Scary Photos of Downhill Mountain Biking in Santa Barbara

[Dave Mennenoh]

Nice. Thanks for showing us a new place to ride!

--
Dave -
Adobe Community Expert
www.blurredistinction.com
www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/

 

[pmhilton]

Mike Romain wrote:
Don't you Americans have the
> homeland security or something like that to deal with terrorists like
> Mike?

Nah. We're too busy telling little kids who've learned to call Emergency
during an emergency that they shouldn't play with phones.

Perhaps you didn't hear. A little boy called 9-1-1 because his mother
had collapsed. She had a heart condition. The operator threatened the
kid with police. Later he called again. The next operator told him not
to play with phones or he'd be in trouble. The mother died.

Alongside tragedies such as that, MV and his psychosis is less than dog
dung.

Pete H

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 07:42:07 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>If you can't tell from the website you reference that cooperation,
>>maintenance, charity and care are attributes of the folks who operate this
>>bike shop
>
> Yeah, as long as they get their way and get to rip up trails and
> terrify all other trail users....
"Rip up trails"...? "Terrify all other trail users"...? These are your
opinions of the cyclists and the activity of off-road cycling. Your opinions
as definitions do not apply. However, it is clear the definition of
"terrorism" applies when someone lays a booby-trap that could kill or maim
another person.
You disregard everything these people do, (cooperation, maintenance,
charity) and look only at the bicycles they ride. You make the assumption
that they are wreckless criminals then attempt to apply that as a
definition. You have spent more than the past 8 years trying this (Google
groups search "vandeman"). If you have accomplished anything, it is the
continuation of distrust among all groups that would otherwise happily
cooperate in the name of preservation.
>
> then you are really dumb. Typically, you focus on only the aspects
>>that you can use to support your agenda and leave out anything else that
>>negates it. (Google Groups search "vandeman" says it all)
>>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:18:30 -0600, Paul Cassel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The jerks are the hikers who attack the bikers.
>
> They wouldn't have to, if the mountain bikers would walk, instead of
> terrorizing all other trail users.

People who walk on trails are "hikers". People who ride bicycles on trails
are "mountain bikers". Use correct terms and definitions. A person is not a
"mountain biker" when they are walking. Plus - It is your opinion that
"mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all other trail users". There is no basis
to use "terrorize" as an inclusive definition of off-road cyclists.
Especially when one of them was caught in an actual terrorist's trap.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 08:50:32 -0700, frugal earth dweller
> <remember@easter_island.disaster> wrote:
>
>
> They widened the trail enormously, ground it into powder, and
> terrorized all other trail users off the trail. Isn't that enough? You
> guys are transparent liars.

"powder"? "Widened the trail"? "Terrorized all other trail users"? This is
all conjecture and opinion on your part. Making up information to support
your position certainly applies as a "lie", doesn't it?
For more transparent Vandeman, see Google Groups search "Vandeman".

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:56:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 07:42:07 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>If you can't tell from the website you reference that cooperation,
>>>maintenance, charity and care are attributes of the folks who operate this
>>>bike shop
>>
>> Yeah, as long as they get their way and get to rip up trails and
>> terrify all other trail users....
>"Rip up trails"...? "Terrify all other trail users"...? These are your
>opinions of the cyclists and the activity of off-road cycling. Your opinions
>as definitions do not apply. However, it is clear the definition of
>"terrorism" applies when someone lays a booby-trap that could kill or maim
>another person.
>You disregard everything these people do, (cooperation, maintenance,
>charity) and look only at the bicycles they ride. You make the assumption
>that they are wreckless criminals then attempt to apply that as a
>definition. You have spent more than the past 8 years trying this (Google
>groups search "vandeman"). If you have accomplished anything, it is the
>continuation of distrust among all groups that would otherwise happily
>cooperate in the name of preservation.

The only thing mountain bikers want to "preserve" is bike access to
trails. If you'd tell the TRUTH once in a while, you might get some
respect.

>> then you are really dumb. Typically, you focus on only the aspects
>>>that you can use to support your agenda and leave out anything else that
>>>negates it. (Google Groups search "vandeman" says it all)
>>>
>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:25 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:18:30 -0600, Paul Cassel
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The jerks are the hikers who attack the bikers.
>>
>> They wouldn't have to, if the mountain bikers would walk, instead of
>> terrorizing all other trail users.
>
>People who walk on trails are "hikers". People who ride bicycles on trails
>are "mountain bikers". Use correct terms and definitions. A person is not a
>"mountain biker" when they are walking. Plus - It is your opinion that
>"mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all other trail users". There is no basis
>to use "terrorize" as an inclusive definition of off-road cyclists.
>Especially when one of them was caught in an actual terrorist's trap.

That's called "poetic justice".

 

[Stan de SD]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:56:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 07:42:07 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>If you can't tell from the website you reference that cooperation,
> >>>maintenance, charity and care are attributes of the folks who operate
this
> >>>bike shop
> >>
> >> Yeah, as long as they get their way and get to rip up trails and
> >> terrify all other trail users....
> >"Rip up trails"...? "Terrify all other trail users"...? These are your
> >opinions of the cyclists and the activity of off-road cycling. Your
opinions
> >as definitions do not apply. However, it is clear the definition of
> >"terrorism" applies when someone lays a booby-trap that could kill or
maim
> >another person.
> >You disregard everything these people do, (cooperation, maintenance,
> >charity) and look only at the bicycles they ride. You make the assumption
> >that they are wreckless criminals then attempt to apply that as a
> >definition. You have spent more than the past 8 years trying this (Google
> >groups search "vandeman"). If you have accomplished anything, it is the
> >continuation of distrust among all groups that would otherwise happily
> >cooperate in the name of preservation.
>
> The only thing mountain bikers want to "preserve" is bike access to
> trails. If you'd tell the TRUTH once in a while, you might get some
> respect.

As if you should talk, kook.

 

[Stan de SD]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:25 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:18:30 -0600, Paul Cassel
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>The jerks are the hikers who attack the bikers.
> >>
> >> They wouldn't have to, if the mountain bikers would walk, instead of
> >> terrorizing all other trail users.
> >
> >People who walk on trails are "hikers". People who ride bicycles on
trails
> >are "mountain bikers". Use correct terms and definitions. A person is not
a
> >"mountain biker" when they are walking. Plus - It is your opinion that
> >"mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all other trail users". There is no
basis
> >to use "terrorize" as an inclusive definition of off-road cyclists.
> >Especially when one of them was caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>
> That's called "poetic justice".

"Poetic Justice" will be the day your ass gets busted for trying to injure a
mountain biker, and you become Bubba's sweet little love toy down at the
county lockup. :O|

 

[Mike Romain]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:25 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:18:30 -0600, Paul Cassel
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>The jerks are the hikers who attack the bikers.
> >>
> >> They wouldn't have to, if the mountain bikers would walk, instead of
> >> terrorizing all other trail users.
> >
> >People who walk on trails are "hikers". People who ride bicycles on trails
> >are "mountain bikers". Use correct terms and definitions. A person is not a
> >"mountain biker" when they are walking. Plus - It is your opinion that
> >"mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all other trail users". There is no basis
> >to use "terrorize" as an inclusive definition of off-road cyclists.
> >Especially when one of them was caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>
> That's called "poetic justice".

Someone should be letting the organizers of the event know that the
likely 'terrorist' that set the trap is on the internet boasting about
it!

Mikey should be checked out on this one. Don't you Americans have the
homeland security or something like that to deal with terrorists like
Mike?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:56:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> The only thing mountain bikers want to "preserve" is bike access to
> trails. If you'd tell the TRUTH once in a while, you might get some
> respect.
>
Talk about "respect"? You continue to use your OPINIONS as definitions. You
continue this attempt at projecting your bias as a fact in portraying
off-road cyclists. It is nothing but your unfounded OPINION that mountain
bikers are only interested in preserving access to trails. You conveniantly
disregard cycling organizations (from IMBA to local) and their efforts in
preserving and maintaining areas for everyone and the wildlife within them.
You project a mindset that states "preservation is useless if a bicycle is
allowed in".
And you have the cowardly audacity to call us "selfish" and "liars". You
wouldn't know "TRUTH" if it bit you like an excited whipsnake.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:25 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>People who walk on trails are "hikers". People who ride bicycles on trails
>>are "mountain bikers". Use correct terms and definitions. A person is not
>>a
>>"mountain biker" when they are walking. Plus - It is your opinion that
>>"mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all other trail users". There is no
>>basis
>>to use "terrorize" as an inclusive definition of off-road cyclists.
>>Especially when one of them was caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>
> That's called "poetic justice".

