Evolution in Action! ANOTHER Death from Mountain Biking

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Jul 7, 2011, 2:25:13 PM7/7/11
to
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/flagstaff/man-dies-in-mountain-biking-accident-7-6-2011

Man Dies in Mountain Biking Accident

Updated: Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011, 4:08 PM MST
Published : Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011, 4:08 PM MST

FLAGSTAFF - Sheriff's deputies are investigating the death of a
Flagstaff man who was apparently involved in a mountain biking
accident.

64-year-old James Lounsberry apparently died from fatal injuries he
suffered during a bicycle trip from Mtn. Elden to Shultz Pass Road.

The Coconino County Sheriff's Office received a 911 call on Tuesday
afternoon from Lounsberry, who reported he was seriously injured while
riding his bicycle along Shultz Creek Tail Head.

Medical personnel arrived and tried to treat the victim, who was soon
transported to the Flagstaff Medical Center. He was eventually
pronounced deceased.

Over the course of the investigation, detectives found Lounsberry was
dropped off at the top of Mt. Elden and chose to ride his bicycle down
while a family member drove.

The investigation is ongoing.

PMH

unread,
Jul 8, 2011, 8:30:35 AM7/8/11
to
On Jul 7, 2:25 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/flagstaff/man-dies-in-moun...

The death of someone 64 years old has NOTHING to do with the ability
to pass on one's genes. The statistical likelihood that this
individual has done all the breeding one might expect is overwhelming.
Once again your manic obsession with a single mode of activity skews
your cognition right out the window!
PMH

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Jul 9, 2011, 3:54:38 AM7/9/11
to

Leave it to a mountain biker, to totally miss the point, and focus on
irrelevant trivia. No surprize there!

Edward Dolan

unread,
Jul 9, 2011, 4:28:19 AM7/9/11
to
"Mike Vandeman" <mike.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ad7a0f8-19a4-4993...@y30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 8, 5:30 am, PMH <pmhil...@myfairpoint.net> wrote:
[...]

> The death of someone 64 years old has NOTHING to do with the ability
> to pass on one's genes. The statistical likelihood that this
> individual has done all the breeding one might expect is overwhelming.
> Once again your manic obsession with a single mode of activity skews
> your cognition right out the window!

>> Leave it to a mountain biker, to totally miss the point, and focus on
irrelevant trivia. No surprize there!

I will always include irrelevant trivia in my posts since I want to give the
idiots something to chew on. Tom Sherman will always bite even if no one
else does.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


Kayak 44

unread,
Jul 9, 2011, 1:06:28 PM7/9/11
to

Leave it to Michael J. Vandeman to commit crimes and wind up in jail,
no surprise there!

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Jul 10, 2011, 10:31:12 AM7/10/11
to

Leave it to Kayak 44 to hide behine anonymity to lie and slander, as
all mountain bikers do.

Kayak 44

unread,
Jul 10, 2011, 1:32:57 PM7/10/11
to

How is it sander? You committed crime. You spent 8 days in jail. All
facts. A PhD and yet you weren't smart enough to keep from being
another low-life, thug.

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Jul 10, 2011, 8:36:25 PM7/10/11
to

No, I didn't.

> You spent 8 days in  jail.

No, I didn't.

All
> facts.

Nope, lies. Slander. Mountain bikers don't know how to tell the truth.
They just say whatever is convenient to them. You are DISGUSTING.

A PhD and yet you weren't smart enough to keep from being
> another low-life, thug.

More slander. Nothing new, for a mountain biker.

Kayak 44

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 10:57:06 AM7/11/11
to

Oh, my bad, spent 7 days in jail, not 8.

Must suck to be banned from the UC Trails. Now don't get caught
breaking the law Michael...again.

"30 days, to be served on the sheriff's work detail (picking up
trash). No actual prison to be served, if the Sheriff takes him. The
program costs some money, too. He also gets credit for having been in
custody for 7 days. Judge said picking up trash was a good plan for a
passionate environmentalist like MV.
Has to stay off the UC trails for 3 years. "

Shraga

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 2:41:34 PM7/11/11
to

There is a public record of you being convicted on one count of
battery and two counts of exhibiting a deadly weapon. People have the
ability to read and repeat those records, and are merely doing so.

To simply dismiss that repetition as "slander" only makes you look
like a foolish heckler.

You have demonstrated the ability to refute that information, if it is
incorrect. If it is a lie, then you should take some responsibly and
tell your truth. If there is an alternate source of information, then
provide it or you can continue to expect Mr. Frick-Wright's account to
spread, uninhibited. Again, I call you to provide the counterpoint.

When a local park official reads one of your calls to action, or a
conference host reviews your request to speak and consults Google to
learn, "Who is this, Michael J. Vandeman?" what do you think they are
going to see?

