Why Don't Mountain Bikers Get it???

Nazi Mike Vandeman writes:

Although you claim that they are only a few bad apples, there are enough
that
they can easily be found in every city in the world where Judaism is
allowed, and many where it's NOT allowed. But my argument doesn't hinge on
the
characteristics of the Jews. The most polite, conscious Jew in the world
still causes problems.

I don't know that. Jews offer a negative role model to thousands of
kids who don't know better.

I tried that for many years. In fact, I haven't abandoned it. But Jews
only respond negatively to ANY criticism of Judaism. I have yet to
meet even ONE who is open to giving up their selfish, destructive culture.
I just
tell the truth. It's your move.

I don't "target Jews". I target JUDAISM. Get it?

This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.
It's
about Judaism.

Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest too
much", if you get my drift. Why are Jews so interested in shutting me
up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am convinced
that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror.

Male chauvinist Mike Vandeman writes:

Although you claim that they are only a few bad apples, there are enough
that
they can easily be found in every city in the world where Feminism is
allowed, and many where it's NOT allowed. But my argument doesn't hinge on
the
characteristics of the Feminists. The most polite, conscious Feminist in the
world
still causes problems.

I don't know that. Feminists offer a negative role model to thousands of
kids who don't know better.

I tried that for many years. In fact, I haven't abandoned it. But Feminists
only respond negatively to ANY criticism of Feminism. I have yet to
meet even ONE who is open to giving up their selfish, destructive beliefs.
I just
tell the truth. It's your move.

I don't "target Feminists". I target FEMINISM. Get it?

This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.
It's
about Feminism.

Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest too
much", if you get my drift. Why are Feminists so interested in shutting me
up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am convinced
that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror.

Compassionate conservative Mike Vandeman writes:

Although you claim that they are only a few bad apples, there are enough
that
they can easily be found in every city in the world where Liberalism is
allowed, and many where it's NOT allowed. But my argument doesn't hinge on
the
characteristics of the Liberals. The most polite, conscious Liberal in the
world
still causes problems.

I don't know that. Liberals offer a negative role model to thousands of
kids who don't know better.

I tried that for many years. In fact, I haven't abandoned it. But Liberals
only respond negatively to ANY criticism of Liberalism. I have yet to
meet even ONE who is open to giving up their selfish, destructive politics.
I just
tell the truth. It's your move.

I don't "target Liberals". I target LIBERALISM. Get it?

This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.
It's
about Liberalism.

Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest too
much", if you get my drift. Why are Liberals so interested in shutting me
up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am convinced
that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror.

"Cosmic Bandito" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Nazi Mike Vandeman writes:

Although you claim that they are only a few bad apples, there are enough
that
they can easily be found in every city in the world where Judaism is
allowed, and many where it's NOT allowed. But my argument doesn't hinge on
the
characteristics of the Jews. The most polite, conscious Jew in the world
still causes problems.

I don't know that. Jews offer a negative role model to thousands of
kids who don't know better.

I tried that for many years. In fact, I haven't abandoned it. But Jews
only respond negatively to ANY criticism of Judaism. I have yet to
meet even ONE who is open to giving up their selfish, destructive culture.
I just
tell the truth. It's your move.

I don't "target Jews". I target JUDAISM. Get it?

This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.
It's
about Judaism.

Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest too
much", if you get my drift. Why are Jews so interested in shutting me
up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am convinced
that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror.

Good one (in context)!
With that said, JEWS JEWS JEWS!
/Scott/Moshe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Before spending a single calorie fighting the effects mountain bikers, I

would suggest careful scrutiny of the following examples as comparative
analysis and strategic planning. Might these, regarded in totality, be
examples of subjects more significant to the endeavor of environmental
protection than mountain bike mis-use:

Quoted message said:

1. Leaf blowers

2. Yard-care products (usually carried to fresh water habitats by
storm-drain systems)
3. Contraception-adverse Organized religions
4. Politically significant groups that de-emphasize long-term

environmental

Quoted message said:

priorities (Kyoto, EPA, etc.)
5. An uninformed voting public
6. Recycling and reuse
7. National petroleum use and automotive efficiency standards
8. Consumption based rewards programs
9. Misappropriated anti-conservation federal subsidies (+6000lb SUV tax
loophole)
10. Indigenous seed-stock modification (Monsanto)......and so on.

