Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT), ensenadajim
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Yeah, he lied and were I that person running, I would be suing the OP
>for defamation of character for linking my pic to you.

Thanks for telling the truth. I wonder why HE can't do that?

>Of course, you have never lied.

Sure. If a woman asks me if she's pretty, I always say "yes",
regardless of how I feel. Anything else would be stupid.

>j.
>
>
>On Jun 14, 2:05 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jun 14, 2:32 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> >> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> > On 13 Jun 2008 18:10:26 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >> > >> X-Apparently-To: [email protected] via 68.142.199.94; Fri, 13 Jun
>> >> > >> 2008 11:15:29 -0700
>> >> > ><email from someone else posted to newsgroup snipped>
>>
>> >> > >You might want to read <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html>
>> >> > >before posting (and therefore publishing)  email authored by someone
>> >> > >else.  You should note that a copyright notice is no longer
>> >> > >required and that registration is no longer required:
>>
>> >> > >        "Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This
>> >> > >        requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to
>> >> > >        the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989."
>>
>> >> > The best way to deal with harassment is to make it public. DUH! Did
>> >> > you have a valid) point? It's interesting that you would side with the
>> >> > person doing the harassment, rather than the person being harassed....
>>
>> >> Suggesting that you think about obeying copyright laws is somehow
>> >> siding with someone harassing you?  Vandeman, you are truly an idiot.
>>
>> >> You could have complied with the law by simply paraphrasing what he
>> >> sent you, or if it was a bona fide attempt at harassment, you could
>> >> have simply reported it to the police.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >If you want copyright violations. Check out his entire site. No
>> >oriiginal content at all. all quotes from others because he hasn't a
>> >bit of info himself...He even claimed to write a book on mountain
>> >biking but has yet to produce the name. He does "reviews of
>> >literature" which anyone can do...probably learned most of his
>> >reviewing when working for that technology company he works for...the
>> >same one that RAPES the wild in the name of new technology. He's a
>> >fraud and fake...Oh yeah...and he can't tell the difference between
>> >his name and Mike VANDERMAN which is always his defense against my
>> >posts. He's an asshole.
>>
>> Still waiting for your explanation of why you deliberately LIED:
>>
>> "I found this picture of Mike Vanderman protesting a bike race...he is
>> trying to run down the biker...that crazy Mike!! He's always good for
>> a laugh.
>>
>> http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/nugget-thumb.jpg"
>>
>> You aren't going to live this down, until you admit your dishonesty.
>> --
>> 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.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>>
>> 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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 21 Jun 2008 12:50:54 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
> >> >> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
> >> >> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
> >> >> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
> >> >> >at least in principle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
> >> >> that email! This should be good!
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >>
> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> only victim is ME.
> >
> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >worthless.
>
> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> victimless crime.

Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
spared from your presense on usenet for some time.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 21 Jun 2008 12:50:54 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you in a
>> >> >> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
>> >> >> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. So
>> >> >> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone economically,
>> >> >> >at least in principle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part of
>> >> >> that email! This should be good!
>> >> >
>> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >>
>> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> only victim is ME.
>> >
>> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >worthless.
>>
>> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> victimless crime.
>
>Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>spared from your presense on usenet for some time.

I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
excuse for living?
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >
> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >worthless.
> >>
> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> victimless crime.
> >
> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>
> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> excuse for living?

Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
disregard for human life.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >worthless.
>> >>
>> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> victimless crime.
>> >
>> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>>
>> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> excuse for living?
>
>Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>disregard for human life.

I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >> >worthless.
> >> >>
> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> >> victimless crime.
> >> >
> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
> >>
> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> excuse for living?
> >
> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
> >disregard for human life.
>
> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.

Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >> >worthless.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> >> victimless crime.
>> >> >
>> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>> >>
>> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> >> excuse for living?
>> >
>> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> >disregard for human life.
>>
>> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>
>Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.

Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >> >> >worthless.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> >> >> victimless crime.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> >> excuse for living?
> >> >
> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
> >> >disregard for human life.
> >>
> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
> >
> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
>
> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.

No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >> >> >worthless.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> >> >> excuse for living?
>> >> >
>> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> >> >disregard for human life.
>> >>
>> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>> >
>> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>
>No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
>of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.

Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> >> >> excuse for living?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
> >> >> >disregard for human life.
> >> >>
> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
> >> >
> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
> >
> >No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>
> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.

You have no "point", troll. You were simply rude and were told off
for inexcusable conduct.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
>> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>> >> >
>> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>> >
>> >No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
>> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>
>You have no "point", troll. You were simply rude and were told off
>for inexcusable conduct.

