Should Mountain Biking Be an Olympic Sport?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
to

August 11, 1997
Juan Antonio Samaranch
President, International Olympic Committee
Chateau de Vidy
1007 Lausanne, Switzerland

Katia Mascagni Stivachtis, Chief, Section of Environmental Affairs
Department of International Cooperation and Public Information
International Olympic Committee
Chateau de Vidy
1007 Lausanne, Switzerland

Gentlepersons:

I was delighted to learn (from your web page) that protection
of the environment (after sports and culture) is now one of the
main goals of the Olympics. The visibility and prestige of the
Olympics give you enormous responsibility, especially toward young
people, who will be strongly influenced by what they see. As you
well know, nonverbal learning is very powerful, and is for many
people (e.g. preliterate children) the primary means by which the
Olympics teaches them about sports, culture, and the environment.
People, especially children, assume that what they see on
television, especially in the Olympics, is proper.
__________________________

Therefore, I was shocked, saddened, and embarrassed when I
discovered that mountain biking has been accepted as an Olympic
sport. I am enclosing several papers in which I explain in detail
the harm that mountain biking inflicts on wildlife. But I will try
to summarize that information here.

We are in the midst of a worldwide extinction crisis.
According to the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources), one fourth of all of the world's
animals are threatened with extinction. The primary threat is loss
of habitat. Such loss includes obvious, outright destruction, such
as clearcutting and open-pit mining, but also the excessive
presence of humans, which often causes wildlife to abandon their
preferred habitat. In either case, the wildlife lose access to
important resources, such as certain food sources and potential
mates. When judging effects on wildlife, it is essential to look at
the situation from their point of view, not ours. If they abandon
_____ ____
an area, the habitat is effectively destroyed for them, regardless
of what we think.
__

The primary reason why mountain biking is harmful to wildlife,
thus, is that it makes it much easier for people to get into
____
wildlife habitat. Mountain bikers don't just show up at the
Olympics to race. They have to spend many hours training. And where
do they prefer to ride? In wilderness (wildlife habitat). And what
__________
kind of trail do they prefer to ride on? "Single-track" trails,
which are primarily in wilderness, or at least the most natural
part of any area. That is also, of course, the area preferred by
wildlife. The Olympics are a powerful motivator. When people see a
sport in the Olympics, they identify with the athletes and want to
participate in the sport. Thus, by simply including mountain biking
in the Olympics, you unleash a tidal wave of people buying mountain
bikes, flooding parks and wilderness areas, and participating in
races. As is usual when there is an increase in recreation,
wildlife lose more and more of their (already dangerously
dwindling) habitat.

The bicycle is a wonderful tool, but like any technological
aid, it can be used for good (e.g. to replace auto travel) or evil
(e.g. to expand man's domination of wildlife habitat). Similar
damage arises from the use of the use of other technologies, such

as climbing aids (extending man's reach onto cliffs), rafts (giving
people access to the entire length of a river), night-vision
goggles (making night-time access to habitat easier), etc.
Throughout our evolution, technological aids (e.g. guns, the
internal combustion engine, etc.) have given us vastly more power
than any other species, and the more we have wielded them, the more
damage we have done. You had the right idea when you banned sports
that "depend essentially on mechanical propulsion". Technological
aids have no place (or at most a minor place) in Olympic sports,
which are based on simple physical activities like walking and
swimming that measure the physical (e.g. strength and health) and
spiritual (e.g. sportsmanship) dimensions of a human being, not of
___
his or her tools.

Many mountain bikers also lack sportsmanship. They insist on
riding even when their enjoyment conflicts with that of wildlife
and other people. Elderly hikers are being driven off of hiking
trails they have enjoyed all their lives. Threatened species have
been killed by bikers, who then try to pretend that it didn't
happen or was insignificant. Anyone who speaks out against mountain
biking is attacked viciously, as I have been and continue to be. My
physical safety and that of my family have been threatened, for
simply telling the truth about the effects of mountain biking on
wildlife. Many mountain bikers seem to see their goal as conquering
anything and anyone in their path. I haven't seen such a lack of
sportsmanship in any other sport (with the exception of
professional wrestling and one infamous instance in ice skating).

Mountain biking also destroys vast numbers of organisms that
live in and on soil, creating devastating erosion. One Olympic
hopeful, for example, trained in Brown's Woods, DesMoines, Iowa,
where habitat destruction was so bad that the county was forced to
close the park to bikes. The knobby tires used by virtually all
mountain bikers are perfectly designed to rip up the soil and kill
the plants and animals that live there. They insist on using those
tires even though they don't need that much traction unless they
are traveling at excessive speed, or riding on steep slopes or wet
ground where biking is inappropriate.

The Earth's environmental problems are so huge that they will
not be solved without all of us doing our part. I appreciate that
you are striving to do your part, and are re-examining the Olympics
____
with the environment in mind. I hope you will consider dropping
mountain biking as an Olympic sport, and take another look at all
the other sports (e.g. canoeing, which also intrudes into important
wildlife habitat) from the point of view of wildlife.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

P.S. A larger issue, of course, is whether an activity that
requires the long-distance travel of thousands of people can ever
____
be sustainable. I suggest that you recognize that the Earth's oil
supplies will soon be exhausted (estimated by the experts at about
2040), and create a committee to begin planning for it. (E.g., how
do we want to make use of the oil that is left? Burn it up?!).
Every organization should have such a committee!
_____

References:

Ehrlich, Paul and Anne, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of
__________________________________________
the Disappearance of Species. c.1981.
____________________________

Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
____________
Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
______________


Phillips, Kathryn, Tracking the Vanishing Frogs: An Ecological
___________________________________________
Mystery. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
____________________________________________

Stebbins, Robert, personal communication.

Vandeman, Michael J., Ph.D.
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/

---
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

Edmund Mitchell

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
to


Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in article

Mike, I'd like to address the subject of your posting, that of mountain
biking being an Olympic sport.
You state that the inclusion of mountain biking into the Olympic Charter
will swell the ranks of mountain bikers and damage the environment thereby,
and this is patently false. Many Olympic sports, even some that have been
on the Charter for the better part of a century, labor in obscurity, which,
according to you, cannot be, because the Olympics brings such attention to
all sports contained therein that new participants flock, right? Please
then tell me when such sports as fencing, biathlon, pentathlon, field
hockey, flatwater canoe/kayak and others can expect to end their centuries
of collective waiting for your predicted influx of popularity? Many of
these sports can barely afford to exist on a National level, yet enjoy long
Olympic traditions.
Mountain biking was the fastest growing segment of bicycling over a decade
ago, and was a giant international industry long before any of its
participants received gold medals. Vast numbers of bikers were already
riding, and, industry statistics show 1996 to have been a sales year of
predictable and unextraordinary growth, with the returns for 1997 leaning
in the same direction. Meteoric growth is a thing of the past.
On a personal note, I believe the environment would be best served through
strict population controls, and I applaud your efforts into "wildlife only"
zones. I also resent your multiple stereotypes of mountain bikers, which
betrays a deep ignorance on your part of the nature of the participants in
the sport. Please educate yourself in this area, as none of us are served
by ignorance.
Sincerely
Edmund Mitchell
>

Chris Phillipo

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
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.)
:>
:>http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

Mikey, what sports do you suggest do not harm the environment and therefore
are applauded by you ? Please post a complete list.

