Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth?



"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:07:49 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>> I'm still waiting....
>>>>For what...? A "white suit wagon" to come pick you up...?
>>>>>>The FACT that people simply enjoy the activity of off-road cycling is
>>>>>>reason enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not enough to convince a land manager. It has to benefit the public or
>>>>> the wildlife. It benefits NEITHER.
>>>>Apparently, your opinion even supercedes reality. Land managers across
>>>>the
>>>>country are working with cycling organizations to enhance cooperation
>>>>among
>>>>all user groups. The Bureau of Land Management has a national action
>>>>plan
>>>>in
>>>>place just for the purpose. The BLM recognizes the benefits of off-road
>>>>cycling and your opinions of off-road cycling and the reasons given
>>>>supporting the benefits of off-road cycling are a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>>It is simple. You try to close your eyes and cover your ears by placing
>>>>your
>>>>OPINION as a determining factor as what is valid. However, it has been
>>>>PROVEN to those who make the decisions that off-road cycling offers
>>>>benefits
>>>>of health, increased awareness of the importance of preservation,
>>>>cooperative maintenance, economic benefits and more.
>>>
>>> I am still waiting to hear even ONE good reason to allow bikes
>>> off-road. The ball is in your court.
>>Keep trying... But your OPINION is not a qualifier in determining what is
>>a
>>good reason to allow anything. You go play with your ball. The rest of us
>>have bikes to ride. With the blessings of the sane majority in
>>organizations
>>and government across the country.
>
> Until you can produce even ONE good reason to allow bikes off-road, no
> one will believe that you can. We are all still waiting ... after 10
> years of your SILENCE.
"We" are moving on. "We" are the organizations and persons who hike, ride
horses, kayak, bicycle, fish, hunt, photograph, etc. You have no basis to
speak for "We", or me or anyone else. Your pathetic denials of the progress
being made by cycling organizations inspiring cooperation to maintain and
keep areas open for recreation and closed for development are laughable.
Since you have FAILED to show off-road cycling impact is in any significant
way different from hiking, then the FACT that we may choose to ride a
bicycle off-road is reason enough. Your OPINION of that reason (or any other
benefit of health, preservation, cooperation and economy) is not of
consequence.
>
>>>>Your OPINION as to the validity of these benefits is null. Your OPINION
>>>>of
>>>>off-road cycling is null. All you have is your OPINION resting on a
>>>>carefully selected foundation of chosen information.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still waiting....
>>>>For what...? Another Synanon cultist to agree with you?
>>
> ===
> 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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:33:53 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>We have.
>>>
>>> Where are they?????????
>>>
>>> Your denial of it is as useless as your OPINION of it. (Google
>>>>Group search "vandeman" has many years evidence of your ignorance) Your
>>>>OPINION is not a qualifier for the validity of any reason given.
>>>>Besides,
>>>>the Bureau of Land Management is already convinced of the benefits of
>>>>off-road cycling and THEY make the decisions.
>>>
>>> Everyone know they are corrupt, like the mountain bikers.
>>
>>Right..... Poor vandeman.... Maybe it is your OPINIONS that are out
>>of
>>whack. Maybe the BLM and the Sierra Club and IMBA are all cooperating
>>because reality is more convincing that your (and the handful of zealots
>>like you) contrived OPINIONS.
>
> BS. Mountain bikers support mountain biking. Nobody else does.
> ===
Your OPINION, again. We are waiting for you to present something beyond your
OPINION.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:26:37 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> After 10 years, I am still waiting to hear even ONE good reason to
> allow bikes off-road.
> ===
And we are waiting to hear ONE good reason to accept your OPINION as
definitive. Since off-road cycling is expanding, access is continuing,
diverse user groups are cooperating, the only possible conclusion is;
OUR REASONS for cycling off-road have, year after year and comment after
comment, made more sense to those who actually make decisions than your
OPINIONS.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:45:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Not unnecessarily. Mountain biking is totally unnecessary killing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Non-sequitur. Mountain biking is not "killing". Your association of
>>>>>>"off-road cycling" and "killing" is based on your opinion and has no
>>>>>>basis
>>>>>>to support the assumption that off-road cycling in any way is more
>>>>>>hazardous
>>>>>>to environmental conditions than hiking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen the animals killed by mountain bikers. I have yet to see an
>>>>> animal killed by a hiker. We don't move that fast.
>>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>>Anecdotal.... You may have seen a dead animal... You say you have
>>>>"seen
>>>>the animals killed by..." Past tense. You did not see the cyclists kill
>>>>anything. You see tire tracks and a whipsnake and jump to the conclusion
>>>>the
>>>>cyclists were the cause.
>>>
>>> Very funny. A tire track across the body is a pretty good indication
>>> of what killed it. You need to watch more CSI.
>>Sure... I am going to base REALITY on the plot of a television
>>program....?
>
> Yes. You are so ignorant (or is it just DISHONESTY?) that even a TV
> program is educational for you.
Again, are you so ignorant as to believe nobody else notices this
split-context tactic of yours? Do you really think nobody else notices this
misdirection away from the context of the entire message?
Pathetic!
You brought up CSI... You brought up the supposed validity of the
application of a TV program... You made the initial comparison and then
fail to follow through beyond the usual "Vandeman misdirection and character
assasination".
And still NO COMMENT on the complete context below!
Transparent and Pathetic.
>
>>Besides, isn't that the cop show where the OBVIOUS is seldom, if ever, the
>>culprit?
>>And thanks for proving our point yet again. Just as you select information
>>to protect your opinion, you drop your comments in a selected spot while
>>ignoring the complete context of what is being said.
>>I notice you made NO COMMENT after the complete context of the statement
>>below.
>>> Any number of reasons an animal may be dead on the
>>>>trail. Any number of cyclists, hikers, equestrians or other wildlife may
>>>>have passed it yet you thrust your OPINION in as evidence to conclude it
>>>>was
>>>>only the cyclists. You also say you have yet to see an animal killed by
>>>>a
>>>>hiker. There is as much evidence to say any of these "supposed" dead
>>>>animals
>>>>you have seen were killed by eating the trash of a careless hiker as
>>>>being
>>>>hit by a bicycle.
>>>>
>>
> ===
> 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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:09:00 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 01:23:16 -0700, "Stan de SD"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Most of them work for a living, pay taxes to support the park
>>>>> system, and provide some nominally useful good or service for their
>>>>> fellow humans - which is more than we can say about you. :O|
>>>
>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>
>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban them,
>>> and
>>> then you can squawk.
>>
>>This is a key point. All studies have shown that mountain biking doesn't
>>cause any more trail damage than hiking, and that equestrian use does
>>far more damage. In terms of disturbing wildlife, hiking actually
>>disturbs it more than mountain biking.
>
> You know that's a blatant LIE. Junk science doesn't "show" anything.
> For the truth, see: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. DUH!
That is NOT TRUTH! It is YOUR OPINION! Your website with your OPINIONS
pulled from selected bits of information that match those OPINIONS is NOT a
valid reference. Your OPINION of the validity of the science is useless.
Your OPINION of comparative studies on cycling and hiking are useless.
We are waiting for one reason why your use of "junk science" makes your
OPINION any more valid than that of IMBA, the BLM, the Sierra Club, the US
Government or the half-off marshmallow peeps on the shelves of Walgreens...
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:34:04 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>It seems you only support wildlife to justify your bigotted attitude to
>>bikers, when in reality, you only care about causing mountain bikers harm,
>>regardless of how many deer get hurt inthe process.
>>You will of course call me a liar, that you never said this, but
>>unfortunatly
>>you pathetic piece of humanity, its here quite clearly in the archives.
>>
>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/al...ersus+Wildlife"&rnum=1&hl=en#185aa453cd8a1a6f
>
> I didn't see anything that would cayse a normal person to think I had
> condoned setting traps. I just pointed out that mountin bikers are
> their own worst enemies.
Please, after 10 years, give us ONE good reason to believe you could
recognize "normal" if it stood in front of you with a giant, neon sign.

>>You are someone who advocates murder, of both humans and animals, so you
>>can
>>hike on the trails you consider your property without what you see as the
>>disturbance of other trail users, and as such, your words , lies and
>>propganda are meaningless , pathetic attention seeking drivel.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:03:26 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:23:48 GMT, "Sorni"
>>
>>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking.
>>
>>> No, I don't. I don't promote ANY recreation.
>>
>>Sir, your urine-stained khaki shorts are ablaze after that one. (IOW,
>>Liar
>>Liar Pants On Fire.) Google betrays you, over and over again...
>
> Hmmm. You can't even provide a single quote from all your googling....
Its a simple ploy and game of wordplay on the part of vandeman. He can
engage in an activity, make statements deriding one activity (off-road
cycling) in light of another activity (hiking) and make claims of adverse
effects of one over the other yet say he does not "support" the activity.
Openly hypocritical for everyone to see yet he continues to deny his
participation lends support.
However, from MV's own website, he lists hiking and camping among his
"passions". If he is to be belived, he enjoys the benefits of experiencing
nature in his own way yet begrudges others the same discretion AND does so
while speaking against the very recreation he, himself, chooses to engage.
He wants a "human-free habitat" but visits natural habitat and hikes within
it. He speaks against off-road cycling yet signs every post with a statement
of fighting auto dependence and road construction. He ignores the
cooperative efforts of cycling organizations to preserve more habitat and
green space. Yet it is these efforts that run parallel to his own stated
mission of fighting auto dependence and road construction.
Is there a rubber room somewhere without an occupant?
>
>>BS (apt for you)
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:33:53 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>
> BS. Mountain bikers support mountain biking. Nobody else does.
> ===


