Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth?

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:09:55 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
I've already answered the question. Your OPINION of the answer is
irrelevant. In this very thread, I wrote "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." Your denial or OPINION of any of these very
real factors is simply gamesaying. Your statement "you can't answer the
question." is meaningless as the question has been answered... repeatedly.
These same benefits have been stated in many ways by many persons in
discussions with you that always end with you calling them "liars" or
running off with a feeble "did you say something?" post. (Google search
"vandeman" has a complete history)


>
>>"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?
>>>>
>>> ===

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:23:53 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[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've already given you this... Repeatedly. Your OPINION of the answer is
irrelevant. In this very thread, I wrote "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." Your denial or OPINION of any of these very
real factors is simply gamesaying. Your statement "give even ONE good
reason" is meaningless as the question has been answered... repeatedly.
These same benefits have been stated in many ways by many persons in
discussions with you that always end with you calling them "liars" or
running off with a feeble "did you say something?" post. (Google search
"vandeman" has a complete history)

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:43:50 -0400, ChainSmoker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
Which parks with off-road cycling have a staff comprised of "mountain
bikers"? Names, States, Locations...?

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
Nope. That study recommended a holistic approach to managing outdoor
recreation with regards to habitat involved. "Although these details are not
yet available, managers could begin to consider holistic management
strategies for all off-road activities based on our current findings. Some
watersheds might feature opportunities for ATV or mountain bike riding, for
example, while other watersheds might focus on opportunities for horseback
riding or hiking."

Plus, the actual response data from that study showed little significant
differences between hiking and cycling and larger differences for motorized
traffic. Beyond that, it is one study, in one area, with data pulled from a
specific set of wildlife responses (mule deer and elk) and it is 8 years
old. Several other studies show coexistence of trails, users and habitat.
(several are listed here:
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html)

Your use of that study, and the selective nature in which you present the
findings and conclusions from that study, have been proven ludicrous over
and over. (Google groups search "vandeman" and "wisdom" will show it all)

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:15:51 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>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?
>>>
>
> Did you say somehting?
> ===

Another beautifully written rebuttal showcasing the debating skills and
subject knowledge of Michael J. Vandeman, PhD.

 

[ChainSmoker]

That is a theory and not based on facts or published data.


Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 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

 

[Rogerd]

Mike Vandeman wrote:


>>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
>


Did you say something?

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> 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.

Conveniently, you've changed your quote to hide the fact you use "All
moutain bikers are liars" repeatedly:

The February 14, 2004 quote was a posting to this newsgroup titled:

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



This news group, December 6, 1998:

"Thanks for confirming my point once again: IN MY EXPERIENCE, all
mountain bikers lie. CONSTANTLY! Statistically speaking, there MUST be
at least one honest one, but I have yet to hear from any.

Why is that? I guess you don't believe that you could tell the truth
and still justify mountain biking. Of course, you are RIGHT, but that
doesn't justify lying. All you are doing is hurting your cause!!! "



July 6, 2005 to this news group (full text for you context. Mike):

From: Mike Vandeman - view profile
Date: Wed, Jul 6 2005 9:30 am

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 07:13:56 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message

..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:31:08 GMT, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
...
..> .Hey mikey you need to put on your reading glasses there old man. "A
..> .woman jogging along a trail near Canmore, Alta., was killed on Sunday by
..> .a grizzly bear that had been captured and relocated out of the region a
..> .week earlier."
..> .
..> .What she does when not jogging is irrelevant here, she wasn't a mountain
..> .biker here she was a jogger.
..>
..> I didn't write the title. It was written by a mountain biker, so it must
..> be
..> accurate.
..
..Haven't you always said that mountain bikers are all liars,

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

now you say
..something written by one must be accurate because they are a mountain
biker.
..Geeez, just proof you are the liar.
..

===
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 "


Same thread, a couple responses later (July 9, 2005):

".> .> .Haven't you always said that mountain bikers are all liars,
..> .>
..> .> Yes, but not every statement is a lie. DUH!
..> .Is it "all mt bikers lie"
..>
..> This is it. That doesn't imply that every statement is a lie.
..
..Then why do you use an amazing amount of bandwidth calling mt bikers
.."liars"? If every statement is not a lie... but "all mt bikers lie" Then
..someone must be lying.

If you ever (or frequently) lie, then you are a liar. Telling the truth
once in
a while doesn't change that. DUH! Are you really THAT stupid?"



