WHOOPS! Another Mountain Biker Breaks His Neck!

[Mike Vandeman]

Evolution in Action!

Mike


http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20130503-NEWS-305030373

Donations on Web site don't aid injured biker
May 03, 2013 2:00 AM

EXETER ­ A mountain biker seriously injured last Friday while riding in Oakland Forest remains in the intensive care unit at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

A hospital spokesperson said Steve Shope was listed in good condition on Thursday afternoon.

According to the website set up by his family, Shope of Newfields has been battling a fever over the last few days but it had receded by Thursday. The family also wanted to clarify that the "donations" tab on the online journal Web site ­ caringbridge.org/visit/steveshope ­ are for donations to the website. Those donations do not go to Shope.

Shope was rescued from the forest by firefighters on April 26 after falling from his bike and hitting his head on a rock. He careened over his handlebars and broke his neck and seriously damaged his spinal cord during the accident. He was sent by MedFlight helicopter to Boston because of the seriousness of the injuries.

­ Aaron Sanborn

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 9:04:10 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Evolution in Action!
>

In June 2010, Michael J. Vandeman was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon against a mountain biker.

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2010/06/03/bicycle-opponent-arrested-for-assaulting-cyclist/

He was subsequently found guilty of exhibiting a deadly weapon and battery.

[Mike Vandeman]

And then all charges were DISMISSED, liar! Thanks for demonstrating just how utterly DISHONEST mountain bikers are! You guys are your own worst enemies!

[Blackblade]

> And then all charges were DISMISSED

Unsubstantiated statement - probably false.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:41:21 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > And then all charges were DISMISSED
>
>
>
> Unsubstantiated statement - probably false.

You forgot that I am a mathematician. You obviously have NO IDEA what the meaning of probability is. It's only meaningful in the context of a process that has been proven to follow the laws of probability, such as tossing a coin. Idiot.

[Blackblade]

From Oxford English Dictionary ...

Definition of probability
noun (plural probabilities)
[mass noun]

the quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case:the rain will make the probability of a postponement even greater
[count noun] a probable or the most probable event:for a time revolution was a strong probability
Mathematics the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favourable cases to the whole number of cases possible:the area under the curve represents probability [count noun]:a probability of 0.5

The probable or most probable event; that, in the absence of corroborating evidence and being mindful of his record regarding the truth, Michael J Vandeman is probably being misleading in his statement that "all charges were DISMISSED".

But, you know what, you can win this one easily ... just post some objective proof.

Idiot !

[Mike Vandeman]

I already did: I was present when all charges were dismissed. QED. Since you weren't present, your statements are all BS. You know NOTHING about it, so all your assertions are LIES. DUH!

[Blackblade]

> I already did: I was present when all charges were dismissed. QED. Since you weren't present, your statements are all BS. You know NOTHING about it, so all your assertions are LIES. DUH!

Yes Mike, keep ranting ... how's that working out for you ? Right now, I believe NOTHING that comes from you ... unless independently verified. You have absolutely zero credibility, your word is worth nothing.

You just flail around in a ridiculous analogy of 'attack theory' (not surprising given your history I suppose) but it is not working because you're spouting drivel.

[Mike Vandeman]

Yawn. Liar! Who cares what you think???? Mountain bikers are known to all be incorrigible liars.

[Blackblade]

> Yawn. Liar! Who cares what you think???? Mountain bikers are known to all be incorrigible liars.

You've been saying this for close to twenty years now Mike. How's that working out for you ? Care to PROVE a lie ? No, thought not ... back to your sanitarium now, there's a good boy.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:12:09 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > Yawn. Liar! Who cares what you think???? Mountain bikers are known to all be incorrigible liars.
>
>
>
> You've been saying this for close to twenty years now Mike. How's that working out for you ? Care to PROVE a lie ? No, thought not ... back to your sanitarium now, there's a good boy.

You said I am a "felon". You know that's a lie, yet you refuse to admit it, further compounding your lie. QED You are hopeless -- like ALL mountain bikers.

[Blackblade]

> You said I am a "felon". You know that's a lie, yet you refuse to admit it, further compounding your lie. QED You are hopeless -- like ALL mountain bikers.

Oxford English Dictionary

felon; a person who has committed a felony

Battery is a felony offence

Therefore, QED, since you HAVE been convicted of Battery you ARE a felon.

You can rail against it all you like; write DUH, claim all mountainbikers like or that everyone lied at your trial. But, against a dictionary definition of the word, you are axiomatically a felon.

