A Lesson from Florida: It's Time for Regime Change!

[Rosco]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:16:23 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:42:35 -0700, Benjamin Flogged Daley
> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> .> .>I wasn't aware that riding a bike is illegal before 5 am.
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .It's nice to see that Mike agreed with everything else I wrote.
> .> .
> .> .Why I won't ride a bike that early? I don't want to be hit again. I'm
> .> .still suffered from the effects of a car vs bike (me) accident. The Dr
> .> .goes into my shoulder about every 4 years to clean it up-all related
> .> .to the accident.
> .>
> .> You should have used the Vandeman riding method. WOBBLE! It scares the
> .> bejeebers
> .> out of the drivers, making them slow down.
>
> It's not illegal. In fact, it's recommended!

I wouldn't mind seeing were you got the idea it is recommended (any article
written by yourself does not qualify) and legal.

The peace officers with whom I have spoken say you are F.O.S. ie a liar.

The vehicle code for California does nothing to support your case either.

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.


>
> .> .Ben Flogged Daley
> .> .
> .> [email protected]
> .>
> .> ===
> .> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
> .
>
> ===
> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Scott Burley]

On 01 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive --
> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
> .
> .So, since there are no areas where animals can survive, what the hell
> keeps .eating my bushes at night?
>
> You are. It's obvious.

*sob* Yes, it's true! All of it!

> .> What is critical is that those enclaves be
> .> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
> .> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to
> allow .> .interbreeding between the groups.
> .>
> .> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
> .
> .Mike, have you ever actually been in a wilderness area? There are no
> .shopping malls or parking lots. There might be a narrow dirt trail,
> if .you're lucky. Sometimes you have to rely on cairns for navigation,
> if .they're still there. That's not monopolization.
>
> Yes, it is. None of it is off-limits to humans.

By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability to
go there.

> .> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of
> that. .> We do it for other government priorities.
> .
> .I see, kick them out, and if anyone refuses to leave, put a gun to
> his .head. Violence solves everything.
>
> That's not violence, just law enforcement. As a mountain biker, you
> should know about violence, especially to the land and wildlife.

Law enforcement = force (hence the "force" in "enforcement"). Force =
threat of violence. Furthermore, "law enforcement" is no excuse when the
laws being enforced (or in this case, abused) are as tyrannical and
dangerous as those you propose.

And for the (*checks logs*) fifth time, I am not a mountain biker!

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

 

[Scott Burley]

On 01 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:36:04 -0400, "v-man" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Pete" <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .>
> .> "v-man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> news:[email protected]...
> .> > *******. I ride daily and almost get hti all the time. Some
> douche in a .> Benz
> .> > SUV almost hit me last week. That would have been payday.
> .>
> .> Maybe the problem is not *always* the drivers. I ride all the time
> too, .and
> .> I rarely "almost get hit all the time."
> .> Often I see riders who invite close calls, and "almost getting
> hit". .>
> .> Pete
> .>
> .>
> .
> .Try riding through Clifton, Passaic, or Paterson, NJ the 2nd most
> populuous .city in the nation. 150,000 people in 8 square miles with a
> very high crime .rate and terrible drivers. The people in that area do
> not respect bicycle .riders as the often show by throwing bottles and
> other objects out the .window at them.
> .Between the bad drivers and restless minorities every ride feels like
> a .mission.
>
> There are some places that humans shouldn't live.

Agreed. We have no business living in the Earth's core, or in the
atmosphere of Saturn.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:58:22 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <2Xn7d.162324$%S.99651@pd7tw2no>:

>The vehicle code for California does nothing to support your case either.

>21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
>less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
>at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
>curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
>situations:

That was written by cagers and no mistake! The complete opposite of
best-practice. I guess we have to rely on the definition of
"practicable" as excluding suicidal riding in the gutter behaviour.

The advanced cycling manual published by the UK government defines the
/primary/ riding position as being in the centre of the lane, and the
secondary riding position as being, from memory, roughly where the
passenger seat of the cars might be.

Only in the most exceptional circumstances would I consider riding
closer to the kerb than the near-side wheeltrack of the motor traffic.
Not only is this swept clear of debris by the car wheels, it puts me
where I can be seen and reminds the terminally clueless that yes, I am
a vehicle, and yes, if they want to pass they have to do it properly,
not squeeze by a cigarette paper's thickness away.