By the way, we'll be sure to explain once again to the world who you are and
how you are struggling to keep your pathological lieing under control. We're
pulling for ya kido.


___________________________________________
Chris Phillipo - webm...@tread.pair.com
TREAD Publications - TREAD Online! Cycle Magazine. <07-30-97>
http://www.tread.pair.com/ - http://www.tread.pair.com/bikemag/


Chris Phillipo

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
to

_____________
:>Mystery. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.

:>____________________________________________
:>
:>Stebbins, Robert, personal communication.
:>
:>Vandeman, Michael J., Ph.D.
:>http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
:>
:>---
:>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


Dear Mikey, I'm forwarding a copy of the MJV FAQ to Juan Antonio Samaranch,
also, I will be sure to mention your many monetary contributions to the IMBA.
I'm sure Juan will agree with me when I state that your letter was merely an
attempt at well orchestrated satire and should be disregarded or posted on
walls throughout the office to lift the committee's spirits from time to time.
Keep up the good work boy.

Matt Wheeler

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
to

> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> <snip>
I know I'm breaking my own request by doing this, but please don't
respond. PLEASE! If we ignore him, he'll go away...


Michael A. Fishman

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
to

Run for the hills! Vandeman is back!

--------------------------------------------------------------
A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian.
Gibbon
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Jarvis

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
to

Chris Phillipo wrote in article <5t86b4$beg$1...@news.istar.ca>...


>LLY cared about environmental
>:>issues, you'd attack the primary land users instead of blowing on
endlessly
>:>about MTB's. But that is what you do best, isn't it, Mike? Blow on
endlessly?
>:>
>:>--
>
>We will not see this until these land users get news groups.

alt.pave.the.earth


--
Mike Jarvis
my...@erols.com - MSJa...@aol.com


Chris Phillipo

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

LLY cared about environmental
:>issues, you'd attack the primary land users instead of blowing on endlessly
:>about MTB's. But that is what you do best, isn't it, Mike? Blow on endlessly?
:>
:>--

We will not see this until these land users get news groups. Mike's
dedication extends only as far as his mouse can click. If his pseudo
environmentalism forced him to leave his chain, he would most likely take up
knitting. I admire your dedication Mikey.

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:38:32 GMT, ban...@netcom.com (Brad Anders)
wrote:

I went to last year's Altanta games and went to the MTB
.event. In comparison with the humongous expanse that was hacked out for
.the equestrian events, plus the enormous amount of new construction and
.parking lot areas for the overall games, I'd estimate that the new trails
.that were added to existing trails for the MTB event constituted about
.0.0000001% of the total land use. If you REALLY cared about environmental
.issues, you'd attack the primary land users instead of blowing on endlessly
.about MTB's.

I am sure you and the other mountain bikers, who are such strong
environmentalists, are taking care of that for me, with your own
letters to the IOC. That is, if you aren't being hypocritical and just
saying this for effect... :)

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 19:10:21 -0400, Matt Wheeler <whee...@icx.net>
wrote:

.> Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> <snip>
.I know I'm breaking my own request by doing this, but please don't
.respond.

Yes. Just another proof of how stupid and hypocritical mountain bikers
are.

PLEASE! If we ignore him, he'll go away...

If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Either way,
I win. If you don't respond, there is no one to refute what I am
saying. If you DO respond, you PROVE that there is no one to refute
what I am saying! Thanks for once again confirming that you guys
aren't able or willing to respond to the issues with any facts or
rational arguments.

Dave Blake

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

Attributions are a bit muddled. I left them as
they were in the article I quoted.

mjv...@pacbell.net says...


>Matt Wheeler <whee...@icx.net> wrote:
>.> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>.> <snip>
>.I know I'm breaking my own request by doing this, but please don't
>.respond.
>
>Yes. Just another proof of how stupid and hypocritical mountain bikers
>are.
>
>PLEASE! If we ignore him, he'll go away...
>
>If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Either way,
>I win. If you don't respond, there is no one to refute what I am
>saying. If you DO respond, you PROVE that there is no one to refute
>what I am saying! Thanks for once again confirming that you guys
>aren't able or willing to respond to the issues with any facts or
>rational arguments.


Please. If anyone wants to go on responding to Mike
Vandeman, please do not retread old ground. Mike
has been posting here for some time, and most of
the arguments have been heard over and over and over
again. As evidence of this, do a search on
www.dejanews.com for the subject vande* or the
author vand* in rec.bicycles.off-road. To be blunt,
it is getting old, and the point of the newsgroup
(any newsgroup) is not to repeat the same arguments
over and over...

We have even compiled a FAQ of Mike Vandeman. It
exists at
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/vand.html
To be fair, the bicycling Usenet FAQ is at
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/


--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/


Jeff Schroetlin

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

Matt Wheeler wrote:
>
> > Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > <snip>
> I know I'm breaking my own request by doing this, but please don't
> respond. PLEASE! If we ignore him, he'll go away...
************************************************************************

I think this mike guy is on to something!!! I've been riding and
racing for about 6 years now and i never knew the devestating effects
that cycling had on the universe!! I told all my MB buddies about the
sports effect on the environment and we have all agreed to contribute to
the downfall of the sport!! We are holding a MB bon fire
at the end of this week...... we are burning our bikes and all the bikes
we can round up before then..... Next we plan to hide out along trails
and kick the shit out of anyone we see riding a mountain bike or people
who look like they may have ridden mountain bikes at sometime during
their pitiful existance!!!! After the extermination of all mountain
bikes and bikers, we plan to use the bodies as fertilizer and food for
all the poor soil dwelling creatures and microbes that have previously
parished via the terror known as "knobbies" or "fat tires". I for one
will not just stand idly by and watch this murderess rampage on the
earth's germ population...... I say death to the mountain bikers!!!!

As for the erosion...... why those knobby tired bastards should all be
damned to hell!! I've done extensive research on this matter and I've
found that all erosion is directly caused by satan's sport (mountain
biking). For example the Grand Canyon used to a luscious grassland
until a demon posessed medicene man from an ancient Native American
tribe envisioned and later started the mountain biking holocaust. The
exact trail that this medicine man rode every day has been eroded over a
mile deep in some places!! Death to mountain biking!! Another case
occured thousands of years ago in the western part of South Dakota.....
today this area is called the Badlands. These are terrible examples
that show MBing's devestating effects on the environment. If these
bastards are not stopped immediatly, the entire world will be eroded to
its core and we will all die of 3rd degree burns (which really hurt!)!!

So hail to mike!! Lets all work together to end the terrible reign of
mountain biking!!! Death to mountain biking!!!1

***********************************************************************

The above is only sarcasm. But seariously.... Mike get a life and fight
for our environment in some other way. When it comes to protecting the
environment, i think that mountain biking is the least of our worries.

Jeff

Eugene Chan

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

"Michael A. Fishman" <m...@t10.lanl.gov> wrote:
>
> Run for the hills! Vandeman is back!

Don't you mean "Run to a densely populated urban area"?

> --------------------------------------------------------------
> A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian.
> Gibbon
> --------------------------------------------------------------

Eugene Chan
ec...@csus.com

Blaine Bauer

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to Petras Avizonis (Pepi)

Petras Avizonis (Pepi) wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, what does this guy have his Ph.D. in?
> He seems to really push the fact that he has one as if it would lend
> credence to his fanatical perspectives.

He got a PhD in psychometrics (psychological testing) in 1972 (or
thereabouts). He's never indicated that he's actually gotten a job using
this degree as far as I know. He doesn't often publish his degree
because it has nothing to do with his "cause".

> Pizza Hut Delivery?

Might as well be.

> Although I'm fairly new to the group, he sure seems to have a negative
> perspective on life.

Ya think? :-)

Blaine

Joe Rizzo

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

Actually Mike we don't have to refute you. You come across like so many
over other zealous hippocrits charging windmills. I have showed many
people some of your diatribes and the word "nut" always seems to come to
their minds. Don't go away mad.....just go away.

Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in article

<33f84986...@news.pacbell.net>...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 19:10:21 -0400, Matt Wheeler <whee...@icx.net>


> wrote:
>
> .> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> <snip>
> .I know I'm breaking my own request by doing this, but please don't
> .respond.
>
> Yes. Just another proof of how stupid and hypocritical mountain bikers
> are.
>

> PLEASE! If we ignore him, he'll go away...
>

> If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Either way,
> I win. If you don't respond, there is no one to refute what I am
> saying. If you DO respond, you PROVE that there is no one to refute
> what I am saying! Thanks for once again confirming that you guys
> aren't able or willing to respond to the issues with any facts or
> rational arguments.

Joe Rizzo

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

I hate to say it Matt, but I think you are wrong. I really don't think he
will go away. But I do agree with you. we should just ignore him.

Matt Wheeler <whee...@icx.net> wrote in article
<33F784DD...@icx.net>...
> > Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > <snip>


> I know I'm breaking my own request by doing this, but please don't

> respond. PLEASE! If we ignore him, he'll go away...
>
>

Petras Avizonis (Pepi)

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

Just out of curiosity, what does this guy have his Ph.D. in?
He seems to really push the fact that he has one as if it would lend
credence to his fanatical perspectives.

Pizza Hut Delivery?

Although I'm fairly new to the group, he sure seems to have a negative
perspective on life.

Pepi


Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in article

<33f65bf2...@news.pacbell.net>...


> August 11, 1997
> Juan Antonio Samaranch
> President, International Olympic Committee
> Chateau de Vidy
> 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland

>

Michael A. Fishman

unread,
Aug 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/18/97
to

Eugene Chan wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Fishman" <m...@t10.lanl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Run for the hills! Vandeman is back!
>
> Don't you mean "Run to a densely populated urban area"?
>

No. I mean the hills. See, the consern Vandeman exhibits for
mountain ecology is of such an enormous extent as to indicate
his unfamiliarity with the above---a form of ''limousine
liberalism'', if you like. So, the chance of him following
where is small.

Kevin LaFortune

unread,
Aug 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/19/97
to

"Thus, by simply including mountain biking in the Olympics, you unleash a
tidal wave of people buying mountain bikes, flooding parks and wilderness
areas, and participating in races".

Really?... Do you have some historical precedence or numbers to back up
this statement (i.e. there was a 10% increase in the purchase of bobsleds
after the 1992 Olympics... or the demand for balance beams after the 1976
Olympics resulted in widespread tropical deforestation). Oh, I forgot whom
I was speaking to... Of course you don't.

I seriously doubt that the world mountain biking population was advanced
by any measurable amount as a result of the 1996 Summer Olympics.

First of all, mountain bikes are expensive. Even the department store
variety (along with the department stores they are sold in) are out of the
reach of the majority of the world population.

If the power of television is so strong that it compelled people around the
world to run out and buy mountain bikes, then you should breathe a sigh of
relief. All those "pre-literate" children that got shiny new mountain
bikes after the Olympics probably aren't out squashing Spotted Owls.
Instead, they're riding at local parks.

Did you watch the race, Mike? If you had, you would have noticed that most
of the televised shots of the racecourse resembled a country club or city
park.

The real post-Olympic menace is all the people that took up running. :)

Sneakers are significantly cheaper than mountain bikes. And, if you already
have some or are willing to run barefoot, it's free. Just think of the
masses choking our parks and wildlife areas and the endless
pounding...pounding that "destroys vast numbers of organisms that live in
and on the soil"... not to mention all that well manicured and chemically
enhanced grass.

You know what Mike?

Why don't we just ban the Olympics all together?

After all, Equestrian events exploit horses...

Many of the sports feature "Technological Aids" (fencing, rowing, javelin,
discus, pole vault, skiing, luge, etc.) which are all obvious affronts to
the "simple physical activities" and "spiritual dimensions" of the Olympic
Games...

All of the sports demonstrate mans power over nature... (oh no… can't have
that)

And, the construction of stadiums, racecourses, the Olympic Village and the
throngs of people that they bring result in the death of members of
numerous plant and animal species most of which pass through the
concessions stands on their way to human consumption.

But seriously...

Do you know what has me "shocked, saddened, and embarrassed"? Having to
wade through the sewage that you deposit in this group.

Kevin LaFortune
(I spent the last 10 years riding my mountain bike… And I'm not going to
stop because of the delusions of Dr. Mikey!)

Eugene Chan

unread,
Aug 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/19/97
to

If nobody bothers to respond, he'll have to resort to excessive
usenet bombing to get our attention. Just treat his posts as if they
were junk mail. Don't read them and discard them. Junk mail doesn't
really bother me, and MV's post don't (and shouldn't) either.

Eugene Chan
ec...@csus.com

David M. Benson

unread,
Aug 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/19/97
to
You are correct what Mike post should not bother us as some times he
does have a vaild point. The problem with his post is that he tries and
does enrage people and they keep responding and responding and
responding to the point it get old.

