Typical Dishonest Mountain Biker Tries to Justify Their Selfish, Destructive Sport



On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:26:21 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

.On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:49:55 -0500, Kamus of Kadizhar .<[email protected]> wrote: . .>On Tue, 24
Feb 2004 13:33:56 +0000, Gary S. wrote: .> .>> Google his stuff yourself, or read his website of his
opinion pieces .>> disguised as science. On second thought, he isn't worth the time. .> .>Oh, I
know. I'm just baiting the troll. It's a bad habit I have. .> .>--Kamus . .I think a bunch of us are
hooked on baiting him. . .Maybe there is a 12 step program, or something like Synanon.

ONE step. Mountain bikers can't count any higher.
===
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 Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:17:36 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .Dear Mr. Vandeman, .Could you PLEASE at least try to make it possible to discern which
comments
> .are yours and which are someone else's?
>
> That should be obvious to any moron.
>
No, moron, it is not that obvious. I had to read several times to tell that you had actually
attempted to ride a bike. The problem I had was that you left the > symbols in such a manner that
made it difficult to tell who was relating the experience.

You are so friggin' rude that you can't even make it clear which thoughts are yours and which are
somebody else's. Combine that with the belief that most people have that you have no original
thoughts at all, and the rudeness should be apparent. Of course, since you have no thought process,
the rudeness will go right over your head.

> .In the following exchange, it appears that YOU went for a bike ride in a .Park a few days after
> an event was held there. It also appears that YOU
do
> .not actually enjoy riding a bike,
>
> Learn to READ: "riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all!"
>

Maybe it is no fun to you, bu *** is apparently loads of fun to everybody else.

> and that the most significant thing you .bring up is just how uncomfortable mountain bike riding
> really is. I have .news for you, just because YOU don't like to ride a bike is no reason for
> .everybody else to not enjoy riding a bike. It appears by your own
comments
> .(as I said, it is difficult to tell if it was you riding the bike or .somebody else), that you
> are a wuss because you can not tolerate
precisely
> .the part of the sport that most people are attracted to the sport for.
>
> The pain? BS.
>

Just because you are a crybaby doesn't justify taking everybody else's fun away.

> .Many, if not all, mountain bike riders will stop at the most remote spots
to
> .have a dirnk of water and eat a sandwich. It is in these remote locations .that they get the full
> enjoyment of the trip.
>
> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID.
>
YOU might miss 99% of it when you ride, but everybody else manages to see what they go outside
to look for.

> While the actual riding part .is being undertaken, they simply enjoy the fresh air and the view
> of the .distant hills, forests, and mesas.
>
> BS. You can't enjoy "distant views" without crashing.
>
Sure you can. Well, maybe you can't but I can.

> They may or may not observe things that .are just a few feet away, but what concern is it of
> yours that they look
at
> .the immediate vicinity of the trail, or look miles across the valley
floor
> .to the beauty on the other side? Just because your personal choice is to .look directly at your
> feet as you walk, other's personal choice is to
look
> .at the magnificant views that stretch for miles and miles. Since the view
of
> .miles and miles away does not change quickly, then it does not take
constant
> .attention to enjoy.
>
> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID.
>
Why is it important that everybody else have the exact same experience as you?

> .There is no truth whatsoever to your claim that bikers are not in tune
with
> .their surroundings, or are less aware of them than a hiker. Indeed, it
isn't
> .even important if the level of awareness is the same or different. Hikers .themselves have
> different levels of awareness among themselves, and it is .entirely likely that a hiker can have
> less awareness of his surroundings .than a bike rider.
>
> BS. Impossible, for the reasons I stated.
>
You have only stated reasons why YOU are not aware to your surroundings, you have presented no proof
whatsoever that I am not aware of mine, or everybody (or anybody, for that matter) is not aware of
theirs. All you have provided is your own personal experience, then you have extrapolated that
experience to everybody else and come away thinking that nobody can be aware of anything while
riding a bike. The fact is that only you have trouble being aware of your surroundings, and it is a
problem for you. There might be other people that are not aware of their surroundings, but that is
their problem, not yours and certainly not mine.

> .<end top post>

At least you did not go beyond the top post and argue with yourself ...