May 13, 2002:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
"CycleJay wrote:

..I am NOT lying, mr. vandeman, How many times have I told you that I do not
..lie..Unless I have a darn good reason.(which I already mentioned)

Yeah: to defend mountain biking and mountain bikers, like you just
did.

..In any case, that is very rare that I do that anyway.
..And like I said, I am NOT an aggressive person..

You also said none of the mountain bikers you know are aggressive. But
we know otherwise!

Unless of course my very
..life is being threatened, then watch out.
..But if I am told I cannot ride some where, then I will handle the situation
..in a legal manner, NOT an aggressive manner.

Then you are different from every mountain biker I have ever met (on
illegal trails): they all LIE and act belligerent."

Or for a slightly different wording of the same...On October 11, 2005:

".I see, so you admit you have absolutely zero understanding of the term
'peer
..review' then, which refers to the practice of having a thesis published in
..an acknowledged journal, to be appraised and commented on by known experts
..in the field.
..Glad you admit to another lie mr vanderman, i beleive you are making
..progress with your servere mental deficiencies.
..By the way, you have proved nothing. If 'good science' means making things
..up, as you have with the altered conclusions on all the scientific data
..presented in your 'thesis', we would still be using leeches to cure
desease.

Thanks for demonstrating that you completely missed the point of my
paper. The
authors of the "studies" I reviewed lied about the implications of their own
data. It's as plain as day (to everyone but mountain bikers, who are
honesty-challenged). "


> 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

I have about another 50 from my quick search, but in the aims of not
spamming these news groups any worse than I have (my apologies to the
readers), I'll leave it at this.

Michael Halliwell

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>
Feb 12 - 2006
I know what you say here, which clearly shows that you, like all mountain
bikers, are a LIAR.
Feb 3 - 2006
They are all mountain bikers and not experts -- just liars.
Oct 23 - 2005
From my observation, all mountain bikers lie. CONSTANTLY.
June 18 - 2004
....LIAR why must all mountain bikers lie

etc, etc, etc

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:49:16 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:09:55 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>I've already answered the question. Your OPINION of the answer is
>irrelevant. In this very thread, I wrote "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."

NONE of that is due to allowing BIKES in natural areas. They can ALL
be obtained without mountain biking. So there's no reason to allow
mountain biking. QED

Your denial or OPINION of any of these very
>real factors is simply gamesaying. Your statement "you can't answer the
>question." is meaningless as the question has been answered... repeatedly.
>These same benefits have been stated in many ways by many persons in
>discussions with you that always end with you calling them "liars" or
>running off with a feeble "did you say something?" post. (Google search
>"vandeman" has a complete history)
>
>
>>
>>>"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]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:52:19 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:23:53 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[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've already given you this... Repeatedly.

No yet! You don't have even ONE reason to allow BIKES in natural
areas. That's why you didn't give it just now: it doesn't exist.

Your OPINION of the answer is
>irrelevant. In this very thread, I wrote "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." Your denial or OPINION of any of these very
>real factors is simply gamesaying. Your statement "give even ONE good
>reason" is meaningless as the question has been answered... repeatedly.
>These same benefits have been stated in many ways by many persons in
>discussions with you that always end with you calling them "liars" or
>running off with a feeble "did you say something?" post. (Google search
>"vandeman" has a complete history)
>
===
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]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:53:09 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:43:50 -0400, ChainSmoker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>Which parks with off-road cycling have a staff comprised of "mountain
>bikers"? Names, States, Locations...?

Every one that is open to mountain biking.
===
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]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:55:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>Nope. That study recommended a holistic approach to managing outdoor
>recreation with regards to habitat involved. "Although these details are not
>yet available, managers could begin to consider holistic management
>strategies for all off-road activities based on our current findings. Some
>watersheds might feature opportunities for ATV or mountain bike riding, for
>example, while other watersheds might focus on opportunities for horseback
>riding or hiking."
>
>Plus, the actual response data from that study showed little significant
>differences between hiking and cycling and larger differences for motorized
>traffic.

That is another bald-faced lie! There was no "motorized traffic" in
the study! You are just one lie after another....

Beyond that, it is one study, in one area, with data pulled from a
>specific set of wildlife responses (mule deer and elk) and it is 8 years
>old. Several other studies show coexistence of trails, users and habitat.
>(several are listed here:
>http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html)
>
>Your use of that study, and the selective nature in which you present the
>findings and conclusions from that study, have been proven ludicrous over
>and over. (Google groups search "vandeman" and "wisdom" will show it all)
>
>
>
===
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]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 03:07:02 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Conveniently, you've changed your quote to hide the fact you use "All
>moutain bikers are liars" repeatedly:
>
>The February 14, 2004 quote was a posting to this newsgroup titled:
>
>" Another Mountain Biker Proves It: ALL Mountain Bikers Are Liars"
>
>
>
>This news group, December 6, 1998:
>
>"Thanks for confirming my point once again: IN MY EXPERIENCE, all
>mountain bikers lie.

