As you may have noticed, I don't post much in this newsgroup, as a matter of
fact, I've only ever posted here maybe once or twice before. I have
however, been an avid reader for quite some time who simply browses the
postings to see if there is anything interesting here.
What seems to be the most interesting aspect of this newsgroup is it's
relationship to this "Mike Vanderman" individual.
The first thing I notice is that fact that Mike seems to be barking up the
wrong tree by harassing everyone in this newsgroup. If Mike was so
interested in forwarding his cause, why does he spend so much time on the
internet harassing mountain bikers and trying to start mud-slinging matches
in this newsgroup? Surely Greenpeace would not be where it is if they
relied on Mike's tactics for spreading their cause. I don't see any
Greenpeace activists in alt.seal-clubbing posting unsupported theories as to
why cute baby seals should not be killed for their pelts.
Secondly, why can't Mike simply prove us all wrong? With the amount of
passion that he puts into his mission, you would think that he would have
some sort of irrefutable evidence to silence all mountain bikers. Instead,
he returns time and time again to annoy a bunch of guys that want to talk
about biking, and then when he gain a retaliation, he posts it again as some
sort of "upper hand" in his negotiations. In fact, it would seem that he is
using the "rebellious" and "aggressive" nature of mountain bikers to prove a
point. The only point he is proving is not that he is right, but that
mountain bikers, when provoked, cuss a lot. That proves nothing.
Do you think that the anti-smoking movement would have gotten nearly as far
as it did by harassing smokers to the point of vulgar language and then
throwing it back at them to discredit their image?
Mike, if your evidence is so convincing, why doesn't it "prove itself", much
the same as the risk of cancer from smoking does? Why do you feel that it's
your duty to waste valuable time posting futile pleas in a small newsgroup.
Are you so disillusioned that you think you might actually make a difference
here?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Mike may have a noble cause, but his
methods for spreading his ideas are fatally flawed. The fact that he
doesn't understand this discredits his own validity.
Mike, why aren't you using your time wisely?
Chris Garstin
Waterloo, ON