WHOOPS! "A Rapid City man is dead after mountain bike incident"

[Mike Vandeman]

As the song says, "When will they ever learn?"

He hit a tree! Imagine that! How UNEXPECTED! Who would have known that there would be TREES there?!

Mike


http://www.blackhillsfox.com/2013/04/06/A-Rapid-City-man-is-dead-after-mountain-bike-incident

A Rapid City man is dead after mountain bike incident
Saturday, 06 April 2013 15:23
The Pennington County Sheriff's Office says a 21-year-old Rapid City man is dead after he lost control of his mountain bike and stuck a tree.

The Sheriff's Office says the incident happened Saturday afternoon while the man was out mountain biking with a friend on trails near Rockerville. Authorities say the 'experienced mountain biker' was wearing a helmet at the time of impact and suffered from blunt force trauma. He was transported to Rapid City Regional Hospital where he was pronounced dead. The incident remains under investigation.

Brendyn Medina

[Mike Vandeman]

Evolution in action!

[Mike Vandeman]

Oh? He also hit a ROCK? How UNUSUAL! How UNEXPECTED! Sue the Forest Service! It CAN'T be the mountain biker's fault!

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/mountain-biker-in-fatal-accident-identified/article_6812ba03-c5f1-5551-bba3-94bae1808109.html

Mountain biker in fatal accident identified
Jennifer Naylor Gesick Journal staff
The Rapid City man who died Saturday in a mountain biking accident near Rockerville has been identified as Curtis James VanOsdel, 21.
VanOsdel was riding down a steep hill on a U.S. Forest Service Trail commonly referred to a the Phoenix. He hit a rock, lost control of his bike, came off the bike and hit a tree, according to Pennington County Sheriff's Sgt. Greg Foster.
VanOsdel suffered a serious head injury. He was pronounced dead upon arrival at Rapid City Regional Hospital.
He was wearing a helmet and was said to be an experienced rider. "It was just a tragic accident," Foster said.
A notice was posted about the accident to other mountain bikers by the Black Hills Mountain Bike Association on its website Sunday. The association asked riders to stay off the trails on Storm Mountain, where the accident occurred.
"With the tragic events of Saturday, April 6, we are asking that riders please refrain from using the trails at Storm Mtn until further notice," the website said. "Our thoughts are with the rider's family."
President of BHMBA Roger St. Pierre said the group was asking riders to stay off the trails to give law enforcement a 24 hour window to do any forensic investigating.
VanOsdel's obituary can be found on page A6.

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:43:39 AM UTC-7, Mike Vandeman wrote:

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19:47 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Oh? He also hit a ROCK? How UNUSUAL! How UNEXPECTED! Sue the Forest Service! It CAN'T be the mountain biker's fault!
>

In June 2010, Michael J. Vandeman was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon against a mountain biker.

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

He was subsequently found guilty of exhibiting a deadly weapon and battery.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Monday, April 8, 2013 7:16:03 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19:47 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > Oh? He also hit a ROCK? How UNUSUAL! How UNEXPECTED! Sue the Forest Service! It CAN'T be the mountain biker's fault! > In June 2010, Michael J. Vandeman was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon against a mountain biker. http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm He was subsequently found guilty of exhibiting a deadly weapon and battery.

And then all charges were dismissed on 3/26/2013. As usual, you don't have your facts right. Like ALL mountain bikers.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that, Michael.

If you can't resist doing a Fred Phelps imitation every time your news-bot emails you that someone was injured, or worse, while mountain biking, then your record should be made public in kind.

Everything I posted above is factual. If the facts make you uncomfortable, that's on you.

[Mike Vandeman]

You can't make something true simply by asserting it. DUH! You just don't have the GUTS to face the truth: ALL charges were dismissed. We all know that mountain bikers can't BEAR facing the truth. Thanks for demonstrating that for the millionth time. You are truly a glutton for punishment.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

You should really stop and think before throwing out the word, "punishment," Michael. You're just setting yourself up for more ridicule.

Ever since your arrest and subsequent conviction, you've offered a variety of responses. All I've been saying is that (1) you were arrested and (2) you were tried and found guilty in a court of law. Both of those are facts, yet here is how you respond to facts:

Initial denials:

"Liar. Not only is that all lies, but you are only reportig hearsay."
"none of that actually happened"
"You know that's a lie"
"it never happened"
"Not really."
"If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you."

Followed by acceptance:

"All that proves is that the mountain bikers LIED."
"Based entirely on mountain biker lies."

... And my personal favorite:

"courts prove NOTHING".

So, Michael, given your habit of evading the facts and your general dishonesty, only a fool would take you at your word.

Unless you offer proof (other than your worthless "word"), I think I'll stick to a reliable source:

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

[Mike Vandeman]

Very funny. The UC Police are OBVIOUSLY not a reliable source, because they refer to a charge that was DISMISSED. In other words, I was INNOCENT. Or in other words, I was a victim of FALSE ARREST. IF you were honest, you would do your own research, as I do, and not open your mouth until you are sure you are right. You DON'T, which is why you are always WRONG. ALWAYS. You wouldn't know a "reliable source" if it hit you in the face. As a Ph.D., I DO. You obviously have no credentials or reliability whatsoever.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

Thanks for confirming you have no proof to the contrary, liar.

When you make one of your goofy, "Another criminal mountain bike..." posts, does your "research" that you do, "as a Ph.D.", ever include double-checking for convictions or dismissed charges? Why are you trying to hold me to a higher standard that you have for yourself? Hypocrite.

You were arrested. Your mugshot is proof enough of that. As a result of that arrest, details appeared in the news and you were found guilty of charges against you. Those are also facts.

[Mike Vandeman]

And then ALL CHARGES were DISMISSED -- a fact that you obviously find INCONVENIENT. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, how mountain bikers don't care a whit about the truth. You've been a big help!

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:29:35 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> > You were arrested. Your mugshot is proof enough of that. As a result of that arrest, details appeared in the news and you were found guilty of charges against you. Those are also facts.
>
>
>
> And then ALL CHARGES were DISMISSED -- a fact that you obviously find INCONVENIENT. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, how mountain bikers don't care a whit about the truth. You've been a big help!

No. Not inconvenient. Just unsubstantiated, at this point.

Feel free to keep slamming your fist on the table, though.

[Mike Vandeman]

And we know you aren't going to lift a finger to substantiate it, because you don't care about the truth unless you think it supports you. That's the mountain biker way.

[Blackblade]

I've just Googled "Vandeman Charges Dismissed" and, guess what, no such information appears.

Which is not surprising since you were already convicted of three charges and served your punishment for them. As such, they would not be 'Dismissed' ... that could only happen in the trial ... they would be 'Overturned' if subsequent evidence came to light. But, that would still require a court to so decide and, guess what again, there's no record of that either.

So, I would assume this is more of your b******t ... but feel free to prove me wrong with some real evidence.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

That's an obvious lie, as I've clearly lifted several fingers to substantiate it, in this very thread. Unfortunately, you've chosen to stonewall instead of providing actual proof, as usual.

Clearly, you have something to hide, otherwise you would.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 4:28:49 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> On Friday, April 12, 2013 1:03:06 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:52:58 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:29:35 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You were arrested. Your mugshot is proof enough of that. As a result of that arrest, details appeared in the news and you were found guilty of charges against you. Those are also facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then ALL CHARGES were DISMISSED -- a fact that you obviously find INCONVENIENT. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, how mountain bikers don't care a whit about the truth. You've been a big help! > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Not inconvenient. Just unsubstantiated, at this point. > > > > And we know you aren't going to lift a finger to substantiate it, because you don't care about the truth unless you think it supports you. That's the mountain biker way. I've just Googled "Vandeman Charges Dismissed" and, guess what, no such information appears. Which is not surprising since you were already convicted of three charges and served your punishment for them. As such, they would not be 'Dismissed' ... that could only happen in the trial ... they would be 'Overturned' if subsequent evidence came to light. But, that would still require a court to so decide and, guess what again, there's no record of that either. So, I would assume this is more of your b******t ... but feel free to prove me wrong with some real evidence.

Do your own research, as I do, idiot. If you really think Google tells you everything, you are crazy (but we already knew that).

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 6:56:40 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:03:06 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:52:58 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:29:35 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > > > > You were arrested. Your mugshot is proof enough of that. As a result of that arrest, details appeared in the news and you were found guilty of charges against you. Those are also facts. > > > > And then ALL CHARGES were DISMISSED -- a fact that you obviously find INCONVENIENT. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, how mountain bikers don't care a whit about the truth. You've been a big help! > > > No. Not inconvenient. Just unsubstantiated, at this point. > > And we know you aren't going to lift a finger to substantiate it, because you don't care about the truth unless you think it supports you. That's the mountain biker way. That's an obvious lie, as I've clearly lifted several fingers to substantiate it, in this very thread. Unfortunately, you've chosen to stonewall instead of providing actual proof, as usual. Clearly, you have something to hide, otherwise you would.

You can't substantiate it here. DUH! You'd have to do some real research where it matters. Idiot.

[Blackblade]

> Do your own research, as I do, idiot. If you really think Google tells you everything, you are crazy (but we already knew that).

You are making the assertion ... you back it up ... particularly since it disagrees with everything in the public record regarding your trial and conviction.

Until you do, I will be dismissing it as yet another of your baseless assertions without any corroborating evidence.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 10:14:46 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Friday, April 12, 2013 6:56:40 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:

> You can't substantiate it here. DUH! You'd have to do some real research where it matters. Idiot.

No problem. Real research results coming up:

My criteria include the following:

(1) Search Google for "Mike Vandeman assault"
(2) accept first result.

The result:

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2010/06/03/bicycle-opponent-arrested-for-assaulting-cyclist/

Since that's better than anything you've offered (i.e., "nothing"), I'll take it.

[Mike Vandeman]

Thanks, once again, for confirming that you have ZERO interest in the truth. You really should learn to keep your mouth shut, since you are your own worst enemy. What a glutton for punishment! No matter how many times I expose your dishonesty, you keep coming back for more!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 9:18:57 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 9:18:57 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

[Blackblade]

> > Until you do, I will be dismissing it as yet another of your baseless assertions without any corroborating evidence.
>
> Thanks, once again, for confirming that you have ZERO interest in the truth. You really should learn to keep your mouth shut, since you are your own worst enemy. What a glutton for punishment! No matter how many times I expose your dishonesty, you keep coming back for more!

Oh, I am interested in the truth all right ... which is why I have very little interest in your baseless assertions.

The charges were NOT dismissed, you were convicted on three counts and those charges still appear on the public record. They have not been expunged, overturned or appealed.

You are a liar and not even a good one.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:29:06 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > > Until you do, I will be dismissing it as yet another of your baseless assertions without any corroborating evidence. > > Thanks, once again, for confirming that you have ZERO interest in the truth. You really should learn to keep your mouth shut, since you are your own worst enemy. What a glutton for punishment! No matter how many times I expose your dishonesty, you keep coming back for more! Oh, I am interested in the truth all right ... which is why I have very little interest in your baseless assertions. The charges were NOT dismissed, you were convicted on three counts and those charges still appear on the public record. They have not been expunged, overturned or appealed. You are a liar and not even a good one.