I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
it. Just look up.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we might be
> >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
> >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
> >> >
> >> >No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
> >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
> >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
> >
> >You have no "point", troll. You were simply rude and were told off
> >for inexcusable conduct.
>
> I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
> it. Just look up.

Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 1:10 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> > wrote:
>
> > >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> > >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringementwas a victimless
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge.  Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought.  My guess is that we might be
> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>
> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>
> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing anarrogant
> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>
> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>
> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself.  That's the only response you deserve.
>
> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> > >> >No point of yours was proved.  When you call someone a "good waste
> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>
> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> > >You have no "point", troll.  You were simply rude and were told off
> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>
> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
> > it. Just look up.
>
> Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Vandeman does have a mind, he is mentally ill and unstable. Its a
shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
professional help.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 28, 1:10 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge.  Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought.  My guess is that we might be
>> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>>
>> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>>
>> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself.  That's the only response you deserve.
>>
>> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >> >No point of yours was proved.  When you call someone a "good waste
>> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>>
>> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >You have no "point", troll.  You were simply rude and were told off
>> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>>
>> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
>> > it. Just look up.
>>
>> Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>>
>> --
>> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
>Vandeman does have a mind, he is mentally ill and unstable. Its a
>shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
>professional help.

This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
that mountain bikers visit on anyone who dares to tell the truth about
their selfish, destructive, sick sport.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 28, 1:10 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
>> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
>> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
>> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge.  Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
>> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought.  My guess is that we might be
>> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>>
>> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
>> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
>> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
>> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
>> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>>
>> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an arrogant
>> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>>
>> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
>> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>>
>> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself.  That's the only response you deserve.
>>
>> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >> >No point of yours was proved.  When you call someone a "good waste
>> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>>
>> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>>
>> > >You have no "point", troll.  You were simply rude and were told off
>> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>>
>> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
>> > it. Just look up.
>>
>> Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>>
>> --
>> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
>Vandeman does have a mind, he is mentally ill and unstable. Its a
>shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
>professional help.

This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
that mountain bikers visit on anyone who dares to tell the truth about
their selfish, destructive, sick sport.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 1:23 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jun 28, 1:10 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> MikeVandeman<[email protected]> writes:
> >> > On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >MikeVandeman<[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> > >> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >MikeVandeman<[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> >> > >> >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >MikeVandeman<[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, [email protected] (BillZ.)
> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >MikeVandeman<[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, [email protected](BillZ.)
> >> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >MikeVandeman<[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a victimless
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't beenvictimized. I've
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable,and hence
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> >> > >> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge.  Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
> >> > >> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought.  My guess is that we might be
> >> > >> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>
> >> > >> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling the
> >> > >> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting sport, but it isn't
> >> > >> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be around
> >> > >> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's YOUR
> >> > >> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>
> >> > >> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showingan arrogant
> >> > >> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>
> >> > >> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse for
> >> > >> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>
> >> > >> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself.  That's the only response you deserve.
>
> >> > >> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> >> > >> >No point of yours was proved.  When you call someone a "good waste
> >> > >> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
> >> > >> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>
> >> > >> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>
> >> > >You have no "point", troll.  You were simply rude and were told off
> >> > >for inexcusable conduct.
>
> >> > I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
> >> > it. Just look up.
>
> >>Vandeman, you are a mindless troll.
>
> >> --
> >> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
> >Vandemandoes have a mind,  he is mentally ill and unstable.  Its a
> >shame that he REFUSES to admit that he is ill and doesn't seek
> >professional help.
>
> This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
> that mountain bikers visit on anyone who dares to tell the truth about
> their selfish, destructive, sick sport.
> --
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike, you don't need to submit more PROOF in regards to your warped
mental state...........

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)

Unless he was addressing part of your argument, which is unlikely at
this point in the thread, then it's not ad hominem; it's just an insult.

It has to be clear that he is trying to undermine your position by
attacking your character for it to be ad hominem.

For instance, "what you say is false because you're a mountain biker" is
a fine example of ad hominem.

-Beej

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:41:12 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>This is the kind of ad hominem (ask your mommie to explain it to you)
>
>Unless he was addressing part of your argument, which is unlikely at
>this point in the thread, then it's not ad hominem; it's just an insult.
>
>It has to be clear that he is trying to undermine your position by
>attacking your character for it to be ad hominem.
>
>For instance, "what you say is false because you're a mountain biker" is
>a fine example of ad hominem.

You don't know what you are talking about. Ad hominem is attacking the
messenger, when the REAL issue is the message. It's much easier to
attack the messenger, than to tell the truth about your destructive,
selfish, sick sport.

>-Beej
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande