Mike Vandeman

[Sorni]

"Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:43:26 +1200, "Westie"
<[email protected]>
> wrote: <snip>
> > . .Some people are _lonely_ beyond belief. I wonder if Mickey hasn't .discovered a way of
> > getting some attention in a sad sorta way...
> >
> > Then why do you give it?! DUH!
> > ===
>
> Why does EVERY conversation I have with you ALWAYS end with you saying "DUH!"? And this from
> someone that got all 'A's in English and insists that his
PhD
> means that he's more intelligent than mountainbikers. I can't get any,
let
> alone any sort of intelligent, answer out of you. Can you explain THAT to me?

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WESTIE, ENOUGH ALREADY!!! YOU SOUND LIKE A FRIGGIN' FIVE YEAR OLD!!!

Bill "Mike's right: why do you give it (attention)?! DUH!" S.

 

[Westie]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > As I suggested in relaton to his degree, it merely means he passed the courses, not that he
> > learned anything.
> >
> > And I, too, am annoyed & put off by those who must rely on repetition of nearly meaningless
> > unimaginative & trite trite slang expressions. It nearly always indicates a lack of competence
> > with the language and/or no honest intent to engage another in serious dialogue.
> >
>
> Mike has proven time and again that he is incompetent with the language,
but
> his real intent on using the word "DUH" is his lack of honest intent to engage in seriouis
> dialogue.
>
>

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not stranger to MV's stuff. In fact I had him killfiled for a long, long
time until I reinstalled some software recently. But this is my first foray with actually talking to
him. And you know what? Everyone was right. You'll never get anything out of him. I've found it
quite entertaining but I think that I've had enough now. You can only handle someone saying "You
Lie!" or "DUH!" for so long! <grin>
--
Westie

 

[Mr. E. Mann]

"Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> "Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Well, it seems as though Mike Vandeman really hates us mountain bikers, which is ok by
>> me...everyone has to have a nemesis. But what I would like to know is that is Mike a Vegan ? He's
>> so about the animals, it would be quite ironic if he were anything but a Vegan. So, let's hear it
>> Mike are ya or aren't ya ?
>>
>
> Someone-else on the group posted this recently. Puts a different spin on being vegetarian.
> http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html
> --
> Westie
>
>

Thanks for wasting two hours of my time! Of course, I was laughing for most of those two hours.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 7 Apr 2003 08:09:38 -0700, [email protected] (Clinton) wrote:

."Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... .>
"Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
news:[email protected]... .> > Well, it seems as though Mike Vandeman
really hates us mountain .> > bikers, which is ok by me...everyone has to have a nemesis. But what
.> > I would like to know is that is Mike a Vegan ? He's so about the .> > animals, it would be
quite ironic if he were anything but a Vegan. .> > So, let's hear it Mike are ya or aren't ya ? .> >
.> .> Someone-else on the group posted this recently. Puts a different spin on .> being vegetarian.
.> http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html . .Well, it seems that I struck a nerve with Mr. Vandeman
about being a .Vegan. So, while he's ranting on and on about how we are destroying .the environment,
he's doing nothing to prevent the animals from being .slaughtered...seems as though people who live
in glass houses, .shouldn't throw stones. Or let he who is without sin, cast the first .stone. (By
the way I'm not a Vegan, but I do appreciate their views.)

So you are just a HYPOCRITE: you aren't vegan, but you expect other people to be one!
===
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 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:05:22 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On 4 Apr 2003 07:48:21 -0800,
[email protected] (Clinton) wrote: .> .> .Well, it seems as though Mike Vandeman really hates
us mountain .> .bikers, .> .> BS. I have mountain BIKING, not mountain BIKERS. How can anyone hate
.someone so .> PATHETIC? .> .> which is ok by me...everyone has to have a nemesis. But what .> .I
would like to know is that is Mike a Vegan ? He's so about the .> .animals, it would be quite ironic
if he were anything but a Vegan. .> .So, let's hear it Mike are ya or aren't ya ? .> .> This
newsgroup is about mountain biking. Prove that this is relevant .(hint: you .> CAN'T). .> . .I guess
that we could argue that YOU are off topic. This n.g is about .mountainbiking, not (as you would
want it) the absence of mountainbiking. .Perhaps you should form your own group. You could call it
."alt.no.mountain-bike". .I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of why zillions of other animals
.can die in the name of food but a sport must be banned because one whipsnake .got squished by a
logging truck.