It is amusing how you complain that you are censored by mountain
bikers, but in this case the censorship is self-inflicted. You have
only yourself to blame for the result.


PMH

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 10:03:11 PM7/12/11
to

>
> Leave it to a mountain biker, to totally miss the point, and focus on
> irrelevant trivia. No surprize there!

We established YEARS ago that I do not have, have never used a
mountain bike nor do I know anyone who does. And should remarks
pertaining to evolution be irrelevant trivia, why did YOU first
mention them?

Oh . . . er . . . I established years ago; Mikey is incapable of
accepting simple facts when they conflict with his conflicted and
impaired cognition.

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 3:22:58 AM7/13/11
to

You said "You committed crime". That is slander. Conviction has
NOTHING to do with whether a crime was committed. It only reflects the
jury's OPINION. Of course, none of there were THERE! DUH!

You said "You spent 8 days in jail". That is a lie. You are only
quoting someone else who doesn't know the truth. You yourself know
NOTHING.

> You have demonstrated the ability to refute that information, if it is
> incorrect. If it is a lie, then you should take some responsibly and
> tell your truth. If there is an alternate source of information,

The alternate source is me. I was there. You weren't. The jury wasn't.
The judge wasn't. DUH!

then
> provide it or you can continue to expect Mr. Frick-Wright's account to
> spread, uninhibited. Again, I call you to provide the counterpoint.
>
> When a local park official reads one of your calls to action, or a
> conference host reviews your request to speak and consults Google to
> learn, "Who is this, Michael J. Vandeman?" what do you think they are
> going to see?
>
> It is amusing how you complain that you are censored by mountain
> bikers, but in this case the censorship is self-inflicted. You have

> only yourself to blame for the result.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Shraga

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 11:19:32 AM7/13/11
to
On Jul 13, 3:22 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 11:41 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > There is a public record of you being convicted on one count of
> > battery and two counts of exhibiting a deadly weapon. People have the
> > ability to read and repeat those records, and are merely doing so.
>
> > To simply dismiss that repetition as "slander" only makes you look
> > like a foolish heckler.
>
> You said "You committed crime". That is slander. Conviction has
> NOTHING to do with whether a crime was committed. It only reflects the
> jury's OPINION. Of course, none of there were THERE! DUH!

"None of there were there"? What's the matter, Dr. Vandeman? Getting a
bit worked up?

Regardless, I wrote nothing of the sort. Now you are either slandering
me, or you don't know how to read. Neither would be surprising.

> You said "You spent 8 days in  jail". That is a lie. You are only
> quoting someone else who doesn't know the truth. You yourself know
> NOTHING.

More slander, liar. Show me where I wrote that.

I never claimed to know anything. I merely pointed out the most
convenient source on the matter and suggested you refute it. I am
requesting more information. You are choosing not to provide it.
Should I assume you can't?

What do you tell others who refuse to answer your questions? Something
like, "Can't answer my question? Can't prove you aren't a FAKE?"

> > You have demonstrated the ability to refute that information, if it is
> > incorrect. If it is a lie, then you should take some responsibly and
> > tell your truth. If there is an alternate source of information,
>
> The alternate source is me. I was there. You weren't. The jury wasn't.
> The judge wasn't. DUH!

You should reserve the "DUH!" heckle for threads where you are not
completely missing the point.

I don't claim to have been there; I don't claim to know what happened.
All I am telling you, which you seem to find difficult to grasp, is
that an account of the trial has been published and widely
distributed. It is available for the world to read.

At this point, given your inability to read, I feel I need to point
out that all I wrote that it is "available." I make no claims of its
accuracy.

It may surprise you to know that the knowledge and memories about the
trial you have in your head are not available to anyone but you unless
you provide them somehow. Frick-Wright's account, however, is
available, both on his blog and now via a major outdoor magazine. I
ask you again, which is more readily available to the land manager or
the conference host?

So, will you provide your account of the events? Or is it that you
"Can't answer my question? Can't prove you aren't a FAKE?"

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 1:53:10 PM7/13/11
to
On Jul 13, 8:19 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 3:22 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 11:41 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is a public record of you being convicted on one count of
> > > battery and two counts of exhibiting a deadly weapon. People have the
> > > ability to read and repeat those records, and are merely doing so.
>
> > > To simply dismiss that repetition as "slander" only makes you look
> > > like a foolish heckler.
>
> > You said "You committed crime". That is slander. Conviction has
> > NOTHING to do with whether a crime was committed. It only reflects the
> > jury's OPINION. Of course, none of there were THERE! DUH!
>
> "None of there were there"? What's the matter, Dr. Vandeman? Getting a
> bit worked up?
>
> Regardless, I wrote nothing of the sort. Now you are either slandering
> me, or you don't know how to read. Neither would be surprising.

It's simple for anyone to look at your previous messages in this
thread and see that you wrote that. It's absurd to deny it, since it's
so simple to verify.

> > You said "You spent 8 days in  jail". That is a lie. You are only
> > quoting someone else who doesn't know the truth. You yourself know
> > NOTHING.
>
> More slander, liar. Show me where I wrote that.

Simple: see your previous messages in this thread. It's absurd to deny
it, since it's so simple to verify.

> > > You have demonstrated the ability to refute that information, if it is
> > > incorrect. If it is a lie, then you should take some responsibly and
> > > tell your truth. If there is an alternate source of information,
>
> > The alternate source is me. I was there. You weren't. The jury wasn't.
> > The judge wasn't. DUH!
>
> You should reserve the "DUH!" heckle for threads where you are not
> completely missing the point.
>
> I don't claim to have been there; I don't claim to know what happened.
> All I am telling you, which you seem to find difficult to grasp, is
> that an account of the trial has been published and widely
> distributed. It is available for the world to read.

And it's BS. Peter Frick-Wright is a known liar. As are you.

> At this point, given your inability to read, I feel I need to point
> out that all I wrote that it is "available." I make no claims of its
> accuracy.

Your above statements prove otherwise.

> It may surprise you to know that the knowledge and memories about the
> trial you have in your head are not available to anyone but you unless
> you provide them somehow. Frick-Wright's account, however, is
> available, both on his blog and now via a major outdoor magazine. I
> ask you again, which is more readily available to the land manager or
> the conference host?

I know you don't believe it, but people can detect BS when they read
it. Such as Peter Frick-Wright's and yours.

> So, will you provide your account of the events?

I already did. The mountain bikers ALL lied under oath.

Edward Dolan

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 4:24:25 PM7/13/11
to
"Mike Vandeman" <mike.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:75c75ec4-876b-4c94...@y13g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 13, 8:19 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> So, will you provide your account of the events?

>> I already did. The mountain bikers ALL lied under oath.

Mountain bikers lie all the time about everything they do in connection with
hiking trails. After all they are engaged in a criminal enterprise. Who has
ever known criminals to tell the truth. Just ask any cop!

Shraga

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 10:03:56 AM7/14/11
to
On Jul 13, 1:53 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 8:19 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> > On Jul 13, 3:22 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 11:41 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There is a public record of you being convicted on one count of
> > > > battery and two counts of exhibiting a deadly weapon. People have the
> > > > ability to read and repeat those records, and are merely doing so.
>
> > > > To simply dismiss that repetition as "slander" only makes you look
> > > > like a foolish heckler.
>
> > > You said "You committed crime". That is slander. Conviction has
> > > NOTHING to do with whether a crime was committed. It only reflects the
> > > jury's OPINION. Of course, none of there were THERE! DUH!
>
> > "None of there were there"? What's the matter, Dr. Vandeman? Getting a
> > bit worked up?
>
> > Regardless, I wrote nothing of the sort. Now you are either slandering
> > me, or you don't know how to read. Neither would be surprising.
>
> It's simple for anyone to look at your previous messages in this
> thread and see that you wrote that. It's absurd to deny it, since it's
> so simple to verify.

If it's so simple, then why don't you do it?

Here's a remedial hint for you, since you're so lazy: I'm not Kayak44.

> > > You said "You spent 8 days in  jail". That is a lie. You are only
> > > quoting someone else who doesn't know the truth. You yourself know
> > > NOTHING.
>
> > More slander, liar. Show me where I wrote that.
>
> Simple: see your previous messages in this thread. It's absurd to deny
> it, since it's so simple to verify.

The only absurd thing here is you, liar. Why don't you go ask a 5 year-
old to explain to you what the "From" line is for and get back to me?

I also noticed how you censored the passage where I quoted you. Why
did you do that? Apparently you truly can't prove you aren't a fake.

> > > > You have demonstrated the ability to refute that information, if it is
> > > > incorrect. If it is a lie, then you should take some responsibly and
> > > > tell your truth. If there is an alternate source of information,
>
> > > The alternate source is me. I was there. You weren't. The jury wasn't.
> > > The judge wasn't. DUH!
>
> > You should reserve the "DUH!" heckle for threads where you are not
> > completely missing the point.
>
> > I don't claim to have been there; I don't claim to know what happened.
> > All I am telling you, which you seem to find difficult to grasp, is
> > that an account of the trial has been published and widely
> > distributed. It is available for the world to read.
>
> And it's BS. Peter Frick-Wright is a known liar. As are you.

That's hard to tell, isn't it? Based on this thread, if someone near
you lies, you seem to feel it's OK to attribute it to someone else,
liar.

> > At this point, given your inability to read, I feel I need to point
> > out that all I wrote that it is "available." I make no claims of its
> > accuracy.
>
> Your above statements prove otherwise.

