Mountain Biker Ignores "Closed" Sign, Falls Off Cliff

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:14:54 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..Posted by Thom on September 20, 2001 at 23:42:51:
..
..In Reply to: Steele Pass (forgot the link) posted by randall on September
..20, 2001 at 18:16:24:
..
..This Vandeman guy was first brought to my attention a couple years ago.
..Namely a web-buddy of the 4wd type clued me into him. Basically your
..standard over-educated arrogant jerk with no constructive hobbies, stuck in
..a job determined to be "vastly beneath him." This link may be outdated.
..
..http://www.plain.net/~rbor/mjvande/
..
..According to my friend:
..there's a true lunatic on a newsgroup i check (rec.backcountry), this guy
..wants pure wilderness everywhere and takes every opportunity to attack
..mountainbikers that he can. he has had several isp's cancel his accounts
..for abuse; he levels some immature personal attacks; his neighbor posted
..notes
..that the guy wants all cars in the bay area "bombed" because his cat ran
..into the street and got run over; and he fabricates science. the guy is a
..PHD and 35-yr programmer at pacbell! the bike crowd even built a "michael
..vandemann, phd" page to expose him. he is a poster child for pure idiocy
..and blind allegiance to a cause. i encourage you to check out that ng, very
..entertaining (the mtb groups are a hoot too, can't wait til he comes over.
..
..
..
.._______________________________________________
..Oh Mikey, you couldn't even be responsibility for a cat,
..how ya gonna save mother nature?

Oh, right. All anonymous posts are factual. 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

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:14:54 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .Posted by Thom on September 20, 2001 at 23:42:51:
> .
> .In Reply to: Steele Pass (forgot the link) posted by randall on September
> .20, 2001 at 18:16:24:
> .
> .This Vandeman guy was first brought to my attention a couple years ago.
> .Namely a web-buddy of the 4wd type clued me into him. Basically your
> .standard over-educated arrogant jerk with no constructive hobbies, stuck in
> .a job determined to be "vastly beneath him." This link may be outdated.
> .
> .http://www.plain.net/~rbor/mjvande/
> .
> .According to my friend:
> .there's a true lunatic on a newsgroup i check (rec.backcountry), this guy
> .wants pure wilderness everywhere and takes every opportunity to attack
> .mountainbikers that he can. he has had several isp's cancel his accounts
> .for abuse; he levels some immature personal attacks; his neighbor posted
> .notes
> .that the guy wants all cars in the bay area "bombed" because his cat ran
> .into the street and got run over; and he fabricates science. the guy is a
> .PHD and 35-yr programmer at pacbell! the bike crowd even built a "michael
> .vandemann, phd" page to expose him. he is a poster child for pure idiocy
> .and blind allegiance to a cause. i encourage you to check out that ng, very
> .entertaining (the mtb groups are a hoot too, can't wait til he comes over.
> .
> .
> .
> ._______________________________________________
> .Oh Mikey, you couldn't even be responsibility for a cat,
> .how ya gonna save mother nature?
>
> Oh, right. All anonymous posts are factual. Right.
> ===

They must be mike. All your fan mail where they agree with you is
anonymous and posted here by you with thier information removed so it
must be factual.

Jason

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:34:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:57:06 -0700, Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> .
> .> .> Of course Patty neglected to mention that the trail was marked
> .> "closed", due to
> .> .> this danger.
> .> .
> .> .The road (not trail) is marked 'closed' to car traffic and barriers
are
> .> .up at each end.
> .> .However, there are deliberate gaps so that walkers and bicyclists can
> .> .continue to use the road and such use is permitted.
> .>
> .> BS. Closed is closed.
> .>
> .
> .Clearly a lie.
> .
> .1.) the article does not describe the status of the road, open or closed.
>
> So what? It was marked "closed".
>

That is not a known condition as reported in the article. It is only known
because you said so, and you are a known liar.



> .2.) the article clearly describes the route as a road, not a trail
> .3.) if the route was indeed a road, then the road can be closed to cars
and
> .trucks, but open to pedestrians and bicycles. Closed can be conditional,
and
> .often is. But, you are the guy that thinks Day Use means to be used in
> .daylight hours.
>
> It was closed to everyone. The mountain biker ignored the sign, as
mountain
> bikers frequently do.

Again, this is what you say, but there is no evidence, beyond your
assertion, that it is true. I have seen thousands of Road Closed signs that
werre only meant to prevent automobile traffic. Indeed. some of the best
hiking is on the other side of a Road Closed sign.

 

[Gary S.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:17:34 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:34:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> .news:[email protected]...
>> .> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:57:06 -0700, Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> .>
>> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> .> .
>> .> .> Of course Patty neglected to mention that the trail was marked
>> .> "closed", due to
>> .> .> this danger.
>> .> .
>> .> .The road (not trail) is marked 'closed' to car traffic and barriers
>are
>> .> .up at each end.
>> .> .However, there are deliberate gaps so that walkers and bicyclists can
>> .> .continue to use the road and such use is permitted.
>> .>
>> .> BS. Closed is closed.
>> .>
>> .Clearly a lie.
>> .
>> .1.) the article does not describe the status of the road, open or closed.
>>
>> So what? It was marked "closed".
>>
>That is not a known condition as reported in the article. It is only known
>because you said so, and you are a known liar.
>
>> .2.) the article clearly describes the route as a road, not a trail
>> .3.) if the route was indeed a road, then the road can be closed to cars
>and
>> .trucks, but open to pedestrians and bicycles. Closed can be conditional,
>and
>> .often is. But, you are the guy that thinks Day Use means to be used in
>> .daylight hours.
>>
>> It was closed to everyone. The mountain biker ignored the sign, as
>mountain
>> bikers frequently do.
>
>Again, this is what you say, but there is no evidence, beyond your
>assertion, that it is true. I have seen thousands of Road Closed signs that
>werre only meant to prevent automobile traffic. Indeed. some of the best
>hiking is on the other side of a Road Closed sign.
>
Or skiing, etc, etc.

In NH, each Fall they close off certain roads which are not plowed or
maintained in the winter. They are still open to snowmobilers, XC
skiers, hikers, snowshoers, and dogsledders.

Many parks and forests have fire roads which are gated to restrict
non-official car access, but are open to all types of non-motorized
travel.

In Boston, each summer Sunday they close off Memorial Drive along the
Cambridge side of the Charles River to car traffic. Or as a friend of
mine says, they open it to pedestrians and cyclists.

There are various parkways around this area which are closed to
commercial vehicles and trucks over a certain size. Completely open to
regular passenger cars.

Closed can mean many things, and Mikie's glib assertion that "closed
means closed to all use".

In this case, "Closed" refers to Mikie's mind. He is not capable of
accepting any new information, especially if it contradicts his
preexisting beliefs. Yet he calls himself a scientist.

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

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

 

[JP]

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

> .According to my friend:
> .there's a true lunatic on a newsgroup i check (rec.backcountry), this guy
> .wants pure wilderness everywhere and takes every opportunity to attack
> .mountainbikers that he can. he has had several isp's cancel his accounts
> .for abuse; he levels some immature personal attacks; his neighbor posted
> .notes
> .that the guy wants all cars in the bay area "bombed" because his cat ran
> .into the street and got run over; and he fabricates science. the guy is a
> .PHD and 35-yr programmer at pacbell! the bike crowd even built a "michael
> .vandemann, phd" page to expose him. he is a poster child for pure idiocy
> .and blind allegiance to a cause. i encourage you to check out that ng,
very
> .entertaining (the mtb groups are a hoot too, can't wait til he comes
over.
> .
> .
> .
> ._______________________________________________
> .Oh Mikey, you couldn't even be responsibility for a cat,
> .how ya gonna save mother nature?
>
> Oh, right. All anonymous posts are factual. Right.
> ===


Seems right on target.
You are a malcontent lunatic with ungrounded feelings of superiority.
You can't get along with people.
You fabricate your facts.
You engage in immature personal attacks.
You couldn't handle the responsibility of pet ownership.

I guess thirtyfive years as a cog in a cubicle will do that to a man.

 

[jtaylor]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .>
> .> No, they often ride closed trails or even build trails illegally.
> .Clarify! By "they" you mean "some". The large majority of off-road
cyclists
> .follow the system and are considerate of other users. MV is inconsitent
and
> .myopic, therefore all conservationists are inconsistent and myopic. Your
> .logic, not mine.
>
> I have yet to meet a mountain biker who obeys the rules.
>

How many have you met?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 19:04:04 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I have yet to meet a mountain biker who obeys the rules.
>How many have you met?

Met? Judging by his abusive behaviour, he *is* one! ;-)

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 CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 19:04:04 -0300, "jtaylor" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> .>
..> .> No, they often ride closed trails or even build trails illegally.
..> .Clarify! By "they" you mean "some". The large majority of off-road
..cyclists
..> .follow the system and are considerate of other users. MV is inconsitent
..and
..> .myopic, therefore all conservationists are inconsistent and myopic. Your
..> .logic, not mine.
..>
..> I have yet to meet a mountain biker who obeys the rules.
..>
..
..How many have you met?

Thousands, here and in person.
===
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

 

[jtaylor]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> .> I have yet to meet a mountain biker who obeys the rules.
> .>
> .
> .How many have you met?
>
> Thousands, here and in person.

How did you know they were mountain bikers?

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 3 May 2005 13:17:37 -0300, "jtaylor" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..>> .> I have yet to meet a mountain biker who obeys the rules.
..> .>
..> .
..> .How many have you met?
..>
..> Thousands, here and in person.
..
..How did you know they were mountain bikers?

They identify themselves as such, and defend mountain biking.
===
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

 

[Gary S.]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 04:24:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 3 May 2005 13:17:37 -0300, "jtaylor" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>.How did you know they were mountain bikers?
>
>They identify themselves as such, and defend mountain biking.
>
No, you call any person who does not agree with you a "mountain biker"
despite OBVIOUS clues.

You claim you only dislike mountain BIKES, but you display a hatred of
PEOPLE you say are mountain BIKERS. You are a hypocrite, using every
tactic you ascribe to others.

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

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

 

[jtaylor]

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

> .>> .> I have yet to meet a mountain biker who obeys the rules.
> .> .>
> .> .
> .> .How many have you met?
> .>
> .> Thousands, here and in person.
> .
> .How did you know they were mountain bikers?
>
> They identify themselves as such,

Everyone of the thousands?

> and defend mountain biking

Is this above (defending mountain biking) a sufficiant criteria to assert
that a person is a mountain biker?