Maybe this explains the following from Ken Kifer's site:

Fatalities per million miles travelled:

US Child Cyclists 720
US College-associated Adults 500
League of American Bicyclists 113
Cyclists' Touring Club of England 66

(CTC is the UK equivalent of LAB).

Oh, and the introduction of congestion charging in London has resulted
in a 12% year-on-year reduction in UK cyclist fatalities.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:53:16 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 01 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
..> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
..> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive --
..> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
..> .
..> .So, since there are no areas where animals can survive, what the hell
..> keeps .eating my bushes at night?
..>
..> You are. It's obvious.
..
..*sob* Yes, it's true! All of it!
..
..> .> What is critical is that those enclaves be
..> .> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
..> .> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to
..> allow .> .interbreeding between the groups.
..> .>
..> .> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
..> .
..> .Mike, have you ever actually been in a wilderness area? There are no
..> .shopping malls or parking lots. There might be a narrow dirt trail,
..> if .you're lucky. Sometimes you have to rely on cairns for navigation,
..> if .they're still there. That's not monopolization.
..>
..> Yes, it is. None of it is off-limits to humans.
..
..By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability to
..go there.

Yes, we have.

..> .> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of
..> that. .> We do it for other government priorities.
..> .
..> .I see, kick them out, and if anyone refuses to leave, put a gun to
..> his .head. Violence solves everything.
..>
..> That's not violence, just law enforcement. As a mountain biker, you
..> should know about violence, especially to the land and wildlife.
..
..Law enforcement = force (hence the "force" in "enforcement"). Force =
..threat of violence. Furthermore, "law enforcement" is no excuse when the
..laws being enforced (or in this case, abused) are as tyrannical and
..dangerous as those you propose.

What's "tyrannical"? Eminent domain? The public, through its representatives,
has decided that it is acceptable. "Tyrannical" is humans thinking they own the
Earth and can do whatever they want to it. Keeping some of it wilderness is
simply correcting that situation -- giving wildlife their due.
===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:58:22 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:16:23 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:42:35 -0700, Benjamin Flogged Daley
..> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..> .> .>I wasn't aware that riding a bike is illegal before 5 am.
..> .> .
..> .> .
..> .> .It's nice to see that Mike agreed with everything else I wrote.
..> .> .
..> .> .Why I won't ride a bike that early? I don't want to be hit again. I'm
..> .> .still suffered from the effects of a car vs bike (me) accident. The Dr
..> .> .goes into my shoulder about every 4 years to clean it up-all related
..> .> .to the accident.
..> .>
..> .> You should have used the Vandeman riding method. WOBBLE! It scares the
..> .> bejeebers
..> .> out of the drivers, making them slow down.
..>
..> It's not illegal. In fact, it's recommended!
..
..I wouldn't mind seeing were you got the idea it is recommended (any article
..written by yourself does not qualify) and legal.
..
..The peace officers with whom I have spoken say you are F.O.S. ie a liar.
..
..The vehicle code for California does nothing to support your case either.
..
..21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
..less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
..at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
..curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
..situations:
.. (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
..proceeding in the same direction.
.. (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
..private road or driveway.
.. (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
..not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
..pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
..that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,

This clause authorizes wobbling. I'm not talking about taking the whole lane,
you know, just making the drivers think I am unpredictable, causing them to slow
down.

..subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
..section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
..a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
..lane.
.. (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
.. (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
..which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
..more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
..edge of that roadway as practicable.
..
..
..>
..> .> .Ben Flogged Daley
..> .> .
..> .> [email protected]
..> .>
..> .> ===
..> .> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..> .
..>
..> ===
..> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..

===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Rosco]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:58:22 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:16:23 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:42:35 -0700, Benjamin Flogged Daley
> .> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, Mike Vandeman
> <[email protected]>
> .> .> .>I wasn't aware that riding a bike is illegal before 5 am.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .
> .> .> .It's nice to see that Mike agreed with everything else I wrote.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Why I won't ride a bike that early? I don't want to be hit again.
> I'm
> .> .> .still suffered from the effects of a car vs bike (me) accident. The
> Dr
> .> .> .goes into my shoulder about every 4 years to clean it up-all
> related
> .> .> .to the accident.
> .> .>
> .> .> You should have used the Vandeman riding method. WOBBLE! It scares
> the
> .> .> bejeebers
> .> .> out of the drivers, making them slow down.
> .>
> .> It's not illegal. In fact, it's recommended!
> .
> .I wouldn't mind seeing were you got the idea it is recommended (any
> article
> .written by yourself does not qualify) and legal.
> .
> .The peace officers with whom I have spoken say you are F.O.S. ie a liar.
> .
> .The vehicle code for California does nothing to support your case either.
> .
> .21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
> .less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
> .at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
> .curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
> .situations:
> . (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
> .proceeding in the same direction.
> . (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> .private road or driveway.
> . (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
> .not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
> .pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
> .that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
>
> This clause authorizes wobbling. I'm not talking about taking the whole
> lane,
> you know, just making the drivers think I am unpredictable, causing them
> to slow
> down.
>
Fair enough.

> .subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
> .section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
> .a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
> .lane.
> . (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
> . (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
> .which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
> .more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
> .edge of that roadway as practicable.
> .
> .
> .>
> .> .> .Ben Flogged Daley
> .> .> .
> .> .> [email protected]
> .> .>
> .> .> ===
> .> .> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
> .> .
> .>
> .> ===
> .> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
> .
>
> ===
> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mr_Kingkillaha]

So do you ride street bikes, Mike? I was under the impression that you hated bikes in general. Since you have said there is no right to bike so they can be taken away or something like that.

 

[Scott Burley]

> .> .Mike, have you ever actually been in a wilderness area? There are
> no .> .shopping malls or parking lots. There might be a narrow dirt
> trail, .> if .you're lucky. Sometimes you have to rely on cairns for
> navigation, .> if .they're still there. That's not monopolization.
> .>
> .> Yes, it is. None of it is off-limits to humans.
> .
> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability
> to .go there.
>
> Yes, we have.

And yet, we haven't.

mo·nop·o·lize tr.v.
1. To acquire or maintain a monopoly of.
2. To dominate by excluding others: monopolized the conversation.

Who are we excluding from the moon who has the ability to go there?

> .> .> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of
> .> that. .> We do it for other government priorities.
> .> .
> .> .I see, kick them out, and if anyone refuses to leave, put a gun to
> .> his .head. Violence solves everything.
> .>
> .> That's not violence, just law enforcement. As a mountain biker, you
> .> should know about violence, especially to the land and wildlife.
> .
> .Law enforcement = force (hence the "force" in "enforcement"). Force =
> .threat of violence. Furthermore, "law enforcement" is no excuse when
> the .laws being enforced (or in this case, abused) are as tyrannical
> and .dangerous as those you propose.
>
> What's "tyrannical"? Eminent domain? The public, through its
> representatives, has decided that it is acceptable. "Tyrannical" is
> humans thinking they own the Earth and can do whatever they want to
> it. Keeping some of it wilderness is simply correcting that situation
> -- giving wildlife their due.

Since I'm so fond of dictionary definitions, here's another:

tyrannical adj
1: of or relating to or associated with or resembling a dictatorship;
"tyrannical suppression of liberty" [syn: tyrannic]
2: marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive
government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous
disregard of human rights" [syn: oppressive, tyrannous]
3: characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute
sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government";
"despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of
the war"; "a tyrannical government"
[syn: authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial, despotic]

Eminent domain is absolute sovereignty. It denies property rights. And
since all other rights are derived from a right to property, to support
eminent domain is to deny all rights.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

 

[Dick Durbin]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .> What an idiot.
> .
> .Insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
>
> I know mountain bikers think TELLING THE TRUTH is not important.

I'm not a mountain biker.

> .> There are no such areas left, since humans have commandeered every square
> .> inch of the Earth.
> .
> .While man may be able to visit every square inch on Earth, he does not
> .choose to inhabit it.
>
> So what? Visiting it drives the wildlife out.

No, it certainly doesn't. The wildlife, if they feel threatened by
the presence of a human passing through and area, will avoid that
human the same as they will avoid a predator. Once that perceived
threat is gone, they will return to their normal activities.

> .By "human-free areas" do you mean areas where humans may not visit?
>
> Yes.

