info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WHOOPS! While Mountain Bikers Dither, ANOTHER One of Their Buddies Is Seriously Injured!
143 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike Vandeman
Apr 27, 2013, 10:37:09 PM4/27/13
to
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20130427-NEWS-304270327
Injured mountain biker rescued in Exeter
By Jeff McMenemy
ne...@seacoastonline.com
April 27, 2013 2:00 AM
EXETER Town firefighters rescued a man who suffered "serious head and back injuries," from the Oakland Forest Friday afternoon and then temporarily closed Route 27 so he could be MedFlighted to a Boston hospital, Fire Chief Brian Comeau said Friday night.
"We believe he had an accident on his mountain bike, and fell from his bike and hit a rock," Comeau said.
Town firefighters went into the woods off Route 101 after receiving the call at around 2:30 p.m., and located the injured man near a large swampy area. Comeau said the conservation area, which is full of trails, is marked by sometimes hilly and rough terrain that can turn swampy.
Firefighters decided to bring the helicopter in to have the man MedFlighted because of the seriousness of his injuries and how quickly it responds, Comeau said.
"Because of the head and the back injuries, which are considered of a very serious nature, we try to get the highest standard of care we can," Comeau said. "Boston MedFlight is roughly just 20 minutes away and we figured by the time we got him out of the woods, we could have him to a Boston hospital in a short amount of time."
Firefighters used a stokes basket, which is a stretcher used for rescues in tight spaces, like the woods, because it is just big enough to hold one person who can then be strapped in, while allowing several people to help carry the victim, Comeau said.
The fire chief did not have the name or age of the victim Friday night, but believes he is a local man.
The person riding with the victim called 911 and helped firefighters find the pair.
Comeau said it took 45 minutes to get the man out of the woods.
He cautioned against anyone riding out there alone.
Injured mountain biker rescued in Exeter
By Jeff McMenemy
ne...@seacoastonline.com
April 27, 2013 2:00 AM
EXETER Town firefighters rescued a man who suffered "serious head and back injuries," from the Oakland Forest Friday afternoon and then temporarily closed Route 27 so he could be MedFlighted to a Boston hospital, Fire Chief Brian Comeau said Friday night.
"We believe he had an accident on his mountain bike, and fell from his bike and hit a rock," Comeau said.
Town firefighters went into the woods off Route 101 after receiving the call at around 2:30 p.m., and located the injured man near a large swampy area. Comeau said the conservation area, which is full of trails, is marked by sometimes hilly and rough terrain that can turn swampy.
Firefighters decided to bring the helicopter in to have the man MedFlighted because of the seriousness of his injuries and how quickly it responds, Comeau said.
"Because of the head and the back injuries, which are considered of a very serious nature, we try to get the highest standard of care we can," Comeau said. "Boston MedFlight is roughly just 20 minutes away and we figured by the time we got him out of the woods, we could have him to a Boston hospital in a short amount of time."
Firefighters used a stokes basket, which is a stretcher used for rescues in tight spaces, like the woods, because it is just big enough to hold one person who can then be strapped in, while allowing several people to help carry the victim, Comeau said.
The fire chief did not have the name or age of the victim Friday night, but believes he is a local man.
The person riding with the victim called 911 and helped firefighters find the pair.
Comeau said it took 45 minutes to get the man out of the woods.
He cautioned against anyone riding out there alone.
shrag...@hotmail.com
Apr 29, 2013, 12:10:50 AM4/29/13
to
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:37:09 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
In other news...
Michael J. Vandeman receives recognition for lifetime achievement:
http://poormansheli.com/2010/06/02/pmh-douche-of-the-week-michael-j-vandeman/
>
In other news...
Michael J. Vandeman receives recognition for lifetime achievement:
http://poormansheli.com/2010/06/02/pmh-douche-of-the-week-michael-j-vandeman/
Mike Vandeman
May 1, 2013, 11:29:22 PM5/1/13
to
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 2, 2013, 12:16:53 PM5/2/13
to
I am simply doing EXACTLY what you are: posting a relevant article I found online without any additional follow up information.
Mike Vandeman
May 3, 2013, 11:36:53 AM5/3/13
to
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:16:53 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:29:22 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:10:50 PM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:37:09 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other news... > > Michael J. Vandeman receives recognition for lifetime achievement: > > > http://poormansheli.com/2010/06/02/pmh-douche-of-the-week-michael-j-vandeman/ > > Thanks for once again demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like! You never learn! What, specifically, am I demonstrating, Michael? I am simply doing EXACTLY what you are: posting a relevant article I found online without any additional follow up information.
You demonstrated your dishonesty and (abysmal lack of) taste. Keep it up, fool. You are only digging yourself in deeper.
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:29:22 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:10:50 PM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:37:09 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other news... > > Michael J. Vandeman receives recognition for lifetime achievement: > > > http://poormansheli.com/2010/06/02/pmh-douche-of-the-week-michael-j-vandeman/ > > Thanks for once again demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like! You never learn! What, specifically, am I demonstrating, Michael? I am simply doing EXACTLY what you are: posting a relevant article I found online without any additional follow up information.
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 6, 2013, 10:12:40 AM5/6/13
to
On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:36:53 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:16:53 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You demonstrated your dishonesty and (abysmal lack of) taste. Keep it up, fool. You are only digging yourself in deeper.
In a thread where YOU use a fellow human being's tragedy to rationalize your paranoia about mountain biking, you accuse me of having poor taste? You crack me up, Michael!
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:16:53 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You demonstrated your dishonesty and (abysmal lack of) taste. Keep it up, fool. You are only digging yourself in deeper.
As I already pointed out, I am simply doing the same thing you are. What I'm demonstrating, obviously, is that you can't handle being on the receiving end of your own bigotry.
Mike Vandeman
May 6, 2013, 11:29:15 AM5/6/13
to
Blackblade
May 7, 2013, 4:38:52 AM5/7/13
to
> You demonstrated your dishonesty and (abysmal lack of) taste. Keep it up, fool. You are only digging yourself in deeper.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
You regularly post gleeful messages about others' misfortunes simply because it suits your twisted agenda. That's beyond bad taste ...
Thank you for demonstrating, yet again, what a sick, twisted and corrupt individual you are ... without, clearly, the slightest self awareness.
Mike Vandeman
May 7, 2013, 10:16:24 AM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:38:52 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > You demonstrated your dishonesty and (abysmal lack of) taste. Keep it up, fool. You are only digging yourself in deeper.
>
>
>
> You have the effrontery and chutzpah to accuse someone else of lack of taste ?
>
>
>
> The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
>
>
>
> You regularly post gleeful messages
BS. I just tell the truth, which mountain bikers would prefer to sweep under the rug. That proves that I have more compassion for you guys than you yourselves have! You would prefer that mountain bikers KEEP getting seriously injured or dying. You have said NOTHING to help reduce these accidents.
> > You demonstrated your dishonesty and (abysmal lack of) taste. Keep it up, fool. You are only digging yourself in deeper.
>
>
>
> You have the effrontery and chutzpah to accuse someone else of lack of taste ?
>
>
>
> The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
>
>
>
> You regularly post gleeful messages
Blackblade
May 10, 2013, 6:59:06 AM5/10/13
to
> BS. I just tell the truth, which mountain bikers would prefer to sweep under the rug. That proves that I have more compassion for you guys than you yourselves have! You would prefer that mountain bikers KEEP getting seriously injured or dying. You have said NOTHING to help reduce these accidents.
BUT, as discussed already, the likelihood of suffering a fatality from mountainbiking is incredibly low and the benefits from it are very high since it directly tackles the number one killer in the western world ... ischaemic heart disease. ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/Ks8H1vdhJ6g/0KXsYu_iyJ8J )
So, no, I am indeed doing nothing to stop people mountainbiking ... I think that more should because the net benefit to our society and to the individuals concerned is considerable.
Mike Vandeman
May 10, 2013, 12:04:33 PM5/10/13
to
On Friday, May 10, 2013 3:59:06 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > BS. I just tell the truth, which mountain bikers would prefer to sweep under the rug. That proves that I have more compassion for you guys than you yourselves have! You would prefer that mountain bikers KEEP getting seriously injured or dying. You have said NOTHING to help reduce these accidents.
>
>
>
> What absolute hogwash ! You HATE mountainbikers. You call us liars,
Because it's TRUE! That's not hatred, it's just HONESTY -- something you know NOTHING about.
> > BS. I just tell the truth, which mountain bikers would prefer to sweep under the rug. That proves that I have more compassion for you guys than you yourselves have! You would prefer that mountain bikers KEEP getting seriously injured or dying. You have said NOTHING to help reduce these accidents.
>
>
>
> What absolute hogwash ! You HATE mountainbikers. You call us liars,
scum and worse. You rejoice when a mountainbiker dies ... "Evolution in Action !" is your usual celebration. That's why I call you an excuse for a human being with an empathy bypass.
> BUT, as discussed already, the likelihood of suffering a fatality from mountainbiking is incredibly low and the benefits from it are very high since
it directly tackles the number one killer in the western world ... ischaemic heart disease. ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/Ks8H1vdhJ6g/0KXsYu_iyJ8J )
> So, no, I am indeed doing nothing to stop people mountainbiking ... I think that more should because the net benefit to our society and to the individuals concerned is considerable.
Blackblade
May 10, 2013, 12:24:47 PM5/10/13
to
> > What absolute hogwash ! You HATE mountainbikers. You call us liars,
>
> Because it's TRUE! That's not hatred, it's just HONESTY -- something you know NOTHING about.
You are not honest ... you lie, distort, skew, omit and mislead.
>
> Because it's TRUE! That's not hatred, it's just HONESTY -- something you know NOTHING about.
> > scum and worse. You rejoice when a mountainbiker dies ... "Evolution in Action !" is your usual celebration. That's why I call you an excuse for a human being with an empathy bypass.
>
> That's just FACT -- something you know NOTHING about.
Mike Vandeman
May 10, 2013, 4:25:09 PM5/10/13
to
On Friday, May 10, 2013 9:24:47 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > > What absolute hogwash ! You HATE mountainbikers. You call us liars,
>
> >
>
> > Because it's TRUE! That's not hatred, it's just HONESTY -- something you know NOTHING about.
>
>
>
> You are not honest ... you lie, distort, skew, omit and mislead.
>
>
>
> > > scum and worse. You rejoice when a mountainbiker dies ... "Evolution in Action !" is your usual celebration. That's why I call you an excuse for a human being with an empathy bypass.
>
> >
>
> > That's just FACT -- something you know NOTHING about.
>
>
>
> What's a fact Mike ?
That mountain bikers are liars. You have proved that numerous times, e.g. calling me a "felon". This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully.
> > > What absolute hogwash ! You HATE mountainbikers. You call us liars,
>
> >
>
> > Because it's TRUE! That's not hatred, it's just HONESTY -- something you know NOTHING about.
>
>
>
> You are not honest ... you lie, distort, skew, omit and mislead.
>
>
>
> > > scum and worse. You rejoice when a mountainbiker dies ... "Evolution in Action !" is your usual celebration. That's why I call you an excuse for a human being with an empathy bypass.
>
> >
>
> > That's just FACT -- something you know NOTHING about.
>
>
>
> What's a fact Mike ?
Blackblade
May 13, 2013, 9:15:23 AM5/13/13
to
> That mountain bikers are liars. You have proved that numerous times, e.g. calling me a "felon". This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully.
Felon is a synonym for criminal ... try arguing that you're not after three criminal convictions.
I am more than happy for everything I've written in this group to follow me; I stand by what I've said. Unlike you, when challenged, I provide backup information rather than simply resorting to calling everyone who doesn't agree with me a liar.
I really wouldn't want to have your online record hanging over my head; you really are stuck with it to the end of your days and it's not a good legacy.
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 13, 2013, 10:46:51 AM5/13/13
to
If it's not a lie, then prove it. Prove that "[Mountain bikers] tend to have a short lifespan..." Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations.
I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
Mike Vandeman
May 13, 2013, 12:45:24 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:15:23 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > That mountain bikers are liars. You have proved that numerous times, e.g. calling me a "felon". This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully. http://thesaurus.com/browse/felon Felon is a synonym for criminal
I already showed you that it's not synonymous.
> > That mountain bikers are liars. You have proved that numerous times, e.g. calling me a "felon". This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully. http://thesaurus.com/browse/felon Felon is a synonym for criminal
... try arguing that you're not after three criminal convictions. I am more than happy for everything I've written in this group to follow me; I stand by what I've said. Unlike you, when challenged, I provide backup information rather than simply resorting to calling everyone who doesn't agree with me a liar. I really wouldn't want to have your online record hanging over my head; you really are stuck with it to the end of your days and it's not a good legacy.
Mike Vandeman
May 13, 2013, 12:46:15 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 7:46:51 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 4:25:09 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, May 10, 2013 9:24:47 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > What's a fact Mike ? > > > > That mountain bikers are liars. You have proved that numerous times, e.g. calling me a "felon". This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully. That last sentence is a lie. If it's not a lie, then prove it. Prove that "[Mountain bikers] tend to have a short lifespan..." Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 4:25:09 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Friday, May 10, 2013 9:24:47 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: > > What's a fact Mike ? > > > > That mountain bikers are liars. You have proved that numerous times, e.g. calling me a "felon". This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully. That last sentence is a lie. If it's not a lie, then prove it. Prove that "[Mountain bikers] tend to have a short lifespan..." Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
That was easy!
Blackblade
May 13, 2013, 1:04:59 PM5/13/13
to
>> Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
>
> http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous
>
> That was easy!
He asked for statistics ... not the one-sided rubbish with which you populate your site. You only address the accidents .. without any context as to the number of events. If you setup a Google feed to give you every accident whilst hiking you could build a much longer list ... but it would be just as meaningless.
>
> http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous
>
> That was easy!
You have never responded to the following ... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/Ks8H1vdhJ6g/0KXsYu_iyJ8J ... with anything substantive.
Blackblade
May 13, 2013, 1:14:13 PM5/13/13
to
> I already showed you that it's not synonymous.
How Mike ? References please ? I referred you to a Thesaurus which shows that it IS a synonym.
> All charges were dismissed. That's a great legacy. Yours is "liar", which you obviously have no inclination to change.
It strikes me that, yet again, you fail to comprehend that YOUR WORD, after all the rubbish you've spouted over the years, is worthless. No one is going to believe anything you say unless you can back it up.
Personally, I have no issue with people disbelieving me ... since I am more than happy to provide external references to backup what I say. I can PROVE that I'm not a liar without having to revert to a simple assertion "because I say so".
You, who claim to always tell the truth and never lie, seem unable to provide any backup and even write lies in threads ... and then try and still claim you never lie.
Blackblade
May 13, 2013, 1:15:25 PM5/13/13
to
> All charges were dismissed. That's a great legacy.
And the dismissal is entirely unproven ...
Mike Vandeman
May 13, 2013, 11:32:22 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:15:23 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > That mountain bikers are liars. You have proved that numerous times, e.g. calling me a "felon". This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully.
>
>
>
> http://thesaurus.com/browse/felon
>
>
>
> Felon is a synonym for criminal ... try arguing that you're not after three criminal convictions.
No, it isn't. Here's what your alleged "thesaurus" says:
>
>
>
> http://thesaurus.com/browse/felon
>
>
>
> Felon is a synonym for criminal ... try arguing that you're not after three criminal convictions.
http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Is%20A%20Felon?&o=100103&__utma=1.2072360294.1368502155.1368502155.1368502155.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1368502155&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1368502155.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=136072369:
"What is a Felon?
A felon is someone who has been convicted of a violent or serious crime. They have served time in a prison and not just in a jail. Someone who is convicted of murder would be a felon."
Blackblade
May 14, 2013, 4:51:44 AM5/14/13
to
> No, it isn't. Here's what your alleged "thesaurus" says:
>
> http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Is%20A%20Felon?&o=100103&__utma=1.2072360294.1368502155.1368502155.1368502155.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1368502155&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1368502155.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=136072369:
What a stupid lie ... takes 5 seconds to find it. Your link takes me to the ask.com site, not the Thesaurus site to which I already provided a link.
>
> http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Is%20A%20Felon?&o=100103&__utma=1.2072360294.1368502155.1368502155.1368502155.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1368502155&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1368502155.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=136072369:
So, no, that ISN'T what thesaurus.com says ... it's what a member of the public thinks is a felon.
So, another proven lie Mike ... "Here's what your alleged Thesaurus says". It's NOT ... you've intentionally changed the link. So, you just LIED ! In black and white. That's three proven lies in less than a week ... good going even for you.
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 14, 2013, 9:40:22 AM5/14/13
to
Your incompetence has grown to such new heights that you are no longer capable of the remedial task of copying and pasting a URL from your own waste of cyberspace without screwing it up.
You simultaneously confirmed that you are a liar, and an idiot. Nicely done.
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 14, 2013, 9:42:54 AM5/14/13
to
... But what you describe is pretty much what I expected from him and why I used the word "statistics," one of his alleged areas of expertise.
Mike Vandeman
May 14, 2013, 9:20:01 PM5/14/13
to
Mike Vandeman
May 14, 2013, 9:23:18 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:42:54 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:04:59 PM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > >> Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > That was easy!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > He asked for statistics ... not the one-sided rubbish with which you populate your site. You only address the accidents .. without any context as to the number of events. If you setup a Google feed to give you every accident whilst hiking you could build a much longer list ... but it would be just as meaningless.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You have never responded to the following ... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/Ks8H1vdhJ6g/0KXsYu_iyJ8J ... with anything substantive.
>
>
>
> Interesting. I got a 404 error from his link.
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm.
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:04:59 PM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote:
>
> > >> Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > That was easy!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > He asked for statistics ... not the one-sided rubbish with which you populate your site. You only address the accidents .. without any context as to the number of events. If you setup a Google feed to give you every accident whilst hiking you could build a much longer list ... but it would be just as meaningless.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You have never responded to the following ... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/Ks8H1vdhJ6g/0KXsYu_iyJ8J ... with anything substantive.
>
>
>
> Interesting. I got a 404 error from his link.
> ... But what you describe is pretty much what I expected from him and why I used the word "statistics," one of his alleged areas of expertise.
Blackblade
May 15, 2013, 7:12:36 AM5/15/13
to
> BS. Your Thesaurus refers the reader to that definition. A thesaurus, of course, doesn't define words. It only lists words with similar meanings. You need a DEFINITION, which I gave you. You lose AGAIN! What a SURPRIZE!
So, you admit you LIED ! You said that you referred to a Thesaurus but you provided a link elsewhere to another site which has a definition you happen to favour.
However, there are several definitions of felon ... and I have made clear which one I was using.
And, as usual, you are thrashing around on inconsequential matters because you've lost the main argument. I don't care WHICH word is used; criminal, felon, convict etc etc etc. The meaning is very clear.
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 15, 2013, 11:17:35 AM5/15/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:23:18 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:42:54 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >> Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
> > >
> > > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous
> > > > That was easy!
>
>
> > > He asked for statistics ... not the one-sided rubbish with which you populate your site. You only address the accidents .. without any context as to the number of events. If you setup a Google feed to give you every accident whilst hiking you could build a much longer list ... but it would be just as meaningless.
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:42:54 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >> Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar.
> > >
> > > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous
> > > > That was easy!
>
>
> > > He asked for statistics ... not the one-sided rubbish with which you populate your site. You only address the accidents .. without any context as to the number of events. If you setup a Google feed to give you every accident whilst hiking you could build a much longer list ... but it would be just as meaningless.
>
>
> > Interesting. I got a 404 error from his link.
>
> http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm.
>
> > ... But what you describe is pretty much what I expected from him and why I used the word "statistics," one of his alleged areas of expertise.
>
> It's irrelevant to non-random processes.
Really? If it's non-random, then what is the pattern that defines the distribution of mountain bike fatalities?
>
> http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm.
>
> > ... But what you describe is pretty much what I expected from him and why I used the word "statistics," one of his alleged areas of expertise.
>
> It's irrelevant to non-random processes.
And what, exactly, is the average lifespan of a mountain biker? If you know that mountain bikers have a "short lifespan," then you MUST know what the average is, right?
Mike Vandeman
May 15, 2013, 2:49:30 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:12:36 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > BS. Your Thesaurus refers the reader to that definition. A thesaurus, of course, doesn't define words. It only lists words with similar meanings. You need a DEFINITION, which I gave you. You lose AGAIN! What a SURPRIZE! So, you admit you LIED ! You said that you referred to a Thesaurus but you provided a link elsewhere to another site which has a definition you happen to favour. However, there are several definitions of felon ... and I have made clear which one I was using. And, as usual, you are thrashing around on inconsequential matters because you've lost the main argument. I don't care WHICH word is used; criminal, felon, convict etc etc etc. The meaning is very clear.
Regardless of which word you use, it doesn't apply to me. I have never been a felon, and I'm not a criminal, because I was innocent from the start, & also because all charges were DISMISSED (null & void). As a typical mountain biker, of course, you choose to LIE (assert what you don't know to be true). No surprize there! Mountain bikers all hate people who tell the truth about their sport, as I do. You aren't man enough to tell the truth.
> > BS. Your Thesaurus refers the reader to that definition. A thesaurus, of course, doesn't define words. It only lists words with similar meanings. You need a DEFINITION, which I gave you. You lose AGAIN! What a SURPRIZE! So, you admit you LIED ! You said that you referred to a Thesaurus but you provided a link elsewhere to another site which has a definition you happen to favour. However, there are several definitions of felon ... and I have made clear which one I was using. And, as usual, you are thrashing around on inconsequential matters because you've lost the main argument. I don't care WHICH word is used; criminal, felon, convict etc etc etc. The meaning is very clear.
Mike Vandeman
May 15, 2013, 2:52:13 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:17:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:23:18 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:42:54 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > >> Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar. > > > > > > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous > > > > That was easy! > > > > > He asked for statistics ... not the one-sided rubbish with which you populate your site. You only address the accidents .. without any context as to the number of events. If you setup a Google feed to give you every accident whilst hiking you could build a much longer list ... but it would be just as meaningless. > > > > Interesting. I got a 404 error from his link. > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm. > > > ... But what you describe is pretty much what I expected from him and why I used the word "statistics," one of his alleged areas of expertise. > > It's irrelevant to non-random processes. Really? If it's non-random, then what is the pattern that defines the distribution of mountain bike fatalities? And what, exactly, is the average lifespan of a mountain biker? If you know that mountain bikers have a "short lifespan," then you MUST know what the average is, right?
All I know is that it's obviously shorter than that of hikers & others in NON-EXTREME sports. You know that as well, you just aren't man enough to admit it.
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:23:18 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:42:54 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > >> Show us the statistics, not your typical biased qualitative observations. I look forward to you dodging the question, as usual, liar. > > > > > > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous > > > > That was easy! > > > > > He asked for statistics ... not the one-sided rubbish with which you populate your site. You only address the accidents .. without any context as to the number of events. If you setup a Google feed to give you every accident whilst hiking you could build a much longer list ... but it would be just as meaningless. > > > > Interesting. I got a 404 error from his link. > > http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm. > > > ... But what you describe is pretty much what I expected from him and why I used the word "statistics," one of his alleged areas of expertise. > > It's irrelevant to non-random processes. Really? If it's non-random, then what is the pattern that defines the distribution of mountain bike fatalities? And what, exactly, is the average lifespan of a mountain biker? If you know that mountain bikers have a "short lifespan," then you MUST know what the average is, right?
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 16, 2013, 9:28:36 AM5/16/13
to
Thanks for confirming that you lied.
Mike Vandeman
May 16, 2013, 12:08:18 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:28:36 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:52:13 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:17:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > It's irrelevant to non-random processes. Really? If it's non-random, then what is the pattern that defines the distribution of mountain bike fatalities? And what, exactly, is the average lifespan of a mountain biker? If you know that mountain bikers have a "short lifespan," then you MUST know what the average is, right? > > > > All I know is that it's obviously shorter than that of hikers & others in NON-EXTREME sports. You know that as well, you just aren't man enough to admit it. So despite claiming that "[Mountain bikers] tend to have a short lifespan..." you have no idea what a mountain biker's lifespan actually is. Thanks for confirming that you lied.
BS. I don't need to know how long it is, to know that it is shorter than hikers'. The same for racecar drivers, miners, sailors, prostitutes, etc. Idiot. Still scratching at straws?
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:52:13 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:17:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > It's irrelevant to non-random processes. Really? If it's non-random, then what is the pattern that defines the distribution of mountain bike fatalities? And what, exactly, is the average lifespan of a mountain biker? If you know that mountain bikers have a "short lifespan," then you MUST know what the average is, right? > > > > All I know is that it's obviously shorter than that of hikers & others in NON-EXTREME sports. You know that as well, you just aren't man enough to admit it. So despite claiming that "[Mountain bikers] tend to have a short lifespan..." you have no idea what a mountain biker's lifespan actually is. Thanks for confirming that you lied.
Blackblade
May 17, 2013, 5:25:32 AM5/17/13
to
> Regardless of which word you use, it doesn't apply to me. I have never been a felon, and I'm not a criminal, because I was innocent from the start, & also because all charges were DISMISSED (null & void). As a typical mountain biker, of course, you choose to LIE (assert what you don't know to be true). No surprize there! Mountain bikers all hate people who tell the truth about their sport, as I do. You aren't man enough to tell the truth.
And therein lies your problem. You are immune to the truth even when it hits you in the face and convicts you in a court of law.
You were NOT innocent ... you provided narrative in this newsgroup to verify your guilt. Your attempt to justify this using Right of Way Precedence is NOT legal ... you cannot detain someone unless duly authorised ... and you were not.
Any dismissal under a petition does not make you innocent, as you well know.
This childish "I didn't do it" is getting beyond a joke ... you did, man up, change the record, face the consequences of your actions and, by all means, campaign for what you think is right.
But, everyone who disagrees with you is not a liar and you have been caught in three proven lies this week alone ... so I suggest you grow up (high time given your age) and, if you wish to continue your campaign, you do it positively. Attack theory has been thoroughly discredited as I think you are also aware ?
Blackblade
May 17, 2013, 5:28:52 AM5/17/13
to
> BS. I don't need to know how long it is, to know that it is shorter than hikers'. The same for racecar drivers, miners, sailors, prostitutes, etc. Idiot. Still scratching at straws?
Please stop using the Phd moniker at once ... you are a disgrace to any form of science.
Firstly, you DIDN'T say that they had shorter lifespans than hikers ... you're changing your assertion. You said "This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully."
You make all kinds of assertions and then, when challenged to justify, all you can come up with is your own opinion ... which is worthless ... or you try and change the assertion. In this case, you're doing BOTH. What a liar !
I would bet, but don't know because I am open about NOT having done the research, that mountain bikers live a lot longer than average since they will tend to have better cardiovascular health. But, I wouldn't ever state that as a fact because I haven't done the research to prove it. You don't seem to have any such compunction about disseminating your baseless assertions.
Mike Vandeman
May 17, 2013, 8:12:19 AM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 2:25:32 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > Regardless of which word you use, it doesn't apply to me. I have never been a felon, and I'm not a criminal, because I was innocent from the start, & also because all charges were DISMISSED (null & void). As a typical mountain biker, of course, you choose to LIE (assert what you don't know to be true). No surprize there! Mountain bikers all hate people who tell the truth about their sport, as I do. You aren't man enough to tell the truth.
>
>
>
> And therein lies your problem. You are immune to the truth even when it hits you in the face and convicts you in a court of law.
>
>
>
> You were NOT innocent ... you provided narrative in this newsgroup to verify your guilt. Your attempt to justify this using Right of Way Precedence is NOT legal ... you cannot detain someone unless duly authorized
> > Regardless of which word you use, it doesn't apply to me. I have never been a felon, and I'm not a criminal, because I was innocent from the start, & also because all charges were DISMISSED (null & void). As a typical mountain biker, of course, you choose to LIE (assert what you don't know to be true). No surprize there! Mountain bikers all hate people who tell the truth about their sport, as I do. You aren't man enough to tell the truth.
>
>
>
> And therein lies your problem. You are immune to the truth even when it hits you in the face and convicts you in a court of law.
>
>
>
I didn't detain anyone. As a pedestrian, I have the right to be anywhere on the trail. The biker, besides failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, was also riding illegally. And of course, you don't know the facts, because you weren't there! So every assertion you make about it is a LIE!
Blackblade
May 20, 2013, 5:40:29 AM5/20/13
to
> I didn't detain anyone. As a pedestrian, I have the right to be anywhere on the trail. The biker, besides failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, was also riding illegally. And of course, you don't know the facts, because you weren't there! So every assertion you make about it is a LIE!
It's exactly the same situation on a pedestrian crossing. You have a right to be there and can walk across as you wish ... but if you try and use such right to stop the traffic you will find that the right is not unfettered and you would be arrested and charged with obstruction.
Under law, very very few rights are unfettered ... you can't just cite one and pre-emptively declare that you're right ... as your conviction proved of course.
The legality or illegality of the rider being there is not your concern and therefore immaterial; you are not authorised to conduct any sort of enforcement. If you wanted to stop people riding there then you should have informed the owner of the land, if privately held, or the authorities if publicly. If, as seems likely, the landowner didn't really care very much about riding in that location it's not for you to decide that they HAVE to enforce a riding ban and try and do it yourself.
So, you will note, I'm not commenting on anything that is not either (a) something that you've written in this newsgroup or (b) a verifiable matter of law.
You convict yourself out of your own mouth ... as was probably the case in your trial.
Mike Vandeman
May 20, 2013, 11:38:59 AM5/20/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:40:29 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > I didn't detain anyone. As a pedestrian, I have the right to be anywhere on the trail. The biker, besides failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, was also riding illegally. And of course, you don't know the facts, because you weren't there! So every assertion you make about it is a LIE! Yes, Mike, you did ! Your own narrative makes it very clear ... you intentionally moved so as to detain the rider. Indeed, you can BE anywhere you wish on the trail but you may NOT use that right to detain someone. This is precisely why you are GUILTY of the offences as charged because you are simply misunderstanding the law. It's exactly the same situation on a pedestrian crossing. You have a right to be there and can walk across as you wish ... but if you try and use such right to stop the traffic you will find that the right is not unfettered and you would be arrested and charged with obstruction. Under law, very very few rights are unfettered ... you can't just cite one and pre-emptively declare that you're right ... as your conviction proved of course. The legality or illegality of the rider being there is not your concern and therefore immaterial; you are not authorised to conduct any sort of enforcement. If you wanted to stop people riding there then you should have informed the owner of the land, if privately held, or the authorities if publicly. If, as seems likely, the landowner didn't really care very much about riding in that location it's not for you to decide that they HAVE to enforce a riding ban and try and do it yourself. So, you will note, I'm not commenting on anything that is not either (a) something that you've written in this newsgroup or (b) a verifiable matter of law. You convict yourself out of your own mouth ... as was probably the case in your trial.
You are LYING again, as usual. I never "detained" him, and no one ever said I "detained" him. He was riding illegally, failed to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, and ran into me. He was in the wrong, thrice over! You can't make it true by simply repeating the same lie over and over. DUH! Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time just how dishonest mountain bikers are. You are your own worst enemies!
> > I didn't detain anyone. As a pedestrian, I have the right to be anywhere on the trail. The biker, besides failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, was also riding illegally. And of course, you don't know the facts, because you weren't there! So every assertion you make about it is a LIE! Yes, Mike, you did ! Your own narrative makes it very clear ... you intentionally moved so as to detain the rider. Indeed, you can BE anywhere you wish on the trail but you may NOT use that right to detain someone. This is precisely why you are GUILTY of the offences as charged because you are simply misunderstanding the law. It's exactly the same situation on a pedestrian crossing. You have a right to be there and can walk across as you wish ... but if you try and use such right to stop the traffic you will find that the right is not unfettered and you would be arrested and charged with obstruction. Under law, very very few rights are unfettered ... you can't just cite one and pre-emptively declare that you're right ... as your conviction proved of course. The legality or illegality of the rider being there is not your concern and therefore immaterial; you are not authorised to conduct any sort of enforcement. If you wanted to stop people riding there then you should have informed the owner of the land, if privately held, or the authorities if publicly. If, as seems likely, the landowner didn't really care very much about riding in that location it's not for you to decide that they HAVE to enforce a riding ban and try and do it yourself. So, you will note, I'm not commenting on anything that is not either (a) something that you've written in this newsgroup or (b) a verifiable matter of law. You convict yourself out of your own mouth ... as was probably the case in your trial.
Blackblade
May 20, 2013, 12:14:27 PM5/20/13
to
> You are LYING again, as usual. I never "detained" him, and no one ever said I "detained" him. He was riding illegally, failed to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, and ran into me. He was in the wrong, thrice over! You can't make it true by simply repeating the same lie over and over. DUH! Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time just how dishonest mountain bikers are. You are your own worst enemies!
Mike Vandeman; "No, only my hand."
Counsel; "So, you moved your hand out into his path, as he was riding his bike, and it's your testimony that he ran into your arm and not the other way around ?"
Mike Vandeman; "Yes of course. I was stationary. All I had to do was walk two or three steps and I was, you know, approximately where he was coming ...."
Source; court reporting of the your trial by Peter Frick-Wright.
So, care to try again ... you DIDN'T intentionally move so as to force the rider to stop ???
Damn, it's a bugger this readily available information from the internet isn't it ? Keeps showing who's really the liar :-).
Mike Vandeman
May 20, 2013, 6:05:41 PM5/20/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > You are LYING again, as usual. I never "detained" him, and no one ever said I "detained" him. He was riding illegally, failed to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, and ran into me. He was in the wrong, thrice over! You can't make it true by simply repeating the same lie over and over. DUH! Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time just how dishonest mountain bikers are. You are your own worst enemies! Counsel; "You intentionally moved into the path that he was moving in, right ?" Mike Vandeman; "No, only my hand." Counsel; "So, you moved your hand out into his path, as he was riding his bike, and it's your testimony that he ran into your arm and not the other way around ?" Mike Vandeman; "Yes of course. I was stationary. All I had to do was walk two or three steps and I was, you know, approximately where he was coming ...." Source; court reporting of the your trial by Peter Frick-Wright. So, care to try again ... you DIDN'T intentionally move so as to force the rider to stop ??? Damn, it's a bugger this readily available information from the internet isn't it ? Keeps showing who's really the liar :-).
What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR?
> > You are LYING again, as usual. I never "detained" him, and no one ever said I "detained" him. He was riding illegally, failed to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, and ran into me. He was in the wrong, thrice over! You can't make it true by simply repeating the same lie over and over. DUH! Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time just how dishonest mountain bikers are. You are your own worst enemies! Counsel; "You intentionally moved into the path that he was moving in, right ?" Mike Vandeman; "No, only my hand." Counsel; "So, you moved your hand out into his path, as he was riding his bike, and it's your testimony that he ran into your arm and not the other way around ?" Mike Vandeman; "Yes of course. I was stationary. All I had to do was walk two or three steps and I was, you know, approximately where he was coming ...." Source; court reporting of the your trial by Peter Frick-Wright. So, care to try again ... you DIDN'T intentionally move so as to force the rider to stop ??? Damn, it's a bugger this readily available information from the internet isn't it ? Keeps showing who's really the liar :-).
Blackblade
May 21, 2013, 4:46:33 AM5/21/13
to
> What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR?
It is NOT within your rights as a pedestrian to MOVE so as to intentionally precipitate contact.
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 21, 2013, 9:55:38 AM5/21/13
to
"21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard."
... and even if he were on a crosswalk:
"21950. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk."
The takeaway, of course, is that being a pedestrian does not absolve Michael or relinquish his responsibilities for exercising some degree of common sense.
At the very least, this is infinitely more legal precedence than he has been willing to provide.
Mike Vandeman
May 21, 2013, 11:12:02 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:55:38 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:46:33 AM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote: > > What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR? > > > > Let's stop this. You are quite simply wrong under the terms of the law. You deliberately occasioned contact and attempted to detain him. In this case, he continued, in others, as per further testimony, you were successful in stopping (detaining) riders. > > > > It is NOT within your rights as a pedestrian to MOVE so as to intentionally precipitate contact. Since Michael is referring to himself as a "pedestrian" in this scenario, it is likely that your point of view is supported by the California Vehicle code: "21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard." ... and even if he were on a crosswalk: "21950. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk." The takeaway, of course, is that being a pedestrian does not absolve Michael or relinquish his responsibilities for exercising some degree of common sense. At the very least, this is infinitely more legal precedence than he has been willing to provide.
Obviously, there are no crosswalks on a trail or fire road. So the pedestrian has the right-of-way EVERYWHERE on such a trail. The Highway Patrol confirmed that. Do your own research!
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:46:33 AM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote: > > What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR? > > > > Let's stop this. You are quite simply wrong under the terms of the law. You deliberately occasioned contact and attempted to detain him. In this case, he continued, in others, as per further testimony, you were successful in stopping (detaining) riders. > > > > It is NOT within your rights as a pedestrian to MOVE so as to intentionally precipitate contact. Since Michael is referring to himself as a "pedestrian" in this scenario, it is likely that your point of view is supported by the California Vehicle code: "21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard." ... and even if he were on a crosswalk: "21950. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk." The takeaway, of course, is that being a pedestrian does not absolve Michael or relinquish his responsibilities for exercising some degree of common sense. At the very least, this is infinitely more legal precedence than he has been willing to provide.
shrag...@hotmail.com
May 21, 2013, 1:25:56 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:12:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:55:38 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Obviously, there are no crosswalks on a trail or fire road. So the pedestrian has the right-of-way EVERYWHERE on such a trail. The Highway Patrol confirmed that. Do your own research!
"The Highway Patrol" confirmed it? You mean, the whole thing? HAHA!
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:55:38 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Obviously, there are no crosswalks on a trail or fire road. So the pedestrian has the right-of-way EVERYWHERE on such a trail. The Highway Patrol confirmed that. Do your own research!
Your appeal to a vague authority is conspicuous, and juvenile, Michael.
I don't see any quotes to back up your garbage, as usual. You must be lying again. No surprise there.
Mike Vandeman
May 21, 2013, 6:31:41 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:25:56 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:12:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:55:38 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > Obviously, there are no crosswalks on a trail or fire road. So the pedestrian has the right-of-way EVERYWHERE on such a trail. The Highway Patrol confirmed that. Do your own research! "The Highway Patrol" confirmed it? You mean, the whole thing? HAHA! Your appeal to a vague authority is conspicuous, and juvenile, Michael. I don't see any quotes to back up your garbage, as usual. You must be lying again. No surprise there.
You don't know what the Highway Patrol is? They are the state police. They enforce the traffic laws. You really ought to get out more.
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:12:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:55:38 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > Obviously, there are no crosswalks on a trail or fire road. So the pedestrian has the right-of-way EVERYWHERE on such a trail. The Highway Patrol confirmed that. Do your own research! "The Highway Patrol" confirmed it? You mean, the whole thing? HAHA! Your appeal to a vague authority is conspicuous, and juvenile, Michael. I don't see any quotes to back up your garbage, as usual. You must be lying again. No surprise there.
I love Mike
Jun 25, 2013, 10:52:04 PM6/25/13
to
And you would know all about the law wouldn't you crim?
0 new messages