It was killed by a mountain bike.
===
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 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:57:29 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:39:11 +1200, "Westie"
<[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message .> .news:[email protected]... .> .> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:19:05
+1200, "Westie" .<[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> .<snip> .> .> .> .> .> .> Typical
psychopathic mountain biker behavior. "let me have my way .or .> .> .> die" The sport for spoiled
white miles with anger control problems, .> .> . .> .> .How can you say this? Is this a fact? Or are
you misrepresenting the .> .facts .> .> .and promoting your own opinion as fact? .> .> .If you
believe this to be true, can you back it observable fact? Or .> .provide .> .> .us with your
sources? .> .> .Or are you just slandering the sport and promoting a lie? Of course, .you .> .>
.have said in previous posts that all mountainbikers lie. Surely you .> .> .wouldn't do such a thing
yourself? .> .> .Could you please explain how you came to this conclusion. .> .> .> .> Observation.
DUH! .> . .> .You respond to a reasonable, honest and sane question with "DUH!". .> .This sums up
your argument, does it? .> .> You lied: "you have said in previous posts that all mountainbikers
lie". .What's .> "reasonable, honest and sane" about that? Thanks for proving my point once .>
again. .> === .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande . . .What are you talking about? .What do you mean
"You lied:"? Are you trying to say that I have misquoted .you?

Yes. DUH!

.Whether you like it or not, Mike, you HAVE said that all mountainbikers lie.

No, I haven't. Show me a quote!

.And with this last post, you are therefore questioning the sanity, honesty .and reason of your own
words. .I think that you have just proven MY point. Not yours! <laugh!> . .For example, your post on
7th April 2003 at 4.02pm: .<snip headers and some discussion> .>The true (sic) is that mountain
bikers LIE. A LOT! You probably see that as .an insult, .>but it's simply the truth. That is one of
the reasons that you are .pathetic. .>There are lots more. .<snip MV's signature> .Even a quick
examination shows that you've said that mountainbikers lie.

Where do you see "all mountainbikers lie"???? You just lied again, 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:30:33 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:30:12 +1200, "Westie"
<[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message .> .news:[email protected]... .> .> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:11:46
+1200, "Westie" .<[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> .> .> .<snip previous conversation> .>
. .> .> .> We SHOULD be happy when environmental rapists get the punishment .they .> .> .deserve --
.> .> .> even if it is self-imposed! .> .> .> .> .> .> What .> .> .> .ever your problem is you
obviously hate mountain biker .> .> .> .> .> .> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance again. I
hate mountain .BIKING, .> .not .> .> .> mountain BIKERS. How can you hate something so pathetic? .>
.> . .> .> .So,... if you do NOT hate mountain BIKERS, why do you spend so much .time .> .>
.insulting them? .> .> .> .> I don't insult. I simply tell the truth. .> .> .> .> .Surely, by your
own logic, you should only insult the EQUIPMENT and .the .> .> .ACTIVITY, not the bikers? .> .>
.Could you please explain? Your post shown above is directed at the .> .BIKERS .> .> .and would
certainly appear to be intentionally insulting. .> .> .> .> Mountain bikers think that telling the
truth about them is insulting! .How .> .can .> .> anyone hate someone so pathetic? .> .> === .>
.<snip> .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande .> . .> .You did not answer the question. .> .The
truth is not inherently insulting. Being called pathetic is. .> .Please explain your logic. .> .>
The true is that mountain bikers LIE. A LOT! You probably see that as an .insult, .> but it's simply
the truth. That is one of the reasons that you are .pathetic. .> There are lots more. .>
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande . .You still did not answer the question. .Whether or not bikers are
liars is not the issue. How I view what you say .is not the issue. .I asked, how do you continually
insult bikers but claim that you do not hate .them?

I don't insult people. I just tell the truth.

.You have, without reason, called me pathetic and thereby insulted me. .Please explain your logic.

Because you ARE pathetic. That's just a fact. An insult would be like calling you a "*******", when
you were born to wedded parents. But if your parents weren't married, then you would actually BE a
*******. Get it?
===
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

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>.Even a quick examination shows that you've said that mountainbikers lie.
>
>Where do you see "all mountainbikers lie"???? You just lied again, proving my point!
>
>
>
Well, the subject line immediately above this thread says that. And that's only one of many
instances a Google search would turn up. And, since you have not determined whether the person
you're respnding to is or is not a biker, your accusation of their lying is moot. Even though you
seem to be claiming that that person establishes a point that you said you did not make. You and the
MadHatter could have quite a time together.

Oh. Sorry. I forgot you don't seem to have any grasp of figurative language or literary allusion.

Pete H

--
The best thing to do with a stupid remark is to not hear it.
R. Heinlein

 

[Westie]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:30:33 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:30:12 +1200, "Westie"
<[email protected]>
> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
> .news:[email protected]... .> .> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:11:46 +1200,
> "Westie" .<[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> .> .> .<snip previous conversation> .> . .>
> .> .> We SHOULD be happy when environmental rapists get the punishment .they .> .> .deserve -- .>
> .> .> even if it is self-imposed! .> .> .> .> .> .> What .> .> .> .ever your problem is you
> obviously hate mountain biker .> .> .> .> .> .> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance again. I
> hate mountain .BIKING, .> .not .> .> .> mountain BIKERS. How can you hate something so pathetic?
> .> .> . .> .> .So,... if you do NOT hate mountain BIKERS, why do you spend so much .time .> .>
> .insulting them? .> .> .> .> I don't insult. I simply tell the truth. .> .> .> .> .Surely, by your
> own logic, you should only insult the EQUIPMENT and .the .> .> .ACTIVITY, not the bikers? .> .>
> .Could you please explain? Your post shown above is directed at the .> .BIKERS .> .> .and would
> certainly appear to be intentionally insulting. .> .> .> .> Mountain bikers think that telling the
> truth about them is
insulting!
> .How .> .can .> .> anyone hate someone so pathetic? .> .> === .> .<snip> .> .>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande .> . .> .You did not answer the question. .> .The truth is not
> inherently insulting. Being called pathetic is. .> .Please explain your logic. .> .> The true is
> that mountain bikers LIE. A LOT! You probably see that as
an
> .insult, .> but it's simply the truth. That is one of the reasons that you are .pathetic. .> There
> are lots more. .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande . .You still did not answer the question.
> .Whether or not bikers are liars is not the issue. How I view what you
say
> .is not the issue. .I asked, how do you continually insult bikers but claim that you do not
hate
> .them?
>
> I don't insult people. I just tell the truth.
>
> .You have, without reason, called me pathetic and thereby insulted me. .Please explain your logic.
>
> Because you ARE pathetic. That's just a fact. An insult would be like
calling
> you a "*******", when you were born to wedded parents. But if your parents weren't married, then
> you would actually BE a *******. Get it?
> ===
> 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

<ROTFLMAO> Oh Mikey, you have sooooo many problems. Good luck and have a nice life. I hope that
things work out for you.
--
Westie "Life is what happens while you're planning to do other things"

 

[Clinton]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On 7 Apr 2003 08:09:38 -0700, [email protected] (Clinton) wrote:
>
> ."Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .> "Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
> news:[email protected]... .> > Well, it seems as though Mike
> Vandeman really hates us mountain .> > bikers, which is ok by me...everyone has to have a
> nemesis. But what .> > I would like to know is that is Mike a Vegan ? He's so about the .> >
> animals, it would be quite ironic if he were anything but a Vegan. .> > So, let's hear it Mike
> are ya or aren't ya ? .> > .> .> Someone-else on the group posted this recently. Puts a different
> spin on .> being vegetarian. .> http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html . .Well, it seems that I
> struck a nerve with Mr. Vandeman about being a .Vegan. So, while he's ranting on and on about how
> we are destroying .the environment, he's doing nothing to prevent the animals from being
> .slaughtered...seems as though people who live in glass houses, .shouldn't throw stones. Or let
> he who is without sin, cast the first .stone. (By the way I'm not a Vegan, but I do appreciate
> their views.)
>
> So you are just a HYPOCRITE: you aren't vegan, but you expect other people to be one!

I only expect that a true fanatic like yourself should be a vegan. You're the one trying to save the
world, but you're eating all of it's animals. That makes you the HYPOCRITE...I think that your
hatred of all mountain bikers comes from penis envy. Because you're apparently not all that
interested in saving the world, just not letting mountain bikers have fun. By the way, when I'm out
there, I'm pedaling. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ? Are you running marathons or participating in
triathalons ? Do you even know how to sweat ? Do you know what your physical limits on your body are
? How much do you really know about yourself ? People who push papers can't visualize the sporting
world. I think that you should buy a road bike and go on a 3-4 hour ride, it would seriously change
your perspective...

You should also check out this website, it gives you details on how to be a vegan...
http://www.peta.org

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 05:46:34 -0400, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>.Even a quick examination shows that you've said that mountainbikers lie.
.> .>Where do you see "all mountainbikers lie"???? You just lied again, proving my .>point! .> .> .>
.Well, the subject line immediately above this thread says that.

No, it doesn't. QUOTE it. You are lying.

And .that's only one of many instances a Google search would turn up.

Then do the search and prove it. You don't because you CAN'T.

.Pete H

===
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

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>
>.> .Well, the subject line immediately above this thread says that.
>
>No, it doesn't. QUOTE it. You are lying.
>
>
>
Neither you, in your mighty spendor, nor I have any control over what the news server my ISP is
linked to. You have no more idea what is "above" a given line on my monitor than you have any idea
of the number of gnats that could nest in God's ear.

