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

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:26:21 GMT, Gary S. <[email protected]> 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
     


  2. "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 tit 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.
     
  3. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:24:09 GMT, Gary S. <[email protected]> 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.
     
  4. Bkr

    Bkr Guest

    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
     
  5. Rick Etter

    Rick Etter Guest

    "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...
     
  6. 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 tit 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
     
  7. 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
     
  8. 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.
    <[email protected]> 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
     
  9. Yager

    Yager Guest

    "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!
     
  10. "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.
    > <[email protected]> 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.
     
  11. "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 tit 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.
     
  12. 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. <[email protected]> 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
     
  13. 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 tit 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
     
  14. "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 tit 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.
     
Loading...
Loading...