It's not going to happen unless, and until, someone can demonstrate
that man merely visiting an area makes it uninhabitable for wildlife.

> .> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
> .
> .Since I am using Florida as an example, Big Cypress National Preserve
> .and Everglades National Park.
>
> NO ONE is allowed to go there? I doubt it. Biologists and land managers are
> always allowed.

Allowed to visit, but not engage in activities that make it
uninhabitable to wildlife.

**** Durbin

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:47:24 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..> .> .Mike, have you ever actually been in a wilderness area? There are
..> no .> .shopping malls or parking lots. There might be a narrow dirt
..> trail, .> if .you're lucky. Sometimes you have to rely on cairns for
..> navigation, .> if .they're still there. That's not monopolization.
..> .>
..> .> Yes, it is. None of it is off-limits to humans.
..> .
..> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability
..> to .go there.
..>
..> Yes, we have.
..
..And yet, we haven't.
..
..mo·nop·o·lize tr.v.
..1. To acquire or maintain a monopoly of.

This is the one that applies.

..2. To dominate by excluding others: monopolized the conversation.
..
..Who are we excluding from the moon who has the ability to go there?
..
..> .> .> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of
..> .> that. .> We do it for other government priorities.
..> .> .
..> .> .I see, kick them out, and if anyone refuses to leave, put a gun to
..> .> his .head. Violence solves everything.
..> .>
..> .> That's not violence, just law enforcement. As a mountain biker, you
..> .> should know about violence, especially to the land and wildlife.
..> .
..> .Law enforcement = force (hence the "force" in "enforcement"). Force =
..> .threat of violence. Furthermore, "law enforcement" is no excuse when
..> the .laws being enforced (or in this case, abused) are as tyrannical
..> and .dangerous as those you propose.
..>
..> What's "tyrannical"? Eminent domain? The public, through its
..> representatives, has decided that it is acceptable. "Tyrannical" is
..> humans thinking they own the Earth and can do whatever they want to
..> it. Keeping some of it wilderness is simply correcting that situation
..> -- giving wildlife their due.
..
..Since I'm so fond of dictionary definitions, here's another:
..
..tyrannical adj
..1: of or relating to or associated with or resembling a dictatorship;
.."tyrannical suppression of liberty" [syn: tyrannic]
..2: marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive
..government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous
..disregard of human rights" [syn: oppressive, tyrannous]
..3: characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute
..sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government";
.."despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of
..the war"; "a tyrannical government"
..[syn: authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial, despotic]
..
..Eminent domain is absolute sovereignty. It denies property rights.

No, it doesn't. You get paid for your property. But the government protects you
and your rights, so it must have ultimate control. This law was democratically
created.

And
..since all other rights are derived from a right to property, to support
..eminent domain is to deny all rights.

===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 05:27:50 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
<[email protected]> wrote:

..
..So do you ride street bikes, Mike? I was under the impression that you
..hated bikes in general.

That's what those lying mountain bikers would love to have you believe. All you
have to do is read my web site.

Since you have said there is no right to bike
..so they can be taken away or something like that.

There's no right to bike OFF-ROAD. And riding on road is a PRIVILEGE, not a
right.
===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 3 Oct 2004 08:12:27 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .> What an idiot.
..> .
..> .Insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
..>
..> I know mountain bikers think TELLING THE TRUTH is not important.
..
..I'm not a mountain biker.
..
..> .> There are no such areas left, since humans have commandeered every square
..> .> inch of the Earth.
..> .
..> .While man may be able to visit every square inch on Earth, he does not
..> .choose to inhabit it.
..>
..> So what? Visiting it drives the wildlife out.
..
..No, it certainly doesn't. The wildlife, if they feel threatened by
..the presence of a human passing through and area, will avoid that
..human the same as they will avoid a predator. Once that perceived
..threat is gone, they will return to their normal activities.

You obviously haven't read the research. Read the last reference on
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7/htm.

..> .By "human-free areas" do you mean areas where humans may not visit?
..>
..> Yes.
..
..It's not going to happen unless, and until, someone can demonstrate
..that man merely visiting an area makes it uninhabitable for wildlife.

BS. It has ALREADY happened. I and many others have created such areas on their
own property.

But that is a commonly known fact. Human presence drives away species sensitive
to human presence.

..> .> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
..> .
..> .Since I am using Florida as an example, Big Cypress National Preserve
..> .and Everglades National Park.
..>
..> NO ONE is allowed to go there? I doubt it. Biologists and land managers are
..> always allowed.
..
..Allowed to visit, but not engage in activities that make it
..uninhabitable to wildlife.

How would you know ahat those activities are? In any case, it is NOT off-limits
to ALL humans, which is what I am advocating.

..**** Durbin

===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:10:17 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:58:22 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:16:23 GMT, "Rosco" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .
..> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> .> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:42:35 -0700, Benjamin Flogged Daley
..> .> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:07:52 GMT, Mike Vandeman
..> <[email protected]>
..> .> .> .>I wasn't aware that riding a bike is illegal before 5 am.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .It's nice to see that Mike agreed with everything else I wrote.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Why I won't ride a bike that early? I don't want to be hit again.
..> I'm
..> .> .> .still suffered from the effects of a car vs bike (me) accident. The
..> Dr
..> .> .> .goes into my shoulder about every 4 years to clean it up-all
..> related
..> .> .> .to the accident.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You should have used the Vandeman riding method. WOBBLE! It scares
..> the
..> .> .> bejeebers
..> .> .> out of the drivers, making them slow down.
..> .>
..> .> It's not illegal. In fact, it's recommended!
..> .
..> .I wouldn't mind seeing were you got the idea it is recommended (any
..> article
..> .written by yourself does not qualify) and legal.
..> .
..> .The peace officers with whom I have spoken say you are F.O.S. ie a liar.
..> .
..> .The vehicle code for California does nothing to support your case either.
..> .
..> .21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
..> .less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
..> .at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
..> .curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
..> .situations:
..> . (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
..> .proceeding in the same direction.
..> . (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
..> .private road or driveway.
..> . (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
..> .not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
..> .pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
..> .that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
..>
..> This clause authorizes wobbling. I'm not talking about taking the whole
..> lane,
..> you know, just making the drivers think I am unpredictable, causing them
..> to slow
..> down.
..>
..Fair enough.

It will never be against the law to be an incompetent rider. I am just imitating
an incompetent (or inattentive) rider -- of which there are MILLIONS.

..> .subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
..> .section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
..> .a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
..> .lane.
..> . (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
..> . (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
..> .which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
..> .more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
..> .edge of that roadway as practicable.
..> .
..> .
..> .>
..> .> .> .Ben Flogged Daley
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> [email protected]
..> .> .>
..> .> .> ===
..> .> .> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..> .> .
..> .>
..> .> ===
..> .> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..> .
..>
..> ===
..> 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..

===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Scott Burley]

On 04 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the
> ability .> to .go there.
> .>
> .> Yes, we have.
> .
> .And yet, we haven't.
> .
> .mo·nop·o·lize tr.v.
> .1. To acquire or maintain a monopoly of.
>
> This is the one that applies.

Really? Who did we acquire the monopoly from? How are we maintaining it?

> .2. To dominate by excluding others: monopolized the conversation.
> .
> .Who are we excluding from the moon who has the ability to go there?

> .
> .Since I'm so fond of dictionary definitions, here's another:
> .
> .tyrannical adj
> .1: of or relating to or associated with or resembling a dictatorship;
> ."tyrannical suppression of liberty" [syn: tyrannic]
> .2: marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive
> .government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous
> .disregard of human rights" [syn: oppressive, tyrannous]
> .3: characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having
> absolute .sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic
> government"; ."despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for
> the duration of .the war"; "a tyrannical government"
> .[syn: authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial, despotic]
> .
> .Eminent domain is absolute sovereignty. It denies property rights.
>
> No, it doesn't. You get paid for your property. But the government
> protects you and your rights, so it must have ultimate control. This
> law was democratically created.

Oh, but it does. You get paid an amount well below market value, and if
you don't like it, there's nothing you can do. You don't really own your
property. Think about it: You have to pay for it in property taxes every
year, and it can be seized from you at any time. That's not ownership,
that's rental.

And just because a law is democratically created, it is not necessarily
fair or just. More often than not, it isn't. Furthermore, the idea that
the government should have ultimate control, simply because it
"protects" the populace, is not a new one. Most commonly, it is known as
"fascism".

> And
> .since all other rights are derived from a right to property, to
> support .eminent domain is to deny all rights.

This is no small thing. You only have a right to life and liberty because
you own yourself. Someone who is incapable of ownership does not have
these rights.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

 

[Scott Burley]

On 04 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 05:27:50 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .So do you ride street bikes, Mike? I was under the impression that
> you .hated bikes in general.
>
> That's what those lying mountain bikers would love to have you
> believe. All you have to do is read my web site.
>
> Since you have said there is no right to bike
> .so they can be taken away or something like that.
>
> There's no right to bike OFF-ROAD. And riding on road is a PRIVILEGE,
> not a right.

Where do you draw the line? Obviously fire roads are out, because most of
them are simply wide trails. What about dirt roads in general? What about
a deteriorating asphalt road which is no longer maintained?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

 

[Mr_Kingkillaha]

Since you have said there is no right to bike
..so they can be taken away or something like that.

There's no right to bike OFF-ROAD. And riding on road is a PRIVILEGE, not a
right.

If riding on road is a privilege, then it could be taken away. How would you feel if some idiot on cycling forums was fighting to take it away? If someone said that walking was the only way that is acceptable? Im pretty sure this makes you a hypocrite, because you say it's only okay to bike where you want to.

 

[Dick Durbin]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .> So what? Visiting it drives the wildlife out.
> .
> .No, it certainly doesn't. The wildlife, if they feel threatened by
> .the presence of a human passing through and area, will avoid that
> .human the same as they will avoid a predator. Once that perceived
> .threat is gone, they will return to their normal activities.
>
> You obviously haven't read the research. Read the last reference on
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7/htm.

The link doesn't work.

> .> .By "human-free areas" do you mean areas where humans may not visit?
> .>
> .> Yes.
> .
> .It's not going to happen unless, and until, someone can demonstrate
> .that man merely visiting an area makes it uninhabitable for wildlife.
>
> BS. It has ALREADY happened. I and many others have created such areas on their
> own property.

And just where, in relation to your residence is this property? How
large is it and how close is your home to it?

Individuals who believe as you may do what they wish with their own
property. Citizens would have to be convinced, through rigorous
science, that public land being off limits to human visitation would
be required to avoid exclusion of an endangered species.

> But that is a commonly known fact. Human presence drives away species sensitive
> to human presence.

Persistent, continuous human presence may do so, but not occasional
visitation.

> .> NO ONE is allowed to go there? I doubt it. Biologists and land managers are
> .> always allowed.
> .
> .Allowed to visit, but not engage in activities that make it
> .uninhabitable to wildlife.
>
> How would you know ahat those activities are? In any case, it is NOT off-limits
> to ALL humans, which is what I am advocating.

The problem, Michael, is that you have not demonstrated SCIENTIFICALLY
that what you are advocating is necessary.

**** Durbin

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 04:16:35 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 04 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 05:27:50 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
..> <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .So do you ride street bikes, Mike? I was under the impression that
..> you .hated bikes in general.
..>
..> That's what those lying mountain bikers would love to have you
..> believe. All you have to do is read my web site.
..>
..> Since you have said there is no right to bike
..> .so they can be taken away or something like that.
..>
..> There's no right to bike OFF-ROAD. And riding on road is a PRIVILEGE,
..> not a right.
..
..Where do you draw the line? Obviously fire roads are out, because most of
..them are simply wide trails. What about dirt roads in general? What about
..a deteriorating asphalt road which is no longer maintained?

Learn to read. "no right" and "privilege" mean the same thing. DUH!
===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:39:00 +1000, Mr_Kingkillaha
<[email protected]> wrote:

..
..Mike Vandeman Wrote:
..>
..>
..> Since you have said there is no right to bike
..> ..so they can be taken away or something like that.
..>
..> There's no right to bike OFF-ROAD. And riding on road is a PRIVILEGE,
..> not a
..> right.
..>
..>
..If riding on road is a privilege, then it could be taken away. How
..would you feel if some idiot on cycling forums was fighting to take it
..away? If someone said that walking was the only way that is
..acceptable? Im pretty sure this makes you a hypocrite, because you say
..it's only okay to bike where you want to.

Your message is too illiterate to understand. "No right" and "privilege" mean
the same, dumdum.
===
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande