Mountain Bikers SILENT about Environmental Destruction in Their Backyard!



"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:46:41 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>So you post a bunch of inflammatory opinions on a foundation of bias on a
>>website and a few hotheads or children send you a few emails.
>>
>>How does this A: support the title you posted in the thread? (Mountain
>>Bikers SILENT about Environmental Destruction in Their Backyard!) B: Prove
>>ANYTHING about the major majority of people who are following the IMBA
>>guidelines of being respectful on the trail?
>
> You are either very ignorant or very dishonest. Take your pick. IMBA's
> response, when 4 mountain bikers were arrested for building illegal
> trails, was that there aren't enough legal trails -- implying that
> such illegal trailbuilding is okay. So much for respectability! IMBA
> also censored information on its website that proves that mountain
> biking is more harmful than hiking. So much for respectability!

You mean the way you only post unfavorable stories or news on mountain bikng
while ignoring similar stories of injury, death, or tresspass pertaining to
hikers...?

You mean the way you only quote, reference or post articles favorable to
your opinion while claiming other studies or opinions are based on "junk
science"...?

So much for respectability!
 
>>>
>>>> So please tell us, if you are indeed as "Great" as you claim to be, how
>>>> the statements above can be false when you stand beside Vandeman and
>>>> his
>>>> silly postings with the same generalized implications:
>>>> A few people who claim to be mountain bikers send me angry or abusive
>>>> emails so every mountain biker is guilty of being angry and abusive.
>>>
>>> It seems to be more than a few!
>>
>>That's all "the Great" can come up with...?
>>>
>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on the
>>> side
>>> of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing when you
>>> read his messages!
>>
>>I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>>presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>>credentials.
>
> Your nose is growing again. It's pretty long, by now....
> ===
Your OPINIONS on off-road cycling match the weight of your OPINIONS on the
honesty of people who disagree with you. Classic examples of finger pointing
to draw attention away from your own statements and having to defend them on
point. (Goofle Group search "vandeman" has 10 years of examples)
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:58:24 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You constantly on about how us mountain bikers cause so much
>>>>>> errosion.
>>>>>> Here's a photo YOU posted:
>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/006_4-725668.21.jpg Now, you have a
>>>>>> pHD
>>>>>> in mathematics, so you should be able to look at this and tell me
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> percent of that area is trail. Pretty insignificat huh? You're
>>>>>> constant
>>>>>> complaining about how we cause so much "errosion", but look at the
>>>>>> percent of trails compared to the area. Sure, a trail might errode,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> the 99% of the park around it is just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that riding there is ILLEGAL. Why do you ignore the
>>>>> abusive, unlawful behaviour of your fellow mountain bikers????? I
>>>>> don't think you can answer that honestly.
>>>>Riding where is illegal...?
>>>
>>> On the trail depicted in that photo. Can't even you READ?
>>
>>Looked at the photo. Nothing there says illegal. No sign says illegal.
>
> Then ask the park. They will confirm that he is riding illegally.

Apparently, you are more psychic than I, or maybe this picture is part of
the Da Vinci code and must be deciphered.... There is nothing in the
picture giving an indication which park or area it is. Like I said below...
It looks a lot like a section at Snowshoe Resort or inside a municipal park
in Salem VA. The picture alone says NOTHING about its location. Apparently,
your MO again... Portraying information with your bias as a filter. A
picture of a pasture with a cyclist...? The cyclist is obviously riding
illegally...? Priceless...? No - just simple Vandeman.
At this point, you could say it is part of your backyard and I would have no
basis to believe it.
>
> How
>>do read something that is not there? Is this how you support your
>>OPINIONS...? With information that isn't there? That could be practically
>>any trail in the world. Hell, it looks a lot like the back area at
>>Snowshoe
>>Resort in West Virginia. It could even be the open field beyond Green Hill
>>Park (soccer and baseball) in Salem, VA. Both, by the way, are perfectly
>>legal for off-road cycling.
>>>
>>> Why do you ignore the abusive, (trash, fires,
>>>>trampling) and unlawful behavior of your fellow hikers and imply that
>>>>cycling is the cause of all? I don't think you can answer that honestly.
>>>>To
>>>>do so would require you to admit poor behavior by hikers has been
>>>>altering
>>>>forest and habitat areas for years before mountain biking ever came
>>>>along.
>>>>And if you admit that, you have to admit your constant focus on the
>>>>removal
>>>>of bicycles is unfounded because cycling is NOT the destructive force
>>>>you
>>>>claim it to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the hikers themselves. They make alot of trails in the
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> place, and then widen them for going around mud, or dust bins.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't support trail construction. YOU do. WHY? I don't think you
>>>>> can answer that honestly.
>>>>How do you venture into the woods, MV, if you do not utilize the trails?
>>>>Trampling on virgin vegetation? Displacing animals from their
>>>>undisturbed
>>>>homes?
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:11:33 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:08:28 +1000, davebee
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>>
>>>>please can you provide evidence that the previous chap was "lying?"
>>>
>>> It was in the text that you conveniently removed.
>>
>>Well - here's the text:
>>"> In
>>fact, many statements which I have noted on your website are opinions,
>>which are to the minds of many, not true. Congratulations that you
>>have such a self-assured confidence in the way you speak, but I can
>>promise you that you do, in fact, "lie" on many occasions and make a
>>public spectacle of it on your website.
>>
>>It's interesting that you are unable to quote even ONE alleged "lie".
>>You wouldn't be LYING, would you?
>>
>>>It has been proven
>
> This is a LIE, not a statement of opinion. The latter would start "I
> think that...". QED

Just so I understand... You can pick apart details of semantics and
context to claim someone is a "liar", but another party can not do the same
thing with your posts to show flaws, holes or direct misstatements...?
Another "vandeman" rule of converstaion. (Google group search "vandeman"
will find this a common occurrence.

>
> that in many areas walking can make a larger
>>ecologically damaging footprint on the land than riding a bicycle
>>through it.
>>
>>That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>---------------------------------------
>>
>>Interesting how his assumption is automatically a "lie" yet your
>>assumptions
>>that he calls attention to are not. Two differeing opinions are not
>>"lies".
>>They are merely opinions. Your assertion that your "opinions" are somehow
>>more valid while any other different opinion is a "lie" only highlights
>>your
>>bias further.
>>
>>>
>>> you
>>>>have provided not a single shred of evidence that he is. you have simply
>>>>blandly stated that he is lying.
>>> ===
 
On Sat, 20 May 2006 08:37:40 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:46:41 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>So you post a bunch of inflammatory opinions on a foundation of bias on a
>>>website and a few hotheads or children send you a few emails.
>>>
>>>How does this A: support the title you posted in the thread? (Mountain
>>>Bikers SILENT about Environmental Destruction in Their Backyard!) B: Prove
>>>ANYTHING about the major majority of people who are following the IMBA
>>>guidelines of being respectful on the trail?
>>
>> You are either very ignorant or very dishonest. Take your pick. IMBA's
>> response, when 4 mountain bikers were arrested for building illegal
>> trails, was that there aren't enough legal trails -- implying that
>> such illegal trailbuilding is okay. So much for respectability! IMBA
>> also censored information on its website that proves that mountain
>> biking is more harmful than hiking. So much for respectability!
>
>You mean the way you only post unfavorable stories or news on mountain bikng

Very funny. There ARE no articles favorable to mountain biking. It's
impossible to give environmental destruction a rosy spin. Of course,
you already knew that.... Liar.

>while ignoring similar stories of injury, death, or tresspass pertaining to
>hikers...?
>
>You mean the way you only quote, reference or post articles favorable to
>your opinion while claiming other studies or opinions are based on "junk
>science"...?
>
>So much for respectability!
>
===
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
 
On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:04:46 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:11:33 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:08:28 +1000, davebee
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>>>
>>>>>please can you provide evidence that the previous chap was "lying?"
>>>>
>>>> It was in the text that you conveniently removed.
>>>
>>>Well - here's the text:
>>>"> In
>>>fact, many statements which I have noted on your website are opinions,
>>>which are to the minds of many, not true. Congratulations that you
>>>have such a self-assured confidence in the way you speak, but I can
>>>promise you that you do, in fact, "lie" on many occasions and make a
>>>public spectacle of it on your website.
>>>
>>>It's interesting that you are unable to quote even ONE alleged "lie".
>>>You wouldn't be LYING, would you?
>>>
>>>>It has been proven
>>
>> This is a LIE, not a statement of opinion. The latter would start "I
>> think that...". QED
>
>Just so I understand... You can pick apart details of semantics and
>context to claim someone is a "liar",

Afraid to admit that you just LIED? Anyone who reads this can SEE
your lie. You just don't get it, do you?

but another party can not do the same
>thing with your posts to show flaws, holes or direct misstatements...?
>Another "vandeman" rule of converstaion. (Google group search "vandeman"
>will find this a common occurrence.
>
>>
>> that in many areas walking can make a larger
>>>ecologically damaging footprint on the land than riding a bicycle
>>>through it.
>>>
>>>That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>---------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Interesting how his assumption is automatically a "lie" yet your
>>>assumptions
>>>that he calls attention to are not. Two differeing opinions are not
>>>"lies".
>>>They are merely opinions. Your assertion that your "opinions" are somehow
>>>more valid while any other different opinion is a "lie" only highlights
>>>your
>>>bias further.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> you
>>>>>have provided not a single shred of evidence that he is. you have simply
>>>>>blandly stated that he is lying.
>>>> ===
>
===
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
 
On Sat, 20 May 2006 08:54:56 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:58:24 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You constantly on about how us mountain bikers cause so much
>>>>>>> errosion.
>>>>>>> Here's a photo YOU posted:
>>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/006_4-725668.21.jpg Now, you have a
>>>>>>> pHD
>>>>>>> in mathematics, so you should be able to look at this and tell me
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> percent of that area is trail. Pretty insignificat huh? You're
>>>>>>> constant
>>>>>>> complaining about how we cause so much "errosion", but look at the
>>>>>>> percent of trails compared to the area. Sure, a trail might errode,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> the 99% of the park around it is just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is that riding there is ILLEGAL. Why do you ignore the
>>>>>> abusive, unlawful behaviour of your fellow mountain bikers????? I
>>>>>> don't think you can answer that honestly.
>>>>>Riding where is illegal...?
>>>>
>>>> On the trail depicted in that photo. Can't even you READ?
>>>
>>>Looked at the photo. Nothing there says illegal. No sign says illegal.
>>
>> Then ask the park. They will confirm that he is riding illegally.
>
>Apparently, you are more psychic than I, or maybe this picture is part of
>the Da Vinci code and must be deciphered.... There is nothing in the
>picture giving an indication which park or area it is. Like I said below...
>It looks a lot like a section at Snowshoe Resort or inside a municipal park
>in Salem VA. The picture alone says NOTHING about its location.

So you really don't want to know that he is riding illegally, or you
would check by calling the park. You can run, but you can't hide.

Apparently,
>your MO again... Portraying information with your bias as a filter. A
>picture of a pasture with a cyclist...? The cyclist is obviously riding
>illegally...? Priceless...? No - just simple Vandeman.
>At this point, you could say it is part of your backyard and I would have no
>basis to believe it.
>>
>> How
>>>do read something that is not there? Is this how you support your
>>>OPINIONS...? With information that isn't there? That could be practically
>>>any trail in the world. Hell, it looks a lot like the back area at
>>>Snowshoe
>>>Resort in West Virginia. It could even be the open field beyond Green Hill
>>>Park (soccer and baseball) in Salem, VA. Both, by the way, are perfectly
>>>legal for off-road cycling.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you ignore the abusive, (trash, fires,
>>>>>trampling) and unlawful behavior of your fellow hikers and imply that
>>>>>cycling is the cause of all? I don't think you can answer that honestly.
>>>>>To
>>>>>do so would require you to admit poor behavior by hikers has been
>>>>>altering
>>>>>forest and habitat areas for years before mountain biking ever came
>>>>>along.
>>>>>And if you admit that, you have to admit your constant focus on the
>>>>>removal
>>>>>of bicycles is unfounded because cycling is NOT the destructive force
>>>>>you
>>>>>claim it to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about the hikers themselves. They make alot of trails in the
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> place, and then widen them for going around mud, or dust bins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't support trail construction. YOU do. WHY? I don't think you
>>>>>> can answer that honestly.
>>>>>How do you venture into the woods, MV, if you do not utilize the trails?
>>>>>Trampling on virgin vegetation? Displacing animals from their
>>>>>undisturbed
>>>>>homes?
>
===
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
 
>>
>>Apparently, you are more psychic than I, or maybe this picture is part of
>>the Da Vinci code and must be deciphered.... There is nothing in the
>>picture giving an indication which park or area it is. Like I said
>>below...
>>It looks a lot like a section at Snowshoe Resort or inside a municipal
>>park
>>in Salem VA. The picture alone says NOTHING about its location.
>
> So you really don't want to know that he is riding illegally, or you
> would check by calling the park. You can run, but you can't hide.
>
I am still waiting for you to tell me how this picture gives an indication
as to the location...
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:04:46 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:11:33 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:08:28 +1000, davebee
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>please can you provide evidence that the previous chap was "lying?"
>>>>>
>>>>> It was in the text that you conveniently removed.
>>>>
>>>>Well - here's the text:
>>>>"> In
>>>>fact, many statements which I have noted on your website are opinions,
>>>>which are to the minds of many, not true. Congratulations that you
>>>>have such a self-assured confidence in the way you speak, but I can
>>>>promise you that you do, in fact, "lie" on many occasions and make a
>>>>public spectacle of it on your website.
>>>>
>>>>It's interesting that you are unable to quote even ONE alleged "lie".
>>>>You wouldn't be LYING, would you?
>>>>
>>>>>It has been proven
>>>
>>> This is a LIE, not a statement of opinion. The latter would start "I
>>> think that...". QED
>>
>>Just so I understand... You can pick apart details of semantics and
>>context to claim someone is a "liar",
>
> Afraid to admit that you just LIED? Anyone who reads this can SEE
> your lie. You just don't get it, do you?

The only persons reading this is you and I at this point... and I have
known the TRUTH about your basis of OPINIONS for over 10 years
But just to make it clear - I also see your standard split-context tactic to
address only a portion of the statement in an attempt to misdirect and
ignore the full context as completed below.
>
> but another party can not do the same
>>thing with your posts to show flaws, holes or direct misstatements...?
>>Another "vandeman" rule of converstaion. (Google group search "vandeman"
>>will find this a common occurrence.
>>
>>>
>>> that in many areas walking can make a larger
>>>>ecologically damaging footprint on the land than riding a bicycle
>>>>through it.
>>>>
>>>>That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>>---------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Interesting how his assumption is automatically a "lie" yet your
>>>>assumptions
>>>>that he calls attention to are not. Two differeing opinions are not
>>>>"lies".
>>>>They are merely opinions. Your assertion that your "opinions" are
>>>>somehow
>>>>more valid while any other different opinion is a "lie" only highlights
>>>>your
>>>>bias further.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you
>>>>>>have provided not a single shred of evidence that he is. you have
>>>>>>simply
>>>>>>blandly stated that he is lying.
>>>>> ===
>>
> ===
> 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
 

>
>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on the
>>> side of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing when
>>> you read his messages!
>>
>> I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>> presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>> credentials.
>
> I have not noted any of the above.
>
You have not noted my interest in Italian road bikes, yet I can assure you
it exists. Your lack of desire to see beyond what you want to see is an
issue you and your therapist will have to deal with.
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fRFbg.13939$B42.1700@dukeread05...
>
>>
>>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on the
>>>> side of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing when
>>>> you read his messages!
>>>
>>> I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>>> presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>>> credentials.
>>
>> I have not noted any of the above.
>>
> You have not noted my interest in Italian road bikes, yet I can assure you
> it exists. Your lack of desire to see beyond what you want to see is an
> issue you and your therapist will have to deal with.

Slob mountain bikers like yourself who only want to desecrate my sacred
footpaths cannot possibly interested in road bikes, Italian or otherwise.
You are not fooling anyone. Vandeman and I have got the measure of you. You
are nothing but a slob mountain biker and that is all you can ever be. So
live with it, why don't you!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:fRFbg.13939$B42.1700@dukeread05...
>>
>>>
>>>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on the
>>>>> side of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing
>>>>> when you read his messages!
>>>>
>>>> I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>>>> presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>>>> credentials.
>>>
>>> I have not noted any of the above.
>>>
>> You have not noted my interest in Italian road bikes, yet I can assure
>> you it exists. Your lack of desire to see beyond what you want to see is
>> an issue you and your therapist will have to deal with.
>
> Slob mountain bikers like yourself who only want to desecrate my sacred
> footpaths cannot possibly interested in road bikes, Italian or otherwise.
> You are not fooling anyone. Vandeman and I have got the measure of you.
> You are nothing but a slob mountain biker and that is all you can ever be.
> So live with it, why don't you!
>
Like Vandeman, reality escapes you...
You just lost any credibility you may have held claim to. I own 2 mountain
bikes (actually, one belongs to the wife). I personally own 5 road bikes: A
Paramount, a Colnago, a Merckx and 2 Pinarellos. I spend 90% of my cycling
time on the road bikes.
The FACT of this apparently is beyond your scope - so you can take your
claim of "the Great" and this schizo "saint" ego of yours, stick your butt
in your comfy lounge chair on wheels, and ride back to where you came from.
 
On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:34:54 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:04:46 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:11:33 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:08:28 +1000, davebee
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>>>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>>>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>>>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>please can you provide evidence that the previous chap was "lying?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was in the text that you conveniently removed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well - here's the text:
>>>>>"> In
>>>>>fact, many statements which I have noted on your website are opinions,
>>>>>which are to the minds of many, not true. Congratulations that you
>>>>>have such a self-assured confidence in the way you speak, but I can
>>>>>promise you that you do, in fact, "lie" on many occasions and make a
>>>>>public spectacle of it on your website.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's interesting that you are unable to quote even ONE alleged "lie".
>>>>>You wouldn't be LYING, would you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>It has been proven
>>>>
>>>> This is a LIE, not a statement of opinion. The latter would start "I
>>>> think that...". QED
>>>
>>>Just so I understand... You can pick apart details of semantics and
>>>context to claim someone is a "liar",
>>
>> Afraid to admit that you just LIED? Anyone who reads this can SEE
>> your lie. You just don't get it, do you?
>
>The only persons reading this is you and I at this point... and I have
>known the TRUTH about your basis of OPINIONS for over 10 years
>But just to make it clear - I also see your standard split-context tactic to
>address only a portion of the statement in an attempt to misdirect and
>ignore the full context as completed below.

At this point, you are the only person in the world who has a clue
what you are trying to say. In my language -- English -- you make
absolutely no sense. It would appear that you like to drop big words
into your dialogue only for effect. You have no idea what they mean.

>> but another party can not do the same
>>>thing with your posts to show flaws, holes or direct misstatements...?
>>>Another "vandeman" rule of converstaion. (Google group search "vandeman"
>>>will find this a common occurrence.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> that in many areas walking can make a larger
>>>>>ecologically damaging footprint on the land than riding a bicycle
>>>>>through it.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>>>---------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting how his assumption is automatically a "lie" yet your
>>>>>assumptions
>>>>>that he calls attention to are not. Two differeing opinions are not
>>>>>"lies".
>>>>>They are merely opinions. Your assertion that your "opinions" are
>>>>>somehow
>>>>>more valid while any other different opinion is a "lie" only highlights
>>>>>your
>>>>>bias further.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>have provided not a single shred of evidence that he is. you have
>>>>>>>simply
>>>>>>>blandly stated that he is lying.
>>>>>> ===
>>>
>> ===
>> 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
 
On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:29:18 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>
>>>Apparently, you are more psychic than I, or maybe this picture is part of
>>>the Da Vinci code and must be deciphered.... There is nothing in the
>>>picture giving an indication which park or area it is. Like I said
>>>below...
>>>It looks a lot like a section at Snowshoe Resort or inside a municipal
>>>park
>>>in Salem VA. The picture alone says NOTHING about its location.
>>
>> So you really don't want to know that he is riding illegally, or you
>> would check by calling the park. You can run, but you can't hide.
>>
>I am still waiting for you to tell me how this picture gives an indication
>as to the location...

I never said it does. You have to read the text that goes with it.
It's Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park, near Pleasanton, CA.
===
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
 
On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:48:47 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:fRFbg.13939$B42.1700@dukeread05...
>>
>>>
>>>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on the
>>>>> side of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing when
>>>>> you read his messages!
>>>>
>>>> I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>>>> presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>>>> credentials.
>>>
>>> I have not noted any of the above.
>>>
>> You have not noted my interest in Italian road bikes, yet I can assure you
>> it exists. Your lack of desire to see beyond what you want to see is an
>> issue you and your therapist will have to deal with.
>
>Slob mountain bikers like yourself who only want to desecrate my sacred
>footpaths cannot possibly interested in road bikes, Italian or otherwise.
>You are not fooling anyone. Vandeman and I have got the measure of you. You
>are nothing but a slob mountain biker and that is all you can ever be. So
>live with it, why don't you!

"Pearls before swine" is the phrase that comes to mind....

