - the owner, Steve's group, even the piece of land in
    question or the court decision relating to it.

    >
    >
    >
    Pete H

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

    Simon Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    <snip excellent saving of land>

    | If they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH!
    |
    <snip signature thats a contradiction>
    | http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

    If you really cared about that which you preach you would not walk on a pavement (sidewalk), you
    would not own a car, you would not live in a house created by destroying natural habitat and you
    would not wear clothes created by a civilisation bent on destroying the world. In fact you could
    always lay yourself to rest and be reincarnated as a tree!

    Simon....I do what I can to save the planet whilst retaining my right to have fun.
     
  12. Bb

    Bb Guest

    On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:38 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:

    > IF TRUE, it is obvious that you did it so you could bike there.

    Geez, Mike, I've been talking about this for YEARS. NOW you decide to pay attention? You even had a
    newspaper article to verify it against - like, five years ago. Newspapers don't leave their articles
    on-line forever, you know.

    There were no trails, there were no plans for trails, and there are no trails. Not hiking, not
    biking, not anything. It sits there unused, as it has for years - unlike much of the area
    surrounding Forest Park that has been cleared for housing development. I imagine the owner is pretty
    pissed that he owns this very expensive land that mountain bikers have kept him from putting houses
    on. Since you're not on our side, are you on HIS?

    Anyway, I've no doubt you will continue to pretend this doesn't exist, as you always have. Thanks
    for the publicity, though.

    --
    -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
     
  13. Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .A thought just struck me. . .You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that
    > opinion. . .However, what do you think about the situation with "Vietnam" in .Massachusetts? In
    > short: Developer goes to buy land that mountain .bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are
    > unhappy, talk to regional .biking association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA
    > .collaborate to raise funds to buy the land so that the developer can't .build massive housing
    > complexes on it. The area becomes permanently .open to mountain biking (because the bike
    > association owns part of it, .and through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement,
    > .lawns, and buildings. . .So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would
    > .on the trails, even if it is only the mountain bikers that are .maintaining them and the
    > surrounding area, and trying to minimize .environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or trail
    > widening). .However, if not for the mountain bikers, there would be a large housing .complex with
    > runoff from driveways, parking lots, roofs, and pesticide .from lawns, waste from the houses, and
    > pollution from the cars and .heating of the houses. . .Now, tell me how you can be against
    > something like that. Go on. I need .a good laugh.
    >
    > If they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH! snip<

    Ok, but thats besides the point. Respond to just this statement: If not for mountain bikers, another
    300 acres of forested land would now be a "developed" complex. Period.

    Hehe, thanks for the laugh tho... you must have massive legs from sidestepping questions all
    the time :)

    Jon Bond

    oh, and yes, it is now crossposted to about 1,000,000 groups. Just for you, Penny! Sorry for
    everybody else this is bugging, but I've run out of other ways to procrastinate.
     
  14. On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:48:53 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .| On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan
    Bond .| <[email protected]> wrote: .| .<snip excellent saving of land> . .| If
    they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH! .| .<snip signature thats a
    contradiction> .| http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande . .If you really cared about that which you preach
    you would not walk on a .pavement (sidewalk), you would not own a car, you would not live in a house
    .created by destroying natural habitat and you would not wear clothes created .by a civilisation
    bent on destroying the world. In fact you could always lay .yourself to rest and be reincarnated as
    a tree! . .Simon....I do what I can to save the planet whilst retaining my right to .have fun.

    There's no such right. And what you call "fun" is actually very destructive to wildlife and
    other people.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  15. On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:38:22 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>On 31 Mar 2003 02:06:51 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote: .> .>.On
    30 Mar 2003 22:55:25 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote: .> .>. .>.Our mountain bike group went to court to
    stop development in a forested .>.area that didn't even have trails (and still doesn't years later).
    .> .>IF TRUE, it is obvious .> .To whom is this totally unsupported conclusion obvious? . .>that you
    did it so you could bike there. .> .And you're able to see into the minds of the people in Steve's
    group? . .>If you can't, .>it's only because the owner has more sense than you do. .> .You know
    absolutely nothing of the situation - the owner, Steve's group, .even the piece of land in question
    or the court decision relating to it.

    I don't need to. I know what mountain bikers are like: 100% selfish.

    .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
     
  16. On 31 Mar 2003 18:30:55 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:38 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> IF TRUE, it is obvious that you did it
    so you could bike there. . .Geez, Mike, I've been talking about this for YEARS. NOW you decide to
    .pay attention? You even had a newspaper article to verify it against - .like, five years ago.
    Newspapers don't leave their articles on-line .forever, you know. . .There were no trails, there
    were no plans for trails, and there are no .trails. Not hiking, not biking, not anything. It sits
    there unused, as it .has for years - unlike much of the area surrounding Forest Park that has .been
    cleared for housing development. I imagine the owner is pretty pissed .that he owns this very
    expensive land that mountain bikers have kept him .from putting houses on. Since you're not on our
    side, are you on HIS? . .Anyway, I've no doubt you will continue to pretend this doesn't exist, as
    .you always have. Thanks for the publicity, though.

    You missed the point: if you COULD build trails there, you would! Mountain bikers are the most
    selfish people I know.
    ===
    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
     
  17. On 31 Mar 2003 18:30:55 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:38 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> IF TRUE, it is obvious that you did it
    so you could bike there. . .Geez, Mike, I've been talking about this for YEARS. NOW you decide to
    .pay attention? You even had a newspaper article to verify it against - .like, five years ago.
    Newspapers don't leave their articles on-line .forever, you know. . .There were no trails, there
    were no plans for trails, and there are no .trails. Not hiking, not biking, not anything. It sits
    there unused, as it .has for years - unlike much of the area surrounding Forest Park that has .been
    cleared for housing development. I imagine the owner is pretty pissed .that he owns this very
    expensive land that mountain bikers have kept him .from putting houses on. Since you're not on our
    side, are you on HIS? . .Anyway, I've no doubt you will continue to pretend this doesn't exist, as
    .you always have. Thanks for the publicity, though.

    Notice that you didn't claim that mountain bikers haven't tried to get access & get trails built....
    ===
    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
     
  18. Candt

    Candt Guest

    On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:26:57 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >There's no such right. And what you call "fun" is actually very destructive to wildlife and
    >other people.
    >===
    He's right you know - only last week I 'accidentally' wiped out an entire species of indigenous worm
    which - by chance - ONLY lives in a 1-inch wide strip of the hard-packed soil created by the tyres
    of MTB's in my local trail.... To say I was distressed is an understatement, I can tell you.

    I tried to skid to a halt (thus churning up the trail behind me), but only succeeded in flinging mud
    in the eyes of a small flightless bird, which looked remarkably like a Dodo, that had nested not 6
    inches from the edge of the trail (would you believe it!). Blinded, and in shock, the Dodo stumbled
    into its own nest - crushing the last remaining tiny eggs - before bumping in to its mate, and
    toppling them both off the nearby cliff edge... (Bet they wished they weren't flightless now eh !)

    Anyway - during the course of this skid, I crushed the above mentioned worms into evolutionary
    oblivion, lost control of the bike, and popped myself over the bars...

    Luckily though, my fall was broken by a patch of delicate seedlings from a plant that I (..or, I
    later find out, anyone) hadn't seen in these parts for 20 years. Phew...

    So I guess the moral of this story is - don't ride your MTB around your local trails guys and
    girls... That little bit of metal and rubber is far more destructive than forest fires, climate
    change, pollution, etc that everyone is complaining about. I know that now, and I'm stopping.

    Thanks Mike for showing me the error of my ways.

    >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

    That sound so cool Mike, maybe then the world will be like the front cover of the Watchtower, with
    little different coloured smiling children playing with panda's, and gorillas. Instead of wading
    through appallingly badly laid out, and indeed, pointless websites all day...

    CandT
     
  19. Simon

    Simon Guest

    "CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:26:57 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >There's no such right. And what you call "fun" is actually very
    destructive to
    | >wildlife and other people.
    | >===
    | He's right you know - only last week I 'accidentally' wiped out an entire species of indigenous
    | worm which - by chance - ONLY lives in a 1-inch wide
    strip
    | of the hard-packed soil created by the tyres of MTB's in my local
    trail.... To
    | say I was distressed is an understatement, I can tell you.
    |
    | I tried to skid to a halt (thus churning up the trail behind me), but only succeeded in flinging
    | mud in the eyes of a small flightless bird, which
    looked
    | remarkably like a Dodo, that had nested not 6 inches from the edge of the
    trail
    | (would you believe it!). Blinded, and in shock, the Dodo stumbled into its
    own
    | nest - crushing the last remaining tiny eggs - before bumping in to its
    mate,
    | and toppling them both off the nearby cliff edge... (Bet they wished they weren't flightless
    | now eh !)
    |
    | Anyway - during the course of this skid, I crushed the above mentioned
    worms
    | into evolutionary oblivion, lost control of the bike, and popped myself
    over the
    | bars...
    |
    | Luckily though, my fall was broken by a patch of delicate seedlings from a
    plant
    | that I (..or, I later find out, anyone) hadn't seen in these parts for 20
    years.
    | Phew...
    |
    | So I guess the moral of this story is - don't ride your MTB around your
    local
    | trails guys and girls... That little bit of metal and rubber is far more destructive than forest
    | fires, climate change, pollution, etc that
    everyone is
    | complaining about. I know that now, and I'm stopping.
    |
    | Thanks Mike for showing me the error of my ways.
    |
    | >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
    |
    | That sound so cool Mike, maybe then the world will be like the front cover
    of
    | the Watchtower, with little different coloured smiling children playing
    with
    | panda's, and gorillas. Instead of wading through appallingly badly laid
    out, and
    | indeed, pointless websites all day...
    |
    | CandT

    Classic I love it!

    Simon
     
  20. Peterh

    Peterh Guest

    Mike Vandeman wrote:

    >On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:48:53 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >.! . .Simon....I do what I can to save the planet whilst retaining my right to .have fun.
    >
    >There's no such right.
    >
    Prove it!

    >And what you call "fun" is actually very destructive to wildlife and other people.
    >
    >
    >
    That one went right over the top, didn't it? His fun takes place closer to home than you
    may realize.

    PH

    --
    Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...