Mountain Biker Runs Red Light, Kills Pedestrian

[Mike Vandeman]

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:21:37 -0800
Subject: Death of a Pedestrian due to....

...a mountain biker, in San Francisco. This story was in the 16 Nov.
2011 'San Francisco Chronicle.' The poor woman -- being a tourist, she
obviously didn't know that in San Francisco people are supposed to
jump out of the way and let the biker just ride through. This is the
same "entitlement" mentality we trail users are battling in Marin
County. CB

---
"Bicyclist faces manslaughter charge in pedestrian's death."

"A bicyclist who hit and killed a pedestrian when he ran a red light
along San Francisco's waterfront has been charged with misdemeanor
vehicular manslaughter, authorities said Tuesday.

"Rudolph Ang, 23, of San Francisco collided with 68-year-old Dionette
Cherney at Mission Street and the Embarcadero about 8:30 a.m. July 15,
prosecutors said. Cherney, who was visiting from Washington, DC, died
of head injuries at a hospital Aug. 11.

"Cherney was crossing the Embarcadero in a crosswalk with the green
light at Mission when she was hit by Ang, who was travelling north,
police said.

"Ang remained at the scene and was interviewed by police. There was no
evidence he was drunk or on drugs, prosecutors said.

"Ang was charged with only a misdemeanor because investigators
determined that he had not acted with criminal intent or gross
negligence, said Stephanie Ong Stillman, a spokeswoman for DA George
Gascon.

"Ang faces a maximum sentence of a year in jail if convicted. " (Email
Henry K. Lee at hl...@sfchronicle.com)

-------------

[Harry Brogan]

Link please?

[Mike Vandeman]

On Nov 18, 2:41 am, Harry Brogan <hbroga...@NOSPAMyahooNOSPAM.com>
wrote:

> >Henry K. Lee at h...@sfchronicle.com)
>
> >-------------
>
> Link please?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/15/BAVR1LVK2F.DTL

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Vandeman" <mike.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e3f6a23-e786-4f49...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

How about 20 years in prison instead. Then the asshole will be 43 when he
gets out and less liable to be running people over on his fucking bicycle.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Mike Vandeman]

On Nov 18, 9:24 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > Henry K. Lee at h...@sfchronicle.com)

>
> How about 20 years in prison instead. Then the asshole will be 43 when he
> gets out and less liable to be running people over on his fucking bicycle.
>
> --
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka

> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

At 09:51 AM 11/18/2011, [a friend] wrote:
One of the best friends of a friend of ours was hit & killed by a
cyclist who ran a red light at Columbus & Bay street in S.F. about 28
years ago. She was crossing at the crosswalk on a light that just
turned green and a cyclist was bombing down the street through the red
light. He knocked her in the air. She landed on her head, went into
a coma & died 2 weeks later. This situation that just happened is
nothing new - same mentality.

It sure seems like "gross negligence" to me!

[Elrod Farggernugget]

Where is the reference to a mountain bike in the article
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/15/BAVR1LVK2F.DTL ?
I read the article and saw it nowhere. Is there another link that says it
was a mountain bike? Just curious.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news:2e2ee272-49a9-46a8...@x10g2000prk.googlegroups.com...

[T. Keating]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:53:11 -0700, "Elrod Farggernugget"
<Bla...@thestone.ir> wrote:

>Where is the reference to a mountain bike in the article
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/15/BAVR1LVK2F.DTL ?
>I read the article and saw it nowhere. Is there another link that says it
>was a mountain bike? Just curious.

It wasn't a mountain bike.

http://www.baycitizen.org/bikes/story/cyclist-be-charged-womans-death/
This article has a photograph of the biker being questioned by police
after the accident. The Racing/road bicycle appears to be undamaged.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Nov 19, 5:27 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:53:11 -0700, "Elrod Farggernugget"
>

> <Blar...@thestone.ir> wrote:
> >Where is the reference to a mountain bike in the article

> >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/15/BAVR1LVK2...?

> >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/15/BAVR1LVK2...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Did you have a point?

[Opus]

On Nov 19, 10:20 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Did you have a point?

She wasn't hit by a mountain bike, therefore the premise stated in
your header is false. Your irrational hatred of mountain bikes has
conflated a road bike wreck on a road with the subject "mountain
bikes" where no such connection exists. QED you are insane. "Beautiful
Mind" insane, but without the genius of the charcter in the movie...

[Mike Vandeman]

BS. Your hatred of people who tell the truth about mountain biking led
you to ascribe that statement to me, when it obviously came from
someone else named "CB". Learn to read, idiot. Sheesh. And even if I
HAD made a mistake, it wouldn't lead to a diagnosis of "insane",
dumdum. "Insane" is what you call people who mountain bike, leading
inevitably to serious injury or death. Have you had an accident on
your mountain bike yet? Tell the truth....

[Opus]

Dude, she WASN'T HIT BY A MOUNTAIN BIKE!

Therefore YOU LIED!

Your claims that I'm lying because you say she was hit by a mountain
bike despite photographic evidence that she was hit by a drop-bar road
bike establish your frail grip on reality. Which brings us back to the
original conclusion: you are insane.

[Shraga]

Did "CB" write the subject heading of this thread? No. You did, liar.
Why are you trying to blame someone else for your lie, coward?

Since you're slow and have a short memory, I'll repeat the heading
here for you:

"Mountain Biker Runs Red Light, Kills Pedestrian"

It wasn't a mountain bike. Now, go ahead and explain why you needed to
lie about this. Are you running out of examples?

[Mike Vandeman]

BS. Those weren't my words. Learn to read, idiot. Mountain bikers are
insane.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Nov 21, 7:50 am, Opus <opusthep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 12:24 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 7:34 am, Opus <opusthep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > She wasn't hit by a mountain bike, therefore the premise stated in
> > > your header is false. Your irrational hatred of mountain bikes has
> > > conflated a road bike wreck on a road with the subject "mountain
> > > bikes" where no such connection exists. QED you are insane. "Beautiful
> > > Mind" insane, but without the genius of the charcter in the movie...
>
> > BS. Your hatred of people who tell the truth about mountain biking led
> > you to ascribe that statement to me, when it obviously came from
> > someone else named "CB". Learn to read, idiot. Sheesh. And even if I
> > HAD made a mistake, it wouldn't lead to a diagnosis of "insane",
> > dumdum. "Insane" is what you call people who mountain bike, leading
> > inevitably to serious injury or death. Have you had an accident on
> > your mountain bike yet? Tell the truth....
>
> Dude, she WASN'T HIT BY A MOUNTAIN BIKE!
>
> Therefore YOU LIED!

BS. CB made a mistake.

> Your claims that I'm lying because you say she was hit by a mountain
> bike despite photographic evidence that she was hit by a drop-bar road
> bike establish your frail grip on reality. Which brings us back to the
> original conclusion: you are insane.

You are the insane one.You can't read.

[Shraga]

Still trying to sell out "CB" and refusing responsibility, I see.
What's the matter, your father never teach you anything about building
character or integrity, coward?

You're neither capable of admitting YOUR mistake, nor admitting YOUR
lie. How many other stories have you posted like this? How much of
your anecdotal evidence about mountain bikers is completely
fabricated, like this example? This, of course, is why you have no
credibility.

So why did YOU initiate a thread under YOUR name, with a subject YOU
entered, that includes an OBVIOUS lie, Dr. Vandeman?

Wait... I'll write that again, in single syl-la-bles for you, since
you're so amazingly dense:

Why did you re-post this sto-ry?

[Mike Vandeman]

> Why did you re-post this sto-ry?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yawn.

[Kayak 44]

Criminals always lie. Michael J. Vandeman is a convicted criminal.

[Shraga]

Yeah, I know. Thinking can be fatiguing when you're not accustomed to
it.

Now run away and hide from a simple question, coward.

[Mike Vandeman]

Mountain bikers are coward, because they are unwilling to tell the
truth. You are both deliberately lying. Nothing useful can be done
with scum like that, except use you as examples of the typical
mountain biker.

[Shraga]

"Mountain bikers are coward...?"

Silly man. You're the one unwilling to tell the truth in this thread.
I've asked you twice, and you keep trying to change the subject, which
is typical behavior for a liar. Why are you afraid of the truth,
coward?

I was specific about your lie, yet you vaguely accuse me of lying with
ZERO evidence. As I wrote before, this is typical of your naive
approach to science.

In the past, I asked you to tell your side of the "handsaw" story, and
you ran and hid at that request too. You're really good at badgering
people to respond to you, but you really suck at responding in kind.
Guess that's your problem, though. You're the one who has to explain
why his mugshot is on the Internet:

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

[Kayak 44]

Oh my! I just threw up a little in my mouth.

What a haggard, insane looking little man. He has that distant stare,
the type I always see on those Megan's Law websites.

[Mike Vandeman]

Liar.

> What a haggard, insane looking little man. He has that distant stare,
> the type I always see on those Megan's Law websites.

Looking to see if you will be caught?

[Mike Vandeman]

Charge dismissed. What else do you need to know? You're barking up a
nonexistent tree. My mugshot is there because two mountain bikers LIED
about me, as I already explained. But mountain bikers don't hear, when
they don't agree with what they are hearing. Nothing new there!

[Shraga]

Oh come on. You were GUILTY on two counts of exhibiting a deadly
weapon and one count of battery. Are you telling me those were
dismissed too, or are you hiding that fact (i.e., lying)?

You claim the mountain bikers "lied" but, just as you're doing with
me, you don't say what they lied about. Given your history of baseless
accusation, you're going to have to do better than vague
unsubstantiated accusations.

So obviousy, I hear just fine. You seem to be the one struggling to
understand my posts. You claim here, "charge dismissed," and the
mountain bikers lied, but you were still guilty on three charges. When
I ask you to clarify this discrepancy, you evade the question by
projecting behaviors onto me.

All I'm asking for is your account of the events that led to the
charges against you to set the story straight, nothing more. In other
words, I am asking to hear the TRUTH. Yet you are afraid to tell the
truth for some reason.

[Mike Vandeman]

Every time I answer you, you change the subject! You asked me about a
"handsaw". Charge dismissed! How many times do I have to say it,
before you hear it, idiot? Repeat after me: "Charge dismissed!"
Obviously, I can't discuss something that didn't happen.... Sheesh.

> You claim the mountain bikers "lied" but, just as you're doing with
> me, you don't say what they lied about. Given your history of baseless
> accusation, you're going to have to do better than vague
> unsubstantiated accusations.

They lied about EVERYTHING. That's why three of the charges were
dismissed or acquitted.

> So obviousy, I hear just fine. You seem to be the one struggling to
> understand my posts. You claim here, "charge dismissed," and the
> mountain bikers lied, but you were still guilty on three charges. When
> I ask you to clarify this discrepancy, you evade the question by
> projecting behaviors onto me.
>
> All I'm asking for is your account of the events that led to the
> charges against you to set the story straight, nothing more. In other
> words, I am asking to hear the TRUTH. Yet you are afraid to tell the
> truth for some reason.

BS. This is the first time you asked that. Since all the charges were
based on LIES, there is no point in discussing them. Sorry to
disappoint you, but you aren't going to make any points. I did not
brandish (except in self-defense, which is not a crime), nor did I
commit battery -- the mountain biker did, by running into me. All you
want to do is LIE ("you were still guilty"), so there's no point in
trying to have a rational conversation with you. Just like ALL
mountain bikers, all you want to do is twist the facts, since they
don't support your bizarre ideas.

[Kayak 44]

Looking to make sure people like you are not in my neighborhood.

[Jym Dyer]

"CB" writes:
> Subject: Death of a Pedestrian due to....
> ...a mountain biker, in San Francisco.

=v= It was a road bike, not a mountain bike. Why does "CB"
presume to make an assertion that is completely false?

> This story was in the 16 Nov. 2011 'San Francisco Chronicle.'
> The poor woman -- being a tourist, she obviously didn't know
> that in San Francisco people are supposed to jump out of the
> way and let the biker just ride through. This is the same

> "entitlement" mentality ...

=v= That being their 5th article on this incident from that
newspaper (there have been 2 more since), it being the typical
overhyped nonrepresentative "news" story because the incident
is such a rarity. This is the only such San Francisco fatality
I know of in the last 21 years, but the _Chronicle_ and other
media haven't taken the time to provide that context.

=v= Speaking of entitlement, motorists kill a pedestrian every
21 *days* in San Francisco, but we don't get wall-to-wall news
coverage like this to be used as fodder to concoct stories with
(were they tourists? what was going in the drivers' minds? can
we just make up something mean?).
<_Jym_>

[Shraga]

No, stupid. I asked you to "tell your side of the 'handsaw'
story" (i.e., your account of the events). You've never answered that,
apparently because you can't read. If you would like me to call it
something with fewer syl-la-bles, feel free to make a suggestion.

Furthermore, I'm being very consistent in my request. You're the one
dodging, for some reason. Stop blaming me for your inability to read.

> > You claim the mountain bikers "lied" but, just as you're doing with
> > me, you don't say what they lied about. Given your history of baseless
> > accusation, you're going to have to do better than vague
> > unsubstantiated accusations.
>
> They lied about EVERYTHING. That's why three of the charges were
> dismissed or acquitted.

Really? So you weren't there? They weren't there? If they lied about
"EVERYTHING," then they must have lied about being there. They must
have lied about you having a handsaw, yet below you admit to having
one.

So now you are OBVIOUSLY lying. There is NO WAY they lied about
"EVERYTHING." You wrote yourself, "three of the charges..." What about
the other three?

Get it yet, stupid? This is the whole point of my question, although
by now I've given up on a coherent response, because you're either too
scared to respond, or you're simply a compulsive liar.

> > So obviousy, I hear just fine. You seem to be the one struggling to
> > understand my posts. You claim here, "charge dismissed," and the
> > mountain bikers lied, but you were still guilty on three charges. When
> > I ask you to clarify this discrepancy, you evade the question by
> > projecting behaviors onto me.
>
> > All I'm asking for is your account of the events that led to the
> > charges against you to set the story straight, nothing more. In other
> > words, I am asking to hear the TRUTH. Yet you are afraid to tell the
> > truth for some reason.
>
> BS. This is the first time you asked that.

No it isn't, liar:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.backcountry/browse_frm/thread/92070b415cdd5dd/8dde2a503f891fd4?lnk=gst&q=shraga#8dde2a503f891fd4

Still, your evading the question AGAIN is duly noted, coward.

> Since all the charges were
> based on LIES, there is no point in discussing them. Sorry to
> disappoint you, but you aren't going to make any points.

What gave you the silly idea I'm going for "points?" I'm just asking
for information, which you fail to grasp, somehow, stupid.

> I did not
> brandish (except in self-defense, which is not a crime), nor did I
> commit battery -- the mountain biker did, by running into me. All you
> want to do is LIE ("you were still guilty"), so there's no point in
> trying to have a rational conversation with you. Just like ALL
> mountain bikers, all you want to do is twist the facts, since they
> don't support your bizarre ideas.

Three of the six charges were neither dismissed nor acquitted. What
facts am I twisting?

Only an idiot like you would mistake a line of questioning for a lie.
I tried asking you a question; you refuse to answer it. I explain my
understanding of the details (which may be wrong), hoping you will
illuminate the facts; you continue to evade the question, and call me
a liar.

You continue to use projection as a means to dodge the question.
Again, you claim to respect the truth, yet you refuse to provide it
here as a means of refuting the charges against you. Moreover, you LIE
with generalities as a excuse to answer the question.

Your dishonesty in this forum is repulsive.

[Tom P]

On 11/18/2011 09:46 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:21:37 -0800

> Subject: Death of a Pedestrian due to....
>

> ...a mountain biker, in San Francisco. This story was in the 16 Nov.

> 2011 'San Francisco Chronicle.' The poor woman -- being a tourist, she
> obviously didn't know that in San Francisco people are supposed to
> jump out of the way and let the biker just ride through. This is the

> same "entitlement" mentality we trail users are battling in Marin
> County. CB
>
> ---
> "Bicyclist faces manslaughter charge in pedestrian's death."
>
> "A bicyclist who hit and killed a pedestrian when he ran a red light
> along San Francisco's waterfront has been charged with misdemeanor
> vehicular manslaughter, authorities said Tuesday.
>
> "Rudolph Ang, 23, of San Francisco collided with 68-year-old Dionette
> Cherney at Mission Street and the Embarcadero about 8:30 a.m. July 15,
> prosecutors said. Cherney, who was visiting from Washington, DC, died
> of head injuries at a hospital Aug. 11.
>
> "Cherney was crossing the Embarcadero in a crosswalk with the green
> light at Mission when she was hit by Ang, who was travelling north,
> police said.
>
> "Ang remained at the scene and was interviewed by police. There was no
> evidence he was drunk or on drugs, prosecutors said.
>
> "Ang was charged with only a misdemeanor because investigators
> determined that he had not acted with criminal intent or gross
> negligence, said Stephanie Ong Stillman, a spokeswoman for DA George
> Gascon.
>

Running a red light is not gross negligence?

> "Ang faces a maximum sentence of a year in jail if convicted. " (Email

> Henry K. Lee at hl...@sfchronicle.com)
>
> -------------

[Mike Vandeman]

I've answered it several times, LIAR: charge dismissed. I.e., it
didn't happen. I.e., the mountain biker LIED, just as you are doing. I
guess you aren'a happy with the truth. Nothing new there!

> apparently because you can't read. If you would like me to call it
> something with fewer syl-la-bles, feel free to make a suggestion.
>
> Furthermore, I'm being very consistent in my request. You're the one
> dodging, for some reason. Stop blaming me for your inability to read.

You can't (won't) read.

> > > You claim the mountain bikers "lied" but, just as you're doing with
> > > me, you don't say what they lied about. Given your history of baseless
> > > accusation, you're going to have to do better than vague
> > > unsubstantiated accusations.
>
> > They lied about EVERYTHING. That's why three of the charges were
> > dismissed or acquitted.
>
> Really? So you weren't there? They weren't there? If they lied about
> "EVERYTHING," then they must have lied about being there. They must
> have lied about you having a handsaw, yet below you admit to having
> one.
>
> So now you are OBVIOUSLY lying. There is NO WAY they lied about
> "EVERYTHING." You wrote yourself, "three of the charges..." What about
> the other three?

Dismissed or innocent.

> Get it yet, stupid? This is the whole point of my question, although
> by now I've given up on a coherent response, because you're either too
> scared to respond, or you're simply a compulsive liar.

I have never lied. I don't need to, because I'm right.

> > > So obviousy, I hear just fine. You seem to be the one struggling to
> > > understand my posts. You claim here, "charge dismissed," and the
> > > mountain bikers lied, but you were still guilty on three charges. When
> > > I ask you to clarify this discrepancy, you evade the question by
> > > projecting behaviors onto me.
>
> > > All I'm asking for is your account of the events that led to the
> > > charges against you to set the story straight, nothing more. In other
> > > words, I am asking to hear the TRUTH. Yet you are afraid to tell the
> > > truth for some reason.
>
> > BS. This is the first time you asked that.
>
> No it isn't, liar:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.backcountry/browse_frm/thread/9207...