Moron.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:24:09 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>
> .On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:38:07 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote: . .>Jeff... .> .>This rant by
> Mikey (The last race was held blah blah...) is a direct cut
n
> .>paste from a letter, by him, back in 2001. .> .>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm
> .>See para 2 & 3 .> .>Pete .> .You were expecting an original thought? . .Mikey's need for
> attention seems far more important than protecting .the environment.
>
> Right. And thanks for accommodating me! :)
>

So, your agenda is self promotion and not environmental activism? I am astonished because I thought
all this time that you were protecting something when all you were doing was promoting yourself.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:

>
> That should be obvious to any moron.
Well it isn't obvious to this moron. Could you be more specific? And it really hurts my feelings
that you call me names. It's not my fault I'm challenged.

> Learn to READ: "riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all!"
That is one opinion. I have a different one.

> .It appears by your own comments .(as I said, it is difficult to tell if it was you riding the
> bike or .somebody else), that you are a wuss because you can not tolerate precisely .the part of
> the sport that most people are attracted to the sport for.
>
> The pain? BS.
Sometimes the pain. No BS. Sometimes, it's just the trhill of speed and control. You may not believe
a mountain biker has control, but I guarantee I have more control of my bike than you could imagine.
It might not look like it, but I do, not all the time mind you, but most of the time. Sometimes I
ride for the precise reason you do on pavement, just to enjoy being out and the views. If you think
you can't see the views and ride at the same time, I invite you to join me for a ride sometime.

> .It is in these remote locations .that they get the full enjoyment of the trip.
>
> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID.
Again, this is your opinion. Maybe for the rider, that is 100% of what they are interested in
getting out of the ride. Their sole purpose for using a mountain bike to get there may, in fact, be
simply to enjoy 100% of what they came to enjoy, that much faster?

>
> While the actual riding part .is being undertaken, they simply enjoy the fresh air and the view
> of the .distant hills, forests, and mesas.
>
> BS. You can't enjoy "distant views" without crashing.
See above comments, but I will respectfully disagree with you here. Perhaps YOU can't enjoy distant
views while riding, but I assure you, that others can.

> . Hikers .themselves have different levels of awareness among themselves, and it is .entirely
> likely that a hiker can have less awareness of his surroundings .than a bike rider.
>
> BS. Impossible, for the reasons I stated.
So it is your assertion that all hikers have the same level of awareness while hiking? So how did
the lady die from the tree falling on her? Or for that matter, how do you explain some people going
out for a hike and coming home injured while others don't? As for bikers having more awareness, I
would think in most instances you are correct, but I've ridden by people who were hiking or fishing
and just enjoying their surroundings who never even knew there were deer right behind them. Doesn't
seem too aware to me, but I saw the deer, off trail, watching. Who was more aware in that situation?

bkr
 
"bkr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Ayq%[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >
> > That should be obvious to any moron.
> Well it isn't obvious to this moron. Could you be more specific? And it really hurts my feelings
> that you call me names. It's not my fault I'm challenged.
>
> > Learn to READ: "riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all!"
> That is one opinion. I have a different one.
=======================
Sounds like he's part of the drive then to pave everything in sight so that he can ride in comfort,
eh? Pave over wilderness, eh Mickey? Oh wait, I thought you hated pavement! Ummm..

ps, Bob jumped....

snippage...
 
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:41:08 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:17:36 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> .Dear Mr. Vandeman, .> .Could you PLEASE at least try
to make it possible to discern which .comments .> .are yours and which are someone else's? .> .>
That should be obvious to any moron. .> .No, moron, it is not that obvious. I had to read several
times to tell that .you had actually attempted to ride a bike. The problem I had was that you .left
the > symbols in such a manner that made it difficult to tell who was .relating the experience.

You can tell my statements from the content, which you should know by heart by now.

.You are so friggin' rude that you can't even make it clear which thoughts .are yours and which are
somebody else's.

That wasn't me. It was the guy quoting me.

Combine that with the belief that .most people have that you have no original thoughts at all, and
the rudeness .should be apparent. Of course, since you have no thought process, the .rudeness will
go right over your head. . . . .> .In the following exchange, it appears that YOU went for a bike
ride in a .> .Park a few days after an event was held there. It also appears that YOU .do .> .not
actually enjoy riding a bike, .> .> Learn to READ: "riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at
all!" .> . .Maybe it is no fun to you, bu *** is apparently loads of fun to everybody .else.

Can't you follow a conversation???? You just lied.

.> and that the most significant thing you .> .bring up is just how uncomfortable mountain bike
riding really is. I have .> .news for you, just because YOU don't like to ride a bike is no reason
for .> .everybody else to not enjoy riding a bike. It appears by your own .comments .> .(as I said,
it is difficult to tell if it was you riding the bike or .> .somebody else), that you are a wuss
because you can not tolerate .precisely .> .the part of the sport that most people are attracted to
the sport for. .> .> The pain? BS. .> . .Just because you are a crybaby doesn't justify taking
everybody else's fun .away.

So we should manage for pain, since some people enjoy it? BS.

.> .Many, if not all, mountain bike riders will stop at the most remote spots .to .> .have a dirnk
of water and eat a sandwich. It is in these remote locations .> .that they get the full enjoyment of
the trip. .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID. .> .YOU might miss 99% of it when you ride,
but everybody else manages to see .what they go outside to look for.

Which must be nothing, because it's impossible to pay attention to 2 things at once.

.> While the actual riding part .> .is being undertaken, they simply enjoy the fresh air and the
view of the .> .distant hills, forests, and mesas. .> .> BS. You can't enjoy "distant views" without
crashing. .> .Sure you can. Well, maybe you can't but I can.

Then you are just LYING.

.> They may or may not observe things that .> .are just a few feet away, but what concern is it of
yours that they look .at .> .the immediate vicinity of the trail, or look miles across the valley
.floor .> .to the beauty on the other side? Just because your personal choice is to .> .look
directly at your feet as you walk, other's personal choice is to .look .> .at the magnificant views
that stretch for miles and miles. Since the view .of .> .miles and miles away does not change
quickly, then it does not take .constant .> .attention to enjoy. .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST
AS I SAID. .> .Why is it important that everybody else have the exact same experience as .you?

I am describing THEIR experience. DUH!

.> .There is no truth whatsoever to your claim that bikers are not in tune .with .> .their
surroundings, or are less aware of them than a hiker. Indeed, it .isn't .> .even important if the
level of awareness is the same or different. Hikers .> .themselves have different levels of
awareness among themselves, and it is .> .entirely likely that a hiker can have less awareness of
his surroundings .> .than a bike rider. .> .> BS. Impossible, for the reasons I stated. .> .You
have only stated reasons why YOU are not aware to your surroundings, you .have presented no proof
whatsoever that I am not aware of mine, or everybody .(or anybody, for that matter) is not aware
of theirs.

55 years of riding bicycles. I am an expert.

All you have provided .is your own personal experience, then you have extrapolated that experience
.to everybody else and come away thinking that nobody can be aware of .anything while riding a bike.
The fact is that only you have trouble being .aware of your surroundings, and it is a problem for
you. There might be .other people that are not aware of their surroundings, but that is their
.problem, not yours and certainly not mine. . . . .> .<end top post> . .At least you did not go
beyond the top post and argue with yourself ... . .Moron.

===
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, 26 Feb 2004 13:04:10 -0500, bkr <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> .> That should be obvious to any moron. .Well it isn't obvious to this
moron. Could you be more specific? And .it really hurts my feelings that you call me names. It's not
my fault .I'm challenged. . .> Learn to READ: "riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all!"
.That is one opinion. I have a different one. . .> .It appears by your own comments .> .(as I said,
it is difficult to tell if it was you riding the bike or .> .somebody else), that you are a wuss
because you can not tolerate precisely .> .the part of the sport that most people are attracted to
the sport for. .> .> The pain? BS. .Sometimes the pain. No BS. Sometimes, it's just the trhill of
speed .and control. You may not believe a mountain biker has control, but I .guarantee I have more
control of my bike than you could imagine.

You missed my point completely, PROVING you are a moron. Controlling your bike precludes your paying
atention to anything else.

It .might not look like it, but I do, not all the time mind you, but most of .the time. Sometimes
I ride for the precise reason you do on pavement, .just to enjoy being out and the views. If you
think you can't see the .views and ride at the same time, I invite you to join me for a ride
.sometime.

I don't care to see blood.

. > .It is in these remote locations .> .that they get the full enjoyment of the trip. .> .> So they
miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID. .Again, this is your opinion. Maybe for the rider, that is 100% of
what .they are interested in getting out of the ride.

Right, which is 1% of what hikers get out of it.

Their sole purpose for .using a mountain bike to get there may, in fact, be simply to enjoy 100%
.of what they came to enjoy, that much faster? . .> .> While the actual riding part .> .is being
undertaken, they simply enjoy the fresh air and the view of the .> .distant hills, forests, and
mesas. .> .> BS. You can't enjoy "distant views" without crashing. .See above comments, but I will
respectfully disagree with you here. .Perhaps YOU can't enjoy distant views while riding, but I
assure you, .that others can.

I guess that's what that poor kid in Malasia was doing, when he crashed & killed himself.

.> . Hikers .> .themselves have different levels of awareness among themselves, and it is .>
.entirely likely that a hiker can have less awareness of his surroundings .> .than a bike rider. .>
.> BS. Impossible, for the reasons I stated. .So it is your assertion that all hikers have the same
level of awareness .while hiking? So how did the lady die from the tree falling on her? Or .for that
matter, how do you explain some people going out for a hike and .coming home injured while others
don't? As for bikers having more .awareness, I would think in most instances you are correct, but
I've .ridden by people who were hiking or fishing and just enjoying their .surroundings who never
even knew there were deer right behind them. .Doesn't seem too aware to me, but I saw the deer, off
trail, watching. .Who was more aware in that situation?

You can watch for deer, if you don't look out for obstacles! Good luck! :)

.bkr

===
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, 26 Feb 2004 09:43:20 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:eek:[email protected]... .> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:24:09 GMT, Gary S.
<Idontwantspam@net> wrote: .> .> .On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:38:07 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote: .>
. .> .>Jeff... .> .> .> .>This rant by Mikey (The last race was held blah blah...) is a direct cut
.n .> .>paste from a letter, by him, back in 2001. .> .> .>
.>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm .> .>See para 2 & 3 .> .> .> .>Pete .> .> .> .You were
expecting an original thought? .> . .> .Mikey's need for attention seems far more important than
protecting .> .the environment. .> .> Right. And thanks for accommodating me! :) .> . .So, your
agenda is self promotion and not environmental activism? I am .astonished because I thought all this
time that you were protecting .something when all you were doing was promoting yourself.

No, you missed my point, as usual: YOU are promoting me! Thanks again!
===
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, 24 Feb 2004 22:26:39 +1300, "Yager" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Mike. Today I went for a 50km mountain bike ride ....
.
> .Now by doing this were we not enjoying nature?
>
Not as much as any hiker. You miss 99% of it. What you are crowing about is actually HARMING the
environment.

How did i miss 99% of it compared to a hiker?
>
> .Mike, seriously, how can you tell us that we don't enjoy the scenery.
Don't
> .even try to use your lame excuse of me being a liar and actually answer
the
> .question sensibly. You "apparently" have a phd so prove it. .
Wow Mike, you've out done yourself! You didn't use the words 'Liar' or 'Typical Mountain Biker'. I
can't believe you did it! Well done! I'm proud of you! You're becoming a big boy now!
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:43:20 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:eek:[email protected]... .> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:24:09 GMT, Gary S.
> <Idontwantspam@net> wrote: .> .> .On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:38:07 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
> .> . .> .>Jeff... .> .> .> .>This rant by Mikey (The last race was held blah blah...) is a direct
cut
> .n .> .>paste from a letter, by him, back in 2001. .> .> .>
> .>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm .> .>See para 2 & 3 .> .> .> .>Pete .> .> .> .You
> were expecting an original thought? .> . .> .Mikey's need for attention seems far more important
> than protecting .> .the environment. .> .> Right. And thanks for accommodating me! :) .> . .So,
> your agenda is self promotion and not environmental activism? I am .astonished because I thought
> all this time that you were protecting .something when all you were doing was promoting yourself.
>
> No, you missed my point, as usual: YOU are promoting me! Thanks again!

I am most certainly NOT promoting you and I am yet to see anybody else promote you. The only
possible conclusion is that you are self-promoting, and that your self-promotion is more important
than environmental protection. We get to this conclusion based upon your own words, so if there is
an element of untruthfullness, the source is you. This makes you a liar, I think.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:41:08 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:17:36 -0800, "Jeff
> Strickland"
<[email protected]>
> .wrote: .> .> .Dear Mr. Vandeman, .> .Could you PLEASE at least try to make it possible to discern
> which .comments .> .are yours and which are someone else's? .> .> That should be obvious to any
> moron. .> .No, moron, it is not that obvious. I had to read several times to tell
that
> .you had actually attempted to ride a bike. The problem I had was that you .left the > symbols in
> such a manner that made it difficult to tell who
was
> .relating the experience.
>
> You can tell my statements from the content, which you should know by
heart by
> now.
>
When you cross-post from the middle of a conversation, it is very difficult to tell who is speaking.
You should take more care to be considerate of your audience. After all, your main claim to the
problems presented by bikers is that they lack consideration. If you are going to get on people for
lack of consideratioin, you should take particular care that you are not inconsiderate yourself.

> .You are so friggin' rude that you can't even make it clear which thoughts .are yours and which
> are somebody else's.
>
> That wasn't me. It was the guy quoting me.
>
My point exactly. We can not tell which thoughts are yours. You so seldom have a thought that you
need to take care to point them out when they occur.

> Combine that with the belief that .most people have that you have no original thoughts at
> all, and the
rudeness
> .should be apparent. Of course, since you have no thought process, the .rudeness will go right
> over your head. . . . .> .In the following exchange, it appears that YOU went for a bike ride in
a
> .> .Park a few days after an event was held there. It also appears that
YOU
> .do .> .not actually enjoy riding a bike, .> .> Learn to READ: "riding a bike off of paved roads
> is no fun at all!" .> . .Maybe it is no fun to you, bu *** is apparently loads of fun to
> everybody .else.
>
> Can't you follow a conversation???? You just lied.
>

You made a statement that is based upon your own experience, "riding a bike off of the paved road is
no fun at all!" It is clearly not much fun to you, but is apparently loads of fun to everybody else.
I think I followed just fine. You are the one that can not follow along.

> .> and that the most significant thing you .> .bring up is just how uncomfortable mountain bike
> riding really is. I
have
> .> .news for you, just because YOU don't like to ride a bike is no reason
for
> .> .everybody else to not enjoy riding a bike. It appears by your own .comments .> .(as I said, it
> is difficult to tell if it was you riding the bike or .> .somebody else), that you are a wuss
> because you can not tolerate .precisely .> .the part of the sport that most people are attracted
> to the sport for. .> .> The pain? BS. .> . .Just because you are a crybaby doesn't justify taking
> everybody else's
fun
> .away.
>
> So we should manage for pain, since some people enjoy it? BS.
>

No, we shouldn't give a single moment's consideration of the pain. Just because you are a crybaby
doesn't justify taking everybody else's fun away.

> .> .Many, if not all, mountain bike riders will stop at the most remote
spots
> .to .> .have a dirnk of water and eat a sandwich. It is in these remote
locations
> .> .that they get the full enjoyment of the trip. .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID. .>
> .YOU might miss 99% of it when you ride, but everybody else manages to see .what they go outside
> to look for.
>
> Which must be nothing, because it's impossible to pay attention to 2
things at
> once.
>

Why should YOU care what anybody else sees? Let them decide for themselves that they see enough or
need to stop and enjoy the view. Most of us can manage several things all at one time, you are
suggesting that walking and chewing gum can be a challenge.

> .> While the actual riding part .> .is being undertaken, they simply enjoy the fresh air and
> the view of
the
> .> .distant hills, forests, and mesas. .> .> BS. You can't enjoy "distant views" without crashing.
> .> .Sure you can. Well, maybe you can't but I can.
>
> Then you are just LYING.
>
Not at all. You said, "You can't enjoy "distant views" without crashing.". I said, "Sure you can,"
using "you" in the general sense, meaning that it most certainly possible ride and enjoy distant
views at the same time. Then, it occurred to me that perhaps you personally are not capable of doing
two things at the same time, but I can.

You are the liar because it is most certainly possible to ride and enjoy the distant view without
crashing. Of course, it is also possible to crash while enjoying the distant view, but it hardly
ever happens. It has never happend to me, or anybody that I was with on any given day.

> .> They may or may not observe things that .> .are just a few feet away, but what concern is it of
> yours that they
look
> .at .> .the immediate vicinity of the trail, or look miles across the valley .floor .> .to the
> beauty on the other side? Just because your personal choice is
to
> .> .look directly at your feet as you walk, other's personal choice is to .look .> .at the
> magnificant views that stretch for miles and miles. Since the
view
> .of .> .miles and miles away does not change quickly, then it does not take .constant .>
> .attention to enjoy. .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID. .> .Why is it important that
> everybody else have the exact same experience as .you?
>
> I am describing THEIR experience. DUH!
>

No you're not. You are describing your own experience.

> .> .There is no truth whatsoever to your claim that bikers are not in tune .with .> .their
> surroundings, or are less aware of them than a hiker. Indeed, it .isn't .> .even important if the
> level of awareness is the same or different.
Hikers
> .> .themselves have different levels of awareness among themselves, and it
is
> .> .entirely likely that a hiker can have less awareness of his
surroundings
> .> .than a bike rider. .> .> BS. Impossible, for the reasons I stated. .> .You have only stated
> reasons why YOU are not aware to your surroundings,
you
> .have presented no proof whatsoever that I am not aware of mine, or
everybody
> .(or anybody, for that matter) is not aware of theirs.
>
> 55 years of riding bicycles. I am an expert.
>

I too am an expert with 35 years esperience. None of my experience matches the experiences you claim
to be the benchmark.
 
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:01:02 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:43:20 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message .> .news:eek:[email protected]... .> .> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:24:09
GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote: .> .> .> .> .On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:38:07 GMT, "Pete"
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> .> .>Jeff... .> .> .> .> .> .>This rant by Mikey (The last race was
held blah blah...) is a direct .cut .> .n .> .> .>paste from a letter, by him, back in 2001. .> .>
.> .> .> .>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm .> .> .>See para 2 & 3 .> .> .> .> .> .>Pete
.> .> .> .> .> .You were expecting an original thought? .> .> . .> .> .Mikey's need for attention
seems far more important than protecting .> .> .the environment. .> .> .> .> Right. And thanks for
accommodating me! :) .> .> .> . .> .So, your agenda is self promotion and not environmental
activism? I am .> .astonished because I thought all this time that you were protecting .> .something
when all you were doing was promoting yourself. .> .> No, you missed my point, as usual: YOU are
promoting me! Thanks again! . . .I am most certainly NOT promoting you and I am yet to see anybody
else .promote you. The only possible conclusion is that you are self-promoting, .and that your self-
promotion is more important than environmental .protection. We get to this conclusion based upon
your own words, so if there .is an element of untruthfullness, the source is you. This makes you a
liar, .I think.

Did you say something? I thought not.
===
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 Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:19:26 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:41:08 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message .> .news:[email protected]... .> .> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:17:36
-0800, "Jeff Strickland" .<[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> .> .> .> .Dear Mr. Vandeman, .> .>
.Could you PLEASE at least try to make it possible to discern which .> .comments .> .> .are yours
and which are someone else's? .> .> .> .> That should be obvious to any moron. .> .> .> .No, moron,
it is not that obvious. I had to read several times to tell .that .> .you had actually attempted to
ride a bike. The problem I had was that you .> .left the > symbols in such a manner that made it
difficult to tell who .was .> .relating the experience. .> .> You can tell my statements from the
content, which you should know by .heart by .> now. .> .When you cross-post from the middle of a
conversation, it is very difficult .to tell who is speaking. You should take more care to be
considerate of your .audience.

I didn't do that. That was someone else.

After all, your main claim to the problems presented by bikers is .that they lack consideration. If
you are going to get on people for lack of .consideratioin, you should take particular care that you
are not .inconsiderate yourself. . . . . . .> .You are so friggin' rude that you can't even make it
clear which thoughts .> .are yours and which are somebody else's. .> .> That wasn't me. It was the
guy quoting me. .> .My point exactly. We can not tell which thoughts are yours.

That's because you are STUPID. Or you are LYING. Or BOTH.

You so seldom .have a thought that you need to take care to point them out when they occur. . . . .>
Combine that with the belief that .> .most people have that you have no original thoughts at all,
and the .rudeness .> .should be apparent. Of course, since you have no thought process, the .>
.rudeness will go right over your head. .> . .> . .> . .> .> .In the following exchange, it appears
that YOU went for a bike ride in .a .> .> .Park a few days after an event was held there. It also
appears that .YOU .> .do .> .> .not actually enjoy riding a bike, .> .> .> .> Learn to READ: "riding
a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all!" .> .> .> . .> .Maybe it is no fun to you, bu *** is
apparently loads of fun to everybody .> .else. .> .> Can't you follow a conversation???? You just
lied. .> . .You made a statement that is based upon your own experience, "riding a bike .off of the
paved road is no fun at all!" It is clearly not much fun to you, .but is apparently loads of fun to
everybody else. I think I followed just .fine. You are the one that can not follow along.

Try again. That's what I said, and this is what you CLAIMED I said -- quite different: "YOU do not
actually enjoy riding a bike". See the difference? Liar. . . .> .> and that the most significant
thing you .> .> .bring up is just how uncomfortable mountain bike riding really is. I .have .> .>
.news for you, just because YOU don't like to ride a bike is no reason .for .> .> .everybody else to
not enjoy riding a bike. It appears by your own .> .comments .> .> .(as I said, it is difficult to
tell if it was you riding the bike or .> .> .somebody else), that you are a wuss because you can not
tolerate .> .precisely .> .> .the part of the sport that most people are attracted to the sport for.
.> .> .> .> The pain? BS. .> .> .> . .> .Just because you are a crybaby doesn't justify taking
everybody else's .fun .> .away. .> .> So we should manage for pain, since some people enjoy it? BS.
.> . .No, we shouldn't give a single moment's consideration of the pain. Just .because you are a
crybaby doesn't justify taking everybody else's fun away. . . . .> .> .Many, if not all, mountain
bike riders will stop at the most remote .spots .> .to .> .> .have a dirnk of water and eat a
sandwich. It is in these remote .locations .> .> .that they get the full enjoyment of the trip. .>
.> .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID. .> .> .> .YOU might miss 99% of it when you ride,
but everybody else manages to see .> .what they go outside to look for. .> .> Which must be nothing,
because it's impossible to pay attention to 2 .things at .> once. .> . .Why should YOU care what
anybody else sees? Let them decide for themselves .that they see enough or need to stop and enjoy
the view. Most of us can .manage several things all at one time, you are suggesting that walking and
.chewing gum can be a challenge.

For YOU they are.

.> .> While the actual riding part .> .> .is being undertaken, they simply enjoy the fresh air and
the view of .the .> .> .distant hills, forests, and mesas. .> .> .> .> BS. You can't enjoy "distant
views" without crashing. .> .> .> .Sure you can. Well, maybe you can't but I can. .> .> Then you are
just LYING. .> .Not at all. You said, "You can't enjoy "distant views" without crashing.". I .said,
"Sure you can," using "you" in the general sense, meaning that it most .certainly possible ride and
enjoy distant views at the same time. Then, it .occurred to me that perhaps you personally are not
capable of doing two .things at the same time, but I can. . .You are the liar because it is most
certainly possible to ride and enjoy the .distant view without crashing. Of course, it is also
possible to crash while .enjoying the distant view, but it hardly ever happens. It has never happend
.to me, or anybody that I was with on any given day. . . . . .> .> They may or may not observe
things that .> .> .are just a few feet away, but what concern is it of yours that they .look .> .at
.> .> .the immediate vicinity of the trail, or look miles across the valley .> .floor .> .> .to the
beauty on the other side? Just because your personal choice is .to .> .> .look directly at your feet
as you walk, other's personal choice is to .> .look .> .> .at the magnificant views that stretch for
miles and miles. Since the .view .> .of .> .> .miles and miles away does not change quickly, then it
does not take .> .constant .> .> .attention to enjoy. .> .> .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I
SAID. .> .> .> .Why is it important that everybody else have the exact same experience as .> .you?
.> .> I am describing THEIR experience. DUH! .> . .No you're not. You are describing your own
experience. . . . . . .> .> .There is no truth whatsoever to your claim that bikers are not in tune
.> .with .> .> .their surroundings, or are less aware of them than a hiker. Indeed, it .> .isn't .>
.> .even important if the level of awareness is the same or different. .Hikers .> .> .themselves
have different levels of awareness among themselves, and it .is .> .> .entirely likely that a hiker
can have less awareness of his .surroundings .> .> .than a bike rider. .> .> .> .> BS. Impossible,
for the reasons I stated. .> .> .> .You have only stated reasons why YOU are not aware to your
surroundings, .you .> .have presented no proof whatsoever that I am not aware of mine, or .everybody
.> .(or anybody, for that matter) is not aware of theirs. .> .> 55 years of riding bicycles. I am an
expert. .> . .I too am an expert with 35 years esperience. None of my experience matches .the
experiences you claim to be the benchmark. . . . .

===
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 Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:19:26 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:41:08 -0800, "Jeff
> Strickland"
<[email protected]>
> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
> .news:[email protected]... .> .> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:17:36 -0800,
> "Jeff Strickland" .<[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> .> .> .> .Dear Mr. Vandeman, .> .> .Could you
> PLEASE at least try to make it possible to discern which .> .comments .> .> .are yours and which
> are someone else's? .> .> .> .> That should be obvious to any moron. .> .> .> .No, moron, it is
> not that obvious. I had to read several times to tell .that .> .you had actually attempted to ride
> a bike. The problem I had was that
you
> .> .left the > symbols in such a manner that made it difficult to tell who .was .> .relating the
> experience. .> .> You can tell my statements from the content, which you should know by .heart by
> .> now. .> .When you cross-post from the middle of a conversation, it is very
difficult
> .to tell who is speaking. You should take more care to be considerate of
your
> .audience.
>
> I didn't do that. That was someone else.
>

You do that all the time! You might not have done it on this particular occasion, but you
frequently do it.

> After all, your main claim to the problems presented by bikers is .that they lack consideration.
> If you are going to get on people for lack
of
> .consideratioin, you should take particular care that you are not .inconsiderate yourself. . . . .
> . .> .You are so friggin' rude that you can't even make it clear which
thoughts
> .> .are yours and which are somebody else's. .> .> That wasn't me. It was the guy quoting me. .>
> .My point exactly. We can not tell which thoughts are yours.
>
> That's because you are STUPID. Or you are LYING. Or BOTH.
>
Or, you are stupid, lying, or both. I'll take the second option, it's you that is stupid,
laying, or both.

> You so seldom .have a thought that you need to take care to point them out when they
occur.
> . . . .> Combine that with the belief that .> .most people have that you have no original thoughts
> at all, and the .rudeness .> .should be apparent. Of course, since you have no thought process,
> the .> .rudeness will go right over your head. .> . .> . .> . .> .> .In the following exchange, it
> appears that YOU went for a bike ride
in
> .a .> .> .Park a few days after an event was held there. It also appears that .YOU .> .do .> .>
> .not actually enjoy riding a bike, .> .> .> .> Learn to READ: "riding a bike off of paved roads is
> no fun at all!" .> .> .> . .> .Maybe it is no fun to you, bu *** is apparently loads of fun to
everybody
> .> .else. .> .> Can't you follow a conversation???? You just lied. .> . .You made a statement that
> is based upon your own experience, "riding a
bike
> .off of the paved road is no fun at all!" It is clearly not much fun to
you,
> .but is apparently loads of fun to everybody else. I think I followed just .fine. You are the one
> that can not follow along.
>
> Try again. That's what I said, and this is what you CLAIMED I said --
quite
> different: "YOU do not actually enjoy riding a bike". See the difference?
Liar.
> .
I haven't a clue anymore. You JUST agreed that you asid that you don't enjoy mountain biking, and
that is what I said. I never said you do not enjoy riding a bike at all, bu tif I confused you then
I am sorry. You are a PhD, and it should be more difficult to confuse you than it is. Maybe I type
too fast ...

> . .> .> and that the most significant thing you .> .> .bring up is just how uncomfortable mountain
> bike riding really is.
I
> .have .> .> .news for you, just because YOU don't like to ride a bike is no
reason
> .for .> .> .everybody else to not enjoy riding a bike. It appears by your own .> .comments .> .>
> .(as I said, it is difficult to tell if it was you riding the bike
or
> .> .> .somebody else), that you are a wuss because you can not tolerate .> .precisely .> .> .the
> part of the sport that most people are attracted to the sport
for.
> .> .> .> .> The pain? BS. .> .> .> . .> .Just because you are a crybaby doesn't justify taking
> everybody else's .fun .> .away. .> .> So we should manage for pain, since some people enjoy it?
> BS. .> . .No, we shouldn't give a single moment's consideration of the pain. Just .because you are
> a crybaby doesn't justify taking everybody else's fun
away.
> . . . .> .> .Many, if not all, mountain bike riders will stop at the most remote .spots .> .to .>
> .> .have a dirnk of water and eat a sandwich. It is in these remote .locations .> .> .that they
> get the full enjoyment of the trip. .> .> .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID. .> .> .>
> .YOU might miss 99% of it when you ride, but everybody else manages to
see
> .> .what they go outside to look for. .> .> Which must be nothing, because it's impossible to pay
> attention to 2 .things at .> once. .> . .Why should YOU care what anybody else sees? Let them
> decide for
themselves
> .that they see enough or need to stop and enjoy the view. Most of us can .manage several things
> all at one time, you are suggesting that walking
and
> .chewing gum can be a challenge.
>
> For YOU they are.
>
You are lying, or just stupid. Or both.