Hardly.

> > It may surprise you to know that the knowledge and memories about the
> > trial you have in your head are not available to anyone but you unless
> > you provide them somehow. Frick-Wright's account, however, is
> > available, both on his blog and now via a major outdoor magazine. I
> > ask you again, which is more readily available to the land manager or
> > the conference host?
>
> I know you don't believe it, but people can detect BS when they read
> it. Such as Peter Frick-Wright's and yours.
>
> > So, will you provide your account of the events?
>
> I already did. The mountain bikers ALL lied under oath.

No you didn't, liar. Now you're just being lazy. You know that's not
what I meant.

What is your account of the events that resulted in Ian Richards,
Emanuel Alcala, and Justin Bruss pressing charges against you?

Mike Vandeman

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 1:35:57 PM7/14/11
to

What for, since you already think you know everything?

Shraga

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 4:47:39 PM7/14/11
to

"Can't answer my question? Can't prove you aren't a FAKE?"

Guess you're just a fake, since you can't prove otherwise. No surprise
there.

Thanks for the confirmation.

"\"T°m Sherm@n >

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 9:41:56 PM7/16/11
to
On 7/13/2011 2:22 AM, Convicted Criminal Mike "Handsaw" Vandeman wrote:
> On Jul 11, 11:41�am, Shraga<shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 8:36�pm, Mike Vandeman<mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 10:32�am, Kayak 44<kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 10, 10:31�am, Mike Vandeman<mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 9, 10:06�am, Kayak 44<kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 9, 3:54�am, Mike Vandeman<mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 5:30�am, PMH<pmhil...@myfairpoint.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>[...]

I think if Mr. Vandeman tries to sue persons for slander/libel for
claiming he committed three (3) crimes, he will find the courts will
rapidly dismiss his legal hypothesis that his "word" over-rules the
findings of the jury in his criminal trial.

Furthermore, the judge would likely impose legal sanctions on Mr.
Vandeman for wasting the court's time with a frivolous lawsuit. :)

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

dirtdude

unread,
Aug 5, 2011, 3:31:07 PM8/5/11
to
> I already did. The mountain bikers ALL lied under oath.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Even if all the mountain bikers lied under oath at the trial, the
jury box was filled full of mountain bikers and the Judge him self
rides on sweet single track in the wheelie style, you've still been
convicted of a violent crime by your peers. Facts are facts, you have
a criminal record hence you are indeed a criminal, it is not slander
to identify you as one. This blemish on your record will follow you
around forever, get used to it Pal.

That being said, in light of the 'fact' that all criminals are
liars, making you a liar by default, you have successfully alienated
your self. I'm not recommending that you commit suicide but you've
said enough on this list. By your own words, tricks, traps and BS,
everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie.

in light of your rehearsed, practiced and polished notion of all
mountain bikers being criminals and liars, your violent criminal
record and your lies in conjunction with your... well, lets just call
it paranoid & delusional schizophrenia, i believe it is time for you
to take up a new hobby. You've lost all credibility, nothing you say
carries an ounce of merit because you are a convicted criminal and all
criminals are liars, ask any cop!

Edward Dolan

unread,
Aug 5, 2011, 3:49:55 PM8/5/11
to
"dirtdude" <dirtd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffac82e7-86be-48eb...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com..
[...]

> Even if all the mountain bikers lied under oath at the trial, the
jury box was filled full of mountain bikers and the Judge him self
rides on sweet single track in the wheelie style, you've still been
convicted of a violent crime by your peers. Facts are facts, you have
a criminal record hence you are indeed a criminal, it is not slander
to identify you as one. This blemish on your record will follow you
around forever, get used to it Pal.

The blemish that is going to follow you around forever on these newsgroups
is that you are one sorry fucking idiot. Get used to it Pal!

> That being said, in light of the 'fact' that all criminals are
liars, making you a liar by default, you have successfully alienated
your self. I'm not recommending that you commit suicide but you've
said enough on this list. By your own words, tricks, traps and BS,
everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie.

Mountain bikers lie about everything all the time. What else is new?

> in light of your rehearsed, practiced and polished notion of all
mountain bikers being criminals and liars, your violent criminal
record and your lies in conjunction with your... well, lets just call
it paranoid & delusional schizophrenia, i believe it is time for you
to take up a new hobby. You've lost all credibility, nothing you say
carries an ounce of merit because you are a convicted criminal and all
criminals are liars, ask any cop!

The only criminals I know about are mountain bikers who illegally ride their
bikes on hiking trails. Whenever one of them manages to kill himself by so
doing, I say good riddance to bad rubbish ... or as the Great Mike Vandeman
would say - evolution in action!

Now go fuck yourself and quit bothering the honorable members of these noble
newsgroups. We already have enough idiots here without adding yet another
one.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages