FLASH! MOUNTAIN BIKERS ARE INCORRIGIBLE LIARS!

[Mike Vandeman]

DUH!

http://news.yahoo.com/armstrong-emotional-recalling-talk-son-105545873--spt.html

From what I hear, Armstrong is STILL lying about doping in 2009 (because it's within the statute of limitations)! Surprize, surprize!

[Tom $herman]

On 1/19/2013 9:52 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> DUH!

Tell it to the judge, eh Mikey? :)

--
Tom $herman

[Blackblade]

Flash .... so is Michael J Vandeman ...

Mike said ...

"As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are doing nothing but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & have no time to "enjoy scenery""
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/shnDNWmH32w/kmnAMUpPfR4J

But in another thread he said ...

"It sounds logical that they would be satisfied, building their own mountain biking "park". But it's not true, for two reasons: (1) most of them enjoy being in nature. It's a MAJOR component of the sport. Especially, exploring NEW territory."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.bicycles.soc/nWmSWXCGgg8/OY4WC2elZ0AJ

So, just like Lance, when it suited him he said one thing and then, when it no longer suited, he said the opposite.

What a liar !

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 4:30:05 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> Flash .... so is Michael J Vandeman ...
>
>
>
> Mike said ...
>
>
>
> "As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are doing nothing but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & have no time to "enjoy scenery""
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/shnDNWmH32w/kmnAMUpPfR4J
>
>
>
> But in another thread he said ...
>
>
>
> "It sounds logical that they would be satisfied, building their own mountain biking "park". But it's not true, for two reasons: (1) most of them enjoy being in nature. It's a MAJOR component of the sport. Especially, exploring NEW territory."
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.bicycles.soc/nWmSWXCGgg8/OY4WC2elZ0AJ

In 1999! What I meant was that mountain bikers CLAIM to be enjoying nature. But after you think about a bit, you realize that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

It's just like a typical dishonest mountain biker to omit the date of the statement, because it's inconvenient.

[Blackblade]

> In 1999! What I meant was that mountain bikers CLAIM to be enjoying nature. But after you think about a bit, you realize that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> It's just like a typical dishonest mountain biker to omit the date of the statement, because it's inconvenient.

You are so full of it !

I provided links to the threads so everyone can see when they were written.

You know what ... you DIDN'T write "Claim". You not only wrote that they enjoyed being in nature you expanded on it further.

You are a liar and you don't even have the good grace to admit when you've been caught in an overt lie.

[Mike Vandeman]

This is why it's a total waste of everyone's time to talk to you: you can't reason your way out of a paper bag. Someone makes two different statements, 13 years apart. Because they aren't identical, you claim that one of them must be a lie! So I guess no one ever learns anything??? Since no one can know what someone else feels, the first statement obviously meant that mountain bikers "claim" to enjoy nature. But we both know that that is physically impossible. Whatever they are "enjoying", it's not nature, since they can't possible pay any attention to nature while mountain biking. A moment's REAL thought would tell you that. But you are simply too dishonest to admit it.

By the way, which statement do you think is a lie???? You can answer that after you explain my "masters in statistics", LIAR.

[Blackblade]

> This is why it's a total waste of everyone's time to talk to you: you can't reason your way out of a paper bag.

Interesting ... so, considering you've yet to prove a lie or refute a statement against me, that makes your reasoning what precisely ? Idiot.

>Someone makes two different statements, 13 years apart. Because they aren't identical, you claim that one of them must be a lie! So I guess no one ever learns anything???

I am not calling you on them not being 'identical'. They are diametrically opposed. You state one thing and then the opposite. By all means tell us that you have changed your mind, no issue, but you're not saying that. You are trying to justify both statements by adding in words that were not there. So, which is it ... you have changed your mind and now rescind your earlier statement or you admit that you were simply saying whatever came into your mind without the slightest coherence as to your position ?


>Since no one can know what someone else feels ...

Thank you. You have just clearly stated a fact. Since that is the case you CANNOT, by your own statement, know what enjoyment others achieve from mountainbiking in a natural environment. As such, axiomatically, to refute your statement all I have to do is assert that I do enjoy it ... which I do ... and for others to do likewise. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

> ... the first statement obviously meant that mountain bikers "claim" to enjoy nature. But we both know that that is physically impossible.

No, Mike, it's not impossible. Shraga pointed out your errors in understanding of peripheral vision and you miss the obvious; mountainbikers don't stop ? We don't sit down, get out our sandwiches, and admire the natural environment and the view ? Even if your assertion that to ride we can only look just (and it really would have to be just) in front of the front tyre were true, which it isn't, that would negate your point.

When we are travelling on steep downhill terrain, fast, perception of the environment is less. When slogging uphill there is all the time in the world to look around and enjoy the environment.

> A moment's REAL thought would tell you that. But you are simply too dishonest to admit it.

What, MJV patented 'REAL thought' where you don't have to prove anything and we just decide to accept your unsupported word ? I don't think so. I'll stick with facts and logic to counter your idiocy thanks.

> By the way, which statement do you think is a lie???? You can answer that after you explain my "masters in statistics", LIAR.

I think, but can't know because I neither know, nor wish to know, what goes on in your head, that the second statement is the lie. You were fully conversant that Mountainbikers enjoyed nature ... your issue was, and is, that you don't like us being in the natural environment. However, now, to suit an argument you wish to say the opposite.

You state "I have an M.A. in Mathematics (including study in Statistics) from Harvard University." on your website. So, by all means, correct me. Did you or did you not study statistics at Masters level ? Statistics is, or is not, a subset of Mathematics ?