See what I mean? You omitted the important qualifier, "IN MY
EXPERIENCE".

CONSTANTLY! Statistically speaking, there MUST be
>at least one honest one, but I have yet to hear from any.
>
>Why is that? I guess you don't believe that you could tell the truth
>and still justify mountain biking. Of course, you are RIGHT, but that
>doesn't justify lying. All you are doing is hurting your cause!!! "
>
>
>
>July 6, 2005 to this news group (full text for you context. Mike):
>
>From: Mike Vandeman - view profile
>Date: Wed, Jul 6 2005 9:30 am
>
>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 07:13:56 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>.
>."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>.news:[email protected]...
>.> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:31:08 GMT, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>.>
>..
>.> .Hey mikey you need to put on your reading glasses there old man. "A
>.> .woman jogging along a trail near Canmore, Alta., was killed on Sunday by
>.> .a grizzly bear that had been captured and relocated out of the region a
>.> .week earlier."
>.> .
>.> .What she does when not jogging is irrelevant here, she wasn't a mountain
>.> .biker here she was a jogger.
>.>
>.> I didn't write the title. It was written by a mountain biker, so it must
>.> be
>.> accurate.
>.
>.Haven't you always said that mountain bikers are all liars,
>
>Yes, but not every statement is a lie. DUH!
>
> now you say
>.something written by one must be accurate because they are a mountain
>biker.
>.Geeez, just proof you are the liar.
>.
>
>===
>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 "
>
>
>Same thread, a couple responses later (July 9, 2005):
>
>".> .> .Haven't you always said that mountain bikers are all liars,
>.> .>
>.> .> Yes, but not every statement is a lie. DUH!
>.> .Is it "all mt bikers lie"
>.>
>.> This is it. That doesn't imply that every statement is a lie.
>.
>.Then why do you use an amazing amount of bandwidth calling mt bikers
>."liars"? If every statement is not a lie... but "all mt bikers lie" Then
>.someone must be lying.
>
>If you ever (or frequently) lie, then you are a liar. Telling the truth
>once in
>a while doesn't change that. DUH! Are you really THAT stupid?"
>
>
>
>May 13, 2002:
>
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>"CycleJay wrote:
>
>.I am NOT lying, mr. vandeman, How many times have I told you that I do not
>.lie..Unless I have a darn good reason.(which I already mentioned)
>
>Yeah: to defend mountain biking and mountain bikers, like you just
>did.
>
>.In any case, that is very rare that I do that anyway.
>.And like I said, I am NOT an aggressive person..
>
>You also said none of the mountain bikers you know are aggressive. But
>we know otherwise!
>
>Unless of course my very
>.life is being threatened, then watch out.
>.But if I am told I cannot ride some where, then I will handle the situation
>.in a legal manner, NOT an aggressive manner.
>
>Then you are different from every mountain biker I have ever met (on
>illegal trails): they all LIE and act belligerent."
>
>Or for a slightly different wording of the same...On October 11, 2005:
>
>".I see, so you admit you have absolutely zero understanding of the term
>'peer
>.review' then, which refers to the practice of having a thesis published in
>.an acknowledged journal, to be appraised and commented on by known experts
>.in the field.
>.Glad you admit to another lie mr vanderman, i beleive you are making
>.progress with your servere mental deficiencies.
>.By the way, you have proved nothing. If 'good science' means making things
>.up, as you have with the altered conclusions on all the scientific data
>.presented in your 'thesis', we would still be using leeches to cure
>desease.
>
>Thanks for demonstrating that you completely missed the point of my
>paper. The
>authors of the "studies" I reviewed lied about the implications of their own
>data. It's as plain as day (to everyone but mountain bikers, who are
>honesty-challenged). "
>
>
>> 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
>
>I have about another 50 from my quick search, but in the aims of not
>spamming these news groups any worse than I have (my apologies to the
>readers), I'll leave it at this.
>
>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]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:55:15 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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
>>
>Feb 12 - 2006
>I know what you say here, which clearly shows that you, like all mountain
>bikers, are a LIAR.
>Feb 3 - 2006
>They are all mountain bikers and not experts -- just liars.
>Oct 23 - 2005
>From my observation, all mountain bikers lie. CONSTANTLY.
>June 18 - 2004
>...LIAR why must all mountain bikers lie
>
>etc, etc, etc

Notice that NOWHERE do I say "All mountain bikers are LIARS.", as you
claimed.
===
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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:55:15 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>Feb 12 - 2006
>>I know what you say here, which clearly shows that you, like all mountain
>>bikers, are a LIAR.
>>Feb 3 - 2006
>>They are all mountain bikers and not experts -- just liars.
>>Oct 23 - 2005
>>From my observation, all mountain bikers lie. CONSTANTLY.
>>June 18 - 2004
>>...LIAR why must all mountain bikers lie
>>
>>etc, etc, etc
>
> Notice that NOWHERE do I say "All mountain bikers are LIARS.", as you
> claimed.
> ===
Do you really have a PhD...? Or is it a piece of toilet paper written on
with a crayon?
I see it.... I can verify the existence... I can reference it so others
can see it... I can quote it... And you still deny it? No wonder you
don't like mountain bikes.... Balls that big would get in the way!

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:49:16 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> I'm still waiting. None of your BS can hide the fact that you can't
>>> answer the question.
>>I've already answered the question. Your OPINION of the answer is
>>irrelevant. In this very thread, I wrote "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."
>
> NONE of that is due to allowing BIKES in natural areas. They can ALL
> be obtained without mountain biking. So there's no reason to allow
> mountain biking. QED

It has been proven your opinion of the activity and false claims of impact
are no reason to NOT allow mountain biking.
Since we are riding and the sport is still growing and our access
remains.... it is obvious. duh. qed.
>
> Your denial or OPINION of any of these very
>>real factors is simply gamesaying. Your statement "you can't answer the
>>question." is meaningless as the question has been answered... repeatedly.
>>These same benefits have been stated in many ways by many persons in
>>discussions with you that always end with you calling them "liars" or
>>running off with a feeble "did you say something?" post. (Google search
>>"vandeman" has a complete history)
>>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:52:19 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:23:53 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[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've already given you this... Repeatedly.
>
> No yet! You don't have even ONE reason to allow BIKES in natural
> areas. That's why you didn't give it just now: it doesn't exist.

Below statement applies. The attempt to split context doesn't change
anything. Nothing further needed.
>
> Your OPINION of the answer is
>>irrelevant. In this very thread, I wrote "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." Your denial or OPINION of any of these very
>>real factors is simply gamesaying. Your statement "give even ONE good
>>reason" is meaningless as the question has been answered... repeatedly.
>>These same benefits have been stated in many ways by many persons in
>>discussions with you that always end with you calling them "liars" or
>>running off with a feeble "did you say something?" post. (Google search
>>"vandeman" has a complete history)
>>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:53:09 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>Which parks with off-road cycling have a staff comprised of "mountain
>>bikers"? Names, States, Locations...?
>
> Every one that is open to mountain biking.
> ===
Having trouble supporting another bold lie made in a public forum...?

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:55:05 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>Nope. That study recommended a holistic approach to managing outdoor
>>recreation with regards to habitat involved. "Although these details are
>>not
>>yet available, managers could begin to consider holistic management
>>strategies for all off-road activities based on our current findings. Some
>>watersheds might feature opportunities for ATV or mountain bike riding,
>>for
>>example, while other watersheds might focus on opportunities for horseback
>>riding or hiking."
>>
>>Plus, the actual response data from that study showed little significant
>>differences between hiking and cycling and larger differences for
>>motorized
>>traffic.
>
> That is another bald-faced lie! There was no "motorized traffic" in
> the study! You are just one lie after another....

So, it is your contention that the vehicles referred to as ATVs in the study
you mention do not have "motors"...? Are you actually trying to say that the
All Terrain Vehicles (ATV) mentioned in the "Wisdom et all" study you
referenced are not powered by gasoline fueled internal combustion motors...?
So what makes these ATVs in the "Wisdom et al" study go...? Is it magic...?
Is it pomegranate juice...?
Did you sit down at your computer with your clown make-up on again...?
>
> Beyond that, it is one study, in one area, with data pulled from a
>>specific set of wildlife responses (mule deer and elk) and it is 8 years
>>old. Several other studies show coexistence of trails, users and habitat.
>>(several are listed here:
>>http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html)
>>
>>Your use of that study, and the selective nature in which you present the
>>findings and conclusions from that study, have been proven ludicrous over
>>and over. (Google groups search "vandeman" and "wisdom" will show it all)