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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
 
On Sun, 21 May 2006 11:02:52 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:fRFbg.13939$B42.1700@dukeread05...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>>>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on the
>>>>>> side of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing
>>>>>> when you read his messages!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>>>>> presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>>>>> credentials.
>>>>
>>>> I have not noted any of the above.
>>>>
>>> You have not noted my interest in Italian road bikes, yet I can assure
>>> you it exists. Your lack of desire to see beyond what you want to see is
>>> an issue you and your therapist will have to deal with.
>>
>> Slob mountain bikers like yourself who only want to desecrate my sacred
>> footpaths cannot possibly interested in road bikes, Italian or otherwise.
>> You are not fooling anyone. Vandeman and I have got the measure of you.
>> You are nothing but a slob mountain biker and that is all you can ever be.
>> So live with it, why don't you!
>>
>Like Vandeman, reality escapes you...
>You just lost any credibility you may have held claim to. I own 2 mountain
>bikes (actually, one belongs to the wife).

There you go LYING again. You can't even tell the truth about what you
own!

I personally own 5 road bikes: A
>Paramount, a Colnago, a Merckx and 2 Pinarellos. I spend 90% of my cycling
>time on the road bikes.
>The FACT of this apparently is beyond your scope - so you can take your
>claim of "the Great" and this schizo "saint" ego of yours, stick your butt
>in your comfy lounge chair on wheels, and ride back to where you came from.
>
===
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 11:02:52 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>>>>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> side of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing
>>>>>>> when you read his messages!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>>>>>> presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>>>>>> credentials.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not noted any of the above.
>>>>>
>>>> You have not noted my interest in Italian road bikes, yet I can assure
>>>> you it exists. Your lack of desire to see beyond what you want to see
>>>> is
>>>> an issue you and your therapist will have to deal with.
>>>
>>> Slob mountain bikers like yourself who only want to desecrate my sacred
>>> footpaths cannot possibly interested in road bikes, Italian or
>>> otherwise.
>>> You are not fooling anyone. Vandeman and I have got the measure of you.
>>> You are nothing but a slob mountain biker and that is all you can ever
>>> be.
>>> So live with it, why don't you!
>>>
>>Like Vandeman, reality escapes you...
>>You just lost any credibility you may have held claim to. I own 2 mountain
>>bikes (actually, one belongs to the wife).
>
> There you go LYING again. You can't even tell the truth about what you
> own!
Seems crystal clear to me. After all, I bought it for her. I state the
ownership of the 2 mounain bikes therefore you are only manufacturing a case
for a "lie" based only only on wordplay with no real foundation. Transparent
Vandeman... Statements made with no real basis of foundation. 10 plus years
of usenet (google group search "vandeman") has many more examples.
>
> I personally own 5 road bikes: A
>>Paramount, a Colnago, a Merckx and 2 Pinarellos. I spend 90% of my cycling
>>time on the road bikes.
>>The FACT of this apparently is beyond your scope - so you can take your
>>claim of "the Great" and this schizo "saint" ego of yours, stick your butt
>>in your comfy lounge chair on wheels, and ride back to where you came
>>from.
>>
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:48:47 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>> Curtiss, you need to get on board and stop your defense of the
>>>>>> indefensible. You are on the side of the Devil and Vandeman is on the
>>>>>> side of the Angels. Can't you just hear the Heavenly Choir singing
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> you read his messages!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not expect a Heavenly Choir to be singing while someone is
>>>>> presenting incorrect information, advocating injury, and lying about
>>>>> credentials.
>>>>
>>>> I have not noted any of the above.
>>>>
>>> You have not noted my interest in Italian road bikes, yet I can assure
>>> you
>>> it exists. Your lack of desire to see beyond what you want to see is an
>>> issue you and your therapist will have to deal with.
>>
>>Slob mountain bikers like yourself who only want to desecrate my sacred
>>footpaths cannot possibly interested in road bikes, Italian or otherwise.
>>You are not fooling anyone. Vandeman and I have got the measure of you.
>>You
>>are nothing but a slob mountain biker and that is all you can ever be. So
>>live with it, why don't you!
>
> "Pearls before swine" is the phrase that comes to mind....
>
Actually, based on reality of numbers, the National Forest Service, the
actual economy of recreation sustaining National Parks and recreational use
areas, and the additional realization of wilderness preservation from the
interest generated by recreation and economic interests from recreation...
It is YOU who will have to live with mountain bikes. Slob elitists like you
have fallen by the wayside. The internet has brought real information to the
fingertips of anybody. No more do government agencies have to rely on
self-important and self-assigned experts when the real public have access to
real information and the real people and organizations that create policy.
Live with that, why don't you!
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:29:18 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Apparently, you are more psychic than I, or maybe this picture is part
>>>>of
>>>>the Da Vinci code and must be deciphered.... There is nothing in the
>>>>picture giving an indication which park or area it is. Like I said
>>>>below...
>>>>It looks a lot like a section at Snowshoe Resort or inside a municipal
>>>>park
>>>>in Salem VA. The picture alone says NOTHING about its location.
>>>
>>> So you really don't want to know that he is riding illegally, or you
>>> would check by calling the park. You can run, but you can't hide.
>>>
>>I am still waiting for you to tell me how this picture gives an indication
>>as to the location...
>
> I never said it does. You have to read the text that goes with it.
> It's Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park, near Pleasanton, CA.
Convenient the "text" you allege goes along with it was not shown in this
thread. Since all we had was a link to the picture, I ask you again... How
does this picture give any indication as to the location? I can't "check by
calling the park" if you are going to play games of semantics with the
picture and a lack of real information about it. But you never give complete
information, do you? Always just enough to support your opinion, but nothing
more. However, when the true context of the information you quote comes to
light you abandon the thread of discussion with a "liar" or "junk science"
or "did you say something". (Google group search "vandeman" shows it all)
 