Your vagueness is the clue that you don't know what you are talking about, and are just bluffing, as usual. Show us the link (hint: you can't), or stop bluffing. Mountain bikers don't know how to tell the truth.

[Blackblade]

> Your vagueness is the clue that you don't know what you are talking about, and are just bluffing, as usual. Show us the link (hint: you can't), or stop bluffing. Mountain bikers don't know how to tell the truth.

What link Mike ? Shraga has already posted two and, funnily enough, they relate to your arrest. Further research yields, as I already said, information on your trial and conviction for, amongst other crimes, Battery.

The one who can't provide one single shred of evidence for his position is you ! Go on, can you produce ONE link to justify your position ?

... thought not ....

[Stilton Cheesewright]

In article <6c68b51c-702f-4b54...@googlegroups.com>,
mcole...@googlemail.com says...

> The charges were NOT dismissed, you were convicted on three counts and thos=
> e charges still appear on the public record. They have not been expunged, =

> overturned or appealed.
>
> You are a liar and not even a good one.
>

Ah, so (by HIS standards!) he is a 'Liar'
Then he MUST be a Mountain Biker!

SC

[Blackblade]

> Show us the link (hint: you can't), or stop bluffing. Mountain bikers don't know how to tell the truth.

Here's the link Mike ... to the thread where your own account of your actions clearly show that you committed battery.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/g6-looFBysM/nYQ7Q36X8akJ

Now, do YOU have a link to anything that backs up your assertion regarding charge dismissal ? No ?????

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:58:15 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > Show us the link (hint: you can't), or stop bluffing. Mountain bikers don't know how to tell the truth. Here's the link Mike ... to the thread where your own account of your actions clearly show that you committed battery. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/g6-looFBysM/nYQ7Q36X8akJ Now, do YOU have a link to anything that backs up your assertion regarding charge dismissal ? No ?????

Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time that mountain bikers ALWAYS LIE. That thread shows that the mountain biker battered ME. Of course you weren't there, so you know NOTHING!

But it's moot, because ALL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED on 3/26/13. Finding the link is your homework (hint: there isn't one, idiot).

Every time they open their mouths, mountain bikers stick both feet in them, and prove what DISHONEST BOORS they are, you especially.

[Blackblade]

> > > Here's the link Mike ... to the thread where your own account of your actions clearly show that you committed battery. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/g6-looFBysM/nYQ7Q36X8akJ Now, do YOU have a link to anything that backs up your assertion regarding charge dismissal ? No ?????

> Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time that mountain bikers ALWAYS LIE. That thread shows that the mountain biker battered ME. Of course you weren't there, so you know NOTHING!

No Mike, you can say something as many times as you like ... it doesn't make it true. YOU occasioned the contact, intentionally, which makes YOU guilty of battery. You wanted to detain the biker ... which you were legally not allowed to do. You admitted this clearly in the thread; so you don't have a leg to stand on and were quite correctly convicted.

> But it's moot, because ALL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED on 3/26/13. Finding the link is your homework (hint: there isn't one, idiot).

No dice. Want to make an assertion ? Back it up. I'm not doing YOUR homework for you. In the absence of evidence, I revert to my earlier point; since your word has zero credibility I don't believe anything you say unless there is objective evidence to back it up. Given that you've been asked to provide it several times now, by me and others, I suggest you either do so or admit that this is just more of your bullshit.

> Every time they open their mouths, mountain bikers stick both feet in them, and prove what DISHONEST BOORS they are, you especially.

Nice ad-hominem Mike ... still doesn't change the truth one iota. You are a convicted criminal.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 4:14:56 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > > > Here's the link Mike ... to the thread where your own account of your actions clearly show that you committed battery. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/g6-looFBysM/nYQ7Q36X8akJ Now, do YOU have a link to anything that backs up your assertion regarding charge dismissal ? No ????? > Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time that mountain bikers ALWAYS LIE. That thread shows that the mountain biker battered ME. Of course you weren't there, so you know NOTHING! No Mike, you can say something as many times as you like ... it doesn't make it true. YOU occasioned the contact, intentionally, which makes YOU guilty of battery.

BS. As a pedestrian, I have a right to be wherever I want to on the trail. A biker is legally required to yield the right of way to a pedestrian, including STOPPING, if necessary to avoid a collision. By not stopping, and running into me, he broke the law. You obviously don't know the law.

> You wanted to detain the biker ... which you were legally not allowed to do. You admitted this clearly in the thread; so you don't have a leg to stand on and were quite correctly convicted. > But it's moot, because ALL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED on 3/26/13. Finding the link is your homework (hint: there isn't one, idiot). No dice. Want to make an assertion ? Back it up. I'm not doing YOUR homework for you. In the absence of evidence, I revert to my earlier point;

You need to do your own research, as I do.

>since your word has zero credibility I don't believe anything you say unless there is objective evidence to back it up. Given that you've been asked to provide it several times now, by me and others, I suggest you either do so or admit that this is just more of your bullshit. > Every time they open their mouths, mountain bikers stick both feet in them, and prove what DISHONEST BOORS they are, you especially. Nice ad-hominem Mike ... still doesn't change the truth one iota. You are a convicted criminal.

BS. Legally, I have never been convicted of anything, since all charges were dismissed on 3/26/13. A plea of not guilty was entered on my behalf, and my record was expunged. Ask your mommy to explain the words with more than one syl-la-ble to you.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 2:17:30 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 4:14:56 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

> BS. Legally, I have never been convicted of anything, since all charges were dismissed on 3/26/13. A plea of not guilty was entered on my behalf, and my record was expunged.