Sweeping generalities, absolute lack of data, and the ever-present accusation (often without any
evidence) of falsehood.

These threads all have a sameness about them, have you noticed? Whether a moderate or flaming post
comes along, your monomania lashes out unceasingly. And ineffectually.

Pete H

--
The best thing to do with a stupid remark is to not hear it.
R. Heinlein

 

[Bb]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 18:48:36 -0400, PeterH wrote:

> These threads all have a sameness about them, have you noticed?

Do a Google search of Vandeman's threads over the last 7 - 8 years; you'll CERTAINLY notice a
"sameness". Vandeman hasn't been rational in years, but there are always newbies who think they're
"the one" who will talk sense into him - typically by writing the very same things that didn't work
in the past.

If Vandeman had any inkling of desire to be rational, he would have done it by now. "QED"

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 18:48:36 -0400, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> .>.> .>.Well, the subject line immediately above this thread says that.
.> .>No, it doesn't. QUOTE it. You are lying. .> .> .> .Neither you, in your mighty spendor, nor I
have any control over what .the news server my ISP is linked to. You have no more idea what is
."above" a given line on my monitor than you have any idea of the number .of gnats that could nest
in God's ear.

You conveniently erased the evidence. Typical!

.Sweeping generalities, absolute lack of data, and the ever-present .accusation (often without any
evidence) of falsehood. . .These threads all have a sameness about them, have you noticed? Whether
.a moderate or flaming post comes along, your monomania lashes out .unceasingly. And
ineffectually. . .Pete H

===
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 9 Apr 2003 23:27:08 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 18:48:36 -0400, PeterH wrote: . .> These threads all have a sameness about
them, have you noticed? . .Do a Google search of Vandeman's threads over the last 7 - 8 years;
.you'll CERTAINLY notice a "sameness". Vandeman hasn't been rational in .years, but there are always
newbies who think they're "the one" who will .talk sense into him - typically by writing the very
same things that .didn't work in the past. . .If Vandeman had any inkling of desire to be rational,
he would have done .it by now. "QED"

You wouldn't know "rational" if it bit you.
===
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

 

[Randal R. Gray]

I don't own a motorized vehicle, am I allowed to ride my bike in the woods now?

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:57:02 +0000 (UTC), Laura Bush <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .I think Vandeman is a shill for the mountain bike industry. Anyone who reads .his rants will find
> them irrational to borderline insane. These views cannot .possibly be representative of any
> intelligent environmental organization, so .should be completely discounted. Instead, beginners
> want to see what the .fuss is all about and try out mountain biking for themselves. It turns out
> .to be a great way for families to enjoy nature
>
> You mean "destroy nature". Tell the truth.
>
> and get some exercise .together, without burning gasoline.
>
> BS. They use their SUVs to carry their mountain bikes to the trailhead. Tell the truth.
>
> Vandeman is just providing advertising
> .for mountain bikes and it works. Ride on.
>
> ===
> 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, 8 Jun 2003 11:44:08 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email protected]> wrote:

.I don't own a motorized vehicle, am I allowed to ride my bike in the woods .now?

Stupid question.

.On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:57:02 +0000 (UTC), Laura Bush
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .I think Vandeman is a shill for the mountain bike industry. Anyone
who reads .> .his rants will find them irrational to borderline insane. These views cannot .>
.possibly be representative of any intelligent environmental organization, so .> .should be
completely discounted. Instead, beginners want to see what the .> .fuss is all about and try out
mountain biking for themselves. It turns out .> .to be a great way for families to enjoy nature .>
.> You mean "destroy nature". Tell the truth. .> .> and get some exercise .> .together, without
burning gasoline. .> .> BS. They use their SUVs to carry their mountain bikes to the trailhead. Tell
the .> truth. .> .> Vandeman is just providing advertising .> .for mountain bikes and it works. Ride
on. .> .> === .> 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

 

[Phil.Winterbour]

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

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

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

 

[Phil.Winterbour]

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

I also disagree with you that the fact that mountain biking is enjoyable is irrelevant to your
environmental agenda. Surely the fact that it _is_ enjoyable is central to the debate you perpetuate
on this newsgroup. If it wasn't no one would do it and your issue would disappear.

Ignoring this and sticking to the argument that mountain biking does harm therefore it should be
banned will not get you anywhere. Prohibition does not work as a policy. I believe that in America
alcohol was banned for a considerable time, but that during this time it was still drunk in
significant quantities. Also the present prohibition of drugs on both sides of the Atlantic does not
seem to have been an unqualified success.

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.

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.

Phil