>
> Still, your evading the question AGAIN is duly noted, coward.
>
> > Since all the charges were
> > based on LIES, there is no point in discussing them. Sorry to
> > disappoint you, but you aren't going to make any points.
>
> What gave you the silly idea I'm going for "points?" I'm just asking
> for information, which you fail to grasp, somehow, stupid.

No, you aren't, because you aren't satisfied after I answer you.

> > I did not
> > brandish (except in self-defense, which is not a crime), nor did I
> > commit battery -- the mountain biker did, by running into me. All you
> > want to do is LIE ("you were still guilty"), so there's no point in
> > trying to have a rational conversation with you. Just like ALL
> > mountain bikers, all you want to do is twist the facts, since they
> > don't support your bizarre ideas.
>
> Three of the six charges were neither dismissed nor acquitted. What
> facts am I twisting?

Most of them. The mountain bikers lied. That's all you need to know.

> Only an idiot like you would mistake a line of questioning for a lie.
> I tried asking you a question; you refuse to answer it. I explain my
> understanding of the details (which may be wrong), hoping you will
> illuminate the facts; you continue to evade the question, and call me
> a liar.

Because you ARE a liar: I already answered the question, several
times, AS YOU WELL KNOW.

> You continue to use projection as a means to dodge the question.
> Again, you claim to respect the truth, yet you refuse to provide it
> here as a means of refuting the charges against you. Moreover, you LIE
> with generalities as a excuse to answer the question.
>
> Your dishonesty in this forum is repulsive.

You have yet to demonstrate ANY "dishonesty", except your own.

FACT: You don't accept the truth, because you don't like it. It
doesn't favor your pro-mountain-biker view.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Nov 27, 11:38 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.backcountry/browse_frm/thread/9207...

Your FIRST lie, of course, is never using your real name. That's the
first sign of a LIAR. You can't even tell the truth about your own
name! Sheesh.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Nov 27, 11:38 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Where, liar?

[Shraga]

Now you're just getting desperate. Did I upset you that much?

Also: you just lied AGAIN, liar. Twice.

[Shraga]

On Nov 28, 7:43 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:38 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > They lied about EVERYTHING. That's why three of the charges were
> > > dismissed or acquitted.
>
> > Really? So you weren't there? They weren't there? If they lied about
> > "EVERYTHING," then they must have lied about being there. They must
> > have lied about you having a handsaw, yet below you admit to having
> > one.
>
> > So now you are OBVIOUSLY lying. There is NO WAY they lied about
> > "EVERYTHING." You wrote yourself, "three of the charges..." What about
> > the other three?
>
> Dismissed or innocent.
>

> > You continue to use projection as a means to dodge the question.
> > Again, you claim to respect the truth, yet you refuse to provide it
> > here as a means of refuting the charges against you. Moreover, you LIE
> > with generalities as a excuse to answer the question.
>
> > Your dishonesty in this forum is repulsive.
>
> You have yet to demonstrate ANY "dishonesty", except your own.
>
> FACT: You don't accept the truth, because you don't like it. It
> doesn't favor your pro-mountain-biker view.

Bitch, please.

Go look up the word "everything" in a dictionary, moron, and then
consider the definition in the context of the sentence, "They lied
about EVERYTHING."

When you're done, look up "fact," because you are confusing it with
the word, "assumption" or "bias."

Dishonesty demonstrated. That was too easy.

Unless you want to provide your version of the events that led to the
charges being filed against you, along with a narrative that includes
your perspective of the trial, you can just save your ramblings and
lies for someone else.

Now, I'm off to the magazine stands to purchase the published version
of your trial, which stands alone in its detail of the events.

Lies or not, since you refuse to tell your side of the story, it's all
anyone has if they are interested in reading an article about it.

Enjoy your infamy.

[Mike Vandeman]

Where is the lie? You are afraid to use your real name, just as I
said. You just lied AGAIN. So what IS your real name?

[Mike Vandeman]

BS. It is mostly lies, as you well know. "Bike" Magazine & Peter Frick-
Wright are not where an intelligent person would go to get the truth
about mountain biking, since they are profiting from it. That's
obvious to everyone but mountain bikers. Why don't you pay for the
trial transcript? Then you can hear the police & mountain bikers
lying.

> Lies or not, since you refuse to tell your side of the story,

I already did. How many times do I have to do it, before you hear it?:
"charge dismissed". End of story. Did you get it yet? If not, ask your
mommie to explain it to you.

[Kayak 44]

Are you going to call his employer like you have on others?

[Kayak 44]

A transcript is written or printed, you wouldn't hear anything but
paper flapping idiot, DUH!!

[Mike Vandeman]

Thanks for enlightening us, O Great One With Lots of Time On His Hands
to Waste.

[Mike Vandeman]

Only if he's stealing from his employer, as they were. It's their own
fault.

So what is YOUR real name, coward?

[Shraga]

According to you I have three options to learn more about UCPD crime
report 10-02127. (1) I can read lies in Bike magazine, (2) I can fly
to California and pay to read lies made by the police and the
plaintiffs, or (3) I can read the words, "charge dismissed" over and
over again.

Brilliant. I guess in your world I could also just write "Ahab dies"
on a sheet of paper and distribute it to high school students so they
won't have to read Moby Dick. Ahab dies. End of story. No need to read
the rest of it, because I provided a single detail out of context.
What more does anyone need?

Why can't you tell us the WHOLE story? Why are you afraid of telling
the TRUTH?

[Mike Vandeman]

On Nov 29, 9:51 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Only in the minds (such as they are) of mountain bikers. Everyone else
knows I'm telling the truth.

[Mike Vandeman]

I just did! Tell us your real name, and prove that you can tell the
truth, for once. Why are you afraid of telling the TRUTH? Hypocrite!

[Mike Vandeman]

No, the analogous statement would be "there was no whale", hence no
need for a "story". "Charge dismissed" means there was nothing to talk
about. Sorry to disappoint you. Why don't you just FABRICATE, like
other mountain bikers. Oh, yes, you ARE.

No need to read
> the rest of it, because I provided a single detail out of context.
> What more does anyone need?
>
> Why can't you tell us the WHOLE story? Why are you afraid of telling

> the TRUTH?- Hide quoted text -

[Shraga]

Hilarious. Now you're completely changing the plot of a classic novel
in front of everyone to suit your needs. You just proved my point that
you CONSTANTLY manipulate details so they appear in your favor.

And why do you keep writing "charge dismissed" in the singular? Were
you, or were you not accused of SIX charges? How many of the SIX
charges were dismissed? Can you count, dummy, or are you just going to
reply "charge dismissed" again, without the important detail of the
accompanying number?

What details are you so afraid of revealing, liar?

[Mike Vandeman]

It's obviously a waste of time talking to a LIAR who won't even give
his/her/its real name. Do your own research, and continue LYING, just
like ALL mountain bikers. You're obviously very disappointed that
events didn't support your wishes. Read and weep: "charge [the one you
care about] dismissed". You are afraid to reveal your real name,
because you are LYING: you don't want to be sued for LIBEL. Therefore,
you aren't worth my time. Or anyone else's. Why are mountain bikers
all such IDIOTS???

[Shraga]

I'm hardly weeping, simpleton. Quite the contrary, I'm laughing that
you're too stupid to answer the simple questions I posted today.

See you (http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/
2010/10-052810-37NC.htm) around.

- Shraga

[Mike Vandeman]

>  - Shraga

You can't even tell us your real name, liar. No one wants to talk to a
puppet.

[dgw...@gmail.com]

Assault with a deadly weapon?! Was it a mountain bike? ROFL!!!