Mike Vandeman

Phil.Winterbourne said:

Ignoring this and sticking to the argument that mountain biking does harm therefore it should be
banned will not get you anywhere.

I find it strange that people are still willing to make the assumption that he has any DESIRE to
accomplish anything (other than irritating people). His past behavior certainly doesn't indicate any
such desire.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

"Phil.Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman said:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.> wrote: .> .

I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a sweeping generalisation. Saying
that all mountain bikers "don't like to tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims are
terrorists, or all Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true.

Please don't tease Mike, he doesn't take kindly to reason, he is quite mad you know!

Dashii

Phil.Winterbourne said:

I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a sweeping generalisation.

Actually I think he means all mountian bikers in the crazy little world inside his head. I don't
think he knows any mountain bikers. I think his "human free habitat" means a habitat containing all
the friends of Mike Vandemann. A lonely place indeed.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

I think Mike is just acting out because of "bike envy". Why don't we all pitch in a few bucks and
buy Little Mikey that bike his parents would never get him when he was a kid? Maybe then he would
see that not *all* of us are eco-shredding, trail blazers. But, I doubt it.

--
- Chris - www.skokatt.com
_____________________________

People say I'm cruel. But I have the heart of a small child. In a jar. On my desk.

Actually Mike.. "YOU" are irrelevent.

Resistance is futile....

Danny

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(snip) You are quibbling. Mountain bikers, I know, don't like to tell the truth,

and

Quoted message said:

would rather soften the message. So what? Whether it is enjoyable is

irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" .>
<[email hidden]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> .> On Sun, 8
Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email hidden]> .> .> wrote: .> .> .> . .> .> It
turns out to be a great way for families to enjoy nature .> .> .> .> > You mean "destroy nature".
Tell the truth. .> . .> .Mike, .> . .> .Just a friendly bit of advice for you as most mountain
bikers are a .> .friendly lot: Remarks like this make you look like a petulant child (I .> .know,
I've got one!). One of the reasons that people here don't take .> .you seriously is that you see
things in black and white (like the .> .previously mentioned mentioned child), rather than the
shades of grey .> .that they usually are. For instance your above reply ignores the fact .> .that it
is very easy to enjoy nature _and_ destroy it, at the same .> .time. I'm sure those 18th century big
game hunters were having a whale .> .of a time enjoying nature as they happily shot hundreds of
species on to .> .the 'endangered' list. .> . .> .Had you said "But a way of enjoying nature that
actually contributes to .> .the destruction of the very nature they have come to see" you would have
.> .made the same point, but in a more reasoned and balanced manner. .> .> You are quibbling.
Mountain bikers, I know, don't like to tell the truth, and .> would rather soften the message. So
what? Whether it is enjoyable is irrelevant. . .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know",
rather than a .sweeping generalisation. Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .tell the
truth" would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither
of which are true.

Where did you see the word "all" in my statement? But frankly, every mountain biker I have met has
lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but I haven't met them.

.In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .(and other forms of out
door activities) by working with the people .involved to find ways of allowing them to continue to
enjoy their chosen .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental impact.

I have: stay on paved roads! People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before mountain biking
was invented.

.By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .all that happens is that
attitudes harden and the various parties become .more entrenched in their views.

Oh, sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right.

.Phil

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On 16 Jun 2003 14:49:15 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, Phil.Winterbourne wrote: . .> Ignoring this and sticking to the
argument that mountain biking does .> harm therefore it should be banned will not get you anywhere.
. .I find it strange that people are still willing to make the assumption .that he has any DESIRE to
accomplish anything (other than irritating .people). His past behavior certainly doesn't indicate
any such desire.

Notice that mountain bikers LOVE making VAGUE accusations, with not a shred of evidence. Saves them
from certain embarrassment....
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:59:31 GMT, Skokatt <skokatt@[no_spam]skokatt.com> wrote:

.I think Mike is just acting out because of "bike envy". Why don't we all .pitch in a few bucks and
buy Little Mikey that bike his parents would never .get him when he was a kid? Maybe then he would
see that not *all* of us .are eco-shredding, trail blazers. But, I doubt it.

I was riding a bike long before you were born, sonny.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" .>
<[email hidden]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> .> On Sun, 8
Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.> .> wrote: .> .> .> . .> .> It turns out to be a great way for families to enjoy nature .> .> .>
.> > You mean "destroy nature". Tell the truth. .> . .> .Mike, .> . .> .Just a friendly bit of
advice for you as most mountain bikers are a .> .friendly lot: Remarks like this make you look
like a petulant child

(I

Quoted message said:

.> .know, I've got one!). One of the reasons that people here don't take .> .you seriously is that
you see things in black and white (like the .> .previously mentioned mentioned child), rather than
the shades of grey .> .that they usually are. For instance your above reply ignores the fact .>
.that it is very easy to enjoy nature _and_ destroy it, at the same .> .time. I'm sure those 18th
century big game hunters were having a

whale

Quoted message said:

.> .of a time enjoying nature as they happily shot hundreds of species on

to

Quoted message said:

.> .the 'endangered' list. .> . .> .Had you said "But a way of enjoying nature that actually
contributes

to

Quoted message said:

.> .the destruction of the very nature they have come to see" you would

have

Quoted message said:

.> .made the same point, but in a more reasoned and balanced manner. .> .> You are quibbling.
Mountain bikers, I know, don't like to tell the

truth, and

Quoted message said:

.> would rather soften the message. So what? Whether it is enjoyable is

irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

. .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a .sweeping generalisation.
Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims
are terrorists, or all .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true.

Where did you see the word "all" in my statement? But frankly, every

mountain

Quoted message said:

biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but

I

Quoted message said:

haven't met them.

Poor guy is paranoid also, everyone lies to him and only he has the ability to discern the
real truth!

Possible Narcissistic personality disorder.

Quite mad really!

Dashii

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

. .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a .sweeping generalisation.
Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims
are terrorists, or all .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true.

Where did you see the word "all" in my statement?

I didn't, that's why I assumed that you didn't mean all.

Quoted message said:

But frankly, every mountain biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one
SOMEWHERE, but

I

Quoted message said:

haven't met them.

I wont dispute what you say as I don't know the bikers you have met. I am surprised though as I
can't recall any lie that any biking friend of mine has told. That being said I doubt than anyone is
completely truthful all the time so you might be right. But I see no reason to think that mountain
bikers are any worse in this regard than anyone else.

Quoted message said:

.In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .(and other forms of out
door activities) by working with the people .involved to find ways of allowing them to continue to
enjoy their chosen .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental impact.

I have: stay on paved roads!

Unless you have arrived at this solution by an ongoing and collaborative discussion with a
representative group of mountain bikers, and they have agreed that this is the best solution I can't
really see how you can say "I have".

Quoted message said:

People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before mountain biking was invented.

I might be wrong, but I think that bicycles pre-dated paved roads? And importantly in large areas of
the world there are no, or very few paved roads to use. For example many of the small Greek villages
I rode through in Kos (a small island) in 2001 have no access from paved roads and Donkeys and
bicycles seemed to be the transport of choice.

Quoted message said:

.By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .all that happens is that
attitudes harden and the various parties become .more entrenched in their views.

Oh, sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right.

No, that's not what I said. The theory I describe is that when attempting to negotiate with a
group that hold views that you wish to change antagonism is unlikely to be productive. It tends
to make the group more entrenched and less likely to change their views, and at worst can lead to
them taking a position further away from your desired state than they were before you started. I
refer here to all parties in the discussion, so that's mountain bikers as well as yourself in
this example.

I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your approach you are actually making
it less likley that mountain bikers will come round to you way of thinking, and in some individual
cases it is possible that they will move further away form your view.

Phil

"Phil Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your

approach

Quoted message said:

you are actually making it less likley that mountain bikers will come

round

Quoted message said:

to you way of thinking, and in some individual cases it is possible that they will move further
away form your view.

Phil

Please quit teasing Mikey, he is quite mad you know!