Blaine Bauer

unread,
Aug 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/19/97
to

Eugene Chan wrote:
>
> If nobody bothers to respond, he'll have to resort to excessive
> usenet bombing to get our attention. Just treat his posts as if they
> were junk mail. Don't read them and discard them. Junk mail doesn't
> really bother me, and MV's post don't (and shouldn't) either.
>

Or you can read them then delete them. A lot of his stuff is pretty
hilarious if you don't take him to seriously (he really doesn't warrant
taking seriously).

Sometimes its tough to let his slander and twisted logic go unanwered,
but the key is to understand WHY he does it. I believe he LIVES for this
newsgroup. He's so desparate for attention that he absolutely needs us,
because everyone else IGNORES him. Responding to him is giving him
EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS.

Ever wonder why he doesn't bother other newsgroups? Ever wonder why he's
so dead-set against something so innocuous? Ever wonder why he keeps
repeating the same irrelevant arguments, twisted logic, and sheer
hypocracy after being caught at it time and again? This is the only
place he gets the attention he so desparately seeks. A little
hate-speech here, and he gets flooded with e-mail.

Anyone who wants proof of just how much he's ignored should go to
Dejanews, and search through sci.environment for Vandeman, or better
yet, for sprawl (searching for Vandeman mostly turns up his anti-bike
spam). Mike posted one of his pseudo-scientific 'essays' on urban sprawl
on 8/8...in 11 days, NO ONE has posted any replies on Dejanews.

The MTB newsgroups are all he has. I'm not sure what he'd do if WE also
ignored him, but it would be nice to find out.

--
Blaine Bauer *** Take the "DELETE." part out to reply to
me.***
bdb...@geocities.com (Not representing any corporation)
MTB Stories: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/3398


Cycle America/National Bicycle Greenway

unread,
Aug 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/19/97
to

In article <01bcac20$70f58200$3c96...@vband.com>, "Joe Rizzo"
<jri...@vband.com> wrote:

> Actually Mike we don't have to refute you. You come across like so many
> over other zealous hippocrits charging windmills. I have showed many
> people some of your diatribes and the word "nut" always seems to come to
> their minds. Don't go away mad.....just go away.
>

> Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in article

> <33f84986...@news.pacbell.net>...
> > On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 19:10:21 -0400, Matt Wheeler <whee...@icx.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > .> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > .> <snip>
> > .I know I'm breaking my own request by doing this, but please don't
> > .respond.
> >
> > Yes. Just another proof of how stupid and hypocritical mountain bikers
> > are.
> >

> > PLEASE! If we ignore him, he'll go away...
> >

(stuff deleted)

I read Mike's original post and found it most informative. I gave up
mountain biking in 1983 when the recumbent bicycle let me renew my love
affair with the road. Long before restrictions were placed on off-road
bikes, I had already begun to question the environmental consequences of
my actions whenever I did it on the dirt. Mike has helped me to understand
why.

Pls undertand, however, that I am not against mtn biking but I agree that
some restraint needs to be exercised with regard to how they are used. I
super respect Mike for bringing this stuff to our attention and caution
that we should consider the message and not the messenger.

--
Attack with L@ve!!

,__ _,
\ |-~~---___ | \
| M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
/Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
| 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
/ '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
| '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
| http://www.BikeRoute.com/awake.html {
Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
TransAm w/us in 2000: Cycle America http://www.BikeRoute.com/
'-,_ __ \
`~'~ \ ,~~~~-~~~~~~~~~, \
\/~\ /~~~`---` | \
\ / \ |
\ | '\'

Chris Phillipo

unread,
Aug 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/19/97
to

In message <01bcabf8$e3c66380$888b...@Pepi.thermotrex.com> - "Petras Avizonis
(Pepi)" <pavi...@thermotrex.com>18 Aug 1997 17:02:44 GMT writes:
:>
:>Just out of curiosity, what does this guy have his Ph.D. in?

:>He seems to really push the fact that he has one as if it would lend
:>credence to his fanatical perspectives.
:>

Psychology, mind games are all he knows how to play.

Kevin LaFortune

unread,
Aug 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/19/97
to

You know Mikey?... If you follow the wires connecting your computer to
it's ultimate power source, you will probably find a hydroelectric dam, a
fossil fuel fired power plant, or nuclear power plant. So, rest peacefully
in the knowledge that you are probably causing more erosion with your posts
than I do when I'm on my mountain bike.

Don't think to hard about that one and keep the stupidity flowing...


kats

unread,
Aug 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/20/97
to


:You know Mikey?... If you follow the wires connecting your computer to

:
cheers to you - i have been riding my bike for 10 years - i know for a fact
i do less damage than your average "tourist" (hiker, biker, travel trailer,
whatever).

Mike's arguments remind me of my crazy aunt's(miss enviroqueen) . She
throws stones and boulders at others, but forgets she drives a vehicle with
a v8 engine and owns a property with an inground pool...

k.


Doug Taylor

unread,
Aug 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/20/97
to

cyc...@bikeroute.com (Cycle America/National Bicycle Greenway) wrote:

>(stuff deleted)
>
>I read Mike's original post and found it most informative. I gave up
>mountain biking in 1983 when the recumbent bicycle let me renew my love
>affair with the road. Long before restrictions were placed on off-road
>bikes, I had already begun to question the environmental consequences of
>my actions whenever I did it on the dirt. Mike has helped me to understand
>why.
>
>Pls undertand, however, that I am not against mtn biking but I agree that
>some restraint needs to be exercised with regard to how they are used. I
>super respect Mike for bringing this stuff to our attention and caution
>that we should consider the message and not the messenger.

Excuse me, but his message is an uncompromising and complete BAN of
all off-road biking, not "some restraint" thereof, and a blanket
condemnation of ALL mountain bikers. The message is clearly fanatical
and absurd; the advocate of the message, who endlessly spams bicycle
newsgroups with irrelevant, inaccurate, and inflammatory nonsense, is
clearly a fruit cake.
Doug Taylor
dta...@servtech.com

Blaine Bauer

unread,
Aug 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/20/97
to

Cycle America/National Bicycle Greenway wrote:
>
I read Mike's original post and found it most informative. I gave up
> mountain biking in 1983 when the recumbent bicycle let me renew my love
> affair with the road. Long before restrictions were placed on off-road
> bikes, I had already begun to question the environmental consequences of
> my actions whenever I did it on the dirt. Mike has helped me to understand
> why.

Mike's theories are based on misinterpretation of books & articles. I've
read some of his background material and one has to make some wild
assumptions to come to his conclusions. I wouldn't have so much a
problem with Mike's writings if he would be willing to address the
inconsistencies in them. But every time we ask, he disappears. Then he
posts the same stuff with the same shortcomings a month later.

This topic has never been argued objectively on these newsgroups, at
least not in the last couple years since I've been on it. I don't claim
to be objective. Mike is certainly not objective (if he were objective
he'd consider all sides and not call all dissenting opinions "lies").
There have been others who have expressed reasonable concerns about
biking, but often they are attacked by bikers who have become
oversensitive from all of the brow-beating. I truely believe that there
cannot be an objective Usenet discussion on this the way things stand
right now. Its too bad; I have some questions that I'd like to see
answered.

> Pls undertand, however, that I am not against mtn biking but I agree that
> some restraint needs to be exercised with regard to how they are used. I
> super respect Mike for bringing this stuff to our attention and caution
> that we should consider the message and not the messenger.

No one has ever said that restraint shouldn't be used. Its an IMBA
theme. As I'm sure you are aware, 'restraint' is not Mike's theme. His
theme is total elimination.

There are not just problems with the messenger, but also with the
message. They've been discussed several times on this newsgroup, but
Mike's refusal to deal with them indicates that either we are completely
right, or more likely that there are just too many unanswered questions
to draw any real conclusions. I've yet to see how kicking me off a trail
that is entirely hiked makes any difference from a wildlife standpoint.

Matt Wheeler

unread,
Aug 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/20/97
to Doug Taylor

Doug Taylor wrote:

> Excuse me, but his message is an uncompromising and complete BAN of
> all off-road biking, not "some restraint" thereof, and a blanket
> condemnation of ALL mountain bikers. The message is clearly fanatical
>
> and absurd; the advocate of the message, who endlessly spams bicycle
> newsgroups with irrelevant, inaccurate, and inflammatory nonsense, is
> clearly a fruit cake.
> Doug Taylor
> dta...@servtech.com

Doug, I agree, but Mikey will just come back saying that he didn't say
ALLmountain bikers, he just said mountain bikers. Which is the same to
the rest
of us, but Mikey doesn't think so.

Here's an example for ol' Mikey:
Mountain bikers rule.
All mountain bikers rule.
Same thing. Both sentences state that mountain bikers, as a group, rule.
See
Mikey. Do you understand?


Glenn M. Larson

unread,
Aug 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/20/97
to

Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pacbell.net) will forever be remembered as saying:

> On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:38:32 GMT, ban...@netcom.com (Brad Anders)
> wrote:

> I went to last year's Altanta games and went to the MTB
> .event. In comparison with the humongous expanse that was hacked out for
> .the equestrian events, plus the enormous amount of new construction and
> .parking lot areas for the overall games, I'd estimate that the new trails
> .that were added to existing trails for the MTB event constituted about
> .0.0000001% of the total land use. If you REALLY cared about environmental
> .issues, you'd attack the primary land users instead of blowing on endlessly
> .about MTB's.

> I am sure you and the other mountain bikers, who are such strong
> environmentalists, are taking care of that for me, with your own
> letters to the IOC. That is, if you aren't being hypocritical and just
> saying this for effect... :)
> ---

So you're not interested in fighting against land developers,
housing developers building up suburbs, giant shopping malls, and
new sports stadiums, but only against Mtn. Bike Trails? Why are
we so special?

Build a parking lot, but don't let those guys mtn. bike.

--

- Glenn
glarson "AT" cs.uiowa.edu http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~glarson
*** To reply to this message, remove the animal name from the address!

"Matches. Candles. Matches. Candles. Matches. Candles...."

Kevin LaFortune

unread,
Aug 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/21/97
to

> I am sure you and the other mountain bikers, who are such strong
> environmentalists, are taking care of that for me, with your own
> letters to the IOC. That is, if you aren't being hypocritical and just
> saying this for effect... :)

Hypocrisy?

Judging from your posts and your article, you would be the expert on bias
and hypocrisy.

For example: According to your article, "by definition, hiking trails are
the minimum size necessary for a person to hike (approx. 18 inches wide).
This would be the "Single-track" that you referred to your letter to the
IOC? So in other words, hikers prefer single-track too. Leaving that
little tidbit out of the letter to the IOC was probably just an oversight,
right?

One thing that you don't usually leave out is your bias against all things
mountain bike. It permeates all of your posts. Take this little snippet
from your beloved article: "Thus, whether mountain bikes or hikers cause
the most damage is irrelevant. Restricting bicycle access is a way of
reducing human impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat."

If bikers and hikers cause equal levels of damage along established trails,
how did you arrive at the conclusion that the mountain bikes have to go?
Did you flip a coin? Or, did you just jump there based on some
pre-existing hostility toward mountain bikers? After all, "mountain bikes…
bad bad bad" is the premise of your article and all of your posts. You
couldn't write such an article without the preconceived notion that
mountain bikes are bad unless of course you are a liar.

"True civilization is characterized by restraint." Is that so? Hey, don't
look at me. You wrote it!

I guess you are showing off how civilized you are with your mail bombs and
Spam. After all, there is nothing like a little "do as I say and not as I
do" to bring out the hypocrite in you.


Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/22/97
to

On 18 Aug 1997 15:30:31 GMT, dbl...@phy.ucsf.eduDELETETHISPART (Dave
Blake) wrote:

.We have even compiled a FAQ of Mike Vandeman. It
.exists at
.http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/vand.html

For the record, Dave's FAQ, except for quotes of me, is chock full of
lies. He promised to remove the libelous parts, then changed his mind,
when he found out that there wouldn't be anything left, and reneged on
his promise. But what can you expect from a mountain biker?
Apparently, they can't seem to make their case without lying.

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/22/97
to

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:10:48 -0700, "kats" <ka...@prcn.org> wrote:
.Mike's arguments remind me of my crazy aunt's(miss enviroqueen) . She
.throws stones and boulders at others, but forgets she drives a vehicle with
.a v8 engine and owns a property with an inground pool...

Classic mountain biker "thinking": "What I am doing is okay, as long
as I can find someone else doing something worse (preferably someone
criticizing THEM)! Keep it up! You are just confirming what we already
know about you: You feel guilty about what you are doing, but can't
defend it, so you attack someone else. It's 100% predictable.

Kevin LaFortune

unread,
Aug 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/22/97
to

Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<33fcf5e3...@news.pacbell.net>...

> "What I am doing is okay, as long as I can find someone else doing
something worse (preferably someone
> criticizing THEM)!

Hmm... Wouldn't this be the premise of all you babbling? Blah blah blah.
Mountain biking bad... Blah blah blah... I working to save nature while I
trudge though it on foot. Blah blah blah...

It appears the only person who can't take criticism is you. I've never
seen a head-on rebuttal to any criticism that you have received. Instead,
you always reply with the same self-serving drivel. Something along the
lines of... because you are a mountain biker you are wrong/obviously a
liar/incapable of accepting criticism/evil (please select the most
appropriate response and use it in when you reply to this post).

It's such a pity that a person can experience so much of the American
educational system and not evolve beyond the school yard when it comes to
debate. Mike... "I know you are but what am I?"

BTW: The only thing that I feel guilty about is indulging myself with a
response.

Richard Henthorn

unread,
Aug 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/22/97
to

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:10:48 -0700, "kats" <ka...@prcn.org> wrote:
> .Mike's arguments remind me of my crazy aunt's(miss enviroqueen) . She
> .throws stones and boulders at others, but forgets she drives a vehicle with
> .a v8 engine and owns a property with an inground pool...
>
> Classic mountain biker "thinking": "What I am doing is okay, as long

> as I can find someone else doing something worse (preferably someone
> criticizing THEM)! Keep it up! You are just confirming what we already
> know about you: You feel guilty about what you are doing, but can't
> defend it, so you attack someone else. It's 100% predictable.

Do your homework! Or at least read what you post here.

Miss enviroqueen throws stones and boulders at others while
enjoying the convienences of modern living made available
with environmental harm.

That's true hypocrisy. I'm surprise someone of your capability
missed that. Unless, of course, you chose to ignore it.

Isn't it OBVIOUS!

> ---
> 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

Rich

Dave Blake

unread,
Aug 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/22/97
to

In article <33fcf3b7...@news.pacbell.net>, mjv...@pacbell.net says...

>
>On 18 Aug 1997 15:30:31 GMT, dbl...@phy.ucsf.eduDELETETHISPART (Dave
>Blake) wrote:
>
>.We have even compiled a FAQ of Mike Vandeman. It
>.exists at
>.http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/vand.html
>
>For the record, Dave's FAQ, except for quotes of me, is chock full of
>lies. He promised to remove the libelous parts, then changed his mind,
>when he found out that there wouldn't be anything left, and reneged on
>his promise. But what can you expect from a mountain biker?
>Apparently, they can't seem to make their case without lying.

Thus is the nature of a FAQ. Even Mike's slanderous
accusations above are already in the FAQ. So
you did not even need to make such a superfluous
post, Mike. It is bad form to post that which is
already in the FAQ.

Blaine Bauer

unread,
Aug 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/22/97
to

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> Classic mountain biker "thinking": "What I am doing is okay, as long
> as I can find someone else doing something worse (preferably someone
> criticizing THEM)! Keep it up! You are just confirming what we already
> know about you: You feel guilty about what you are doing, but can't
> defend it, so you attack someone else. It's 100% predictable.

I wonder if old Mikey wan't looking in the mirror when he wrote this.

Petras Avizonis (Pepi)

unread,
Aug 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/22/97
to

Brad,

I also decided it would be wise to check his page before commenting any
further. You're right, he doesn't explain his degree anywhere. On top of
that, his 'letters and articles' section does not contain a single article
published in a refereed journal. Anyone can write letters to the BLM and
add references to the end to make it look like an article, but he provides
very little tangible data. Virtually every link on his page starts with:

"Gentlepersons:

Humans believe that they "own", and have a right to dominate, every square
inch of the Earth"

Talk about lending credence to the phrase 'opinions are like a-holes,
everyone's got one.'

BTW: Mike V., if you read this, I really liked the images of the 'trail
damage' done at the Mammoth ski area. Is there any possibility that you
could include some photos of the trails that go through the National Park
that lead to Rainbow Falls and The Devil's Post-Pile? From what I saw on
those trails, the 'damage' due to MTB's is no worse than that done by
hikers. I agree that there is much damage being done to open space due to
excessive use, but attacking MTB'ers alone is kind of like treating a
symptom and not the disease itself (irresponsible use of land). You will
never be able to achieve your utopia of a 'people free' environment - you
use your energy in a more constructive manner and try to encourage
responsible use for everyone. Stone throwing is one of the easiest things
to do, but working constructively requires thought and effort. Gee, what
does that mean?

Brad Anders <ban...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<bandersE...@netcom.com>...
> mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:55:23 -0700, Blaine Bauer
> ><bdb...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >.Petras Avizonis (Pepi) wrote:
> >.>
> >.> Just out of curiosity, what does this guy have his Ph.D. in?
> >.> He seems to really push the fact that he has one as if it would lend
> >.> credence to his fanatical perspectives.
> >.
> >.He got a PhD in psychometrics (psychological testing) in 1972 (or
> >.thereabouts). He's never indicated that he's actually gotten a job
using
> >.this degree as far as I know. He doesn't often publish his degree
> >.because it has nothing to do with his "cause".
>
> >If you would bother to read my home page, you would know. Do your
> >homework!
>
> I'll help him out. I went through every rant on Dr. Doolittle's homepage:

>
> >http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
>
> And there is no reference at all to the field of his degree or if he has
> ever worked in that field. Therefore, one would not know if he has ever
> gotten a job using this degree, so Vandeman' lies again when he says
> "you would know". One more lie to add to the pile.
> --
>
****************************************************************************
***
> * Brad Anders / Phoenix, AZ *
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ba/banders/index.html *
> * ban...@netcom.com *
---------------------------------------------- *
>
****************************************************************************
***
>

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/23/97
to

On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:52:46 GMT, ban...@netcom.com (Brad Anders)
wrote:

.>.We have even compiled a FAQ of Mike Vandeman. It
.>.exists at
.>.http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/vand.html
.
.>For the record, Dave's FAQ, except for quotes of me, is chock full of
.>lies. He promised to remove the libelous parts, then changed his mind,
.>when he found out that there wouldn't be anything left, and reneged on
.>his promise. But what can you expect from a mountain biker?
.>Apparently, they can't seem to make their case without lying.
.
.BS. The only documented "liar" is yourself. Give us a single unambiguous
.example of a "lie" in the FAQ. You can't, can you? Fraud.

Easy. How about the very first statement in the FAQ not written by me:
"I agree that it is rare for Vandeman to honestly lay all his cards on
the table." (Todd Ourston)

Or: ">How do you think we got here? By something outside the real
world?

That's most plausible explanation for your existance I believe I have
heard, Mikey. My other favorite theory is that you are the unfinished
work of a struggling Artificial Intelligence grad. student who set
loose his software on the internet for a laugh." (Todd again)

Or: "Mikey has gone away in shame and silence
time and again over the years" (Todd again).

Dave Blake

unread,
Aug 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/23/97
to

In article <33fe6528...@news.pacbell.net>, mjv...@pacbell.net says...

>
>On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:52:46 GMT, ban...@netcom.com (Brad Anders)
>wrote:
...

>.BS. The only documented "liar" is yourself. Give us a single unambiguous
>.example of a "lie" in the FAQ. You can't, can you? Fraud.
>
>Easy. How about the very first statement in the FAQ not written by me:
>"I agree that it is rare for Vandeman to honestly lay all his cards on
>the table." (Todd Ourston)

No, this is not a documented lie. You claim over and over
again that you are for wilderness areas off limits to
all human presence. Then, hidden away in your web pages,
are your remarks about how you would rather be in the
wilderness camping and hiking than almost anything.
Todd's section of the FAQ, and Alan Boucek's contribution
are certainly enough to show this statement to be true.