Not true, lots of local parks support it also...
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> You CONVENIENTLY removed the statement that I was responding to.

No, it is a statement you have made on this group repeatedly: "All
mountain bikers are LIARS."

Regardless of the statements before or after, you have generalized all
(including myself as a mountain biker) as liars.


> And mountain bikers (I have never seen an exception) seem to
> feel that it's necessary to lie, to support their otherwise
> UNJUSTIFIABLE, destructive sport.

You claim not to say I'm a liar, but here again you imply that I, as a
mountain biker (and you have never seen an exception)feel it is
necessary to lie.

Bless you, Mike for thinking of the environment in which we live, but
"judge not lest ye be judged." You've demonstrated strong judgement
against those who bicycle off of the pavement and claim justification
from your beliefs and opinions. At the same time, you've condemned a
great many for their beliefs and opinions...perhaps you should consider
that a great deal of injustice and war in this world has been caused by
far less.

Regards,

Michael Halliwell
 
S Curtiss wrote:

> Right..... Poor vandeman.... Maybe it is your OPINIONS that are out of
> whack. Maybe the BLM and the Sierra Club and IMBA are all cooperating
> because reality is more convincing that your (and the handful of zealots
> like you) contrived OPINIONS.

To even quantify his statements as opinions is incorrect, they are
simply falsehoods. Opinions are for subjects that are open to at least
some debate, but in terms of mountain biking, there is an enormous body
of incontrovertible knowledge on the subject of their impact on trail
erosion and on wildlife, in comparison to the impact of other trail
uses. All the studies have shown that the impact of mountain bikes and
hikers to be about equal. Some people may claim that the linear ruts
left by mountain bikes riding on a muddy trail, are worse than the
hiking boot size ruts left by hikers, or vice-versa, but in reality the
impact is about the same. He can't find even a single study to support
his position.
 
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:43:50 -0400, ChainSmoker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:33:53 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> >
>> BS. Mountain bikers support mountain biking. Nobody else does.
>> ===
>
>
>Not true, lots of local parks support it also...

Only when the staff are mountain bikers.
===
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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:21:27 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> You CONVENIENTLY removed the statement that I was responding to.
>
>No, it is a statement you have made on this group repeatedly: "All
>mountain bikers are LIARS."

BS. I have NEVER said that. I said that "All mountain bikers I HAVE
MET are liars". That's true. You just proved my point, by LYING. And
you claim to be a minister? Don't make me laugh.

>Regardless of the statements before or after, you have generalized all
>(including myself as a mountain biker) as liars.
>
>
>> And mountain bikers (I have never seen an exception) seem to
>> feel that it's necessary to lie, to support their otherwise
>> UNJUSTIFIABLE, destructive sport.
>
>You claim not to say I'm a liar, but here again you imply that I, as a
>mountain biker (and you have never seen an exception)feel it is
>necessary to lie.

I don't know why you lied, but it's obvious that you DID. Why don't
YOU tell me why you did?

>Bless you, Mike for thinking of the environment in which we live, but
>"judge not lest ye be judged." You've demonstrated strong judgement
>against those who bicycle off of the pavement and claim justification
>from your beliefs and opinions. At the same time, you've condemned a
>great many for their beliefs and opinions...perhaps you should consider
>that a great deal of injustice and war in this world has been caused by
>far less.

I just tell the truth -- something you should try.

>Regards,
>
>Michael Halliwell
===
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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:51:38 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:58:24 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> >We understand thoroughly - you're an anti-bike Nazi. :O|
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BS. I have been a bicyclist longer than you have been alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet you have exhibited a hysterical hatred of mountain bikes for the
>>>>>>>last
>>>>>>>10
>>>>>>>years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Mountain BIKING. You can't get anything right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Really...? Then why have you repeatedly referred to all mountain bikers
>>>>>as
>>>>>liars, criminals, morons and idiots?
>>>>
>>>> That is just a FACT. Where do you see hatred? LIAR.
>>>Nope. It is your OPINION. If it is a fact, present evidence that every
>>>person engaging in the activity of mountain biking is a liar, criminal,
>>>moron and idiot.
>>
>> I have yet to meet even ONE mountain biker who doesn't lie. That's
>> HUNDREDS. QED
>Anecdotal. Your OPINION of off-road cyclists does not make them "liars". The
>mere fact their statements may not agree with your OPINIONS does not make
>them "liars". Your OPINION of comments made by anyone does not make them a
>"liar". Your denial of information when presented to you does not make
>anyone a "liar".

I never said that. YOU did. They are liars because they LIE. DUH!

>In order for your statement ("I have yet to meet even ONE mountain biker who
>doesn't lie") to be true, you have to prove they made actual false
>statements. Simply saying they are "liars" because they made a statement
>counter to your OPINION is meaningless.

I've never said that. YOU did.
===
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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:09:55 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:07:49 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm still waiting....
>>>>>For what...? A "white suit wagon" to come pick you up...?
>>>>>>>The FACT that people simply enjoy the activity of off-road cycling is
>>>>>>>reason enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not enough to convince a land manager. It has to benefit the public or
>>>>>> the wildlife. It benefits NEITHER.
>>>>>Apparently, your opinion even supercedes reality. Land managers across
>>>>>the
>>>>>country are working with cycling organizations to enhance cooperation
>>>>>among
>>>>>all user groups. The Bureau of Land Management has a national action
>>>>>plan
>>>>>in
>>>>>place just for the purpose. The BLM recognizes the benefits of off-road
>>>>>cycling and your opinions of off-road cycling and the reasons given
>>>>>supporting the benefits of off-road cycling are a non-issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is simple. You try to close your eyes and cover your ears by placing
>>>>>your
>>>>>OPINION as a determining factor as what is valid. However, it has been
>>>>>PROVEN to those who make the decisions that off-road cycling offers
>>>>>benefits
>>>>>of health, increased awareness of the importance of preservation,
>>>>>cooperative maintenance, economic benefits and more.
>>>>
>>>> I am still waiting to hear even ONE good reason to allow bikes
>>>> off-road. The ball is in your court.
>>>Keep trying... But your OPINION is not a qualifier in determining what is
>>>a
>>>good reason to allow anything. You go play with your ball. The rest of us
>>>have bikes to ride. With the blessings of the sane majority in
>>>organizations
>>>and government across the country.
>>
>> Until you can produce even ONE good reason to allow bikes off-road, no
>> one will believe that you can. We are all still waiting ... after 10
>> years of your SILENCE.

I'm still waiting. None of your BS can hide the fact that you can't
answer the question.