Dashii

Phil Winterbourne said:

I wont dispute what you say as I don't know the bikers you have met. I am surprised though as I
can't recall any lie that any biking friend of mine has told. That being said I doubt than anyone
is completely truthful all the time so you might be right. But I see no reason to think that
mountain bikers are any worse in this regard than anyone else.

Mikey defines lying as not agreeing with him completely. By that definition, even he is a
liar at times.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .(and other forms of
out door activities) by working with the people .involved to find ways of allowing them to
continue to enjoy their chosen .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental
impact.

I have: stay on paved roads!

Unless you have arrived at this solution by an ongoing and collaborative discussion with a
representative group of mountain bikers, and they have agreed that this is the best solution I
can't really see how you can say "I have".

He discussed it with the only person whose opinion he respects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before mountain biking was invented.

I might be wrong, but I think that bicycles pre-dated paved roads? And importantly in large areas
of the world there are no, or very few paved roads to use. For example many of the small Greek
villages I rode through in Kos (a small island) in 2001 have no access from paved roads and Donkeys
and bicycles seemed to be the transport of choice.

Quoted message said:

In the US, bicycles were the impetus for the paving of roads, as opposed to dirt, gravel or
cobblestones. Little did they know that the automobile was just a few years behind them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .all that happens is
that attitudes harden and the various parties become .more entrenched in their views.

Oh, sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right.

No, that's not what I said. The theory I describe is that when attempting to negotiate with a
group that hold views that you wish to change antagonism is unlikely to be productive. It tends
to make the group more entrenched and less likely to change their views, and at worst can lead to
them taking a position further away from your desired state than they were before you started. I
refer here to all parties in the discussion, so that's mountain bikers as well as yourself in
this example.

I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your approach you are actually
making it less likley that mountain bikers will come round to you way of thinking, and in some
individual cases it is possible that they will move further away form your view.

Almost everyone, other than Mikey, understands that and agrees with that.

He obviously does not care about being effective.

Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:21:49 GMT, "Dashi Toshii" <[email hidden]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
."]news:[email hidden]... .> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100,
"Phil.Winterbourne" .> <[email hidden]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .> .> .> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:55:59 +0100, "Phil.Winterbourne" .> .>
<[email hidden]> wrote: .> .> .> .> . .> .> . .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> .>
.> .> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" .<[email hidden]> .> .> .> wrote: .>
.> .> .> .> . .> .> .> It turns out to be a great way for families to enjoy nature .> .> .> .> .> .>

Quoted message said:

You mean "destroy nature". Tell the truth. .> .> . .> .> .Mike, .> .> . .> .> .Just a friendly bit

of advice for you as most mountain bikers are a .> .> .friendly lot: Remarks like this make you look
like a petulant child .(I .> .> .know, I've got one!). One of the reasons that people here don't
take .> .> .you seriously is that you see things in black and white (like the .> .> .previously
mentioned mentioned child), rather than the shades of grey .> .> .that they usually are. For
instance your above reply ignores the fact .> .> .that it is very easy to enjoy nature _and_ destroy
it, at the same .> .> .time. I'm sure those 18th century big game hunters were having a .whale .> .>
.of a time enjoying nature as they happily shot hundreds of species on .to .> .> .the 'endangered'
list. .> .> . .> .> .Had you said "But a way of enjoying nature that actually contributes .to .> .>
.the destruction of the very nature they have come to see" you would .have .> .> .made the same
point, but in a more reasoned and balanced manner. .> .> .> .> You are quibbling. Mountain bikers, I
know, don't like to tell the .truth, and .> .> would rather soften the message. So what? Whether it
is enjoyable is .irrelevant. .> . .> .I assume you mean "mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than
a .> .sweeping generalisation. Saying that all mountain bikers "don't like to .> .tell the truth"
would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all .> .Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of
which are true. .> .> Where did you see the word "all" in my statement? But frankly, every .mountain
.> biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but .I .> haven't met them.
. .Poor guy is paranoid also, everyone lies to him and only he has the ability .to discern the real
truth! . .Possible Narcissistic personality disorder. . .Quite mad really! . .Dashii

Thanks for proving my point.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:58:58 +0000 (UTC), "Phil Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
."]news:[email hidden]... .> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:41:18 +0100,
"Phil.Winterbourne" .> <[email hidden]> wrote: .[snip] .> . .> .I assume you mean
"mountain bikers _that_ I know", rather than a .> .sweeping generalisation. Saying that all mountain
bikers "don't like to .> .tell the truth" would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all .>
.Frenchmen are anti America. Neither of which are true. .> .> Where did you see the word "all" in my
statement? . .I didn't, that's why I assumed that you didn't mean all. . .> But frankly, every
mountain .> biker I have met has lied. 100% There may be an honest one SOMEWHERE, but .I .> haven't
met them. . .I wont dispute what you say as I don't know the bikers you have met. I am .surprised
though as I can't recall any lie that any biking friend of mine .has told. That being said I doubt
than anyone is completely truthful all the .time so you might be right. But I see no reason to think
that mountain .bikers are any worse in this regard than anyone else.

You are right, used car salesmen probably tell as many lies as mountain bikers. Both are trying to
do something they shouldn't. If they told the truth, they couldn't be successful!

.> .In my view you are more likely to reduce the harm done by mountain bikes .> .(and other forms of
out door activities) by working with the people .> .involved to find ways of allowing them to
continue to enjoy their chosen .> .pursuit while doing so in a way which reduces the environmental
impact. .> .> I have: stay on paved roads! . .Unless you have arrived at this solution by an ongoing
and collaborative .discussion with a representative group of mountain bikers, and they have .agreed
that this is the best solution I can't really see how you can say "I .have".

I have.

.> People managed to enjoy it for 100 years, before .> mountain biking was invented. . .I might be
wrong, but I think that bicycles pre-dated paved roads? And .importantly in large areas of the world
there are no, or very few paved .roads to use. For example many of the small Greek villages I rode
through .in Kos (a small island) in 2001 have no access from paved roads and Donkeys .and bicycles
seemed to be the transport of choice.

In that case, at least stay out of natural areas. But dirt roads in Greece don't excuse mountain
biking in U.S. parks. DUH!

.> .By adopting an antagonistic approach, as I have seen you do frequently, .> .all that happens is
that attitudes harden and the various parties become .> .more entrenched in their views. .> .> Oh,
sure. Mountain bikers' attitides and behavior are all MY fault. Right. . .No, that's not what I
said. The theory I describe is that when attempting .to negotiate with a group that hold views that
you wish to change antagonism .is unlikely to be productive.

I don't antagonize. I just tell the truth. Mountain bikers just can't stand that.

It tends to make the group more entrenched .and less likely to change their views, and at worst can
lead to them taking .a position further away from your desired state than they were before you
.started. I refer here to all parties in the discussion, so that's mountain .bikers as well as
yourself in this example. . .I think that what I am saying is that by being antagonistic in your
approach .you are actually making it less likley that mountain bikers will come round .to you way
of thinking, and in some individual cases it is possible that .they will move further away form
your view.

Like ALL people who make this claim, you CONVENIENTLY have never tried what you are claiming that I
should do.... Nor will you EVER do it. Hypocrite.

.Phil .

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

"Phil Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> once again banged his head on a wall in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Phil, Phil, Phil,

You feel better yet? Get it out of your system..... take a deep breath..... now go out and ride.

Marty

Martees said:

"Phil Winterbourne" <[email hidden]> once again banged his head on a wall in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Phil, Phil, Phil,

You feel better yet? Get it out of your system..... take a deep breath..... now go out and ride.

Marty

Oh I did, apart from being an experiment in rational debate with Mike which as I suspected seems a
fairly fruitless activity all this got me nicely fired up for the saab/salomon Mountain Mayhem this
weekend (in the UK). It's the biggest 24 hour race in the world (they claim) and I needed something
to occupy my brain while dragging up the nastier climbs at three o'clock in the morning :-)

I might try with one more post for MV though, you know just for fun!

Phil