Prove it. (Hint: you won't, because you CAN'T.)

[Mike Vandeman]

I don't need to. I was there! You are the one who needs to do your homework, IF you care about the truth (Hint: YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T!) Mountain bikers would rather keep LYING -- the only thing they know how to do. (Hint: Your first lie is your false name. DUH!)

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

"Your unwillingness to answer any questions is duly noted -- by the whole world."

[Blackblade]

> >YOU occasioned the contact, intentionally, which makes YOU guilty of battery.

> BS. As a pedestrian, I have a right to be wherever I want to on the trail. A biker is legally required to yield the right of way to a pedestrian, including STOPPING, if necessary to avoid a collision. By not stopping, and running into me, he broke the law. You obviously don't know the law.

Right of Way is NOT an unfettered right ... you can't use it to illegally detain someone which was what you were doing by intentionally moving to prevent them passing. If that's your understanding of the law then it is wholly wrong.

> You need to do your own research, as I do.

BS. This is not a matter of research. You've made an assertion. Back it up.

> BS. Legally, I have never been convicted of anything, since all charges were dismissed on 3/26/13. A plea of not guilty was entered on my behalf, and my record was expunged. Ask your mommy to explain the words with more than one syl-la-ble to you.

You entered a plea of not guilty and a JURY found you GUILTY on three counts.

Even if you have now entered a Petition and Order for Dismissal all that does is expunge your criminal record. However, it does NOT remove the conviction from your criminal history and anyone querying the California or FBI criminal records will still find your name there ... quite correctly. It also doesn't remove any restrictions or penalties ... so you still won't be able to go walking those trails from which you were barred.

So, is this what you mean ? You have used an administrative mechanism, there to allow convicts who have served their sentences to get work again ?

That does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, make you innocent !

If this is NOT what you've done then, as I've said, please provide some PROOF !!!

[Mike Vandeman]

I did. Truthfully. You just don't like hearing the truth -- something you really aren't used to, since your fellow mountain bikers are allergic to telling the truth. Tough!

[Mike Vandeman]

If you are too lazy to do your homework, TOUGH! You just don't want to hear the truth, which is that my conviction was overturned and my record was expunged. Legally, I have never been convicted of a crime. That's good, since I was innocent from the start. I know you don't like to hear the truth, since you are used to your fellow mountain bikers. who are all incorrigible liars -- like you.

[Blackblade]

>
> If you are too lazy to do your homework, TOUGH! You just don't want to hear the truth, which is that my conviction was overturned and my record was expunged. Legally, I have never been convicted of a crime. That's good, since I was innocent from the start. I know you don't like to hear the truth, since you are used to your fellow mountain bikers. who are all incorrigible liars -- like you.

Yes, Mike, keep telling yourself that ... and, at the same time, try and figure out why you still have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database :-)

Expunging the record, using an administrative protocol which I've described, does NOT make you innocent ... your arrest and conviction will follow you forever, as they should, but your employers won't have to know now that it's spent.

And, on top of that, I thought you said that courts couldn't make decisions anyway ... you are so full of it it's funny.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 9:23:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:04:17 PM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I did. Truthfully. You just don't like hearing the truth -- something you really aren't used to, since your fellow mountain bikers are allergic to telling the truth. Tough!

Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 29, 2013 9:23:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:04:17 PM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > I did. Truthfully. You just don't like hearing the truth -- something you really aren't used to, since your fellow mountain bikers are allergic to telling the truth. Tough! Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing.

Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:09:59 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > > If you are too lazy to do your homework, TOUGH! You just don't want to hear the truth, which is that my conviction was overturned and my record was expunged. Legally, I have never been convicted of a crime. That's good, since I was innocent from the start. I know you don't like to hear the truth, since you are used to your fellow mountain bikers. who are all incorrigible liars -- like you. Yes, Mike, keep telling yourself that ... and, at the same time, try and figure out why you still have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database :-) Expunging the record, using an administrative protocol which I've described, does NOT make you innocent ... your arrest and conviction will follow you forever, as they should, but your employers won't have to know now that it's spent. And, on top of that, I thought you said that courts couldn't make decisions anyway ... you are so full of it it's funny.

It was very easy to refute you, liar:

http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security

"Access to criminal history summary records maintained by the DOJ is restricted by law to legitimate law enforcement purposes and authorized applicant agencies. However, individuals have the right to request a copy of their own criminal history record from the Department to review for accuracy and completeness. Requests from third parties are not authorized and will not be processed."

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet.

Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you?

It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up.

... Unless you're bluffing, which is clearly the case here.

[IronMandrus]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing. > > Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)! I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet. Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you? It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up. ... Unless you're bluffing, which is clearly the case here.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Vandeman could very well have had his conviction expunged. The only way to verify it is for him to pay a fee to get a copy of the record and post it to everyone here, which it is no surprise that he would rather not do. I wouldn't pay money to prove something to people I disliked, either!

If he indeed had this conviction expunged, he is right that, in the eyes of the law, it ALMOST didn't even happen! He doesn't need to tell employers about it, unless he is applying for a government job. But, the record of the conviction still exists, and the expungement can be reversed if he does something like this again.

So, under the eyes of the law, it DID happen, he DID get convicted, and if he does it again, these facts CAN be used to show a pattern.

But it also means that currently, he is not guilty of this crime.

(Oh, and linguistically, "innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things, so let's all use them correctly.)

[Stilton Cheesewright]

In article <e80f7b03-2364-4ed5...@googlegroups.com>,
matta...@hotmail.com says...

> He doesn't need to tell employers
> about it, unless he is applying for a government job.

Do they still employ 70 year old's then??
SC

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing.
>
> >
>
> > Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)!
>
>
>
> I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet.

Thanks for proving that you are incompetent and have ZERO interest in the truth-- in other words, you are a typical mountain biker! You shoot yourself in the foot, every time you open your mouth. Keep it up!

> Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you?
>
>
>
> It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up.

I don't need to; the State does that for me. :)

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:43:36 AM UTC-7, IronMandrus wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing. > > Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)! I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet. Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you? It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up. ... Unless you're bluffing, which is clearly the case here.
>
>
>
>
>
> The fact of the matter is, Mr. Vandeman could very well have had his conviction expunged. The only way to verify it is for him to pay a fee to get a copy of the record and post it to everyone here, which it is no surprise that he would rather not do. I wouldn't pay money to prove something to people I disliked, either!
>
>
>
> If he indeed had this conviction expunged, he is right that, in the eyes of the law, it ALMOST didn't even happen! He doesn't need to tell employers about it, unless he is applying for a government job. But, the record of the conviction still exists, and the expungement can be reversed if he does something like this again.

BS. "Expungement" means just what it says. It no longer exists -- which is good, since I was never guilty in the first place.

> So, under the eyes of the law, it DID happen, he DID get convicted, and if he does it again, these facts CAN be used to show a pattern.

BS. "Expungement" means just what it says. It no longer exists -- which is good, since I was never guilty in the first place.

By the way, you can't talk about "facts", without lying, since you weren't there to confirm them.

> But it also means that currently, he is not guilty of this crime.
>
>
>
> (Oh, and linguistically, "innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things, so let's all use them correctly.)

Right. I'm neither.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 12:09:12 PM UTC-7, Stilton Cheesewright wrote:
> In article ,

>
> matta...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > He doesn't need to tell employers
>
> > about it, unless he is applying for a government job.
>
>
>
> Do they still employ 70 year old's then??

Of course they do.

> SC

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 6:52:50 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet.
>
> Thanks for proving that you are incompetent and have ZERO interest in the truth-- in other words, you are a typical mountain biker! You shoot yourself in the foot, every time you open your mouth. Keep it up!
>

Yet here I am, asking you for proof (which you can't provide) in this very thread. That's obviously more than "zero interest," liar.

> > Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you?
>

> I don't need to; the State does that for me. :)
>

Interesting. "The State" doesn't seem to be here to help you.

Your clumsy attempt to dodge the subject and continue bluffing has become pretty funny.

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

Thanks for confirming you are the ideal position to post proof that you don't have a criminal record. I look forward to the pdf appearing on your horribly-formatted Web page.

[Blackblade]

>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:09:59 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
>> Yes, Mike, keep telling yourself that ... and, at the same time, try and figure out why you still have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database :-) Expunging the record, using an administrative protocol which I've described, does NOT make you innocent ... your arrest and conviction will follow you forever, as they should, but your employers won't have to know now that it's spent. And, on top of that, I thought you said that courts couldn't make decisions anyway ... you are so full of it it's funny.
>
> It was very easy to refute you, liar:

Go on then ... do it ! A reference to where the data can be obtained and a statement that only the government or the criminal can get the data is not a refutation. Since you're the criminal, go on, get the data and prove me wrong. Until now, you've refuted nothing and provided no facts.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 7:32:54 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 3, 2013 6:52:50 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet. > > Thanks for proving that you are incompetent and have ZERO interest in the truth-- in other words, you are a typical mountain biker! You shoot yourself in the foot, every time you open your mouth. Keep it up! > Yet here I am, asking you for proof (which you can't provide) in this very thread.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance. No "thread" can prove that. You can only verify it via your own research (but you are too lazy and uninterested to do that).

That's obviously more than "zero interest," liar. > > Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you? > > I don't need to; the State does that for me. :) > Interesting. "The State" doesn't seem to be here to help you. Your clumsy attempt to dodge the subject and continue bluffing has become pretty funny.

You are the one dodging, to avoid having to do your own research. The fact is, you don't really WANT the truth, unless it supports your warped desires.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 8:11:25 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:09:59 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: >> Yes, Mike, keep telling yourself that ... and, at the same time, try and figure out why you still have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database :-) Expunging the record, using an administrative protocol which I've described, does NOT make you innocent ... your arrest and conviction will follow you forever, as they should, but your employers won't have to know now that it's spent. And, on top of that, I thought you said that courts couldn't make decisions anyway ... you are so full of it it's funny. > > It was very easy to refute you, liar: Go on then ... do it ! A reference to where the data can be obtained and a statement that only the government or the criminal can get the data is not a refutation. Since you're the criminal, go on, get the data and prove me wrong. Until now, you've refuted nothing and provided no facts.

You pretended to have the information. I just proved that that is impossible, LIAR. QED

[Blackblade]

> You pretended to have the information. I just proved that that is impossible, LIAR. QED

What information did I PRETEND to have Mike ? I merely stated that under Californian law, IF a conviction was expunged under the Petition and Order for Dismissal procedure that it would continue to sit on the Criminal records database. That is a fact of law.

I never stated that you DID file such a Petition ... I surmised that you might have done.

However, given that there has been no retrial, you will have a Criminal Record on the database. It may, if you have filed the petition, show as Expunged but it will still be there.

So, what information have I pretended to have Mike ? Please enlighten me.

And, more pertinently, as you have now shown only YOU (or a government agency) CAN provide the information. So, put up or shut up. Prove your case or retract your assertion.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > You pretended to have the information. I just proved that that is impossible, LIAR. QED What information did I PRETEND to have Mike ? I merely stated that under Californian law, IF a conviction was expunged under the Petition and Order for Dismissal procedure that it would continue to sit on the Criminal records database. That is a fact of law. I never stated that you DID file such a Petition ... I surmised that you might have done. However, given that there has been no retrial, you will have a Criminal Record on the database. It may, if you have filed the petition, show as Expunged but it will still be there. So, what information have I pretended to have Mike ? Please enlighten me.

Easy: "you ... have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database". You don't know that, because you don't have access to it, which I just proved! Lie on, liar! You guys are SOOO easy!.

[Blackblade]

> Easy: "you ... have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database". You don't know that, because you don't have access to it, which I just proved! Lie on, liar! You guys are SOOO easy!.

I'm easy ? I KNOW that you have a record in the California Criminal Records Database simply because you were tried and convicted in the state of California and the state penal code requires that such information is stored in the database. What an idiot !

[Mike Vandeman]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 9:57:29 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > Easy: "you ... have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database". You don't know that, because you don't have access to it, which I just proved! Lie on, liar! You guys are SOOO easy!.
>
>
>
> I'm easy ? I KNOW that you have a record in the California Criminal Records Database simply because you were tried and convicted in the state of California and the state penal code requires that such information is stored in the database. What an idiot !

No you don't. It could have been -- and WAS -- expunged. You guys are SOOO easy! Now who's the idiot? You are incapable of rational thought. That's why people mountain bike! Anyone with half a brain knows that mountain biking is harebrainedly stoopid. Evolution is alive and well in mountain biking land!

[Blackblade]

> No you don't. It could have been -- and WAS -- expunged. You guys are SOOO easy! Now who's the idiot? You are incapable of rational thought. That's why people mountain bike! Anyone with half a brain knows that mountain biking is harebrainedly stoopid. Evolution is alive and well in mountain biking land!

Jeez .. you're getting really stupid now. Did you not even bother to read the terms of the process for which you applied ??

IF (and you've still not provided a single shred of evidence) you filed for a Dismissal then the record remains on the database ... but with a note that it was Expunged after petition. It is NOT removed and is accessible to government agencies ... but not to private companies.

So, sorry, the only way you're wiping the Criminal Record is if you can manage to get a court reconvened to reconsider the evidence of your convictions (for which you would need new evidence) and for a jury to them find you not guilty.

Thus, your crimes WILL follow you forever ... and, for an unreformed felon such as you, that is absolutely correct. Perhaps, one day, you might finally realise that you've done wrong ... but, clearly, that day isn't today. You haven't learned a damn thing from what should have been a salutory experience.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 2:17:29 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > No you don't. It could have been -- and WAS -- expunged. You guys are SOOO easy! Now who's the idiot? You are incapable of rational thought. That's why people mountain bike! Anyone with half a brain knows that mountain biking is harebrainedly stoopid. Evolution is alive and well in mountain biking land!
>
>
>
> Jeez .. you're getting really stupid now. Did you not even bother to read the terms of the process for which you applied ??
>
>
>
> IF (and you've still not provided a single shred of evidence) you filed for a Dismissal then the record remains on the database ... but with a note that it was Expunged after petition. It is NOT removed and is accessible to government agencies ... but not to private companies.
>
>
>
> So, sorry, the only way you're wiping the Criminal Record is if you can manage to get a court reconvened to reconsider the evidence of your convictions (for which you would need new evidence) and for a jury to them find you not guilty.
>
>
>
> Thus, your crimes WILL follow you forever ... and, for an unreformed felon such as you, that is absolutely correct.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance once again: I am not, and never have been, a felon. Sorry to disappoint you once again, LIAR. It's AMAZING what incorrigible LIARS mountain bikers all are!

[shrag...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:33:03 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Friday, May 3, 2013 7:32:54 AM UTC-7, shrag...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You are the one dodging, to avoid having to do your own research. The fact is, you don't really WANT the truth, unless it supports your warped desires.

I want the truth, but I need it from a source other than a confirmed liar (i.e., you).

You already confirmed that you can access the information (if it actually existed). Since you won't post it, you're obviously just making it up.

[Mike Vandeman]

Do your own homework (no, your dog didn't eat it), you lazy bum. Without that, you can't pretend to know anything. I already posted the truth. You just don't like to hear it.

[Blackblade]

> Do your own homework (no, your dog didn't eat it), you lazy bum. Without that, you can't pretend to know anything. I already posted the truth. You just don't like to hear it.

You posted a statement ... no verification, no backup. Since you are a proven liar no-one is liable to believe you without objective proof. We have already ascertained that only YOU, or a government agency, CAN verify your proposition.

So, for the nth time ... put up or shut up ! You are just wasting your, and our, time in trying to get us to swallow your b******t.

[Mike Vandeman]

BS. I just tell the truth -- something you should try once in a while, just to find out what it feels like. If you can't verify the truth of your statements, you have no business making them! DUH! To assert something you don't know to be true is called "lying". DUH!

[Blackblade]

Michael J Vandeman said "If you can't verify the truth of your statements, you have no business making them! DUH!"

I await your verification as to your earlier statement.

I've asserted nothing that can't be readily verified. You, on the other hand ...

[Mike Vandeman]

Not only can't your statements be verified, they aren't even true! I already verified my statements, since I was present when they took place! DUH! You are grasping at straws, LIAR.

[Blackblade]

> Not only can't your statements be verified, they aren't even true! I already verified my statements, since I was present when they took place! DUH! You are grasping at straws, LIAR.

Go read the penal code ... then tell me that my statements can't be verified.

You have verified NOTHING ... you just keep ranting ... provide PROOF.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:51:00 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > Not only can't your statements be verified, they aren't even true! I already verified my statements, since I was present when they took place! DUH! You are grasping at straws, LIAR.
>
>
>
> Go read the penal code ... then tell me that my statements can't be verified.

You don't even cite the reference to the relevant paragraph -- a sure sign that you are BLUFFING.

> You have verified NOTHING ... you just keep ranting ... provide PROOF.

I already did. You just don't want to admit it.

[Blackblade]

> You don't even cite the reference to the relevant paragraph -- a sure sign that you are BLUFFING.

A person who secures Penal Code 1203.4 relief must still disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office or licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the state lottery.
Dismissal does not make the conviction records unavailable to the public. People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778, 1787.

QED. You're an idiot.

> I already did. You just don't want to admit it.

No, Mike, you just kept saying it over and over. Other than in your own parallel reality that doesn't suffice as PROOF. Are you hard of understanding ? Do you need me to give you the specific link to a dictionary so you can look up proof ??? This internet thing is so tough isn't it ?

[Mike Vandeman]

I don't see the word "expunge". I guess you don't know how to do research. And if the records are "available to the public", why haven't you found them??? LIAR!

By the way, you still haven't apologized for calling me a "felon", LIAR.

Is there anything lower or more disgusting than a mountain biker? I doubt it.

[Blackblade]

> I don't see the word "expunge". I guess you don't know how to do research. And if the records are "available to the public", why haven't you found them??? LIAR!

Go do your own research and read the rest of the penal code - idiot. I'm done doing it for you. And, you seem to be going senile, since you posted earlier this week the statement regarding access to the Criminal Records DB ... which is for the individual concerned and government agency only. So, ONLY YOU, can provide your criminal record.

> By the way, you still haven't apologized for calling me a "felon", LIAR.

And I won't be ... because you are a felon. You have been convicted of criminal offences and are therefore, axiomatically, a felon. I made it very clear that, were you to publish PROOF that the record had been expunged I would acknowledge such action. However, if it's simply an administrative expungement under the Petition for Dismissal procedure then I, and most other individuals I would imagine, would not consider that an exoneration. It is simply that the conviction is 'spent' and therefore you are permitted to carry on with your life without undue hardship ... not that you are suddenly innocent ... because you are not.

You broke the law, you were convicted of it, you acknowledged the actions that you took and tried to justify them in various threads in this newsgroup. However, those actions are AGAINST THE LAW. Therefore, no justification is every going to change the fundamental; you are a felon and will always be so.

> Is there anything lower or more disgusting than a mountain biker? I doubt it.

Look in the mirror - you might see something rather more disgusting. A lying, narcissistic, criminal, sociopathic, irritating, monomaniacal and wholly unpleasant individual. No wonder you're bitter having to deal with that every day.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:10:00 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > I don't see the word "expunge". I guess you don't know how to do research. And if the records are "available to the public", why haven't you found them??? LIAR!
>
>
>
> Go do your own research and read the rest of the penal code - idiot. I'm done doing it for you. And, you seem to be going senile, since you posted earlier this week the statement regarding access to the Criminal Records DB ... which is for the individual concerned and government agency only. So, ONLY YOU, can provide your criminal record.
>
>
>
> > By the way, you still haven't apologized for calling me a "felon", LIAR.
>
>
>
> And I won't be ... because you are a felon. You have been convicted of criminal offences and are therefore, axiomatically, a felon.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance and dishonesty. Only someone convicted of a felony is a felon. I was not, so I'm not a felon. But we all know that MOUNTAIN BIKERS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH. Thanks for proving that for the millionth time. You are one of the lowest forms of life on the Earth. Even the wildlife don't lie. But YOU do...

[Blackblade]

You forget that felon is also an old english word for criminal ... the US misdemeanour/felony dichotomy doesn't exist in most other countries.

So, if you object to the word felon I will revert to calling you a criminal if you prefer ?

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> You forget that felon is also an old english word for criminal ... the US misdemeanour/felony dichotomy doesn't exist in most other countries.

No, it doesn't. It means "villain". But only in Old English, which is no longer used.

> So, if you object to the word felon I will revert to calling you a criminal if you prefer ?

I'm neither, as you well know, but choose to ignore. Liar.

[Blackblade]

> > So, if you object to the word felon I will revert to calling you a criminal if you prefer ?
>
>
> I'm neither, as you well know, but choose to ignore. Liar.

You are, most definitely, a criminal ... you were arrested, charged and convicted. That the offences are now spent doesn't exonerate you.

[Mike Vandeman]

Yes in does, since ALL charges were dismissed. Liar.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 3:34:05 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

Still waiting for your apology for calling me a felon, which is a LIE.

[Blackblade]

> > You are, most definitely, a criminal ... you were arrested, charged and convicted. That the offences are now spent doesn't exonerate you.
>

> Yes in does, since ALL charges were dismissed. Liar.

Where, how and why were the charges dismissed Mike ? You keep stating this yet have provided no evidence whatsoever. You were convicted in a court of law of three criminal charges.

> Still waiting for your apology for calling me a felon, which is a LIE.

Mike, you ARE a felon. How can telling the truth be a lie ? I offered to call you a criminal instead, or several other synonyms, if that made you feel better.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 9:14:29 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > > You are, most definitely, a criminal ... you were arrested, charged and convicted. That the offences are now spent doesn't exonerate you.
>
> >
>
> > Yes in does, since ALL charges were dismissed. Liar.
>
>
>
> Where, how and why were the charges dismissed Mike ? You keep stating this yet have provided no evidence whatsoever. You were convicted in a court of law of three criminal charges.
>
>
>
> > Still waiting for your apology for calling me a felon, which is a LIE.
>
>
>
> Mike, you ARE a felon.

Nope, liar. I'm still waiting for my apology.... Those aren't synonyms, as you well know. Otherwise, you wouldn't have chosen the word "felon".

[Blackblade]

> Nope, liar. I'm still waiting for my apology.... Those aren't synonyms, as you well know. Otherwise, you wouldn't have chosen the word "felon".

Try this ...

Type "Felon Synonym" into Google

Follow link to http://thesaurus.com/browse/felon (first result)

Note result !

Now apologise ... felon IS a synonym for criminal.

And I picked it simply because you were carping so much about being called a criminal despite your criminal convictions.

[Mike Vandeman]

Synonyms don't have identical meanings. DUH! In any case, I am neither a criminal nor a felon. Sorry to disappoint you. As usual, LIAR.

[Blackblade]

> Synonyms don't have identical meanings. DUH! In any case, I am neither a criminal nor a felon. Sorry to disappoint you. As usual, LIAR.

You really are too funny. I suppose that you're aware that your record on the internet is now wholly focussed around your arrest, court case and conviction ? Try searching your own name ... illuminating.

And, funnily enough, the more you try and deny and debate it, the more it will trend on Google and other search engines.

You ARE a criminal ... you WERE convicted of criminal offences and, to render it beyond a shadow of a doubt, you provided narrative in this group that clearly showed you had acted so as to commit Battery ... intentionally detaining a mountain biker.

It's kind of funny to bait you but it's getting boring now ... I really do strongly suggest you re-evaluate. Or not, your call, but don't think that you're doing anything to help your cause ... quite the opposite.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:47:07 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > Synonyms don't have identical meanings. DUH! In any case, I am neither a criminal nor a felon. Sorry to disappoint you. As usual, LIAR.
>
>
>
> You really are too funny. I suppose that you're aware that your record on the internet is now wholly focussed around your arrest, court case and conviction ? Try searching your own name ... illuminating.

Not really. There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, especially from LYING mountain bikers like you. You have demonstrated that over and over. All you are doing is giving mountain bikers a bad name.

[Blackblade]

> Not really. There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, especially from LYING mountain bikers like you. You have demonstrated that over and over. All you are doing is giving mountain bikers a bad name.

There is a lot of misinformation indeed. But the information about you is almost wholly correct. You are an anti-mountain-biking fanatic who employs the same tired arguments, ad hominem and strategies again and again and again ... to the extent that most people just get bored and leave you to it.

About the only thing of which I could be accused is cruelty to idiots (ie. you).

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:37:23 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > Not really. There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, especially from LYING mountain bikers like you. You have demonstrated that over and over. All you are doing is giving mountain bikers a bad name. There is a lot of misinformation indeed. But the information about you is almost wholly correct. You are an anti-mountain-biking fanatic who employs the same tired arguments, ad hominem and strategies again and again and again ... to the extent that most people just get bored and leave you to it. About the only thing of which I could be accused is cruelty to idiots (ie. you).

And LYING. You conveniently forgot that, your most obvious characteristic.

[Blackblade]

> And LYING. You conveniently forgot that, your most obvious characteristic.

Go on then .. prove one Mike. Show where I lied. And, no, that doesn't mean show where you disagree with what I said ... prove me wrong with reference to external, verifiable and objective data.

Like I did to you where I quoted external references to prove you were lying.

[Mike Vandeman]

Easy! You said I am a "felon" and "criminal", without checking whether those charges were DISMISSED (you asked ME to do your research for you!)! QED You guys are sooo easy to disprove!

[Blackblade]

> > Like I did to you where I quoted external references to prove you were lying.
>
>
>
> Easy! You said I am a "felon" and "criminal", without checking whether those charges were DISMISSED (you asked ME to do your research for you!)! QED You guys are sooo easy to disprove!

External link to prove it Mike ... no ? Then maybe you're just full of BS as usual.

And, yes, I DID check and guess what, all the research verified what I said. I didn't ask you to do research, you are asserting that you KNOW something ... but you can't (or won't) prove it.

So, no, yet again you disprove nothing ... you just write c**p and expect us to believe you without providing any evidence.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 7:45:58 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> > > Like I did to you where I quoted external references to prove you were lying. > > > > Easy! You said I am a "felon" and "criminal", without checking whether those charges were DISMISSED (you asked ME to do your research for you!)! QED You guys are sooo easy to disprove! External link to prove it Mike ... no ? Then maybe you're just full of BS as usual. And, yes, I DID check and guess what, all the research verified what I said. I didn't ask you to do research, you are asserting that you KNOW something ... but you can't (or won't) prove it. So, no, yet again you disprove nothing ... you just write c**p and expect us to believe you without providing any evidence.

You made no effort to check whether the charges were dismissed, except to ask ME to do your research for you. So you asserted an umproved statement, i.e., a LIE. QED for the umpteenth time, LIAR.

[Blackblade]

> You made no effort to check whether the charges were dismissed, except to ask ME to do your research for you. So you asserted an umproved statement, i.e., a LIE. QED for the umpteenth time, LIAR.

Actually Mike, you just lied there again. I checked, others checked ... and all the results came up negative for your proposition ... which is why no-one believes you that the charges were dismissed. I even posted the results of my search ...

You are turning into a very regular liar ... sure you haven't started mountainbiking ?? :-)