>"We" are moving on. "We" are the organizations and persons who hike, ride
>horses, kayak, bicycle, fish, hunt, photograph, etc. You have no basis to
>speak for "We", or me or anyone else. Your pathetic denials of the progress
>being made by cycling organizations inspiring cooperation to maintain and
>keep areas open for recreation and closed for development are laughable.
>Since you have FAILED to show off-road cycling impact is in any significant
>way different from hiking, then the FACT that we may choose to ride a
>bicycle off-road is reason enough. Your OPINION of that reason (or any other
>benefit of health, preservation, cooperation and economy) is not of
>consequence.
>>
>>>>>Your OPINION as to the validity of these benefits is null. Your OPINION
>>>>>of
>>>>>off-road cycling is null. All you have is your OPINION resting on a
>>>>>carefully selected foundation of chosen information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still waiting....
>>>>>For what...? Another Synanon cultist to agree with you?
>>>
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:23:53 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:26:37 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> After 10 years, I am still waiting to hear even ONE good reason to
>> allow bikes off-road.
>> ===
>And we are waiting to hear ONE good reason to accept your OPINION as
>definitive. Since off-road cycling is expanding, access is continuing,
>diverse user groups are cooperating, the only possible conclusion is;
>OUR REASONS for cycling off-road have, year after year and comment after
>comment, made more sense to those who actually make decisions than your
>OPINIONS.

Then why can't you give even ONE good reason why bikes should be
allowed off-road??????????????????????????????????????
===
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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:03:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> Right..... Poor vandeman.... Maybe it is your OPINIONS that are out of
>> whack. Maybe the BLM and the Sierra Club and IMBA are all cooperating
>> because reality is more convincing that your (and the handful of zealots
>> like you) contrived OPINIONS.
>
>To even quantify his statements as opinions is incorrect, they are
>simply falsehoods. Opinions are for subjects that are open to at least
>some debate, but in terms of mountain biking, there is an enormous body
>of incontrovertible knowledge on the subject of their impact on trail
>erosion and on wildlife, in comparison to the impact of other trail
>uses. All the studies have shown that the impact of mountain bikes and
>hikers to be about equal.

That is a bald-faced LIE. Wisdom et al came to the opposite
conclusion, which you well know.

Some people may claim that the linear ruts
>left by mountain bikes riding on a muddy trail, are worse than the
>hiking boot size ruts left by hikers, or vice-versa, but in reality the
>impact is about the same. He can't find even a single study to support
>his position.
===
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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:15:51 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:03:26 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:23:48 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>
>>>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking.
>>>
>>>> No, I don't. I don't promote ANY recreation.
>>>
>>>Sir, your urine-stained khaki shorts are ablaze after that one. (IOW,
>>>Liar
>>>Liar Pants On Fire.) Google betrays you, over and over again...
>>
>> Hmmm. You can't even provide a single quote from all your googling....
>Its a simple ploy and game of wordplay on the part of vandeman. He can
>engage in an activity, make statements deriding one activity (off-road
>cycling) in light of another activity (hiking) and make claims of adverse
>effects of one over the other yet say he does not "support" the activity.
>Openly hypocritical for everyone to see yet he continues to deny his
>participation lends support.
>However, from MV's own website, he lists hiking and camping among his
>"passions". If he is to be belived, he enjoys the benefits of experiencing
>nature in his own way yet begrudges others the same discretion AND does so
>while speaking against the very recreation he, himself, chooses to engage.
>He wants a "human-free habitat" but visits natural habitat and hikes within
>it. He speaks against off-road cycling yet signs every post with a statement
>of fighting auto dependence and road construction. He ignores the
>cooperative efforts of cycling organizations to preserve more habitat and
>green space. Yet it is these efforts that run parallel to his own stated
>mission of fighting auto dependence and road construction.
>Is there a rubber room somewhere without an occupant?
>>
>>>BS (apt for you)
>>>
>> ===
>> 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
>

Did you say somehting?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:21:27 GMT, Michael Halliwell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>You CONVENIENTLY removed the statement that I was responding to.
>>
>>No, it is a statement you have made on this group repeatedly: "All
>>mountain bikers are LIARS."
>
>
> BS. I have NEVER said that. I said that "All mountain bikers I HAVE
> MET are liars". That's true. You just proved my point, by LYING. And
> you claim to be a minister? Don't make me laugh.