But, I don't want to be too mean to you ... perhaps you would prefer ...

criminal
culprit
evildoer
lawbreaker
miscreant
offender
jailbird
prisoner

Let me know which one you like best :-)

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:57:59 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > You said I am a "felon". You know that's a lie, yet you refuse to admit it, further compounding your lie. QED You are hopeless -- like ALL mountain bikers.
>
>
>
> Oxford English Dictionary
>
>
>
> felon; a person who has committed a felony
>
>
>
> Battery is a felony offence

No, it's a misdemeanor.

> Therefore, QED, since you HAVE been convicted of Battery you ARE a felon.

Nope, not in the U.S.

> You can rail against it all you like; write DUH, claim all mountainbikers like or that everyone lied at your trial. But, against a dictionary definition of the word, you are axiomatically a felon.
>
>
>
> But, I don't want to be too mean to you ... perhaps you would prefer ...
>
>
>
> criminal
>
> culprit
>
> evildoer
>
> lawbreaker
>
> miscreant
>
> offender
>
> jailbird
>
> prisoner
>
>
>
> Let me know which one you like best :-)

I'm none of the above, as you well know. All charges were dropped, so I'm guilty of nothing.

[Blackblade]

> I'm none of the above, as you well know. All charges were dropped, so I'm guilty of nothing.

You are all of the above; and a thoroughly reprehensible human being too. Still arguing pointlessly about a spent conviction rather than learning from it and modifying your behaviour.

The charges were never 'dropped'. They may, or may not (no proof still despite many times of asking), have been subject to expungement under a petition for dismissal but that does not equate to being 'dropped' ! You were taken to court, you were convicted and you do still have to observe the sentences imposed, in full.

Respond away ... criminal !

[Mike Vandeman]

ALL charges were dismissed. Gone. Finito. To bad for you, liar.

[Blackblade]

Oh yeah ... yet, when challenged, you have never provided any proof thereof ... I think you lie (again).

And, anyway, even if they were expunged under the petition scheme that doesn't make you innocent nor wipe the Criminal Records DB.

[Mike Vandeman]

I don't have a criminal record, because I'm not a criminal. That's what "all charges were dismissed" means. DUH!

[Len McGoogle]

Michael J. Vandeman criminal case,

For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty

For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty.

For battering Justin Bruss: guilty.

30 days, to be served on the sheriff’s work detail, Credit for having
been in custody for 7 days.
Has to stay off the UC trails for 3 years.

[Mike Vandeman]

All charges were dropped on 3/26/13. Sorry to disappoint you. You need to find something productive to do with your time!

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

Prove it.

[Len McGoogle]

> All charges were dropped on 3/26/13. Sorry to disappoint you. You need to find something productive to do with your time!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Um, yeah, all charges were dropped AFTER your trial, sentencing and
serving your punishment. Try again, jailbird.

[Mike Vandeman]

Nope, liar. I was released over a year early. And ALL charges were dismissed. So they no longer exist, LIAR. Sorry to disappoint you....

Try again, jailbird.

[Blackblade]

> Nope, liar. I was released over a year early. And ALL charges were dismissed. So they no longer exist, LIAR. Sorry to disappoint you....

Should be easy to prove this. If it's true ....

And, if dismissed under a petition for dismissal, a procedure simply aimed at allowing time-served criminals to continue with their lives, they will still exist on the California and FBI Criminal Database and would have to be disclosed if applying for a government job. So, hardly the complete expungement you might have wanted ... they do still exist.

Or, just maybe, you've managed to get a retrial ... without anyone noticing and without any of the witnesses being recalled ... and exonerated ? No, didn't think so !

I don't know why you waste your time ... you are NEVER going to get away from your criminal past. EVER. You did the crime now live with the consequences.

[Mike Vandeman]

I never committed a crime, and I don't have a criminal past. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time that mountain bikers are incorrigible LIARS. Keep it up!

[Blackblade]

> I never committed a crime, and I don't have a criminal past. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time that mountain bikers are incorrigible LIARS. Keep it up!

I don't know why I even bother corresponding with you sometimes. You're happy to say that black is white and vice versa. You were convicted of criminal offences by a court of law. So, yes, you did commit a crime and you do have a criminal past.

You can say that this isn't so as many times as you like ... but that simply makes you a liar. The facts, and the public record, prove you wrong.

So, hey, thanks for demonstrating what an incorrigible liar you are ! Keep it up.

[Mike Vandeman]

I never committed a crime. You don't know, because you weren't there. You only PRETEND to know the truth, which is called "lying". DUH!

I also don't have a criminal record. The judge wiped it out 3/26/13. DUH! Lie on....

[Blackblade]

> I never committed a crime. You don't know, because you weren't there. You only PRETEND to know the truth, which is called "lying". DUH!

Is this the level of your discourse now ? A child sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "It didn't happen" ... when the evidence is all around.

Grow up and get a life.

> I also don't have a criminal record. The judge wiped it out 3/26/13. DUH! Lie on....

Yeah, right, funnily enough I don't believe you because you have a record of lying and you've provided no proof of this assertion.

[Mike Vandeman]

No one has ever proved that I have lied, because I don't! You, on the other hand, have no idea what it means to tell the truth.

I also don't have a criminal record. The judge wiped it out 3/26/13. DUH! Lie on.... My statement doesn't need proof, because it's the truth. Do your own homework....

[Blackblade]

> No one has ever proved that I have lied, because I don't! You, on the other hand, have no idea what it means to tell the truth.

I proved it, in black and white, in this newsgroup last week. You lie frequently ... pretty much whenever it suits you.

When caught out, you go back to your usual childish behaviour and call everyone liars. At least get some more interesting epithets please ... it's getting boring !

> I also don't have a criminal record. The judge wiped it out 3/26/13. DUH! Lie on.... My statement doesn't need proof, because it's the truth. Do your own homework....

No one is going to believe you Mike ... because you are a proven liar. So, bereft some proof, I don't believe you. It's your proposition, it should be the work of a few seconds to prove ... IF it's true ... so your reluctance to post such proof is duly noted.

If you hadn't been convicted of criminal offenses and therefore proven a person of dubious veracity perhaps we might take a different view; but you have. So, the consequences are that I don't believe you.

[I love Mike]

Don't take Vandeman seriously. He has no scientific credentials, has not had any major academic publications in the field of environmental management and could be in need of some mental help. Ironically in my home country of New Zealand his ignorant criticism of the Redwoods Park is helping to promote the benefits of mountain biking in New Zealand to the world.
www.facebook.com/RedwoodsRotorua?fref=ts

[Blackblade]

Don't worry, I don't take him seriously at all. He is an occasional amusement only.

That said, I do find myself pitying him sometimes too. There must be a lot of rage inside for him to act as he does - and that is very corrosive.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 7:41:28 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:25:55 PM UTC+12, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > > No one has ever proved that I have lied, because I don't! You, on the other hand, have no idea what it means to tell the truth.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I proved it, in black and white, in this newsgroup last week. You lie frequently ... pretty much whenever it suits you.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When caught out, you go back to your usual childish behaviour and call everyone liars. At least get some more interesting epithets please ... it's getting boring !
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > I also don't have a criminal record. The judge wiped it out 3/26/13. DUH! Lie on.... My statement doesn't need proof, because it's the truth. Do your own homework....
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > No one is going to believe you Mike ... because you are a proven liar. So, bereft some proof, I don't believe you. It's your proposition, it should be the work of a few seconds to prove ... IF it's true ... so your reluctance to post such proof is duly noted.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you hadn't been convicted of criminal offenses and therefore proven a person of dubious veracity perhaps we might take a different view; but you have. So, the consequences are that I don't believe you.
>
>
>
> Don't take Vandeman seriously. He has no scientific credentials, has not had any major academic publications in the field of environmental management

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance or dishonesty: Vandeman, Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

[Blackblade]

> > Don't take Vandeman seriously. He has no scientific credentials, has not had any major academic publications in the field of environmental management

> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance or dishonesty: Vandeman, Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Oh wow Mike ... you managed to get a small filler piece into a serious book ... by dint of massaging your standard diatribe with the addition of a couple of parts about reptiles and amphibians.

The piece is total drivel ... and old. You wrote it in 2005 and it was published in 2008 ... five years ago. So, after that great oeuvre did the world come knocking at your door for more ? No ????? Funny that !

That you would even bother to quote it says a lot more about you than you realise; it tells me that you can't get published anywhere serious.

Not surprising really; the piece really is total drivel.

"anecdotal evidence suggests"
"was apparently killed"
"personal communication"

... it's full of this kind of idiocy. No measurement, conclusions mixed with premises and postulation and generally lacking in any merit whatsoever.

Do some real research !

[Mike Vandeman]

Show us YOUR credentials (non-existent).

[sms]

On 6/7/2013 2:00 AM, Blackblade wrote:

> Not surprising really; the piece really is total drivel.
>
> "anecdotal evidence suggests"
> "was apparently killed"
> "personal communication"
>
> ... it's full of this kind of idiocy. No measurement, conclusions mixed with premises and postulation and generally lacking in any merit whatsoever.
>
> Do some real research !

He could get a job at Fox News. Just add "some people say" to the list!

It was hoped that his arrest and conviction would have led to an
epiphany that would have caused him to abandon his addiction to junk
science and focus his efforts on actual threats to the wilderness such
as motorized vehicles and horses.

Instead, he seems to have become even more bitter that no one takes him
seriously as an advocate for the wilderness and he has doubled down with
the junk science. Yet legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientifically-sound,
studies continue to disprove everything he claims to believe. I say
"claims to believe" because we all know that in reality he doesn't
believe mountain biking is harmful environmentally (at least no more
harmful than other "under your own steam" activities).

The reality is that he simply doesn't like sharing trails with mountain
bikers, and he probably doesn't like sharing them with horses either
(but he feels compelled to advocate for horses simply because one of his
only supporters is an equestrian).

It would be okay to say something like "hikers were here first so we
should have exclusive use of the trails" at least that would be an
honest position to have, however selfish. When I'm out hiking I really
don't like having mountain bikes going by, but I realize that the world
doesn't revolve around me, and that other trail users have a right to
use the trail.

[Mike Vandeman]

Mountain bikers have the right to use the trail -- ON FOOT, just like everyone else. There is no right to bring a bike with them. That was proved in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm. It figures that you would ignore that fact, just as you ignore all other facts.

[I love Mike]

Vandeman - I asked you to provide peer reviewed scientific evidence that mountain biking was doing damage at redwoods in NZ. You have nothing.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 2:07:03 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
> Vandeman - I asked you to provide peer reviewed scientific evidence that mountain biking was doing damage at redwoods in NZ. You have nothing.

I already did: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. The article that started this thread also said that. Can't you READ????

[Blackblade]

> > Do some real research !

>
> Show us YOUR credentials (non-existent).

BA Computing Science
MBA

Numerous conference papers on Artificial Intelligence, eCommerce and Social Graph Solutions

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. But, you don't have anything relevant either do you ?

I'm not claiming to be an expert in this field ... you are ... but you have no business doing so.

[Blackblade]

> Mountain bikers have the right to use the trail -- ON FOOT, just like everyone else. There is no right to bring a bike with them. That was proved in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm. It figures that you would ignore that fact, just as you ignore all other facts.

I thought you said that "Courts prove nothing" Mike ?

Well, at least that's what you said when one found you guilty of three criminal offences.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 9:57:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > > Do some real research !
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Show us YOUR credentials (non-existent).
>
>
>
> BA Computing Science
>
> MBA
>
>
>
> Numerous conference papers on Artificial Intelligence, eCommerce and Social Graph Solutions

All of which is irrelevant to mountain biking impacts and conservation biology, both of which I have studied and you have NOT. QED

[Mike Vandeman]

I was referring to criminal trials. In this case, the federal court's decision is decisive.

[sms]

On 6/9/2013 9:59 AM, Blackblade wrote:
>
>> Mountain bikers have the right to use the trail -- ON FOOT, just like everyone else. There is no right to bring a bike with them. That was proved in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm. It figures that you would ignore that fact, just as you ignore all other facts.
>
> I thought you said that "Courts prove nothing" Mike ?

LOL

> Well, at least that's what you said when one found you guilty of three criminal offences.

But it's true that the use of trails varies by what the authorities in
charge of the park allow. For example, there's a state park near me that
does not allow equestrians but allows mountain bikers and hikers. The
exclusion of horses was a condition of the land being donated to the
state by the previous owners.

Up until recently, the U.S. National Parks did not allow mountain biking
at all (on trails) but thankfully that's now changing. The key factor
that has led to the change is the wealth of peer-reviewed, scientific,
studies that proved that the impact to both the trails and to wildlife
is no greater from mountain bikes than it is from hikers.

[Mike Vandeman]

Name one such "scientific" study that supports mountain biking, liar.

[I love Mike]

Sorry your credentials are laughable in the extreme. All you have is a paper on a website you have hosted. This is NOT a real scientific publication. As a result you have contributed little to the field of environmental management and cannot be taken seriously. Better luck next time....

[Blackblade]

I know what you were referring to ... you're cherry picking the results you want and ignoring the others. Very dishonest of you. Either accept that courts make valid decisions or don't ... you can't equivocate and just accept what you want because, funnily enough, that makes you a hypocrite. Oh wait ...

[Blackblade]

> All of which is irrelevant to mountain biking impacts and conservation biology, both of which I have studied and you have NOT. QED

I think I pointed that out myself. I DON'T claim any qualifications relevant to the topic.

My point is that you don't have any qualifications, objective research or peer-reviewed results either ... so we're equal.

You feel entitled to challenge people who've done the hard slog of learning what they're talking about, properly devising research to test their hypotheses and publishing in public journals where their work can be challenged. You've done NONE of that ...

[I love Mike]

Vandeman is a shill.