Quoted message said:

I suggest that, relative to bigger environmental threats such as those

listed above, targeting mountain bikers

I don't "target mountain bikers". I target mountain BIKING. Get it?

Mountain bikers riding a mountain bike are engaged in mountain biking. Take
the bike away, and there is no biking. Therefore, bikers and biking is the
same thing. To be against the activity is to be against those that engage in
it. Attacks on one are attacks on the other. To be against one is to be
against the other. You can't be against one and not the other because
without one, the other does not exist. Surely a PhD can't possibly be so
stupid that he would need this explained.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is time wasted on a comparatively

insignificant factor even if we assume worst-case behavior of 100% of the
mountain bike rider population.

This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.

It's

Quoted message said:

about mountain biking.

That is a behavior.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why alienate the swing voters unless you care less about the bigger cause

than a personal rant.

That's where you went off track. I don't "alienate" anyone. I just tell

the

Quoted message said:

truth.

You alienate virtually everyone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Keep up the good work but sharpen the focus.

Focus, focus, focus.

Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest

too

Quoted message said:

much", if you get my drift. Why are mountain bikers so interested in

shutting me

Quoted message said:

up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am

convinced

Quoted message said:

that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror. True environmentalists

don't

Quoted message said:

try to shut up other environmentalists.

Because there are bigger fish to fry.

If you are 100% effective in your goal to get all moutnain bikes off the
trails, your impact on the environment would affect less than 0.004% of the
environment, and that is giving you the benefit of any and all arguments.
This guy is merely asking why you are so rabid about a cause with so little
affect. He is suggesting that with all of the energy you pour into this, you
could pour the same energy into a topic that would yield greater overall
environmental benefits. But, I am certain you will simply insult and dismiss
....

Jeff Strickland said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Before spending a single calorie fighting the effects mountain bikers, I

would suggest careful scrutiny of the following examples as comparative
analysis and strategic planning. Might these, regarded in totality, be
examples of subjects more significant to the endeavor of environmental
protection than mountain bike mis-use:

Quoted message said:

1. Leaf blowers

2. Yard-care products (usually carried to fresh water habitats by
storm-drain systems)
3. Contraception-adverse Organized religions
4. Politically significant groups that de-emphasize long-term

environmental

Quoted message said:

priorities (Kyoto, EPA, etc.)
5. An uninformed voting public
6. Recycling and reuse
7. National petroleum use and automotive efficiency standards
8. Consumption based rewards programs
9. Misappropriated anti-conservation federal subsidies (+6000lb SUV tax
loophole)
10. Indigenous seed-stock modification (Monsanto)......and so on.

Quoted message said:

I suggest that, relative to bigger environmental threats such as those

listed above, targeting mountain bikers

I don't "target mountain bikers". I target mountain BIKING. Get it?

Mountain bikers riding a mountain bike are engaged in mountain biking. Take
the bike away, and there is no biking. Therefore, bikers and biking is the
same thing. To be against the activity is to be against those that engage in
it. Attacks on one are attacks on the other. To be against one is to be
against the other. You can't be against one and not the other because
without one, the other does not exist. Surely a PhD can't possibly be so
stupid that he would need this explained.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is time wasted on a comparatively

insignificant factor even if we assume worst-case behavior of 100% of the
mountain bike rider population.

This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.

It's

Quoted message said:

about mountain biking.

That is a behavior.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why alienate the swing voters unless you care less about the bigger cause

than a personal rant.

That's where you went off track. I don't "alienate" anyone. I just tell

the

Quoted message said:

truth.

You alienate virtually everyone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Keep up the good work but sharpen the focus.

Focus, focus, focus.

Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest

too

Quoted message said:

much", if you get my drift. Why are mountain bikers so interested in

shutting me

Quoted message said:

up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am

convinced

Quoted message said:

that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror. True environmentalists

don't

Quoted message said:

try to shut up other environmentalists.

Because there are bigger fish to fry.

If you are 100% effective in your goal to get all moutnain bikes off the
trails, your impact on the environment would affect less than 0.004% of the
environment, and that is giving you the benefit of any and all arguments.
This guy is merely asking why you are so rabid about a cause with so little
affect. He is suggesting that with all of the energy you pour into this, you
could pour the same energy into a topic that would yield greater overall
environmental benefits. But, I am certain you will simply insult and dismiss
...

Time to restate the obvious.....

I think that 99.9% of us will agree that when you compare the impact
that mountain biking has on the environment as compared to say, the
internal combustion engine, or something even more technical like the
long and short term effects of phosphate and phosphate derivatives
found in agricultural runoff and wastes on riverine ecosystems, then
you realize that you are really comparing a Moped to the Queen Mary 2.
In other words, there ain't no significant comparison.

Now, if you want to compare the before and after effects of mountain
biking and any related damage on a trail in the wilderness,
backcountry, or city park, you may have an argument. But you can also
make the exact same argument for horses, and ORV's. Then you should
realize that this is not an environmental issue per se, but an issue
about local trail usage and the people and groups who want to use
them. And there is the rub.

Yes, mikey wants to get mountain bikers off the trails. But if you
have read his posts over the years, and paid attention to his sig,
then you should realize that he is trying to stop all access and
development in all areas. That means no more suburbs, no more
subdivisions, no more roads, no more building, no lumbering, no
birdwatchers, no hikers, no equestrians, no climbers, no bikers, no
hunters, no fishermen, no caving, no camping, no human impact at all
anywhere.

No quaint miners cabins and relics carefully preserved in Death
Valley, no stabilized ruins like Fort Sumter or Alcatraz, no hotel
facilities like at Yosemite, no lodge house at Glacier nor cute
antique buses to carry the blue hairs over the continental divide, no
special Amtrac train linking some of the greatest NP's in the west.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Honestly, those of us, both on the front lines and in the shadows, who
are trying to do something constructive in, say, Environmental
Protection, need MV's rabid rhetoric and support about as much as the
Islamic Jihad needs affiliation with the American based Nation of
Islam. I think it is good thing that we all recognize that MV is a
lone voice in the wilderness. After all, look what happened to John
the Baptist....

The bottom obviious line: Mikey is against anything that results in
the great outdoors being developed or used by anyone in anyway. His
ideal world, if it had humans in it, would seem to be similar to a
planet of couch potatoes who never venture outside the confines of
their grass huts.

All this means that once he's finished (if ever) with mountain bikers,
he'll turn his wrath and ire on some other group. Maybe snowmobilers.
No wait! That's Beno's rant....

MOM

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Time to restate the obvious.....

I think that 99.9% of us will agree that when you compare the impact
that mountain biking has on the environment as compared to say, the
internal combustion engine, or something even more technical like the
long and short term effects of phosphate and phosphate derivatives
found in agricultural runoff and wastes on riverine ecosystems, then
you realize that you are really comparing a Moped to the Queen Mary 2.
In other words, there ain't no significant comparison.

You are right, but Mike's agenda is to get bikes out of the woods. He isn't
so much concerned with air quality as he is with erosion control and the
impact on the animals.

If the discussion was about air pollution, then the issue of bikes vs.
hiknig wouldn't be the topic, the topic would be bikes vs. cars. Obviously,
bikes have less impact than cars, especially in the woods, therefore logic
would say that bikes would be the preferred mode of travel. The World
According to Mike says that bikes are bad, and nothing is worse.

Quoted message said:

Now, if you want to compare the before and after effects of mountain
biking and any related damage on a trail in the wilderness,
backcountry, or city park, you may have an argument. But you can also
make the exact same argument for horses, and ORV's. Then you should
realize that this is not an environmental issue per se, but an issue
about local trail usage and the people and groups who want to use
them. And there is the rub.

Yes, mikey wants to get mountain bikers off the trails. But if you
have read his posts over the years, and paid attention to his sig,
then you should realize that he is trying to stop all access and
development in all areas. That means no more suburbs, no more
subdivisions, no more roads, no more building, no lumbering, no
birdwatchers, no hikers, no equestrians, no climbers, no bikers, no
hunters, no fishermen, no caving, no camping, no human impact at all
anywhere.

That is true. Mike's agenda TODAY is bikes, but his agenda for the long term
is everything everywhere. Bikes today, boots tomorrow. I guess he has to
start somewhere ...