Mike,

Interesting that you added "I HAVE MET" to your statement. In about 15
seconds on google, I had these wonderful gems from your past...

Feb 14, 2004, title of one of your postings:

" Another Mountain Biker Proves It: ALL Mountain Bikers Are Liars"

(note: no "I have met" in there)


In July 2005:

"'..
...Haven't you always said that mountain bikers are all liars,'

Yes, but not every statement is a lie. DUH!"

(note: admitted making the very statement you deny now)

Funny, seems to me like I am the one telling the truth and you have been
caught claiming something that is a lie.

Repent of your lying, Mike.

Regards,

Michael Halliwell
 
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:14:20 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:21:27 GMT, Michael Halliwell
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>>You CONVENIENTLY removed the statement that I was responding to.
>>>
>>>No, it is a statement you have made on this group repeatedly: "All
>>>mountain bikers are LIARS."
>>
>>
>> BS. I have NEVER said that. I said that "All mountain bikers I HAVE
>> MET are liars". That's true. You just proved my point, by LYING. And
>> you claim to be a minister? Don't make me laugh.
>
>Mike,
>
>Interesting that you added "I HAVE MET" to your statement. In about 15
>seconds on google, I had these wonderful gems from your past...
>
>Feb 14, 2004, title of one of your postings:
>
>" Another Mountain Biker Proves It: ALL Mountain Bikers Are Liars"

If you could read, you would know that that says " Another Mountain
Biker Proves [that] ALL Mountain Bikers Are Liars", which is quite
different from " ALL Mountain Bikers Are Liars".

>(note: no "I have met" in there)
>
>
>In July 2005:
>
>"'..
>..Haven't you always said that mountain bikers are all liars,'
>
>Yes, but not every statement is a lie. DUH!"
>
>(note: admitted making the very statement you deny now)

Nowhere do I say " mountain bikers are all liars". A mountain biker
said that. You also continue to remove all of the context, so that we
can't see you quoting out of context.

>Funny, seems to me like I am the one telling the truth and you have been
>caught claiming something that is a lie.

BS. Note that you said: " it is a statement you have made on this
group repeatedly: 'All mountain bikers are LIARS.'" You haven't even
shown ONE instance, much less "repeatedly". You must provide several
different instances, in order to prove that I said that "repeatedly".
You can't even provide ONE! YOU ARE A LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE. QED

>Repent of your lying, Mike.
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael Halliwell
===
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 Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:51:38 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> I have yet to meet even ONE mountain biker who doesn't lie. That's
>>> HUNDREDS. QED
>>Anecdotal. Your OPINION of off-road cyclists does not make them "liars".
>>The
>>mere fact their statements may not agree with your OPINIONS does not make
>>them "liars". Your OPINION of comments made by anyone does not make them a
>>"liar". Your denial of information when presented to you does not make
>>anyone a "liar".
>
> I never said that. YOU did. They are liars because they LIE. DUH!
You say they are "liars". Your OPINION... again! Can you not read? I said
your OPINIONS of any information or statement made, or your denial that any
information being presented is factual, does not make anyone else a "liar".
And what kind of statement is "I never said that. YOU did."? It is obvious I
said it as it is my comment on your OPINIONS. Are you so stupid as to try to
misdirect anyone by showing my comments were actually said by me? Are the
little voices in your head retarded?

>
>>In order for your statement ("I have yet to meet even ONE mountain biker
>>who
>>doesn't lie") to be true, you have to prove they made actual false
>>statements. Simply saying they are "liars" because they made a statement
>>counter to your OPINION is meaningless.
>
> I've never said that. YOU did.
Right. I said it. You telling me I said it doesn't change it. Your feeble
attempt at misdirection does not alter it.
However, you not disagreeing with the context of the statement speaks
volumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
MORE Illegal Trailbuilding by Mountain Bikers: When Does It Ever End?
Replies
1
Views
428
Mountain Bikes
Callistus Valerius
C
M
Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth?
Replies
8
Views
406
Mountain Bikes
S Curtiss
S
M
Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the TRUTH???!
Replies
73
Views
3K
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the TRUTH???!
Replies
75
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Bill Z.
B
Top Bottom Back