Your support of violence and attempted murder is duly noted.
And this is not the first time (Google group search "vandeman") you have
praised and supported these terrorist acts.
And where would your support be if an animal had been caught in this loop of
wire? Is it only OK if another human being is injured by this terrorist
activity?

 

[Stan de SD]

"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:25 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:18:30 -0600, Paul Cassel
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>The jerks are the hikers who attack the bikers.
> > >>
> > >> They wouldn't have to, if the mountain bikers would walk, instead of
> > >> terrorizing all other trail users.
> > >
> > >People who walk on trails are "hikers". People who ride bicycles on
trails
> > >are "mountain bikers". Use correct terms and definitions. A person is
not a
> > >"mountain biker" when they are walking. Plus - It is your opinion that
> > >"mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all other trail users". There is no
basis
> > >to use "terrorize" as an inclusive definition of off-road cyclists.
> > >Especially when one of them was caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
> >
> > That's called "poetic justice".
>
> Someone should be letting the organizers of the event know that the
> likely 'terrorist' that set the trap is on the internet boasting about
> it!
>
> Mikey should be checked out on this one. Don't you Americans have the
> homeland security or something like that to deal with terrorists like
> Mike?

Actually, we used to have state mental hospitals. The usual suspects like to
blame Reagan for shutting them down, but the fact of the matter is that the
counterculture 1960's "inmates rights" people was a means of social
repression, and that the kooks were far better off in an "outpatient" mode
(i.e. wandering the streets, pushing shopping carts and screaming at
people). Ronnie merely figured they deserve to get what they wished for, and
obliged them.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:57:09 -0700, "Stan de SD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:01:25 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:18:30 -0600, Paul Cassel
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>The jerks are the hikers who attack the bikers.
>> >>
>> >> They wouldn't have to, if the mountain bikers would walk, instead of
>> >> terrorizing all other trail users.
>> >
>> >People who walk on trails are "hikers". People who ride bicycles on
>trails
>> >are "mountain bikers". Use correct terms and definitions. A person is not
>a
>> >"mountain biker" when they are walking. Plus - It is your opinion that
>> >"mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all other trail users". There is no
>basis
>> >to use "terrorize" as an inclusive definition of off-road cyclists.
>> >Especially when one of them was caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>>
>> That's called "poetic justice".
>
>"Poetic Justice" will be the day your ass gets busted for trying to injure a
>mountain biker,

Nobody has to "try" to do that. Mountain bikers do it to themselves
already! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

and you become Bubba's sweet little love toy down at the
>county lockup. :O|
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:00:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:56:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The only thing mountain bikers want to "preserve" is bike access to
>> trails. If you'd tell the TRUTH once in a while, you might get some
>> respect.
>>
>Talk about "respect"? You continue to use your OPINIONS as definitions. You
>continue this attempt at projecting your bias as a fact in portraying
>off-road cyclists. It is nothing but your unfounded OPINION that mountain
>bikers are only interested in preserving access to trails. You conveniantly
>disregard cycling organizations (from IMBA to local) and their efforts in
>preserving and maintaining areas for everyone and the wildlife within them.
>You project a mindset that states "preservation is useless if a bicycle is
>allowed in".
>And you have the cowardly audacity to call us "selfish" and "liars". You
>wouldn't know "TRUTH" if it bit you like an excited whipsnake.

Did you say something?
===
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

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>
> Did you say something?

That about sums up my feelings about your so called "research" and
"literature reviews."

Wake me up when you have something substantive to say, MV.