Quoted message said:

No quaint miners cabins and relics carefully preserved in Death
Valley, no stabilized ruins like Fort Sumter or Alcatraz, no hotel
facilities like at Yosemite, no lodge house at Glacier nor cute
antique buses to carry the blue hairs over the continental divide, no
special Amtrac train linking some of the greatest NP's in the west.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Honestly, those of us, both on the front lines and in the shadows, who
are trying to do something constructive in, say, Environmental
Protection, need MV's rabid rhetoric and support about as much as the
Islamic Jihad needs affiliation with the American based Nation of
Islam. I think it is good thing that we all recognize that MV is a
lone voice in the wilderness. After all, look what happened to John
the Baptist....

I pray he is a lone voice in the wilderness, but I fear there are some
quarters out there that actually listen to his maniacal rantings.

Quoted message said:

The bottom obviious line: Mikey is against anything that results in
the great outdoors being developed or used by anyone in anyway. His
ideal world, if it had humans in it, would seem to be similar to a
planet of couch potatoes who never venture outside the confines of
their grass huts.

All this means that once he's finished (if ever) with mountain bikers,
he'll turn his wrath and ire on some other group. Maybe snowmobilers.
No wait! That's Beno's rant....

MOM

I thought I could say it better, but I can't. Sorry for butting in on your
space.

Mike Vandeman said:

Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest too
much", if you get my drift. Why are mountain bikers so interested in shutting me
up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am convinced
that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror. True environmentalists don't
try to shut up other environmentalists.

Which on are you? A "true environmentalist" or an "other environmentalist"? Shut you
up...? No, it is more useful to have you around so the extremes light the way for
moderate, common good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sincerely,

Karsen Chinook

===
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

Would you * please * get a newsreader which correctly delimits each line
of replied to text. Trying to decipher your posts is impossible.

Walter Mitty said:

Would you * please * get a newsreader which correctly delimits each
line of replied to text. Trying to decipher your posts is
impossible.

haha, a different news reader isn't going to fix the content.....

Penny S said:

Walter Mitty said:

Would you * please * get a newsreader which correctly delimits each
line of replied to text. Trying to decipher your posts is
impossible.

haha, a different news reader isn't going to fix the content.....

Besides, the mad doc has only been a Uesenetter for...what, like, 20 years?
Can't expect him to learn THAT fast.

Bill "here's a hint, M^V: lose the stupid periods (there's a reason
everyone else uses >'s) and try trimming" S.

My posts are hard to decipher?

I try very hard to make sure people can tell where my comments start and end
relative to the comments I am Replying to.

Maybe there is another that is posting, and you Reply to that person just
looks like it is a Reply to me.

"Walter Mitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Would you * please * get a newsreader which correctly delimits each line
of replied to text. Trying to decipher your posts is impossible.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 20:12:28 GMT, mean old man <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:40:51 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
..<[email hidden]> wrote:
..
..>
..>> >Before spending a single calorie fighting the effects mountain bikers, I
..>> would suggest careful scrutiny of the following examples as comparative
..>> analysis and strategic planning. Might these, regarded in totality, be
..>> examples of subjects more significant to the endeavor of environmental
..>> protection than mountain bike mis-use:
..>>
..>> >1. Leaf blowers
..>> 2. Yard-care products (usually carried to fresh water habitats by
..>> storm-drain systems)
..>> 3. Contraception-adverse Organized religions
..>> 4. Politically significant groups that de-emphasize long-term
..>environmental
..>> priorities (Kyoto, EPA, etc.)
..>> 5. An uninformed voting public
..>> 6. Recycling and reuse
..>> 7. National petroleum use and automotive efficiency standards
..>> 8. Consumption based rewards programs
..>> 9. Misappropriated anti-conservation federal subsidies (+6000lb SUV tax
..>> loophole)
..>> 10. Indigenous seed-stock modification (Monsanto)......and so on.
..>>
..>> >I suggest that, relative to bigger environmental threats such as those
..>> listed above, targeting mountain bikers
..>>
..>> I don't "target mountain bikers". I target mountain BIKING. Get it?
..>>
..>
..>Mountain bikers riding a mountain bike are engaged in mountain biking. Take
..>the bike away, and there is no biking. Therefore, bikers and biking is the
..>same thing. To be against the activity is to be against those that engage in
..>it. Attacks on one are attacks on the other. To be against one is to be
..>against the other. You can't be against one and not the other because
..>without one, the other does not exist. Surely a PhD can't possibly be so
..>stupid that he would need this explained.
..>
..>
..>
..>> >is time wasted on a comparatively
..>> insignificant factor even if we assume worst-case behavior of 100% of the
..>> mountain bike rider population.
..>>
..>> This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.
..>It's
..>> about mountain biking.
..>>
..>That is a behavior.
..>
..>
..>
..>> >Why alienate the swing voters unless you care less about the bigger cause
..>> than a personal rant.
..>>
..>> That's where you went off track. I don't "alienate" anyone. I just tell
..>the
..>> truth.
..>>
..>
..>You alienate virtually everyone.
..>
..>
..>
..>> >Keep up the good work but sharpen the focus.
..>> Focus, focus, focus.
..>>
..>> Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest
..>too
..>> much", if you get my drift. Why are mountain bikers so interested in
..>shutting me
..>> up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I am
..>convinced
..>> that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror. True environmentalists
..>don't
..>> try to shut up other environmentalists.
..>>
..>
..>Because there are bigger fish to fry.
..>
..>If you are 100% effective in your goal to get all moutnain bikes off the
..>trails, your impact on the environment would affect less than 0.004% of the
..>environment, and that is giving you the benefit of any and all arguments.
..>This guy is merely asking why you are so rabid about a cause with so little
..>affect. He is suggesting that with all of the energy you pour into this, you
..>could pour the same energy into a topic that would yield greater overall
..>environmental benefits. But, I am certain you will simply insult and dismiss
..>...
..>
..>
..
..Time to restate the obvious.....
..
..I think that 99.9% of us will agree that when you compare the impact
..that mountain biking has on the environment as compared to say, the
..internal combustion engine, or something even more technical like the
..long and short term effects of phosphate and phosphate derivatives
..found in agricultural runoff and wastes on riverine ecosystems, then
..you realize that you are really comparing a Moped to the Queen Mary 2.
..In other words, there ain't no significant comparison.
..
..Now, if you want to compare the before and after effects of mountain
..biking and any related damage on a trail in the wilderness,
..backcountry, or city park, you may have an argument.

Not "may", "do".

But you can also
..make the exact same argument for horses, and ORV's.

There are no ORVs in parks. That's irrelevant.

Then you should
..realize that this is not an environmental issue per se, but an issue
..about local trail usage and the people and groups who want to use
..them. And there is the rub.
..
..Yes, mikey wants to get mountain bikers off the trails. But if you
..have read his posts over the years, and paid attention to his sig,
..then you should realize that he is trying to stop all access and
..development in all areas. That means no more suburbs, no more
..subdivisions, no more roads, no more building, no lumbering, no
..birdwatchers, no hikers, no equestrians, no climbers, no bikers, no
..hunters, no fishermen, no caving, no camping, no human impact at all
..anywhere.
..
..No quaint miners cabins and relics carefully preserved in Death
..Valley, no stabilized ruins like Fort Sumter or Alcatraz, no hotel
..facilities like at Yosemite, no lodge house at Glacier nor cute
..antique buses to carry the blue hairs over the continental divide, no
..special Amtrac train linking some of the greatest NP's in the west.
..Nothing. Nada. Zip.
..
..Honestly, those of us, both on the front lines and in the shadows, who
..are trying to do something constructive in, say, Environmental
..Protection, need MV's rabid rhetoric and support about as much as the
..Islamic Jihad needs affiliation with the American based Nation of
..Islam. I think it is good thing that we all recognize that MV is a
..lone voice in the wilderness. After all, look what happened to John
..the Baptist....
..
..The bottom obviious line: Mikey is against anything that results in
..the great outdoors being developed or used by anyone in anyway. His
..ideal world, if it had humans in it, would seem to be similar to a
..planet of couch potatoes who never venture outside the confines of
..their grass huts.
..
..All this means that once he's finished (if ever) with mountain bikers,
..he'll turn his wrath and ire on some other group. Maybe snowmobilers.
..No wait! That's Beno's rant....
..
..MOM
..
..
..
..>
..>
..>
..>

===
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