>>>>>>It's interesting that you are unable to quote even ONE alleged "lie".
>>>>>>You wouldn't be LYING, would you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has been proven
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a LIE, not a statement of opinion. The latter would start "I
>>>>> think that...". QED
>>>>
>>>>Just so I understand... You can pick apart details of semantics and
>>>>context to claim someone is a "liar",
>>>
>>> Afraid to admit that you just LIED? Anyone who reads this can SEE
>>> your lie. You just don't get it, do you?
>>
>>The only persons reading this is you and I at this point... and I have
>>known the TRUTH about your basis of OPINIONS for over 10 years
>>But just to make it clear - I also see your standard split-context tactic
>>to
>>address only a portion of the statement in an attempt to misdirect and
>>ignore the full context as completed below.
>
> At this point, you are the only person in the world who has a clue
> what you are trying to say. In my language -- English -- you make
> absolutely no sense. It would appear that you like to drop big words
> into your dialogue only for effect. You have no idea what they mean.
>
At this point, you know exactly what I'm saying. Your attempts to mislead
with references to my use of "big words" is invalid. What big words are you
referring to...? OPINION...? TRUTH...? By the way... the two are not
really interchangeable. Your OPINION is not TRUTH and claiming TRUTH when it
is merely an OPINION creates a LIE. Merely pointing that out is not a lie.
Your claim of it does not it so either.
>>> but another party can not do the same
>>>>thing with your posts to show flaws, holes or direct misstatements...?
>>>>Another "vandeman" rule of converstaion. (Google group search "vandeman"
>>>>will find this a common occurrence.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that in many areas walking can make a larger
>>>>>>ecologically damaging footprint on the land than riding a bicycle
>>>>>>through it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a lie. It's interesting that you provide not one shred of
>>>>>>evidence to support it. I'm sure you just heard that somewhere and
>>>>>>repeated it. Making assertions that you don't KNOW to be fact is
>>>>>>called "lying". See my point?"
>>>>>>---------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting how his assumption is automatically a "lie" yet your
>>>>>>assumptions
>>>>>>that he calls attention to are not. Two differeing opinions are not
>>>>>>"lies".
>>>>>>They are merely opinions. Your assertion that your "opinions" are
>>>>>>somehow
>>>>>>more valid while any other different opinion is a "lie" only
>>>>>>highlights
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>bias further.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>have provided not a single shred of evidence that he is. you have
>>>>>>>>simply
>>>>>>>>blandly stated that he is lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Bill Z.
B
M
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???
Replies
37
Views
4K
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
Re: What NO Mountain Bikers Are Willing to Admit
Replies
30
Views
3K
Mountain Bikes
[email protected]
M
M
Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS?
Replies
0
Views
853
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
"Angry Pirate" Trail Demonstrates Mountain Bikers' Attitudes
Replies
0
Views
954
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
Top Bottom Back