>Or: ">How do you think we got here? By something outside the real
>world?
>
>That's most plausible explanation for your existance I believe I have
>heard, Mikey. My other favorite theory is that you are the unfinished
>work of a struggling Artificial Intelligence grad. student who set
>loose his software on the internet for a laugh." (Todd again)

This is also not a lie. Todd is quite clear in showing it
to be pure speculation on his part. Speculation does
not equal a statement of truth.

>Or: "Mikey has gone away in shame and silence
>time and again over the years" (Todd again).

Well, the shame part was an assumption on Todd's part.
I guess he felt it was clear enough that when you
twice lost ISPs (aol and PacBell.com) and went away
from Usenet in silence, that you also went away in
shame as well. It seems a reasonable assumption,
although one for which there exists no direct evidence
either way.

Alex

unread,
Aug 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/23/97
to

I know we are on the web...But as far as I know America is a free
country. Ride a bike wherever you want.
--
Alex http://www.magnusoft.com
For a great Joke check out http://www.magnusoft.com/ship-it

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/24/97
to

On 22 Aug 1997 20:13:24 GMT, powl...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Jim B.
Powlesland) wrote:

.In article <33fcf3b7...@news.pacbell.net>,


.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.
.>For the record, Dave's FAQ, except for quotes of me, is chock full of
.>lies. He promised to remove the libelous parts, then changed his mind,
.

.Please explain how taking your quotes from a Usenet newsgroup and using
.them on a web page can be libelous under U.S. law.

Do you see the word "except" above? :)

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Aug 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/24/97
to

On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 15:05:36 GMT, "Brad Anders" <ban...@netcom.com>
wrote:

.
.> Easy. How about the very first statement in the FAQ not written by me:
.> "I agree that it is rare for Vandeman to honestly lay all his cards on
.> the table." (Todd Ourston)
.
.You are a complete idiot, Vandeman. Ourston here is expressing his
.opinion, one I happen to agree with.

It is stated as a fact, not as an opinion.

To call this opinion a "lie", cite
.some proof. I have plenty of counterexamples. For instance, I recently
.pointed out your screaming hypocracy of working at PacBell while
.claiming to be an environmentalist. Your response was to dodge the
.question of whether you worked at PacBell or not, and never addressed
.the hypocracy. If this isn't avoiding laying your cards on the table (i.e,
.owning
.up to where your work) then what is?

Where I work is irrelevant to the newsgroup. Are you recommending
off-topic posting? Of course! Most of your posts about me are
off-topic!

.> Or: "Mikey has gone away in shame and silence
.> time and again over the years" (Todd again).
.
.Not a lie at all, Vandeman. Would you like for me to collate from
.Dejanews the many times there have been 1-2 month gaps in your
.correspondence when confronted by harsh reality? To draw the conclusion
.that you ran off in shame isn't much of an effort.

Not much effort, but not VALID, of course! When have I ever showed
shame? Todd's statement is an obvious lie. "Bike Magazine" published
the same libelous statement, which Dave Blake refused to remove from
his "FAQ" even after promising to remove all libelous statements.

Scott Patton

unread,
Aug 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/25/97
to

In article <33ff90e1...@news.pacbell.net>,
Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Not much effort, but not VALID, of course! When have I ever showed
>shame? Todd's statement is an obvious lie. "Bike Magazine" published
>the same libelous statement, which Dave Blake refused to remove from
>his "FAQ" even after promising to remove all libelous statements.

LOL....Mike, Dave didn't post ANYTHING! I did! He just posted a link to
it. Keep posting mike, you are helping out the IMBA!!!

Scott

ps. The page in question is at www.hpi.net/~spatton/mike.html, enjoy ;-)

--
_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _ / _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ Breakfast of Champions
_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/

John Painter

unread,
Aug 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/25/97
to

Ignoring Mike V should be an olympic sport!


Matthew Courtois

unread,
Aug 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/26/97
to

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On 22 Aug 1997 20:13:24 GMT, powl...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Jim B.
> Powlesland) wrote:
>
> .In article <33fcf3b7...@news.pacbell.net>,
> .Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> .
> .>For the record, Dave's FAQ, except for quotes of me, is chock full of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> .>lies. He promised to remove the libelous parts, then changed his mind,
> .
> .Please explain how taking your quotes from a Usenet newsgroup and using
> .them on a web page can be libelous under U.S. law.
>
> Do you see the word "except" above? :)
> ---

Yes. What you state in the above quote is that quotes made by Dave
about you are the exception. That is, Dave quotes about you are NOT
lies. Everything other than Dave's quotes about you are lies. That is,
your direct quotes from the news group are lies.

Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

--matt

John Alway

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to

Edmund Mitchell wrote:

> On a personal note, I believe the environment would be best served through
> strict population controls,

Say what? Your position is worse than that of the anti-
mountain biking crowd. Most of the population rhetoric is
absurd bolderdash.


...John

Ken Anderson

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to

heh, I like this guy....go Ed!

Edmund Mitchell wrote:
>
> Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
>

> Mike, I'd like to address the subject of your posting, that of mountain
> biking being an Olympic sport.
> You state that the inclusion of mountain biking into the Olympic Charter
> will swell the ranks of mountain bikers and damage the environment thereby,
> and this is patently false. Many Olympic sports, even some that have been
> on the Charter for the better part of a century, labor in obscurity, which,
> according to you, cannot be, because the Olympics brings such attention to
> all sports contained therein that new participants flock, right? Please
> then tell me when such sports as fencing, biathlon, pentathlon, field
> hockey, flatwater canoe/kayak and others can expect to end their centuries
> of collective waiting for your predicted influx of popularity? Many of
> these sports can barely afford to exist on a National level, yet enjoy long
> Olympic traditions.
> Mountain biking was the fastest growing segment of bicycling over a decade
> ago, and was a giant international industry long before any of its
> participants received gold medals. Vast numbers of bikers were already
> riding, and, industry statistics show 1996 to have been a sales year of
> predictable and unextraordinary growth, with the returns for 1997 leaning
> in the same direction. Meteoric growth is a thing of the past.


> On a personal note, I believe the environment would be best served through

> strict population controls, and I applaud your efforts into "wildlife only"
> zones. I also resent your multiple stereotypes of mountain bikers, which
> betrays a deep ignorance on your part of the nature of the participants in
> the sport. Please educate yourself in this area, as none of us are served
> by ignorance.
> Sincerely
> Edmund Mitchell
> >

kats

unread,
Aug 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/29/97
to

Mike - disappointed by your lack of intelligent response - does that mean
you have wised up a bit?

Andrew B. Johnson

unread,
Aug 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/31/97
to

Organization: Loose

Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pacbell.net) wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 03:23:38 GMT, ban...@netcom.com (Brad Anders)
: wrote:

: .mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) writes:
: .
: .>On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:02:56 -0800, chri...@home.com wrote:
: .>.Mike,
: .>.
: .>.If you would be so kind as to answer a couple of questions, I would
: .>.really appreciate it:
: .>.1) Do you own a car?
: .
: .>No.
: .
: .Not according to his neighbor. See the FAQ for details.

: Now you are lying. That's not what he said! All he said is that he saw
: a car in front of my house! Can't you guys make ANY point without
: lying? Thanks for helping confirm that mountain bikers cannot be
: trusted to even tell the truth.

Will this flaccid and impotent sophistry never end??!! The point is not
whether Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D., *owns* a car, but rather that he
*drives* a car. He does, providing no end of amusement for his
neighbors, whom he has berated often enough for their own driving
habits.



Reminds me of when... Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> Classic mountain biker "thinking": "What I am doing is okay, as long
> as I can find someone else doing something worse (preferably someone
> criticizing THEM)! Keep it up! You are just confirming what we already
> know about you: You feel guilty about what you are doing, but can't
> defend it, so you attack someone else. It's 100% predictable.

I suppose he *does* feel guilty about driving a car in Berkeley. Could
that possibly be a root cause of his antics?

Andrew Johnson


Owl_Talking

unread,
Aug 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/31/97
to

Found: The perfect place to practice mountain biking... a working
strip mine.

------------------------------------------------

Mike Vandeman wrote: h.

> <snip previous>


> ---
> 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.)
>

Oh, another "Area 51" good for you!

I see you spent the last eight years protesting things you don't
like. I spent the last three years learning about what makes up the
wildlife habitat you are trying to create, and the last twenty years
converting metal into money. I'd like to hear more about your efforts
to find a replacement for the current version of automobiles with not
only a new power source but a new method of locomotion that doesn't rely
on roads to operate.

++++++++++++++=LOVE


Glenn M. Larson

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pacbell.net) will forever be remembered as saying:
> August 11, 1997
> Juan Antonio Samaranch
> President, International Olympic Committee
> Chateau de Vidy
> 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland

> Katia Mascagni Stivachtis, Chief, Section of Environmental Affairs
> Department of International Cooperation and Public Information
> International Olympic Committee
> Chateau de Vidy
> 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland

> Gentlepersons:

I think that we can take this letter as proof that all (or one of
his main goals) Mike wants to do is get us to flame him. What
point is there in posting this letter, which he clearly made
addressed to Juan Antonia Samaranch and Katia Mascagni Stivachtis
onto Usenet? I think they would get the message much more clearly
if he mailed a paper copy to them rather than posting on Usenet.

So, what purpose was there in posting this message other than to
try to get people to respond? Mike has posted these same
arguments before, so it's not to inform us of something we don't
already "know".

Regardless of the validity of his message, his means are truly skewed.

Donald L Ferry

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

Over use of Fertilizers and Pesticdes on Lawns is one of the most
serious causes on non-point pollution. The run off causes algae
blooms in Near by streams and rivers. Once the bloom dies off it
decays in mass and robs the waters of needed Oxygen the fish and other
organisms need to survive. Heck it happens in the oceans too. And
the fertilizers bring about pollution which cases new organisms to
proliferate which may be detrimental to fish as well as humans!!!

Guy McGrane

unread,
Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97
to

Too many homeowners in the US recklessly douse their lawns with
chemicals and overdose them with fertilizer, mowing, and too much
water. This destroys diversity of plants, microbes, and animals, and
causes unnecessarily expensive maintenance. Here are some (hopefully)
easy to understand tips for environmentally responsible lawn care and
some explanation of why they are good. Feel free to distribute these to
anyone who you see overdosing their lawn with chemicals, sprays, and
wasting water and fertilizer.

"Guy's tips for a trouble-free, low maintenance, beautiful lawn, which
pleases the eye and supports wildlife."

Your lawn is a system. That's hard to believe for most people
indoctrinated into the philosophy that a weed is everything but St.
Augustine grass. However, let me repeat, your lawn is a system. It
uses the energy of sun and rain (or sprinklers) to create grass blades
that capture more sun and rain. It depends on nutrients and fertilizers
to build those grass blades. It reproduces and colonizes, sending
runners and growing flowers to make seeds for new grass plants. Work
with that system and it will work for you. Here's how.

Your lawn encourages animals, including insects, to live with it and
help it thrive. Your lawn works better when it has insects and animals
performing the valuable services of soil aeration, nutrient recycle, and
seed dispersal. Many of these animals are too small to seen; they are
the microbes in the soil and on the grass blades; they are the fungus
under the rocks; they are the bacteria fixing the nitrogen in the roots
of the grass. All these animals have more or less specific functions in
the system that is your lawn. Their functions overlap and provide
redundant protection should disease, famine, or natural disaster strike.

The bugs, plants, and microbes work together to create the magic of
soil. Good soil has plenty of dead grass and plenty of air spaces,
giving bugs the opportunity to thrive and do their work of nutrient
recycle. In turn these insects churn up the soil, creating air pockets
which fill up with water during rains, storing that valuable asset for
drier times. The soil system depends on the animals and plants working
together, and requires constant addition of dead grass to help the bugs
thrive and continue their valuable work.

Remember, a beautiful lawn is an interesting lawn; one which has plenty
of different grasses, shrubs, flowers, and their service-providing
insects and animals. This is the type of lawn which attracts birds,
butterflies, armadillos, and all sorts of other beautiful, beneficial
creatures. Diversity is interesting and provides redundant protection
against sudden drought, sprinkler failure, cold snaps, and heat waves.
You can have it all. But you can't control it all, nor should you want
to. The beautiful and fascinating parts of nature; the awe inspiring;
the surprising and delightful are those which are unanticipated.

How can you take advantage of your lawn system? Get out of the way and
let it work! Here are some easy ways to do that:
• 1. Stop using chemicals, herbicides, and insecticides. They
kill your
system's valuable parts.
• 2. Mow less frequently, once every three weeks in the summer is
enough.
• 3. Mow higher. When you do mow, leave at least 3 inches of
grass
remaining to help shade the soil, conserve water, and leave plenty of
living grass to continue growing.
• 4. Stop killing ants, moles, and any other burrowing creatures.
Stop
worrying about chinch bugs and mole crickets. These guys are the
supervisors of your lawn system.
• 5. Plant many different types of grasses and let them grow.
• 6. Stop rolling giant tractors over the top, compressing the
soil and
squeezing all the water out of it; use a small, light mower and only mow
a small area.
• 7. Leave grass clippings in place; use stems and branches as
natural
mulch.
• 8. Only water when you see plants starting to wilt; excessive
watering
drowns many types of plants and animals; excessive watering also
encourages water-hogs that will die if sprinklers fail or during heat
waves and cold snaps.

Guy McGrane afn2...@afn.org

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages