 |
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
From: Blackblade <mcolebou...@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 03:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Oct 31 2012 6:50 am
Subject: Re: A Cure for Violence?
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:08:46 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:
I fear that we will never get through to Mike V. He lives in his own world and, as far as I can tell from his writing, has real issues genuinely understanding that others could validly hold different views.
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Vandeman > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! > > > > Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? > > > > There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?
> I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth.
Thus, despite his conviction for violent crimes, he has not in any way altered his self image. Rational people might, faced with such a wakeup call, modify their behaviour and attitudes and question themselves. No such epiphany seems to have occurred with Mike and he is therefore seeking to try and impose such a worldview on everyone else.
In his mind, he is an innocent victim, wholly justified in his actions, brought low by contrary forces. In reality, he is someone prepared to countenance violence and physical confrontation in defence of his position and has provably sought such confrontations as he has admitted in his own testimony (specifically, where he refers to intentionally moving into the path of others to prevent them passing).
It's kind of fun verbally jousting with him, occasionally, but I no longer take what he says in any way seriously ... and I doubt now that he will ever change.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||