Psycho Mike

 

[Stan de SD]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:00:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:56:03 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The only thing mountain bikers want to "preserve" is bike access to
> >> trails. If you'd tell the TRUTH once in a while, you might get some
> >> respect.
> >>
> >Talk about "respect"? You continue to use your OPINIONS as definitions.
You
> >continue this attempt at projecting your bias as a fact in portraying
> >off-road cyclists. It is nothing but your unfounded OPINION that mountain
> >bikers are only interested in preserving access to trails. You
conveniantly
> >disregard cycling organizations (from IMBA to local) and their efforts in
> >preserving and maintaining areas for everyone and the wildlife within
them.
> >You project a mindset that states "preservation is useless if a bicycle
is
> >allowed in".
> >And you have the cowardly audacity to call us "selfish" and "liars". You
> >wouldn't know "TRUTH" if it bit you like an excited whipsnake.
>
> Did you say something?
> ===
> 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.)

How long have you been posting your "previous 8 year", sig, Vandekook?

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:00:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Did you say something?
> ===
Yes. And again, your lack of substance in a response speaks volumes for the
validity of the statements I made. You make unsubstantiated comments based
on your opinion and, when called on it, back away with a non-statement.
Classic!

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:57:09 -0700, "Stan de SD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Plus - It is your opinion that "mountain bikers" are "terrorizing all
>>> other trail users". There is no basis to use "terrorize" as an inclusive
>>> definition of off-road >>>cyclists. Especially when one of them was
>>> caught in an actual terrorist's trap.
>>>
>>> That's called "poetic justice".
>>
>>"Poetic Justice" will be the day your ass gets busted for trying to injure
>>a
>>mountain biker,
>
> Nobody has to "try" to do that. Mountain bikers do it to themselves
> already! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
You obviously think you made a "funny". Not quite. Again with a sweeping
opinion from your perceived notion that all off-road cyclists are dropping
off cliffs and running into trees and injuring themselves. The FACT is, you
post a link to a site that details the report of a person (cyclist) injured
by a wire-trap set by a third party with the intent of causing damage or
harm. Then, in following posts, you condone this act of terrorism. You take
an opportunity here to make some lame comment that only you find funny and
relevant. Yet you disregard a direct statement challenging you to explain
your logic in condoning the injury of another person!

"Your support of violence and attempted murder is duly noted.
And this is not the first time (Google group search "vandeman") you have
praised and supported these terrorist acts.
And where would your support be if an animal had been caught in this loop of
wire? Is it only OK if another human being is injured by this terrorist
activity?"

By the way, how much "sudden oak death" is being spread by mudslides in CA
because you were too busy whining about a few bicycles when all that land
was being cleared for development? How much habitat is in the Pacific
because you have rallied user groups to challenge each other rather than
cooperate to save trails for everyone. In case you haven't noticed, the
"trails" exist because "habitat" exists. The more trails and people
interested in using them, the more voices to challenge developers and
politicians in saving the habitat areas encompassing those trails.

But when has logic ever been your strong point?

 

[S Curtiss]

"Stan de SD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> How long have you been posting your "previous 8 year", sig, Vandekook?
>
just as note of interest, and because you asked, at least from 1996. Google
Groups search "vandeman" shows a calendar year posting going back that far.

Sat, Aug 31 1996 (from rec.bicycles.off-road)
"There you have it! I rest my case! MTBers are lawbreakers and proud of 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles


Not only has his sig remained the same, you can also see the rhetoric,
accusations, opinions and generalizations haven't changed. Only the calendar
date. Perhaps he is afraid by adding each year to his total (spent the last
XX years...), he would further show how useless his opinions really are.
After all, what has he really accomplished beyond fame in usenet for being a
kook. Hopefully, this also carries over to anyone doing real research on the
topic of off-road cycling impact as general searches of "Michael J.
Vandeman" also show many references to these usenet conversations, his
personal attacks, his name-calling, and his tactics of discussion. We can
only hope someone organizing these "conferences" he attends takes a moment
to reference him before accepting another "fish-wrap" he claims as a
scientific paper on the subject.

However, to see it in "real time", he has spent, at least, the last 18 years
fighting his own arguments.