Mountain Bikers Pretend to Be Environmentalists

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
At 09:24 AM 2/1/1999 -0800, Sta...@abtcorp.com (Stacia Topping)
wrote:
>I just have a problem with people who take such a negative position
against
>mt. bikes, or any other group, without any consideration of the fact
that
>many mt. bikers, or others, are very environmentally conscientious
and aware
>individuals.

Nonsense. Being "environmentally conscious" implies that you actually
try not to harm the environment. You can have all the nice IDEAS you
want, but if you don't PRACTICE them, it is BS.

Why not develop a personal vendetta for hikers or
>horsebackriders, or better yet agribusiness, the beef industry, or
petroleum
>companies?

I DO oppose those.

in addition, i find your focus to be incredibly narrow. If you
>actually considered the detrimental effects of the many serious
offenses
>against the environment, you might be able to provide yourself and
your hate
>for mt. bikers a little more perspective.

Stick to the truth, and you might get farther. I don't hate mountain
bikers. I hate mountain BIKING.

>Having grown up in a forest preserve area in NY State, as the
daughter of a
>forest ranger, I find your desire to create a natural habitat
admirable, but
>probably neither possible nor actually effective.

Sure. And flying wasn't possible, until the right person came along,
and found a way to do it.

>The destruction of the environment far surpasses your focus and your
ability
>to affect it, at least in the manner you have chosen to pursue it,
namely
>bashing mt. bikers in news groups designed for communication between
mt.
>bikers.

Stick to the truth, as I said. alt.mountain-bike is for DISCUSSING
MOUNTAIN BIKING, NOT just communication between mountain bikers. That
is obvious. Why do you think that lying will help your cause?????

you might affect far more impact on those individuals, (need i
>remind you that they are individuals and not a nameless, faceless,
mindless
>group entity), by providing less inflaming commentary.

There is plenty of that on my web page, but the reaction from mountain
bikers is the SAME: violent hostility toward ANY criticism of mountain
biking.

Most, if not all of
>the mt. bikers I have met, known, or ridden with, are concerned about
trail
>maintenance, wildlife preservation, and land use, abuse and overuse
issues.

Not if they don't PRACTICE it! It is just PR, like Geogre Bush calling
himself an "environmentalist".

>One of the main concerns I have is the anti-mt. biking sentiment such
as you
>have often found occasion to spew, yet it is such individuals as
yourself,
>who feel that hikers and horses are not detrimental to our
environment, wild
>areas and the trails themselves.

You don't know what you are talking about. All you have to do is read
my web page, to know that I am opposed to ALL human presence in
wildlife habitat. I think it should be minimized, as much as possible.
And I think that horses should NEVER be used for transportation.

Mt. bikers weigh a lot less than large
>four-hooved animals, in addition they don't usually deficate in the
middle
>of the trails. In addition, they don't usually camp, or picnic in
off-limit
>areas as hikers do.

Sure they do. They also create trails illegally. In general, they seem
MORE likely to break the law.

they also leave far less trash than many of the hiers
>and campers I have encountered.

This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
should be OBVIOUS.

In addition, they are not petroleum
>dependent and nor are they propelled by motors enabling them to go
where
>human power would not take them, as jeeps and off-road vehicles are.

That is a blatant LIE. Most of them put their mountain bikes on their
cars & SUVs to get them to their trails. I see mountain bikes being
carried on motor vehicles every day.

>It is my personal opinion that mt. bikers are not anti-enviromental,

Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.

we
>simply would like equal access to permitted areas, the same as
hikers,
>horses, jeeps and other off-road vehicles.

You have the same access that everyone else has. It is IDENTICAL. The
same rules apply to EVERYONE. Don't lie! BTW, vehicles don't have
rights.

We are willing to maintain and
>preserve those areas, perform trail maintenance and other upkeep, and
>preservation activities in return for the ability to use those areas
the
>same as others.

That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
ANY human-constructed trails!

>You do your cause no actual good by the stance you have taken and the
>invasive manner by which you pursue it. In actually, you come off as
being
>narrow, offensive and extreme.

I just tell the truth. I see notjing wrong with that. If you do,
something is wrong with your attitude. I can suggest some countries
that don't have freedom of speech, where you might feel more
comfortable. Why don't you START one of your own, just for mountain
bikers?!

>You cannot irradicate humans in order to save the environment, so you
might
>consider developing an attitude toward preservation and positive,
sustanible
>coexistence.

"Coexistence" with wildlife is harmful to them.

>It might interest you to know that many mt. bikers I know also ride
bicycles
>to work, thereby reducing auto dependence, road construction and
other
>issues of concern to you...

That is fine. Stay on paved roads, and you can ride wherever you want.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Vandeman [mailto:mjv...@pacbell.net]
>Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:54 AM
>To: Stacia Topping
>Subject: Re: response to your webpage
>
>
>Don't send me any more email. EVER! I added you to my idiot filter.

I see that you didn't respect my request! How can anyone take you
seriously?????
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

James M. Lane

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
Then tell me why, eunuch, you hike which causes exactly
the same set of problems and others? Too good to be
held to the rules you want everyone else to play by?

No wonder no one takes you seriously, they see your
hypocrisy in action and then your beliefs become ZIPPO.

If you don't want to see more of me kicking the
eunuch's ass, jump mtbers, jump!


Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> At 09:24 AM 2/1/1999 -0800, Sta...@abtcorp.com (Stacia Topping)
> wrote:
> >I just have a problem with people who take such a negative position
> against
> >mt. bikes, or any other group, without any consideration of the fact
> that
> >many mt. bikers, or others, are very environmentally conscientious
> and aware
> >individuals.
>
> Nonsense. Being "environmentally conscious" implies that you actually
> try not to harm the environment. You can have all the nice IDEAS you
> want, but if you don't PRACTICE them, it is BS.

The eunuch tries not to hurt the environment by hiking
in it, destroying both habitat and wildlife while he
does so. He is so "environmentally conscious" that his
own activities and their ramifications totally escape
him. As he does not practice what he preaches, he is
full of BS and is a hypocrite as well. So what else is
new?


> Why not develop a personal vendetta for hikers or
> >horsebackriders, or better yet agribusiness, the beef industry, or
> petroleum
> >companies?
>
> I DO oppose those.

Right, show us a single usenet posting to that effect
in a ng dominated by those groups. If you cannot, then
your opposition is merely BS and window dressing for
your personal vendetta. So what else is new?


> in addition, i find your focus to be incredibly narrow. If you
> >actually considered the detrimental effects of the many serious
> offenses
> >against the environment, you might be able to provide yourself and
> your hate
> >for mt. bikers a little more perspective.
>
> Stick to the truth, and you might get farther. I don't hate mountain
> bikers. I hate mountain BIKING.

Right, that's why the eunuch supports eco-terrorism
against mountain bikers. He supports planting glass in
the trails to cut tires and injure wildlife's "feet."
And he supports stringing wire across trails to knock
riders off their bikes. If he did not hate mountain
bikers, whose bikes are not really hurt in any lasting
way, why does he support such activities?

> >Having grown up in a forest preserve area in NY State, as the
> daughter of a
> >forest ranger, I find your desire to create a natural habitat
> admirable, but
> >probably neither possible nor actually effective.
>
> Sure. And flying wasn't possible, until the right person came along,
> and found a way to do it.

The eunuch equates hisself with the Wright Brothers!
What a laugh. Do you think all the badgering and
spamming here will actually help your cause? Not a
prayer. Further, it will convince neutral people that
you are mentally and personally unstable and are not to
be believed or worked with. You do your cause far
greater hurt than any single thing we could do to bury
it.


> >The destruction of the environment far surpasses your focus and your
> ability
> >to affect it, at least in the manner you have chosen to pursue it,
> namely
> >bashing mt. bikers in news groups designed for communication between
> mt.
> >bikers.
>
> Stick to the truth, as I said. alt.mountain-bike is for DISCUSSING
> MOUNTAIN BIKING, NOT just communication between mountain bikers. That
> is obvious. Why do you think that lying will help your cause?????

Where is this lie, eunuch? She points out a simple
truth, that your words have no impact here whereas they
might in other forums because you merely bash mountain
bikers and carry on a personal vendetta. You message
then falls on deaf ears.


> you might affect far more impact on those individuals, (need i
> >remind you that they are individuals and not a nameless, faceless,
> mindless
> >group entity), by providing less inflaming commentary.
>
> There is plenty of that on my web page, but the reaction from mountain
> bikers is the SAME: violent hostility toward ANY criticism of mountain
> biking.

Violent, this from the eco-terrorist hisself. Pot
calling kettle. . .


> Most, if not all of
> >the mt. bikers I have met, known, or ridden with, are concerned about
> trail
> >maintenance, wildlife preservation, and land use, abuse and overuse
> issues.
>
> Not if they don't PRACTICE it! It is just PR, like Geogre Bush calling
> himself an "environmentalist".

So this is what the eunuch is up to, PR. He tries
calling hisself an environmentalist, when he is an
environmental rapist and wildlife murderer. No wonder
he tries so hard to convince everyone he is an
environmentalist. If his allies (are there any) knew
about this, the would drop the eunuch like a hot rock.
Hmmmm, maybe that explains their absence in defending
him here. They have seen the truth and abandoned him,
leaving him all alone in the playground where the big
boys and girls continue whipping his butt. But now, he
can't go running home to hide behind his mother's
skirts. Guess his wife serves as an ersatz skirt
protection.


> >One of the main concerns I have is the anti-mt. biking sentiment such
> as you
> >have often found occasion to spew, yet it is such individuals as
> yourself,
> >who feel that hikers and horses are not detrimental to our
> environment, wild
> >areas and the trails themselves.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. All you have to do is read
> my web page, to know that I am opposed to ALL human presence in
> wildlife habitat. I think it should be minimized, as much as possible.
> And I think that horses should NEVER be used for transportation.

Then, tell us again, environmental eunuch, wildlife
murderer, and habitat rapist, why you still hike. If
you want to minimize it, do your part and stay out of
their homes.


>
> Mt. bikers weigh a lot less than large
> >four-hooved animals, in addition they don't usually deficate in the
> middle
> >of the trails. In addition, they don't usually camp, or picnic in
> off-limit
> >areas as hikers do.
>
> Sure they do. They also create trails illegally. In general, they seem
> MORE likely to break the law.

Not nearly as much as hikers do, eunuch, and you hike.
There are far more cross trail cuts made by hikers than
mountain bikers who simply get oh-so-tired that they
cannot stay on the trail in their hurry to get home.


> they also leave far less trash than many of the hiers
> >and campers I have encountered.
>
> This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
> BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
> should be OBVIOUS.

No, eunuch, this is about what you do to make your
philosophy, your goals, and your life nothing but a big
lie. As long as you continue telling lies, fibs, or
over exaggerations, you are only a lie yourself.


> In addition, they are not petroleum
> >dependent and nor are they propelled by motors enabling them to go
> where
> >human power would not take them, as jeeps and off-road vehicles are.
>
> That is a blatant LIE. Most of them put their mountain bikes on their
> cars & SUVs to get them to their trails. I see mountain bikes being
> carried on motor vehicles every day.

Like the hikers merely transport themselves there
without petroleum based machinery carrying their asses?
Your included, eunuch? You say you walk to the trails
you hike, but I'm betting gas has gotten you to a trail
more than once. If you've done it, then you have no
place criticizing others who engage in the same
behavior. What? Then you couldn't say a word
legitimately? So what else is new?


> >It is my personal opinion that mt. bikers are not anti-enviromental,
>
> Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
> machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.

Her opinion sounds better than yours. Yours might be
better, but you make a lie out of it by your behavior.
So its doesn't count.


> we
> >simply would like equal access to permitted areas, the same as
> hikers,
> >horses, jeeps and other off-road vehicles.
>
> You have the same access that everyone else has. It is IDENTICAL. The
> same rules apply to EVERYONE. Don't lie! BTW, vehicles don't have
> rights.

And the rules say we can take our bikes into designated
areas. Is that what's grabbing your ass? Tough. And she
never once said vehicles have rights, did she? Putting
your words into her mouth? Shame on you. You were oh so
transparent. And way to easy to catch.


> We are willing to maintain and
> >preserve those areas, perform trail maintenance and other upkeep, and
> >preservation activities in return for the ability to use those areas
> the
> >same as others.
>
> That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
> LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
> ANY human-constructed trails!

Then why do you continue preserving them by your hiking
activities? Why don't you leave them alone and stay
out?


> >You do your cause no actual good by the stance you have taken and the
> >invasive manner by which you pursue it. In actually, you come off as
> being
> >narrow, offensive and extreme.
>
> I just tell the truth. I see notjing wrong with that. If you do,
> something is wrong with your attitude. I can suggest some countries
> that don't have freedom of speech, where you might feel more
> comfortable. Why don't you START one of your own, just for mountain
> bikers?!


Ohhh, the eunuch forgets to talk about his attitude. He
says he tells the truth. Fine, maybe, but he lives a
lie. And by living a lie, he makes his position a lie,
his philosophy a lie, and his human free habitat a lie.
Ya gotta get it together eunuch, in all aspects, or you
are merely a living lie.

As has been brought out many times over the past couple
of years, and probably many times before I came into
the ng, it is how you tell the truth that creates the
impression of your bigotry, your narrowness, your
offensiveness, and your zealotry. You have created the
backlash and it is directed at you. What potential good
you might have done now lies dead there upon the ground
next to your footprints which have murdered the very
wildlife you say you want to protect.

> >You cannot irradicate humans in order to save the environment, so you
> might
> >consider developing an attitude toward preservation and positive,
> sustanible
> >coexistence.
>
> "Coexistence" with wildlife is harmful to them.

As is coexistence with you.

jim

Mike Bussy

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
I thought bikes were more environmentally conscious then cars?????...silly
me all that pollution I expel from my lungs when I ride.

Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36bba1a...@news.pacbell.net>...

Robert Colbert

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
Mike Vandeman is ludicrous, and I'm going to give examples...don't want to read 'em? Skip 'em.

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Nonsense. Being "environmentally conscious" implies that you actually
try not to harm the environment. You can have all the nice IDEAS you
want, but if you don't PRACTICE them, it is BS.

Okay...we'll take that on faith for now...

Stick to the truth, as I said. alt.mountain-bike is for DISCUSSING
MOUNTAIN BIKING, NOT just communication between mountain bikers. That
is obvious. Why do you think that lying will help your cause?????

Um...no...as even your own ISP (PacBell Internet) has proven, anyone can talk about anything here unless there is a charter or other accepted guideline like moderation, etc. As of right this second...it's fair game for anyone, I guess. I don't think that this person was lying, either, Mike. You overexxagerate so frequently that I am forced to say that you have murdered a family of five and their pregnant mother by weaving around like mad on your bicycle. Is that true? Nope. Not at all. But did that person lie? Nope. So why call them a liar any more than I should call you a murderer?

 you might affect far more impact on those individuals, (need i
>remind you that they are individuals and not a nameless, faceless,
mindless
>group entity), by providing less inflaming commentary.

There is plenty of that on my web page, but the reaction from mountain
bikers is the SAME: violent hostility toward ANY criticism of mountain
biking.

Will you ever give up with the "...on my web page..." answer to every question. You have three modes of operation:

1. Just call them a liar;
2. Just tell them to shut up; and
3. When the going gets really tough, send them to my web page!! Yeah!! That's it!

There is NOTHING on your web page. That is why no one goes there. Hell, half of your URLs don't even work!

Not if they don't PRACTICE it! It is just PR, like Geogre Bush calling
himself an "environmentalist".

What? You make less and less sense as the post goes on. I have trouble following you, being a bear of such little brain myself. You're saying that George Bush is a mountain biker? Dude! Radical! He should run for President again..I'll vote for him.

Anyway, joking aside, you are guilty of libel here, Mike (lying, you dumbass! Look it up in the dictionary, asshole!). There are a great deal more mountain bikers doing real trail work than Mike wants us to know about. The truth is out there like an X-File. Seek it and ye shall find.

You don't know what you are talking about. All you have to do is read
my web page, to know that I am opposed to ALL human presence in
wildlife habitat. I think it should be minimized, as much as possible.
And I think that horses should NEVER be used for transportation.

Mode three is active and fervent here: You don't know what you're talking about! See my web page! My web page! My web page!

Mike, I think that if your web page were on paper, someone would set fire to it it's so damned bad! In fact, I'd like to guage the support for something here real quick: If I were to offer to print Mike's web page, would anyone attend a burning? I'd only do one symbolic page (as burning a whole butt-load of paper would be a bad idea for a whole lot of reasons).

This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
should be OBVIOUS.

No, Mike, this has everything to do with what everyone is doing. You're the only one wearing the blinders here! You're the only one saying that hiking doesn't do damage. You're obviously the only one smoking drugs.

A person who rides a mountain bike, at least, acknowledges that trails need upkeep as the result of their riding. And, you know what? They go out and do the upkeep! You just sit and bitch all day like a little old hag. At least these people are out as often as they can be either riding or helping out. Sure, some (dare I say most?) bikers don't lift a finger to help with trail construction and maintenance. But Mike, what have you personally done to reconstruct a trail? What have you personally done except bitch and moan and write little papers? Do you do some real work when you're outside...or do you just snap pictures of the red-tailed monkey squirrels?

That is a blatant LIE. Most of them put their mountain bikes on their
cars & SUVs to get them to their trails. I see mountain bikes being
carried on motor vehicles every day.

Oh, okay, and you don't rent vehicles to get to a good hike, either? You've stated that you have rented vehicles to attend hikes, moron. Who's lying to whom here? I'm curious. I seek clarity in my life.

>It is my personal opinion that mt. bikers are not anti-enviromental,

Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.

Mike, GOING into a wildlife habitat is going to displace something. I don't care how you got there. Live with it. The animals do!

we
>simply would like equal access to permitted areas, the same as
hikers,
>horses, jeeps and other off-road vehicles.

You have the same access that everyone else has. It is IDENTICAL. The
same rules apply to EVERYONE. Don't lie! BTW, vehicles don't have
rights.

Nothing (not even people) will have rights outdoors if you have your way, asshole! And, no, according to your ideals, only hikers will have rights at the end of your "crusade." So, this person is forward-looking and saying that they just want what everyone else has. I see no lie here. Does anyone else?

That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
ANY human-constructed trails!

Mike, you're the only one not able to handle having anything but a hiker in the woods. Everything and everyone else seems to be just fine with it. The animals are doing just fine. It's YOU that we worry about! We worry that you're not taking your medicine any more; and mountain bikers near you have to worry about trail terrorism.

I just tell the truth. I see notjing wrong with that. If you do,
something is wrong with your attitude. I can suggest some countries
that don't have freedom of speech, where you might feel more
comfortable. Why don't you START one of your own, just for mountain
bikers?!

Oh, yeah! And they'll be sure to not have it drawn on your maps, freak!

"Coexistence" with wildlife is harmful to them.

Yeah. Mmm-hmmm. That's why the animals are doing just fine.

That is fine. Stay on paved roads, and you can ride wherever you want.

And, now, for what I promised at the beginning of this message: Proof that Mike Vandeman is all mushy in the head:

Stay on paved roads, and you can ride wherever you want.

That means one of two things: Either you are going to pave the planet, or you just lied. Which is it? If this person can go wherever they want, but only use a paved road, then you're going to have to pave the entire planet. Start mixing the cement, Mike, 'cause those oceans are large, the forests are large, and all those mountains! Wow! I'd like to see you pave the whole planet.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. You meant to say, "You can ride wherever you want as long as where you want to go is paved?" Um...then we still need to pave everything, because I might want to go to Hawaii. I might want to go into the dead-center of the Mohave. I might want to pedal my way to Alaska.

The only thing you could have possibly wanted to say there was, "You may go wherever pavement already exists and nowhere else." That way, people can't decide where to go. That's how you'd like it to be, Mike. We know all about that.

Again, Mike, just please start taking your medicine again, okay? You are ill, and you need the normalizing assistance it offers to you. See, your head is just full of crossed thoughts and such. If you would just take your medicine, you'd probably feel better.

-Rob Colbert (rjco...@home.com)
 

Weedeater

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
On Sat, 06 Feb 1999 01:58:11 GMT, mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman)
wrote:

>At 09:24 AM 2/1/1999 -0800, Sta...@abtcorp.com (Stacia Topping)
>wrote:
>

> in addition, i find your focus to be incredibly narrow. If you
>>actually considered the detrimental effects of the many serious
>offenses
>>against the environment, you might be able to provide yourself and
>your hate
>>for mt. bikers a little more perspective.
>
>Stick to the truth, and you might get farther. I don't hate mountain
>bikers. I hate mountain BIKING.
>

Look at your responce below. You can't even keep your story straight.


>
>This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
>BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
>should be OBVIOUS.
>

>


>That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
>LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
>ANY human-constructed trails!
>

Yet, these trails do no harm to the wildlife.
>

>>You cannot irradicate humans in order to save the environment, so you
>might
>>consider developing an attitude toward preservation and positive,
>sustanible
>>coexistence.
>
>"Coexistence" with wildlife is harmful to them.
>

We already live in a coexistance as a whole. Since you think this is a
bad thing, why don't you take your socalled action and do something
about it. Eliminate the coexistance by starting with yourself.

Sarcasm is here. The forest is a great supply of wood. The forest is
also the home of wildlife. I wonder how much of your computer desk is
made of wood or wood product. How about those kitchen cabinets.
Hmm. How much fossil fuel is being burned or radioactive waste is
being produced by the power plant that runs your computer to post
these messages. Face it, there is no way around LIFE, or the end of
it.

I'm done laughing at your posts, so don't even bother responding to
me.

Weedeater
Paintballer
Mt. biker (new)
Truck driver
hehehe
by


Trekkie Dad

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
[Since a single mikey-post generated at least six responses, I thought I'd
sum it all up in little poem I wrote a couple of months ago. TD]

Ode to a Usenet Kook

Do you like my mountain-bike?
Do you like it? Do you, Mike?

I do not like your mountain-bike.
Leave it home! Go for a hike!
Too many gears! Enormous treads!
You rip my favorite trails to shreds!
You may not ride it here or there,
You may not ride it anywhere!

May I ride on single-track
with all my gear in camelbak?

You may not ride on single-track
with mountain bike or camelbak
And do not ride on fire-road,
It cannot take the overload.
You may not ride it here or there,
You may not ride it anywhere!

Where may I ride my new hardtail;
The one that's made by Cannondale?

You may not ride your new hardtail,
be it Trek or Cannondale.
You may not ride on single-track
With mountain bike or camelbak.
I do not like your mountain-bike.
Leave it home! Go for a hike!

Where may I ride my plush GT
With seven cogs and chainrings three?

You may not ride that plush GT,
in habitat that's human-free
It never will be allowed, you see
I want to save the woods! (for ME)

Stay off the trails for heaven's sakes,
Your knobby tires are killing snakes.
It's known to all biologists,
And famous herpetologists.
We do not like your mountain-bike!
Leave it home! Go for a hike!
You may not ride it here or there,
You may not ride it anywhere!

But, mikey, you don't understand
Enlightened people manage land.

So I will ride my mountain-bike,
I'll go on wheels. You take a hike!
And I will ride it here and there,
And I will ride it everywhere.

I will ride on single-track
With fully-loaded Camelbak.
And I will ride on fire-road,
It isn't such a heavy load!

I will ride that new hardtail;
the one that's made by Cannondale,
And I will ride my plush GT
(There is no place that's "human-free")

A little skill is all it takes
To keep from killing whippersnakes.
And we all know your PhD
Is NOT in herpetology.

--
Trekkie Dad | ICQ #14818568 | trekk...@yahoo.com
World Without Cars Dictionary (updated December 27, 1998) at
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/2356/wwc.html

J D

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
Dr Suess for Dr Zaius.

JD


Whitney Turner

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to Trekkie Dad
With great appreciation for your sense of humor, my wife and I read this
- and cried laughing.

Whitney

Dan

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
Wow: So much for people getting the idea that Mike's a troll.

For those newbies who feel like jumping into this, please be advised that
arguing or even trying to have a discussion with Mike Vandeman is pointless.
He will not change his mind. He thinks all mountain biking should be
banned, unless it's on paved roads. Period. Any attempts to reason with
him will degrade into name-calling or unsubstantiated claims being
repeatedly made. You will grow tired.

Anyone interested in more info, please read my reply to this post from
alt.mountain-bike only, which will come after this one.

Dan
---
"Every absurdity has a champion to defend it" -- Oliver Goldsmith
Lurker2 "at" usa "dot" net
Include "!NS!" in subject to avoid the junk heap.


Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36bba1a...@news.pacbell.net>...

<snip>


Dan

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
OK, I'm trying a new approach. This FAQ is only being posted to
alt.mountain-bike, and it's a response to a Mike Vandeman post. I changed
the subject, at the suggestion of others. If this confuses your newsreader,
or causes you any problems, please let me know, and I'll go back to leaving
the subject unchanged.

This is for newbies, or those who have not seen it before:

Revised 01-22-1999 <-Look, I'm Y2K compliant!

This informal "FAQ" is designed to familiarize the uninitiated with the
spewings of Mike Vandeman. Once you gain an understanding of the troll, and
his values, you will quickly see that arguing with him is a waste of time
and bandwidth. Please read this
before you decide to post anything to him. (And then, resist the
temptation.)

This FAQ is not endorsed by any "committee" or group pretending to preside
over alt.mountain-bike. After all, this newsgroup, and especially all in
the alt. family, is unmoderated and unregulated. (That is, after all, why
Mike Vandeman is still free to post here.)

Q: Who is Mike Vandeman?
A: Some guy who really hates mountain biking, thinks all mountain bikers
are habitual liars, and wants them banned from everywhere except paved
roads. Another possibility is, he's just a troll, doesn't care about
mountain biking or the environment, and is only here to abuse usenet.

Q: Is Mike Vandeman a kook?
A: You betcha, just read his posts. He's even won the prestigious Kook of
the Month award from alt.usenet.kooks!

Q: Is Mike Vandeman stupid?
A: No, he isn't. (He claims to have a Ph.D. in psychology.) That's what
makes him so difficult to deal with. If you're of average intelligence, you
will probably fall into several of his traps of logic, and completely miss
the
point of his posts. If you really have trouble expressing yourself,
especially in written form, he will publicly skewer you (and you're the one
he's really after, which is why he posts here). Even some mountain-bikers
in this group admire him for his ability to make a fool out of you.

Q: What exactly is the point to Mike Vandeman's posts?
A: He hates mountain biking, and wants it banned. It conflicts with his
desire to hike on trails he wants to himself. He doesn't want you mountain
biking past him when he's hiking, and really gets pissed when it happens on
a hiker only trail. Apparently this is a big problem in his area, but even
if it's only one errant MTBer every few months or one in his whole life,
it's
a big deal to Mike. He thinks *all* mountain bikers ride on hiker only
trails, and he thinks all mountain bikers are destructive, and behave the
same. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

He won't stop until all mountain biking is banned. (It's a personal
vendetta.) The purpose of his posts is to annoy mountain bikers and
manipulate them into making themselves look stupid, violent, or destructive.
He then takes those posts and passes them on to people unfamiliar with
mountain biking so they can form their own prejudiced, mis-informed
conclusions about the sport.

Q: I am genuinely concerned about mountain biking and the environment. How
can I make sure that I bike responsibly?

A: If that's your only concern, you don't even need to read the rest of
this FAQ! Just point your web browser to the International Mountain
Bicycling Association (IMBA) Web Site, (http://www.imba.com), and browse
specifically to the IMBA Rules of the Trail
(http://www.imba.com/rules.html), which provide some excellent guidelines to
protecting our sport, and the trails we ride. Read the Rules of the Trail,
and pass them on to your mountain biking buddies. Don't let people act
irresponsibly on the trails. Obey the right-of-way rules for shared trails,
which usually state that horses have the right of way, followed by hikers,
and finally, mountain bikers. (You have to yield to everyone. Deal with
it, or ride on bike only trails.)

Q: Well, if Mike Vandeman is intelligent, as you say, I should be able to
convince him, using reason and logic, that mountain biking isn't as harmful
as he says, shouldn't I?
A: No. You've already missed the point. Mike Vandeman hates mountain
biking. Someone who hates something isn't interested in logic unless it
supports him. If he had solid, scientific data to back his claims, he would
be more calm and reasonable.

Q: Is Mike Vandeman some sort of master of logic and debate?
A: Some say he is. The obvious flaws in some of his posts are intended to
trap you into responding to him. Once you respond, he will attempt to guide
you down a path where he'll prove you wrong anyway, likely about something
that is completely irrelevant to your point. You'll give up long before you
win. Even if you're right, you will soon find that arguing with him was a
waste of time. We've all been there.

Q: Does Mike Vandeman have any allies?
A: Well, that's debatable. There are posts with other names on them, like
Erutan000 (Nature spelled backwards), that sound an awful lot like Mike, and
say the same things. This is either a very close friend of Mike's, also in
the Bay Area of California, or it may be Mike himself. Also, there have
recently been posts from usenet re-mailers, that match the same patterns,
and spam the same newsgroups Mike does. He also likes to re-post e-mails
from so-called "anonymous" people who support him. One thing is certain:
His supporters are few.

Q: How can I tell if a post was made by Mike Vandeman?

A: Mike's posts follow certain patterns, so you can recognize them even
when he uses an alternate name, or re-mailer. His posts are usually some
inane reply to an e-mail he's received, a repost of some old message (e-mail
or usenet post, with no new content), or a re-post of some supposedly
anonymous supporter. He usually uses inflammatory titles like "Why do
mountain bikers lie?", and spams it to other newsgroups, like
rec.backcountry, rec.bicycles.soc, sci.environment, and
rec.animals.wildlife. If you see these newsgroups and the pattern above,
it's got to be Mikey!

Q: Does Mike Vandeman play golf?
A: Hell if I know, but I've enjoyed accusing him of this extremely
destructive sport. I even got a rise out of him with some of my posts, so I
suspect he might be a golfer. (This, of course, is irrelevant anyway.)

Q: Is Mike Vandeman mentally ill?
A: Well, I don't have a Ph.D. in psychology like Mike does, but some would
say that he suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder, which causes him to
obsess on mountain bikers, and the alt.mountain-bike newsgroup. He sure
does seem to get overly emotional in his crusades, and frequently re-posts
old items without adding any new content. He doesn't respond to logic and
rational debate. For a Ph.D., this seems abnormal to me.

Q: Isn't Mike Vandeman just a nutcase who doesn't know what the hell he's
talking about?
A: This kind of prejudice is exactly what Mikey preys upon. Most people
believe that if Mike is way off base on some things, he must be wrong about
everything. Arguing with such a person should be easy, right? Wrong! Mike
is right about a lot of things, and he will prove it. Like Bill Clinton,
he's not always saying what you think he's saying. He also knows when he's
wrong, better than you do. (That's how he knows which way to steer you in a
debate.) By the way, yes, he is a nutcase.

Q: So, what are Mike Vandeman's main arguments, and how do I fight them?
A: You don't fight them, but here's a sampling:

Argument: Mountain Biking causes damage to the environment

Traps: He's right, it does cause damage, although minor. The problem is,
people interpret "damage" to be the same as "significant damage". However,
it
isn't. Most people will try to deny it, which is what he wants, so he can
make you into a liar (which, of course, you are). Others will adopt an
antagonistic attitude and say "Yeah, I cause damage, I love to kill things
and destroy stuff. F*k You", etc. Mike loves this stuff. It supports his
claims that Mountain Bikers are A*holes. This is what he saves and passes
on.

The truth: MTBing does cause damage, though minor. You do kill plants and
animals when you ride. (They're usually insects or small weeds.) You also
frighten
animals when you go by (which is why they hide, but that's their natural
behavior). But Mike also causes damage when he hikes. In fact, we all kill
insects and minute creatures no matter where we walk. Hell, you even
swallow some spiders when you sleep! Mike's point is to exaggerate this to
paint a distorted picture of mountain bikers running over rabbits and other
ludicrous allegations. Before you decide to argue this point, he's heard it
all and ignored it all before.

Argument: Mountain Bikers are liars. (He loves this one, and will prove you
to be one if you fall into his traps.)

Traps: He's probably right. Most of us have been known to lie from time to
time. (I don't know anyone who hasn't.) Some people admit this truth, and
point out that Mike Vandeman is also a liar. (You're right, he is! You're
catching on!) By the way, Mike also has an alternate definition of "liar":
Someone who disagrees with him. By this definition, you are most certainly
a liar.

The truth: All humans are liars, so if you deny lying, he'll have a field
day
with you. Don't even bother pointing out this obvious truth for him, it
means nothing. Also, by being accused of lying, Mike is not necessarily
saying that you're dishonest. He's using his own definition. When he say's
"All mountain bikers are liars", well, he's right. Everyone lies sometimes.
When he says "Mountain bikers lie constantly", he means we all disagree with
him constantly, and in his own world, we're liars. So, by Mike's special
definition of "liar", he's also usually right. But Mike lies deliberately,
and stretches the truth, and exaggerates, to make his point against mountain
biking.

Argument: Mountain biking is easier than hiking. Used to prove that biking
is more destructive than hiking because you go farther into the woods. He
also loves this one because MTBers interpret this as him saying we are
wimps.

Traps: This is a truly pointless argument. What does he mean by easy? He
means distance covered for a given number of leg strokes. However, you,
still sore from that last killer climb, will tell him no way is mountain
biking easier. The last thing you want to admit is that a ride that damn
near killed you was easy! You just found out that walking up that hill was
easier than riding it! Mike has discovered one of your buttons and will
keep pushing it.

The truth: Depends on a precise definition of a vague, relative term like
"easy". In reality, the bicycle acts as a transmission between your legs
and the ground. You trade speed for torque. For speed, high gearing is
easier. For torque (climbing), low gearing is easier. Walking is the
ultimate "first gear" for humans. Mike doesn't understand the point any
better than you do, so these arguments can go on for weeks. Relax. It
means nothing.

Mike takes basic truths, words them to be inflammatory (liar!), and waits
for you to deny them. He uses these basic truths as twisted proofs of some
really outrageous and extreme arguments, and seems to deliberately employ
poor logic calculated to get you to take the bait. When you do, you'll
likely make a flawed argument yourself, and he'll make a fool out of you.
You lose. If you make no mistakes, he'll ignore you. You still lose. If
you think you're going to change his mind, you are sadly mistaken, and you
will lose. Arguing with Mike has been compared to teaching a pig to sing.
(Sing, pig, SING, dammit!)

Argument: Mountain bikers frequently harass hikers and wildlife and should
be banned from the wilderness.

Traps: This is one of his most inflammatory and overgeneralized statements,
and will get your blood boiling. This is where he goes over, and you'll
really want to set him straight. Forget it. He won't budge. You'll see
posts from little old ladies (presumably Vandeman himself) who claim a biker
whizzed by and knocked her down, stopped, turned back, flipped her off,
uttered profanities, and sped off in a cloud of wildlife killing dust,
leaving a trail of trash behind. (There's also the whipsnake story.) You
can't deny or disprove it, since you weren't there. Pointing out that
you've never committed such an act is irrelevant. He'll accuse you of
allowing it to happen.

The Truth: Who knows. If it happened once, a dozen times, or never at all,
it's irrelevant to the way most of us ride. No need to point this out to
Mike, though, he's ignored it all before. If you contradict one of his
fabrications or flaws, he'll call you a liar (which, you'll recall, you
are), or state one of the other truths above. Your discussion will degrade
to some irrelevant point where he's right. You lose. By the way, he'll
never get back to the point about which he's wrong, so you'll never get a
chance to prove it. Even if you prove him wrong for the rest of us (which
is easy), you'll never prove it to him, which was the point of your post in
the first place, wasn't it?

Argument: All Mountain Bikers <blah blah, something destructive>.

Traps: You: "Well, I've never <blah blah>" Mike: "Most mountain bikers
have <blah blah>, so by allowing your fellow bikers to <blah blah>, you are
part of the problem!" You: "I don't know of any bikers who <blah blah>,
and I would never allow anyone in my group to do that." Mike: "You are a
liar. I see mountain bikers <blah blah>-ing all the time. Why do mountain
bikers always lie?"

Truth: Mike's claims that all mountain bikers behave the same as the few
extremes he's supposedly observed, are prejudice, plain and simple. We all
know this, but arguing it is useless. He'll ignore you, call you a liar, or
lead you down some other path where he's right, like "Mountain bikes go
farther than hikers do."

Q: So, how can we get Mike Vandeman to stop posting to this newsgroup?
A: I don't know. Several things have been tried, and haven't worked,
including:

Ignore him: Even if you're not new, it's really hard to ignore him. Some
of his posts are so obviously out of whack you'll just *have* to reply, if
for no other reason, than to get it out of your system. Even if you decide
to ignore him, there is a constant influx of newbies (even newer than you)
who will go down the same road over and over with him, thinking they can
change him.

Invite him for a one-on-one meeting: Forget it. He won't bite. He's
afraid of getting the sh*t kicked out of him or worse. (The man does have
enemies, after all.)

E-mail him: There is currently an E-mail campaign against Mike. He hates
this. If your e-mail is well crafted, well reasoned, and clever, it will
probably get ignored. If, however, your e-mail is abusive or poorly
written, he will complain to your ISP about harassment or spamming (and
depending on your ISP, you might actually have problems from that), and he
will post your message to this newsgroup and a whole bunch of others, to
show how stupid you are. (That's what he's trolling for, you know.)

If you threaten him, he will really have a field day. He will post your
e-mail with some kind of heading like "Mountain biker threatens violence to
protect his destructive activities", and cross post it to a half-dozen
newsgroups who don't want to hear it. If you mail-bomb him (send multiple
messages filled with gibberish), he'll post that, essentially mail-bombing
usenet. E-mail him or don't. That's up to you. The funny thing is, he'll
reply to some e-mails to tell the sender they're not getting past his
filters! That is truly amazing!

Complain to his ISP for spamming: Been there. Done that. He successfully
argues his first amendment right to post to alt.mountain-bike. As long as
his posts are related to mountain biking, he does have a right to post here,
and it's not spam. (Spam us usually considered to be off-topic usenet
posts, usually ads, or unsolicited bulk e-mail.) Like it or not, messages
condemning mountain biking are on-topic. (Another one where Mike is right,
and his ISP agrees with him.)

The purpose of this FAQ is not to keep Mike Vandeman from posting here.
It's not to keep you from responding to him. It is, however, to keep you
from wasting time doing things that have been done before, which we're all
tired of reading over and over. We also would like to see Mike get tired of
us and move on with his life.

So, you're left with making a choice:

You can set your own newsreader to ignore all of his posts. This will keep
you from seeing him and from being upset by his rants. You can also go to
rec.bicycles.off-road. Mike's posts have been banned there because that NG
is moderated. (Note, that Mike isn't banned, just his posts. ;-)

Or, you can read his posts and responses, for a chuckle, and may even decide
to have fun with him, as many of us are tempted to do from time to time.
Think up something clever and amusing. Just understand that you will soon
tire of this exercise.

Q: So, what's the best way to respond to Mike's posts, if I choose to?
A: Amuse us. Amuse yourself. Don't take it seriously at all. If you
reply to Mike's post and he makes a fool out of you, you lose. If another
MTBer posts a reply to you, with "ROTFL" or other words of approval,
(especially if Mike ignores you), you win! (Come to think of it, even if
the only one chuckling at your post is you, you still win!)

However, you will likely grow tired of arguing with Mike, because it's like
playing tic-tac-toe with a 5 year old. You know all the moves, they are
few, and you get tired of winning all the time.

Just remember, we've already seen these before, so don't bother arguing
them:

* There are worse things than mountain biking. (Not to Mike.)
* Mike hikes, yet condemns hiking. (Yep, it's true.)
* Mike uses public transportation, which pollutes the air. (He doesn't
care.)
* Mike uses twisted logic to make his points.
* "Mike, why do you keep ignoring my question about <blah blah>?" (Perhaps
you have a valid point, which doesn't serve him.)
* Mike says MTBing is easier only because he's never done it. (And he knows
it pisses you off.)
* Maybe Mike should try mountain biking. (Many invites, yet he's never
taken anyone up on it. I wonder why!)
* Mike crossposts too much. (To get everyone sick of mountain biking.)
* Mike annoys all of us, and we wish he'd go away. (He already knows this.)
* Mike must be a golfer. (Rumor has it!)
* Mike is wasting his time here, since no one will change their mind.
(Except his sock puppets.)
* Mike should be working on larger issues like clear-cutting. (His mission
is banning mountain biking, though, remember?)
* Mike is giving true environmentalists a bad name. (He doesn't care.)
* Mike should be nicer to people, then they might agree with him more. (He
thinks the way to change people is to piss them off. How's it working?)

Q: If Mike Vandeman is such a nutcase, and people want him to go away, why
are so many people talking about him? What's the fascination?
A: I suspect he really has a Ph.D. in psychology. Initially, he causes us
to question a sport we find harmless. Then, he irritates and infuriates us
with his outlandish claims. He knows exactly which buttons to push to get a
rise out of old timers as well as a continuous influx of newbies. Perhaps
his only true mission is to generate long off-topic threads and dominate the
newsgroup.

Q: So what makes you such an expert on Mike Vandeman, and his use of logic?
A: Not a damn thing. It's just my opinion!

Q: Where can I learn more about Mike Vandeman?
A: Why? OK, from the fool himself:
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

or, an excellent, balanced examination of Mike's claims:
http://members.xoom.com/bbauer/environ.html
(Don't worry, ountain biking doesn't cause significant damage to natural
areas.
It's about the same as walking.)

Relax... It's only the Internet!

jcs...@uswest.net

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
Nice post James.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Chris Barber

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> At 09:24 AM 2/1/1999 -0800, Sta...@abtcorp.com (Stacia Topping)
> >
> >It is my personal opinion that mt. bikers are not anti-enviromental,
>
> Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
> machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.

Interesting. I was always of the belief that all of this planet that
we call Earth, except maybe for some of the hottest geothermal features,
was 'wildlife habitat'. I've got songbirds, squirrels, and innumerable
insects and invertebrates living in my yard. Does that make it
'inexcusable' for me to pull my car or bike out of the garage??

Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.

Chris

ERPaul

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
Shit is a powerful word. Just think of all the
concepts and ideas you can communicate with it. Shit may just be the
most powerful word in the English language.
Consider: You can be shit faced, be shit out of
luck, or have shit for brains. With a little effort you can get your shit
together, find a place for your shit or decide to shit or get
off the pot. You can smoke shit, buy shit, sell shit, lose shit, find
shit, forget shit, and tell others to eat shit and die.
You can shit or go blind, have a shit fit or just shit
your life away. People can be shit headed, shit brained,
shit blinded, and shit over. Some people know their shit while others
can’t tell the difference between shit and shineola.
There are lucky shits, dumb shits, crazy shits, and sweet shits.
There is bull shit, dog shit, cat shit, bird shit,
whale shit, rat shit, and horse shit. There is tough shit, hard shit,
soft shit, slimy shit, rough shit, limp shit. You can shit a
blue streak, shit bricks, shit pink twinkies, shit marbles, or shit your
guts
out.
You can throw shit, sling shit, catch shit, or duck
when the shit hits the fan. You can take a shit, give a shit, keep
shit or serve shit on a shingle. You can find yourself in deep
shit, or be happier than a pig in shit.
Some days are colder than shit, some days are
hotter than shit, and some days are just plane shitty. There is funny
shit and sad shit, bad shit and good shit. Some shit doesn’t stink
while other things really smell like shit.
Some music sounds like shit, things can look like
shit, and there are times when you feel like shit. You can be faster
than shit or you can be slower than shit. Sometimes you’ll find
shit on a stick, sometimes you’ll find shit everywhere, and then
there are times when you can’t find shit at all. You can have too much
shit, not enough shit, the right shit, the wrong shit or a lot of weird
shit..
You can carry shit in a bucket, put shit in a barrel,
have a pile of shit, have a mountain of shit, have a river of shit,
or find yourself up shit creek without a paddle. You can slice
shit, spread shit, dunk shit or jump shit, and some people just can’t cut
the
shit.
There is fun shit and dull shit, silly shit and serious shit.
Sometimes you really need this shit and
sometimes you don’t want any shit at all. You can stir shit, kick shit or
stick your
ass out the window and shit on the world. Sometimes
everything you touch turns to shit and other times you swim in a lake of
shit
and come out smelling like a rose.
Shit! When you stop to consider all the facts, it’s
the basic building block of creation. This means the
universe did not begin with a BIG BANG but rather with a BIG DUMP.
Keep that in mind the next time you flush the toilet. And remember,
once you know your shit, you don’t need to know anything else!

gland...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
BRAVO!!!

In article <trekkiedad-06...@boc-stockton32.oakweb.com>,


trekk...@yahoo.com (Trekkie Dad) wrote:
> [Since a single mikey-post generated at least six responses, I thought I'd
> sum it all up in little poem I wrote a couple of months ago. TD]
>
> Ode to a Usenet Kook
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

do.not.mail.me!

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
In article <36bba1a...@news.pacbell.net>,
mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:

> Nonsense. Being "environmentally conscious" implies that you actually
> try not to harm the environment. You can have all the nice IDEAS you
> want, but if you don't PRACTICE them, it is BS.

true! However, we can be environmentally concious in one area and not in
another. For example - a person who recycles yet leaves lights on, or a person
who espouses preserving backcountry habitat yet drives a car and uses
electricity thus harming that very habitat through carbon emissions. Moral
superiority in a world where eco structures are so intertwined is impossible.

> Why not develop a personal vendetta for hikers or
> >horsebackriders, or better yet agribusiness, the beef industry, or
> petroleum
> >companies?
>
> I DO oppose those.

as well you should, they are much stronger political forces than mountain
bikers - the "easy target". One would definately need ample courage to scorn
them the way some have scorned Mountain Bikers.

>
> Stick to the truth, as I said. alt.mountain-bike is for DISCUSSING
> MOUNTAIN BIKING, NOT just communication between mountain bikers. That
> is obvious. Why do you think that lying will help your cause?????

quite right. Perhaps a little education on usenet policy would be helpful for
some.


> There is plenty of that on my web page, but the reaction from mountain
> bikers is the SAME: violent hostility toward ANY criticism of mountain
> biking.

this is an untrue statement. I am a Mountain Biker and I have never been
hostile or violent toward you. Therefore the assumption that all bikers behave
that way is grossly invalid. I assume the statement is continually made for
emotional reaction rather than fostering any environmental agenda.


> Not if they don't PRACTICE it! It is just PR, like Geogre Bush calling
> himself an "environmentalist".

yes, fair weather ecologists. Kind of like being a moral vegetarian and
wearing a leather belt, or being concerned about habitat destruction and
using paper products.

>
> Sure they do. They also create trails illegally. In general, they seem
> MORE likely to break the law.

clarify that accusation? I am curious what criteria brought you to that
assumption?

> This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
> BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
> should be OBVIOUS.

well it would be unfair (some would say punative) to discuss environmental
impact on a habitat and refuse to consider the impact of all users of the
habitat. I don't feel the defense of "letting others fight that battle" will
allow the argument aginst the one user group to remain credable.


> That is a blatant LIE. Most of them put their mountain bikes on their
> cars & SUVs to get them to their trails. I see mountain bikes being
> carried on motor vehicles every day.

Internal combustion engine ues is widespread among all social groups, as is
the use of fossil fuels for energy. THis argument goes outside the boundry of
your discussion and is therefore invalid unless you discuss the use of fossil
fuels "in general" and their impact on a specific habitat. Stick to the point
:)


>
> Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
> machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.

no, they "may not" be. We all do things by choice that negatively impact the
habitats we live in and other habitats. Environmentalism may be a quality of a
person who might not behave in a way you consider "environmentally concious".

> You have the same access that everyone else has. It is IDENTICAL. The
> same rules apply to EVERYONE. Don't lie! BTW, vehicles don't have
> rights.

good point (but individuals have rights regarding the use of vehecles - I
think reasonably we can assume thats what he meant). I think most people get
upset here because of the potential loss of thier access over other groups
with more political "clout" (equestrians, hikers, hunters) that go
unmentioned in this discussion. Perhaps if the discussion were moved to a
forum that would allow participants to discuss the impact of all users, not
just bikers, it would be viewed as more valid.

>
> That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
> LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
> ANY human-constructed trails!

speaking of protecting wildlife, have you heard about the giant Russian Space
Mirror that is being built to provide light during the night for plant growth
and to allow around the clock work by humans (I am not making this up!)\
Wildlife scientists feel it will disrupt the sleep cycles of animals (I
agree).


>
> "Coexistence" with wildlife is harmful to them.

unless we move off planet is is unavoidable.


>

> That is fine. Stay on paved roads, and you can ride wherever you want.

Many nice fire roads in Va!

sorry for any misspelled words, typing in a hurry!


The e-mail address from where this post originated is not to be
replied to or mailed to for any reason whatsoever. not reply to this
post via e-mail. Reply in the group if you want to discuss any issue.

Peter van Schaik

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
"Dan" <nos...@anonymous.mail> wrote:

> "Every absurdity has a champion to defend it" -- Oliver Goldsmith

I'd just like to point out that this is a very poor platitude.

For example, it is absurd that carrots could grow on planet Mercury
[that is a normal carrot without atmospheric modifications etc].

This in itself proves the above platitude to be false, because for it
to be true, there would have to be a champion who would attempt to
defend the fact that carrots do in fact grow on Mercury.

So in effect any attempt to prove the above platitude to be true would
be absurd, which in itself proves that the author of the said
platitude could be said to be a champion to defend an absurdity,
therefore the platitude is absurd, therefore... oh never mind
-
Peter van Schaik, psva...@pcug.org.au
Canberra, Australia

Chris Phillipo

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

When I left a few months ago, wasn't this group moderated?

--
__________________________________
Please remove "X" from email address to reply.

Pete

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

Chris Phillipo wrote in message <36BE424B...@ns.sympatico.ca>...

>
>When I left a few months ago, wasn't this group moderated?
>

No....rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated. Vandeman still cruises here

Pete

Stumphunter

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
No that's rec.bicycles.off.road

--
=============================================================
Hakuna Matata

Stumphunters Bike Page ... Land of the Norfolk Mountain Biker

http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Ramp/5486
Chris Phillipo <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:36BE424B...@ns.sympatico.ca...


>
>When I left a few months ago, wasn't this group moderated?
>

Dakota

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36bba1a...@news.pacbell.net>...

>I see that you didn't respect my request! How can anyone take you
>seriously?????


Okay... NOW, I'm laughin'....

Dakota

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

Dan wrote in message <79j830$81p$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...

>Wow: So much for people getting the idea that Mike's a troll.
>
>For those newbies who feel like jumping into this, please be advised that
>arguing or even trying to have a discussion with Mike Vandeman is
pointless.
>He will not change his mind. He thinks all mountain biking should be
>banned, unless it's on paved roads. Period. Any attempts to reason with
>him will degrade into name-calling or unsubstantiated claims being
>repeatedly made. You will grow tired.
>
>Anyone interested in more info, please read my reply to this post from
>alt.mountain-bike only, which will come after this one.
>
>Dan


Not a mtb'er, but the solution is obvious. Pave more mountain trails! <Uh,
in jest, but...>


Dakota

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
Depends on where you're crossposting from.

Chris Phillipo wrote in message <36BE424B...@ns.sympatico.ca>...
>

Trekkie Dad

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
In article <36BFD740...@home.com>, "James M. Lane" <jml...@home.com>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps the WWC dictionary needs a new definition for
> libel??? Hmmmm, can't recollect the current one, but
> perhaps: mtb truth: libel; eunuch libel: truth. Works
> for me.
>

How about?:

Libel -- any statement posted in usenet that is critical of the WWC or its
members

Looks like it's time to work on a new revision.

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:19:28 -0800, "Dan" <nos...@anonymous.mail>
wrote:

.OK, I'm trying a new approach. This FAQ is only being posted to
.alt.mountain-bike, and it's a response to a Mike Vandeman post. I changed
.the subject, at the suggestion of others. If this confuses your newsreader,
.or causes you any problems, please let me know, and I'll go back to leaving
.the subject unchanged.

Since it was libel before, it must STILL be libel. So what is its
value????

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 18:54:21 -0500, Chris Barber <bar...@msu.edu>
wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>
.> At 09:24 AM 2/1/1999 -0800, Sta...@abtcorp.com (Stacia Topping)
.> >
.> >It is my personal opinion that mt. bikers are not anti-enviromental,
.>
.> Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
.> machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.
.
.Interesting. I was always of the belief that all of this planet that
.we call Earth, except maybe for some of the hottest geothermal features,
.was 'wildlife habitat'. I've got songbirds, squirrels, and innumerable
.insects and invertebrates living in my yard. Does that make it
.'inexcusable' for me to pull my car or bike out of the garage??
.
.Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.

Wildlife live there. Duh.

.Chris

Chris Phillipo

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> .insects and invertebrates living in my yard. Does that make it
> .'inexcusable' for me to pull my car or bike out of the garage??
> .
> .Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.
>
> Wildlife live there. Duh.
>

Kool, think I can get some government funding for my basement?

James M. Lane

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
The eunuch continues his vain effort to rewrite the
language. Libel it ain't because were it, you would
have had him in court and cleaned his clock. If it is
libel, file a suit. Put your actions where your mouth
is. Oh yes, that's right, just more bogus bs from the
environmentla eunuch and his brain farts.

Perhaps the WWC dictionary needs a new definition for
libel??? Hmmmm, can't recollect the current one, but
perhaps: mtb truth: libel; eunuch libel: truth. Works
for me.

jim


Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:19:28 -0800, "Dan" <nos...@anonymous.mail>
> wrote:
>
> .OK, I'm trying a new approach. This FAQ is only being posted to
> .alt.mountain-bike, and it's a response to a Mike Vandeman post. I changed
> .the subject, at the suggestion of others. If this confuses your newsreader,
> .or causes you any problems, please let me know, and I'll go back to leaving
> .the subject unchanged.
>
> Since it was libel before, it must STILL be libel. So what is its
> value????

James M. Lane

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Vandeman defines his living room, bedroom, bathroom,
and so on. Except, because he continually rapes and
pillages the wildlife and their habitats in his home,
they have all moved out. Only he and his wife live
there. Still a wildlife habitat, though.

jim


Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 18:54:21 -0500, Chris Barber <bar...@msu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:

snip

> .Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.
>
> Wildlife live there. Duh.
>

> .Chris

James M. Lane

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Not just any statement, those are called lies by the
eunuch, what about any true statements...?

jim

Trekkie Dad wrote:
>
> In article <36BFD740...@home.com>, "James M. Lane" <jml...@home.com>
> wrote:
> >

> > Perhaps the WWC dictionary needs a new definition for
> > libel??? Hmmmm, can't recollect the current one, but
> > perhaps: mtb truth: libel; eunuch libel: truth. Works
> > for me.
> >
>

Pete

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36bfd0cf...@news.pacbell.net>...

>On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 18:54:21 -0500, Chris Barber <bar...@msu.edu>

>.Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.


>
>Wildlife live there. Duh.
>
>.Chris
>

>---
>I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

We're still waiting for your details on creating the off-limits, "pure
habitat".
How can people who may be reading this and be genuinely interested help you
if you are silent on this matter?

Pete

Trekkie Dad

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Is there a difference? "Truth" is in the eyes of the beholder. Everything
that mikey says is the truth in his eyes. Anything else: lies, threats,
libel....

mikey is the WWC's minister of truth.

Here are some defs from the current WWC Dictionary of Vandemisms:

libel -- any information about WWC or its members not posted by them.

lie -- anything said by a mountain biker that contradicts the truth as
defined by WWC members.

truth -- World Without Car's official positions on wildlife and biology,
despite lack of acceptance by anyone educated in the field.

In article <36BFE029...@home.com>, "James M. Lane" <jml...@home.com>
wrote:

> Not just any statement, those are called lies by the
> eunuch, what about any true statements...?
>
> jim
>
>
>
> Trekkie Dad wrote:
> >
> > In article <36BFD740...@home.com>, "James M. Lane" <jml...@home.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps the WWC dictionary needs a new definition for
> > > libel??? Hmmmm, can't recollect the current one, but
> > > perhaps: mtb truth: libel; eunuch libel: truth. Works
> > > for me.
> > >
> >
> > How about?:
> >
> > Libel -- any statement posted in usenet that is critical of the WWC or its
> > members
> >
> > Looks like it's time to work on a new revision.
> >

--
Trekkie Dad | ICQ #14818568 | trekk...@yahoo.com

World Without Cars Dictionary of Vandemisms (updated 12/27/1998) at
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/2356/wwc.html

Martin

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
did you say something? Geez, must be I wasn't listening - oh, wait. No one was
listening and no one cares!
--
-----------------------------------------------------
/\/\artin |<lingensmith
DJGPP, Mountain Bikes, grlib 1.0
http://imcnet.net/~martin/ (currently being revised)
-----------------------------------------------------

Eugene Miya

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In article <36BE424B...@ns.sympatico.ca>,

Chris Phillipo <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>When I left a few months ago, wasn't this group moderated?

Which group?

You musta been dreaming.

When the discussion to creat sci.environment began, I advised sci.* group
moderation. BUT NOOOO! At least Moore ended up agreeing with me.
Small victory.

Followups reduced.

Whitney Turner

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
> >.Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.
> >
> >Wildlife live there. Duh.

Sooooo.....the *very* urban neighborhood I live in, in the midst of Fort
Lauderdale, should be vacated by the humans because of the snakes and
raccoons that live there?

$.02
Whitney

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 14:14:45 GMT, "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net>
wrote:

.
.Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36bfd0cf...@news.pacbell.net>...
.>On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 18:54:21 -0500, Chris Barber <bar...@msu.edu>
.
.>.Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.
.>


.>Wildlife live there. Duh.

.>
.>.Chris
.>
.>---
.>I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
.>humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
.>years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
.
.We're still waiting for your details on creating the off-limits, "pure
.habitat".
.How can people who may be reading this and be genuinely interested help you
.if you are silent on this matter?

Read my web pages. If your interest is genuine.

.Pete

---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 20:00:01 -0500, Whitney Turner <wtu...@gate.net>
wrote:

.> >.Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.
.> >
.> >Wildlife live there. Duh.
.

.Sooooo.....the *very* urban neighborhood I live in, in the midst of Fort
.Lauderdale, should be vacated by the humans because of the snakes and
.raccoons that live there?

Who said that? Other than you, I mean. :)

.$.02
.Whitney

Pete

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36c118f...@news.pacbell.net>...

>
>Read my web pages. If your interest is genuine.
>


My interest is 'genuine' to the extent of whatever 'pure habitat' you may
help create has an effect on myself and the rest of humanity and wildlife.
You propose such a plan. Its up to me, the public, as to whether or not your
ideas deserve spending my money on. I am not the voice of all the taxpayers.
But if I think your idea is without merit, I will oppose it.

Is it a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. There are many, many parameters that
need to be considered before such a plan could be put in place.

Saying humans are harmful to wildlife may or may not be true. And the
'letters' on your website do not provide any specific details of why this is
true, and how you would go about it, other than remove all roads, and remove
from all maps. Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

For example....saying motor vehicles are bad, and you wish to ban them. That
is probably NOT a good idea. In the event of illness or accident. I'm sure
you'd want an ambulance powered by a motor taking you to the hospital
instead of someone pushing you in a wheelchair. And if you think you
wouldn't...just wait a few years. Your perceptions of what is important
change dramatically when seconds matter.

Similarly...."pure habitat" may or may not be a good idea. A biosphere too
small in size creates its own problems. A biosphere without a viable
population mix creates many problems. If you have all deer, with no natural
predators...very soon you may have no deer to to overpopulation and
subsequent starvation. Or disease..or whatever.

Am I a proponent for a "pure habitat". Maybe. Maybe not. Convince me.

After reading your 'web page'...I remain unconvinced.

Pete

Fattrax

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
Whitney Turner wrote:
>
> > >.Just curious... what is it that defines 'wildlife habitat'.
> > >
> > >Wildlife live there. Duh.
>
> Sooooo.....the *very* urban neighborhood I live in, in the midst of Fort
> Lauderdale, should be vacated by the humans because of the snakes and
> raccoons that live there?
>
> $.02
> Whitney

Don't move, those animals are living of the wasted food the humans throw
out. You are locked in to stay there and keep the racoons from starving.

GrayGiant

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
>
>Stick to the truth, as I said. alt.mountain-bike is for DISCUSSING
>MOUNTAIN BIKING, NOT just communication between mountain bikers. That
>is obvious. Why do you think that lying will help your cause?????
>
Then shut up with the environmental crap Mike. You're not discussing
Mountain biking, you're talking about the environment and insulting and
stereotyping people who enjoy a particular sport. Why not bother one of the
environmental newsgroups? I see there are over a dozen of them available.
What, no credibility in any of them or don't you feel like a god there?
You're pathetic Vandeman and so is your employer for wasting their
customer's money by employing such a goof-off as yourself.

GG

Chris Phillipo

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
Here's what REAL environmentalists are doing Mikey, why don't you get
off your ass and give them a hand:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9902/09/utah.wilderness.enn/

--
__________________________________
Please remove "X" from email address to reply.

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/7023/

Rene Braun

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
Mike,

I haven't read your crap since you started posting here. Get a life you
loser.

What a waste of time your are. You must be sitting in front of your PC every
night posting like crazy, completely blinded by your actions to a point
where you don't see what an asshole you really are.

rb

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
On Mon, 08 Feb 1999 15:52:07 GMT, do.not.mail.me!
<zw...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

.In article <36bba1a...@news.pacbell.net>,
. mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:
.
.> Nonsense. Being "environmentally conscious" implies that you actually
.> try not to harm the environment. You can have all the nice IDEAS you
.> want, but if you don't PRACTICE them, it is BS.
.
.true! However, we can be environmentally concious in one area and not in
.another. For example - a person who recycles yet leaves lights on, or a person
.who espouses preserving backcountry habitat yet drives a car and uses
.electricity thus harming that very habitat through carbon emissions. Moral
.superiority in a world where eco structures are so intertwined is impossible.

Nobody except you mountain bikers is talking about moral superiority.
I am just asking you to acknowledge what is OBVIOUS to everyone else:
that mountain biking is harmful to wildlife and people.

.> Why not develop a personal vendetta for hikers or
.> >horsebackriders, or better yet agribusiness, the beef industry, or
.> petroleum
.> >companies?
.>
.> I DO oppose those.
.
.as well you should, they are much stronger political forces than mountain
.bikers - the "easy target". One would definately need ample courage to scorn
.them the way some have scorned Mountain Bikers.

If you are an "easy target", that must be because what you are doing
is obviously wrong. You know what you can do about it: stay on paved
roads.

.> Stick to the truth, as I said. alt.mountain-bike is for DISCUSSING
.> MOUNTAIN BIKING, NOT just communication between mountain bikers. That
.> is obvious. Why do you think that lying will help your cause?????
.
.quite right. Perhaps a little education on usenet policy would be helpful for
.some.

There is no such thing as Usenet policy. A policy is a rule enforced
by someone. There can't be any such policies in a forum for free
speech.

.> There is plenty of that on my web page, but the reaction from mountain
.> bikers is the SAME: violent hostility toward ANY criticism of mountain
.> biking.
.
.this is an untrue statement. I am a Mountain Biker and I have never been
.hostile or violent toward you.

Reread my statement. Your "rebuttal" has nothing to do with what I
said. I said that any criticism of mountain biking receives violent
hostility from mountain bikers. Not from EVERY mountain biker.

Therefore the assumption that all bikers behave
.that way is grossly invalid. I assume the statement is continually made for
.emotional reaction rather than fostering any environmental agenda.

I never said that. But I have yet to meet a mountain biker who doesn't
lie, including you (see above). So generalization about THAT is
justified. I have a very large sample.

.> Sure they do. They also create trails illegally. In general, they seem
.> MORE likely to break the law.
.
.clarify that accusation? I am curious what criteria brought you to that
.assumption?

I have heard of SEVERAL cases where mountain bikers created illegal
trails, e.g. in Marin County, CA, Des Moines, IA, and Fort Worth, TX.

.> This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
.> BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
.> should be OBVIOUS.
.
.well it would be unfair (some would say punative) to discuss environmental
.impact on a habitat and refuse to consider the impact of all users of the
.habitat.

Not in a group devoted to discussing only mountain biking.

.> That is a blatant LIE. Most of them put their mountain bikes on their
.> cars & SUVs to get them to their trails. I see mountain bikes being
.> carried on motor vehicles every day.
.
.Internal combustion engine ues is widespread among all social groups, as is
.the use of fossil fuels for energy. THis argument goes outside the boundry of
.your discussion and is therefore invalid unless you discuss the use of fossil
.fuels "in general" and their impact on a specific habitat. Stick to the point
.:)

The subject is mountain biking. I am sticking to the subject, unlike
the mountain bikers, who suddenly want to change the subject, every
time their destructiveness is discussed.

.> Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
.> machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.
.

.no, they "may not" be. We all do things by choice that negatively impact the
.habitats we live in and other habitats.

But most people, when confronted with the fact that they are doing
something harmful, are open to stopping it. Mountain bikers are NOT!!!

Environmentalism may be a quality of a
.person who might not behave in a way you consider "environmentally concious".

Not if they deliberately continue harming the environment when asked
to stop.

.> You have the same access that everyone else has. It is IDENTICAL. The
.> same rules apply to EVERYONE. Don't lie! BTW, vehicles don't have
.> rights.
.
.good point (but individuals have rights regarding the use of vehecles - I
.think reasonably we can assume thats what he meant).

So what? Hikers have the same rights regarding the use of mountain
bikes that you have! EXACTLY! So where is the discrimination?????

I think most people get
.upset here because of the potential loss of thier access over other groups
.with more political "clout" (equestrians, hikers, hunters) that go
.unmentioned in this discussion.

EVERYONE has the same, identical access. Don't LIE! (Remember: I have
yet to meet a mountain biker who doesn't lie!)

Perhaps if the discussion were moved to a
.forum that would allow participants to discuss the impact of all users, not
.just bikers, it would be viewed as more valid.

Oh, I see. Mountain biking damage canot be discussed, even in a
mountain biking newsgroup, unless EVERY OTHER HARM IN THE WORLD is
also discussed there, at the same time. But that would be off-topic,
something that you guys complain about all the time (while constantly
violating it yourselves).

.> That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
.> LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
.> ANY human-constructed trails!
.
.speaking of protecting wildlife, have you heard about the giant Russian Space
.Mirror that is being built to provide light during the night for plant growth
.and to allow around the clock work by humans (I am not making this up!)\
.Wildlife scientists feel it will disrupt the sleep cycles of animals (I
.agree).

I agree. That is a disgsting idea, but consistent with most human
ideas -- that the entire Earth belongs to humans.

.> "Coexistence" with wildlife is harmful to them.
.
.unless we move off planet is is unavoidable.

Nonsense. We have the power to close certain areas to all humans.
After all, we run the world!

.> That is fine. Stay on paved roads, and you can ride wherever you want.
.
.Many nice fire roads in Va!

No, stay on paved roads, where you can't do much harm.

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:04:10 GMT, "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net>
wrote:

.
.Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36c118f...@news.pacbell.net>...
.>
.>Read my web pages. If your interest is genuine.
.>
.
.
.My interest is 'genuine' to the extent of whatever 'pure habitat' you may
.help create has an effect on myself and the rest of humanity and wildlife.
.You propose such a plan. Its up to me, the public, as to whether or not your
.ideas deserve spending my money on. I am not the voice of all the taxpayers.
.But if I think your idea is without merit, I will oppose it.
.
.Is it a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. There are many, many parameters that
.need to be considered before such a plan could be put in place.
.
.Saying humans are harmful to wildlife may or may not be true. And the
.'letters' on your website do not provide any specific details of why this is
.true,

I guess you have never read them. They provide LOTS of such details.

and how you would go about it, other than remove all roads, and
remove

.from all maps. Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
.
.For example....saying motor vehicles are bad, and you wish to ban them. That
.is probably NOT a good idea. In the event of illness or accident.

That is exactly the point. You would have to go there at your own
risk.

I'm sure
.you'd want an ambulance powered by a motor taking you to the hospital
.instead of someone pushing you in a wheelchair.

If there are no people there, there is no need for an ambulance.

And if you think you

.wouldn't...just wait a few years. Your perceptions of what is important
.change dramatically when seconds matter.
.
.Similarly...."pure habitat" may or may not be a good idea.

Why not? It existed that way for 3.5 billion years, before we got
here!

A biosphere too
.small in size creates its own problems. A biosphere without a viable
.population mix creates many problems. If you have all deer, with no natural
.predators...very soon you may have no deer to to overpopulation and
.subsequent starvation. Or disease..or whatever.

Nature takes care of providing predators.

.Am I a proponent for a "pure habitat". Maybe. Maybe not. Convince me.

See "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!" Also "Wildlife and
the Ecocity". And the references they list.

.Pete

Robert Colbert

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> .Similarly...."pure habitat" may or may not be a good idea.
>
> Why not? It existed that way for 3.5 billion years, before we got here!

Mike is high on crack again tonight. He's been hitting the "fascinating" pipe
again. Living in Berkely as he does, there is only so much we can expect from
him. He is also appearing to be off his normal medication, misplaced bottle of
pills, I suppose. If he is not on "normal" medication, then may I suggest that he
seek some? Okay, with that out of the way...

The point that Mike is missing here (or intentionally leaving out to suit his own
goals...wow...that would be a surprise) is that humans are here NOW. Who gives a
flying rat's ass about 3.5 billion years ago. The planet is evolving, we are
evolving and animals are evolving. Nothing can be done to rewind the clock 3.5
billion years. The clock itself doesn't even look the same any more...how can we
rewind it?

And, I just don't see a mountain bike's chain as the "missing link" between a
happy, chirping, furry and fluffy ecosystem and a ruined, gray ecosystem.
Mountain bikes are not Satan incarnate. They are not the end of the world.
Mountain bikes do not damage habitate, asshole! People do! I don't care how they
get there, either, you simple-brained fuck-nut! The fact of the matter is that
the animals have either evolved to cope with our coexistance (whatever that is)
or gotten out of the way. It's like that Chrysler guy said, "You either lead,
follow or get out of the way." We lead, they get out of the way. The one's that
can't? Well, they didn't deserve to live.

OH, MY GOD! HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH A THING! Well, we were put here for a purpose. I
can't accept the statement that my existence here is accidental. So, if something
can't "hang with" my existance on this planet...FUCK IT! It's time for it to go.
Something else will rise up and take its place. Some day, maybe something will
even rise up (or descend from the etherial plane) and take our place. As for
today, however, I'm going to enjoy my morning commute to the office, I'm going to
write some code, and then I'm going to come back home and enjoy the evening with
my family. Fuck the furry stuff in between.

Grocery shopping by bicycle, however, is a damn-good idea, and I intend to try it
out a few times. I've been peeping in and discussing such topics in other threads
here in this group (I read in alt.mountain-bike in case anyone on the
cross-post-reply-to-the-van-de-spam post was wondering). Those are positive steps
that I can take toward improving the quality of life for just about everyone I
know. So is riding a bike with knobby tires off-road. So fuck Mike Vandeman. He
can go sit in the corner and try to rewind his clocks all he wants. I have
evolved!

(I'm willing to bet that he'll spank his clock when it doesn't properly rewind
;-)

Or, am I wrong? Tell you what. Don't answer that. It's all a waste of bandwidth.
Thankfully, I have 10,000,000 bits per second of it, and don't mind wasting a few
here and there ;-)

I love Mike Vandeman. He is insanely cool! He gives my life purpose and meaning.

--
r o b e r t j. c o l b e r t
r j c o l b e r t @ h o m e . c o m

Var Gras

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
I would like to understand your stance a little better Mike. You want
to create a genetic "island". Soon the critters will become an unviable
population.
In your world, the main battle you profess, in this group anyway, are
mountain bikes? Lest you be hypocritical, when you eat, does that food
get pulled out of the ground or do you survive by eating produce raised
and made possible with the use of petrol products? Maybe you could
enlighten us on "your" lifestyle a
bit. Is the electricity running your
computer generated by solar or wind? You seem to write from a position
of high moral ground. You wouldn't use toilet paper do you. Have you
contributed to the clear cuts behind my house? Do you have that " not in
my backyard attitude"? What type of shelter do you live in? Was habitat
taken away from animals in the
process?
Where I live the damage I can do with my dirt bike or mountain bikes,
for that matter, would be minuscule compared to the ruts and erosion
done by
cattle. Your
lumping together of all mountain bikers as " liars " really makes you
sound like some kind of dribbling nut case not to be taken serious.
Maybe you can enlighten all us as to the lifestyle that you base your
pathetic life on. Var Gras

Pete

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to

Mike Vandeman wrote in message <36c26f5d...@news.pacbell.net>...

Again....I DID read them.

> and how you would go about it, other than remove all roads, and
>remove
>.from all maps. Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
>.
>.For example....saying motor vehicles are bad, and you wish to ban them.
That
>.is probably NOT a good idea. In the event of illness or accident.
>
>That is exactly the point. You would have to go there at your own
>risk.
>

You missed the point of what I was trying to say. The motor vehicle
reference was not to removing vehicles from a wildlife habitat, but rather
an example of something that sounds good, but may not work in the real
world.
See your own article at
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/BobIsDead.html "Streets
that allow the presence of motor vehicles will never be safe."

>I'm sure
>.you'd want an ambulance powered by a motor taking you to the hospital
>.instead of someone pushing you in a wheelchair.
>
>If there are no people there, there is no need for an ambulance.
>

See above.

> And if you think you
>.wouldn't...just wait a few years. Your perceptions of what is important
>.change dramatically when seconds matter.
>.

>.Similarly...."pure habitat" may or may not be a good idea.
>
>Why not? It existed that way for 3.5 billion years, before we got
>here!
>

But we ARE here now. And you cannot totally remove the effects of humans
without extinction of the species. And uncontrolled natural disasters have a
negative effect on wildlife as well as the environment. A fire, for example,
could decimate one species of prey. The predators would then be just out of
luck? And how would you know?

> A biosphere too
>.small in size creates its own problems. A biosphere without a viable
>.population mix creates many problems. If you have all deer, with no
natural
>.predators...very soon you may have no deer to to overpopulation and
>.subsequent starvation. Or disease..or whatever.
>
>Nature takes care of providing predators.


Again...you miss my point. Create an off-limits area of a specified size. If
a viable population mix does not exist....there will be problems. There is a
minimum and\or maximum population size for any given species in an area of a
specified size.

>
>.Am I a proponent for a "pure habitat". Maybe. Maybe not. Convince me.
>
>See "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!" Also "Wildlife and
>the Ecocity". And the references they list.
>

Still, I remain unconvinced. You may create a human-free place in your own
backyard all on your own. If you wish to create one in MY backyard...you
have to ask me. And if you wish to create one on public land, you have to
ask me AND everyone else. And you'd better ask nicely. And provide details
of why.


Pete

I'm sure you'll recognise this quote:
".....there is room for both points of view, and we should all recognize
that no single "religion" (philosophy of cultural change) has a monopoly on
effective tactics"

Fattrax

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
Let me know as soon as you get this human free habitat. I want to go
camping there.

> .
> .We're still waiting for your details on creating the off-limits, "pure
> .habitat".

Don't say see my web page. It sux, and has no details.

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:39:41 -0500, "GrayGiant"
<gray...@apexmail.com> wrote:

.>


.>Stick to the truth, as I said. alt.mountain-bike is for DISCUSSING
.>MOUNTAIN BIKING, NOT just communication between mountain bikers. That
.>is obvious. Why do you think that lying will help your cause?????
.>

.Then shut up with the environmental crap Mike. You're not discussing
.Mountain biking, you're talking about the environment

Yes, as it relates to mountain biking.

.and insulting

I don't insult people. I just tell the truth. Insulting is using
pejorative language WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. If you don't want to be
called a liar, the solution is simple: don't lie!

and
.stereotyping people

I don't stereotype people. I only report what I see, e.g. that every
mountain biker I meet LIES. I don't make you guys do that. You do it
of your own free will. I only report what I see.

who enjoy a particular sport. Why not bother one of the

.environmental newsgroups? I see there are over a dozen of them available.
.What, no credibility in any of them or don't you feel like a god there?
.You're pathetic Vandeman and so is your employer for wasting their
.customer's money by employing such a goof-off as yourself.

That is an obvious lie. They wouldn't employ me if that were true.

One wonders why mountain bikers can't promote their cause without
lying????? Can you answre that?????

.GG

---


I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

James M. Lane

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
The eunuch brain farts again and the record skips and
skips and skips

Mike Vandeman wrote:

snip

> Nobody except you mountain bikers is talking about moral superiority.
> I am just asking you to acknowledge what is OBVIOUS to everyone else:
> that mountain biking is harmful to wildlife and people.

We have acknowledged it, several of us several times,
but it falls upon the eunuch's deaf ears. He wants us
to do something, when we do it, he does not pay any
attention at all, the record skips and skips and skips.
. .


> .> Why not develop a personal vendetta for hikers or
> .> >horsebackriders, or better yet agribusiness, the beef industry, or
> .> petroleum
> .> >companies?
> .>
> .> I DO oppose those.

Yet the eunuch, his godlike self, hikes. So what else
is new, the record skips and skips and skips. . .

snip

> .this is an untrue statement. I am a Mountain Biker and I have never been
> .hostile or violent toward you.
>
> Reread my statement. Your "rebuttal" has nothing to do with what I
> said. I said that any criticism of mountain biking receives violent
> hostility from mountain bikers. Not from EVERY mountain biker.

WOW, a concession from the eunuch, will wonders never
cease?


> Therefore the assumption that all bikers behave
> .that way is grossly invalid. I assume the statement is continually made for
> .emotional reaction rather than fostering any environmental agenda.
>
> I never said that. But I have yet to meet a mountain biker who doesn't
> lie, including you (see above). So generalization about THAT is
> justified. I have a very large sample.

Yet the eunuch hisself is a liar, so it doesn't matter
just pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle. . .


> .> Sure they do. They also create trails illegally. In general, they seem
> .> MORE likely to break the law.
> .
> .clarify that accusation? I am curious what criteria brought you to that
> .assumption?
>
> I have heard of SEVERAL cases where mountain bikers created illegal
> trails, e.g. in Marin County, CA, Des Moines, IA, and Fort Worth, TX.

Sure, and we have also shown that there are several
places where hikers create illegal trails. Too bad that
those one or two or 100 hikers represent all hikers, so
all hikers create illegal trails, including the eunuch
(Vandelogic (tm) at work).


> .> This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
> .> BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
> .> should be OBVIOUS.
> .
> .well it would be unfair (some would say punative) to discuss environmental
> .impact on a habitat and refuse to consider the impact of all users of the
> .habitat.
>
> Not in a group devoted to discussing only mountain biking.

The problem is that the moral high ground taken by the
eunuch is, in fact, a false position. He tears down
mountain bikers while for these actions yet contributes
to the rape and pillage of native species habitats
while hiking. And he feels morally superior enough to
throw a brick while in his own glass house. Perhaps,
eunuch, we would have a bit more respect for you if you
practiced what you preach instead of hiking, raping and
pillaging at ever opportunity.

A "for instance" is, when was the last time you,
eunuch, posted an anti hiking message in a hiking ng?
You probably don't even know, if you ever did at all.
Of course, I suspect the environmental eunuch will
either ignore this question, waffle about it, or say
there is only so much time in a day. Interesting on
what a dejanews power search and author profile show,
isn't it eunuch?


> .> That is a blatant LIE. Most of them put their mountain bikes on their
> .> cars & SUVs to get them to their trails. I see mountain bikes being
> .> carried on motor vehicles every day.

Tell me, eunuch, in all your activity with the Sierra
Club, have you ever gone on public record in their
meetings against hiking; against their use of cars,
vans, and the like to travel to their hiking points? Do
you voice your opposition to your own organizations
rape and pillage of the habitat? Either you are for or
you are agin. If you are agin, then do your duty and be
agin those in your own organization who are preaching
the high road, but are actually on the low. In fact a
better question is why even belong to an organization
which runs directly counter against your philosophy?

Once more the eunuch's actions make him a liar and his
philosophy a lie.

snip

> But most people, when confronted with the fact that they are doing
> something harmful, are open to stopping it. Mountain bikers are NOT!!!

Well then, eunuch, please explain your continued
hiking. You evidently have no intent of stopping your
personal raping and pillaging of native species
habitats. And if you won't - then who are you to tell
others what they cannot/should not do? Who are you to
determine what is and is not proper for these many
animals and plants if you are totally incapable of
doing the right thing yourself?


> Environmentalism may be a quality of a
> .person who might not behave in a way you consider "environmentally concious".
>
> Not if they deliberately continue harming the environment when asked
> to stop.

As the eunuch, his godlike self, has stopped all his
hiking activities as a personal example of his deep
caring and concern by myself and several others in this
ng. But, what's that? He still hikes! Such
disappointment. Such a let down. Here we thought that
the eunuch actually cared, actually gave a damn about
the microbes, plants, animals. . . Such a pity that he
really doesn't care at all. Says he cares, but his
actions PROVE he really does not. His personal actions
make a lie out of his rhetoric. What a crying shame, I
am so disappointed I think I'll stop posting, go over
to the couch, sit down and cry for awhile.

Nah, gotta better idea. I'm going to do what the
godlike environmental eunuch does, I'm going to go out
on the trail, disturb all them animals and plants, rape
and pillage their little homes and hearts, I'm gonna be
just like my environmental hero, I'm gonna say I
really, truly, deeply care about all this stuff, and
then I'm gonna rape and pillage just like he does! Like
WOW, if he can say one thing and do another, then so
can I. I can preach the good fight and be a closet
environmental rapist and pillager, just like my hero,
the environmental eunuch!

Join me brethren of the mountain bike, publicly
renounce all the terrible stuff that happens in the
habitat, and then ride anyway, just like the eunuch
does when he goes a hikin'. You too can take the moral
high ground in your preachin'. You too can pose as an
environmentalist. You too can then rape and pillage the
environment while hiding behind the guise of an
environmentalist.

And when you've converted enough of your brethren, you
can pass a collection plate and take money from the
impressed, the ignorant, the don't give a damn, and buy
new bikes and tires to help you continue your rape and
pillaging, just like your environmental eunuch god
does.

snip

> EVERYONE has the same, identical access. Don't LIE! (Remember: I have
> yet to meet a mountain biker who doesn't lie!)

Nor have we met an environmental eunuch who does not
lie. So it is just one liar calling another liar a
liar. No big deal. BTW, eunuch, have you ever met an
environmentalist who does not lie?

snip

> .> That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
> .> LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
> .> ANY human-constructed trails!

WOW, can I join you on your next hike on one of them
thar well manicured trails? Never seen one. Can I join
you on an unkempt trail? Seen lotsa them. Can I join
you on a hike on any trail which is not well manicured,
not have any human construction? Like the ones you hike
upon? The ones the rest of us usually avoid, the ones
which cut deepest and most thoroughly through their
little domiciles the ones on which they are usually
left alone, you hike on these and rape and pillage
their habitats? Can I join you? I wanna do like you do,
rape and pillage the habitats by using their trails.
None of that man-made, well manicured stuff for me.
Only the real stuff, where you and I, eunuch, can rape
and pillage their environment.

You are such a true leader. Such a true
environmentalist. Preach the high road and rape and
pillage on the sly. I wanna be just like you!


jim

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
Var Gras wrote:
>
> > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> > humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> > years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
> I would like to understand your stance a little better Mike. You want
> to create a genetic "island".

I never said any such thing. Reread my signature.

Soon the critters will become an unviable
> population.
> In your world, the main battle you profess, in this group anyway, are
> mountain bikes?

It is a mountain-biking newsgroup.

Lest you be hypocritical, when you eat, does that food
> get pulled out of the ground or do you survive by eating produce raised
> and made possible with the use of petrol products? Maybe you could
> enlighten us on "your" lifestyle a
> bit. Is the electricity running your
> computer generated by solar or wind? You seem to write from a position
> of high moral ground.

BS. I just tell the truth -- something that mountain bikers can't seem
to do. At all.

You wouldn't use toilet paper do you. Have you
> contributed to the clear cuts behind my house? Do you have that " not in
> my backyard attitude"? What type of shelter do you live in? Was habitat
> taken away from animals in the
> process?
> Where I live the damage I can do with my dirt bike or mountain bikes,
> for that matter, would be minuscule compared to the ruts and erosion
> done by
> cattle.

That is irrelevant. Stopping biking off-road will still reduce your
impacts.

Your
> lumping together of all mountain bikers as " liars " really makes you
> sound like some kind of dribbling nut case not to be taken serious.

You can see that I am simply reporting what I see. For example, you lied
above about me and cats, since you have no idea whether I have a cat,
and if I do, where it is. So I am just reporting the empirical fact that
every mountain biker I know lies. CONSTANTLY.

> Maybe you can enlighten all us as to the lifestyle that you base your
> pathetic life on. Var Gras

It's irrelevant. But I try to minimize my impacts, which is why I would
never consider riding around in wildlife on machinery with knobby tires.
It's hard to thing of anything more destructive, short of using motor
vehicles.

Robert Colbert

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
Mike Vandeman is "Beautiful People":

And I don't want you, and I don't need you.
Don't bother to resist or I'll beat you.
It's not your fault that you're always wrong.
The weak ones are there to justify the strong.

The beautiful people, The beautiful people.
It's all relative to the size of your steeple.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
And you can't smell your own shit on your knees.

There's no time to discriminate,
hate every motherfucker that's in your way!

Hey, you what do you see?!
Something beautiful, or something free?!
Hey, you are you trying to be mean?!
You live with apes man, it's hard to be clean!

- marilyn manson, beautiful people

Mike Vandeman wrote absofuckinglutely nothing, beeyatch:

> Yes, as it relates to mountain biking.

Shut the fuck up. And you can't smell your own shit on your knees.

> I don't insult people. I just tell the truth. Insulting is using
> pejorative language WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. If you don't want to be
> called a liar, the solution is simple: don't lie!

Shut the fuck up. Hey, you what do you see?!

> I don't stereotype people. I only report what I see, e.g. that every
> mountain biker I meet LIES. I don't make you guys do that. You do it
> of your own free will. I only report what I see.

Shut the fuck up. Hey, you are you trying to be mean?!

> That is an obvious lie. They wouldn't employ me if that were true.
> One wonders why mountain bikers can't promote their cause without
> lying????? Can you answre that?????

Shut the fuck up. You live with apes man, it's hard to be clean!

Robert Colbert

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> BS. I just tell the truth -- something that mountain bikers can't seem
> to do. At all.

No, you don't. You avoid the truth all the time. It's very annoying. This
person asked you about your own lifestyle, not whether mountain bikers were
telling the truth or not. Answer his question. Where do you get food and
electricity?

I get my food from Safeway and Lucky's and my electricity is probably
generated by nuclear power plants, burning coal and other atmospheric
tragedies. I like atmospheric tragedies. They make me all warm and fuzzy
inside...literally.

> You wouldn't use toilet paper do you. Have you
> > contributed to the clear cuts behind my house? Do you have that " not in
> > my backyard attitude"? What type of shelter do you live in? Was habitat
> > taken away from animals in the
> > process?
> > Where I live the damage I can do with my dirt bike or mountain bikes,
> > for that matter, would be minuscule compared to the ruts and erosion
> > done by
> > cattle.
> That is irrelevant. Stopping biking off-road will still reduce your
> impacts.

It's no more irrelevant to him than your crusade is to you, butt-munch.

> Your
> > lumping together of all mountain bikers as " liars " really makes you
> > sound like some kind of dribbling nut case not to be taken serious.
>
> You can see that I am simply reporting what I see.

...and ignoring a lot selectively.

> For example, you lied
> above about me and cats, since you have no idea whether I have a cat,
> and if I do, where it is.

...he's dead, Jim. Flat-cat style.

> So I am just reporting the empirical fact that
> every mountain biker I know lies. CONSTANTLY.

So do you, butt-munch.

> > Maybe you can enlighten all us as to the lifestyle that you base your
> > pathetic life on. Var Gras
>
> It's irrelevant.

Not to him, butt-munch.

> But I try to minimize my impacts, which is why I would
> never consider riding around in wildlife on machinery with knobby tires.
> It's hard to thing of anything more destructive, short of using motor
> vehicles.

But nuclear power, burning coal and eating animals probably suits you just
fine. You'll note the use of the word PROBABLY. I don't know this for a fact.
It's just my best guess since you won't answer his questions. And, I've seen
these questions asked of you tons of times all to be dismissed as
"irrelevant." I guess you're a pretty irrelevant dude, then.

BUTT-MUNCH!

do.not.mail.me!

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <36c25f96...@news.pacbell.net>,
mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:

>
> Nobody except you mountain bikers is talking about moral superiority.
> I am just asking you to acknowledge what is OBVIOUS to everyone else:
> that mountain biking is harmful to wildlife and people.

quite untrue. Many people everywhere talk of "moral superiority", and I have
never claimed it nor accused you of doing so. It was discussed as a concept in
the discussion.

It is also very untrue that ALL other individuals believe or acknowledge that
Mountain Biking is harmful to wildlife and people, or there would certinly be
more public discussion of it and possibly more outcry (although a more genuine
and credable campaign must be organized before any group as a whole will stand
up). THis would have to be one of the most statistically inaccurate and
presumptive statements Ive seen.

> .
> .as well you should, they are much stronger political forces than mountain
> .bikers - the "easy target". One would definately need ample courage to scorn
> .them the way some have scorned Mountain Bikers.
>
> If you are an "easy target", that must be because what you are doing
> is obviously wrong. You know what you can do about it: stay on paved
> roads.

Quite untrue. My belief that we constitute an easy target stems from our lack
of political clout in the government and other groups when compared to other
land users (or abusers if you prefer). It has nothing to do with alleged
inappropriateness of the activities of mountain bikers.

> .quite right. Perhaps a little education on usenet policy would be helpful for
> .some.
>
> There is no such thing as Usenet policy. A policy is a rule enforced
> by someone. There can't be any such policies in a forum for free
> speech.

Quite untrue, there is a usenet policy in terms of how ISP's choose to enforce
it (notice I didnt say "USENET POLICY" - I just said usenet policy). Most good
ISP's have a usenet policy and many will enforce strict adhereance to posting
guidelines for a group. Its the concept of free speech with responsability (Im
big on this - Yes you can say whatever you want, but if your words interfere
with anothers well being you bear that responsability) This group has no such
guidelines and therefore it is ok to use it without being responsable for what
you say. I call it free speech with irresponsability.

> .this is an untrue statement. I am a Mountain Biker and I have never been
> .hostile or violent toward you.
>
> Reread my statement. Your "rebuttal" has nothing to do with what I
> said. I said that any criticism of mountain biking receives violent
> hostility from mountain bikers. Not from EVERY mountain biker.

this is untrue. You stated that

.> There is plenty of that on my web page, but the reaction from mountain
.> bikers is the SAME: violent hostility toward ANY criticism of mountain
.> biking.

I am reacting to your website and your posts - non violently and in a non
hostile manner - well within the boundries of polite discussion of differing
opinions. Yet you state that the reaction form mountain bikers is the same -
not the reaction from "some" bikers. You never qualified the statement in that
way - therefore you made a broad generalization.


>
> Therefore the assumption that all bikers behave
> .that way is grossly invalid. I assume the statement is continually made for
> .emotional reaction rather than fostering any environmental agenda.
>
> I never said that. But I have yet to meet a mountain biker who doesn't
> lie, including you (see above). So generalization about THAT is
> justified. I have a very large sample.

quite untrue. The accusation of a lie was easily and cleanly shown to be
false and the generalization is at the same time unjustified, unwise, and
uninformed.


> .clarify that accusation? I am curious what criteria brought you to that
> .assumption?
>
> I have heard of SEVERAL cases where mountain bikers created illegal
> trails, e.g. in Marin County, CA, Des Moines, IA, and Fort Worth, TX.

dates, names, records, photographs?..... Without them it is unfortunate
conjecture. Perhaps you should photograph this trail creation. It would be
more credible then the legal trail creation photographs you display on your
website from the ski resort. But there is the possibility that many of these
trails could have been created by Motocross bikes, BMX bikes, Children,
Hikers, 4 wheelers, 3 wheelers, ect. and would warrant a campaign aginst a
variety of groups instead of only one.

>
> .> This has nothing to do with what others do, but about what MOUNTAIN
> .> BIKERS do. What anyone else does doesn't excuse what YOU do! That
> .> should be OBVIOUS.
> .
> .well it would be unfair (some would say punative) to discuss environmental
> .impact on a habitat and refuse to consider the impact of all users of the
> .habitat.
>
> Not in a group devoted to discussing only mountain biking.

Not true. Other users certinly impact the areas that we ride in and also
compete for access - this concerns me as a biker.
If we were to take such a "Draconian" attitude toward this group your colorful
discussions would also be forced elsewhere on usenet.


>
> .> That is a blatant LIE. Most of them put their mountain bikes on their
> .> cars & SUVs to get them to their trails. I see mountain bikes being
> .> carried on motor vehicles every day.
> .
> .Internal combustion engine ues is widespread among all social groups, as is
> .the use of fossil fuels for energy. THis argument goes outside the boundry of
> .your discussion and is therefore invalid unless you discuss the use of fossil
> .fuels "in general" and their impact on a specific habitat. Stick to the point
> .:)
>
> The subject is mountain biking. I am sticking to the subject, unlike
> the mountain bikers, who suddenly want to change the subject, every
> time their destructiveness is discussed.

Quite untrue. The subject is mountain biking. You are discussing the
environment foremost and Bikings impact on it second. In any event, your
original statement about transporting equipment to the trails is by your logic
off topic since no one is a mountain biker at that point, they are a motorist
with a bike on their vehicle and therefore any impact on any habitat would be
attributed to "motorists".

>
> .> Yes, you are. It is not a matter of feelings, but actions. Riding
> .> machinery into wildlife habitat is inexcusable.
> .
> .no, they "may not" be. We all do things by choice that negatively impact the
> .habitats we live in and other habitats.
>
> But most people, when confronted with the fact that they are doing
> something harmful, are open to stopping it. Mountain bikers are NOT!!!

surely we have not become this naive. Exxon still transports oil in tankers.
Cars still use freon. Litter and chemicals are still dumped in rivers. People
refuse to recycle. The list goes on and on and the actions go on and on
without remorse. And yet we all know. I just cant see how your statement is
in any way valid when you imply that mountain bikers are the sole individuals
who are nonchalant about thier alleged environmental impact.


>
> Environmentalism may be a quality of a
> .person who might not behave in a way you consider "environmentally concious".
>
> Not if they deliberately continue harming the environment when asked
> to stop.

quite untrue. How many "environmentalists" drive cars, use paper products,
bathe in soaps and chemicals. All of these "harm" the environment. Again,
moral superiority is elusive in these days and ANY man is a fool to claim it.
we should all check our own house before we point to someone elses home as
the source of all the smell lest we shatter all our credibility. It is best
we all "do all we can do" and start with the simple everyday things instead
of implying all problems will be solved by changing one thing (unless its
changing how people think).


> .> You have the same access that everyone else has. It is IDENTICAL. The
> .> same rules apply to EVERYONE. Don't lie! BTW, vehicles don't have
> .> rights.
> .
> .good point (but individuals have rights regarding the use of vehecles - I
> .think reasonably we can assume thats what he meant).
>
> So what? Hikers have the same rights regarding the use of mountain
> bikes that you have! EXACTLY! So where is the discrimination?????

I never implied any, I was simply pointing out what I think he meant.
Although If you restrict one user group without restricting another without
any sound scientific evidence from a proper study (using controls, ect.) the
access restriction could be successfully challenged as unduly preferential to
one user group.


>
> I think most people get
> .upset here because of the potential loss of thier access over other groups
> .with more political "clout" (equestrians, hikers, hunters) that go
> .unmentioned in this discussion.
>
> EVERYONE has the same, identical access. Don't LIE! (Remember: I have
> yet to meet a mountain biker who doesn't lie!)

Quite untrue. If one is discussing Individuals you might be right. I was
discussing groups with different useage needs and therefore my statement is
totally valid. Please pay careful attention to what you read.


>
> Perhaps if the discussion were moved to a
> .forum that would allow participants to discuss the impact of all users, not
> .just bikers, it would be viewed as more valid.
>
> Oh, I see. Mountain biking damage canot be discussed, even in a
> mountain biking newsgroup, unless EVERY OTHER HARM IN THE WORLD is
> also discussed there, at the same time. But that would be off-topic,
> something that you guys complain about all the time (while constantly
> violating it yourselves).

No, Your discussion could remain here and be on topic. I am only concerned
for its validity (the tit for tat, twists of logig, and name calling from
both sides do much to belittle the discussion). I certinly dont want to shut
you up - quite honestly you do enough to strengthen the case for Biking and
weaken your own credability with some of your recent posting habits. I only
stated that your discussion took place in a more open topic area it could be
discussed in a more valid and constructive manner (These issues are rarely as
simple as "ban Bikes"). Your hostility is misplaced yet it seems to come out
whenever someone makes this wholeheartedly valid suggestion.

>
> .> That is not enough to protect wildlife, obviously. They need to be
> .> LEFT ALONE, not have well-manicured trails. In fact, they don't need
> .> ANY human-constructed trails!
> .
> .speaking of protecting wildlife, have you heard about the giant Russian Space
> .Mirror that is being built to provide light during the night for plant growth
> .and to allow around the clock work by humans (I am not making this up!)\
> .Wildlife scientists feel it will disrupt the sleep cycles of animals (I
> .agree).
>
> I agree. That is a disgsting idea, but consistent with most human
> ideas -- that the entire Earth belongs to humans.

yes, a horrible idea! But notice that two of us think its a horrible idea.
That means something!

>
> .> "Coexistence" with wildlife is harmful to them.
> .
> .unless we move off planet is is unavoidable.
>
> Nonsense. We have the power to close certain areas to all humans.
> After all, we run the world!

but all habitats are related. We could all move ourselves to a tiny island and
still have a negative effect on a habitat across the globe. THis kind of