Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

X-Apparently-To: via 209.191.68.142; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:21:50 -0700
X-YMailISG: eGwlaWsWLDv5AAhuma7Bgdyfuu2sTGL6Eon13.CQP1BORCU3
z6WR.xkZ7YqMkfP9YhzFk1LoYjQ0pzvyS8mr8gYx2SM9bNtTLn kpq2VUycU5
L079nl5k_RjQLmh8C3udIJIZ.8VQD57dJuq5NpcNW_E71SjzBC iShSFpDczB
YxwqrqYvlzR1F8W9uRLyOETZIX5Z6l9eAlO6EQbT4XBxDUbBf_ rGErzQpkMr
283QJiManZIk0lUw3YOs_iDofK4ew3cV.C8W1qR6yVyWCnnOjb 2tCVDTQMGd
p66PxMfGi9ThBJedVUxxtQkWtzjBUSkx2xYc2vGpBMqtMPdpyV 2UU6Tg1A81
dmYbRdb3VebWaHXYJPmcKE9s.2XS45O3.unUm5hgBKk2lJlacm dpFtYTYLU7
796hIhk8Kt7qkKYGvYR8k8n0pP.ubGEiuBLoOdPEWSgthxUhCT uzlZ.atfYe
kXRzj901XtHuqxNne7mD7X2DyQvtsX6bo1.vO2CcxIyedVawid DcY3eoJ201
mEnC6NfZCh.xjJcjclDP.qTPVS_mkqQNHH5ko6Yi.vEnPAPTTV Uqu9nZvZL1
aph16S8Biz0tmjtE7P120zLlDob81euyJY1kCLAjgIs2CmdLnI TvifSblnzx
EkRTcxi32KqdcqvYsJI4hIvNrVH1KvtyX0X7pullW6HS472qaJ 8noX_1xsc2
FpP3rvcWYfRFKuKdMQA6WfA55DQyoeOSZX843NCMIXv2ZoG.mn K8rhxHkNvr
IiYaZnwnLnfhIvurJgtNRXFeYgaH8uwMbSjk5sHEzWKVT4o4df kCWGii3_ZV
6VgOmjv3EFmilaewJYY3m07Jtkf5KdrUYgwocg8yBKJ.nlmsvQ TtvkdT3oFo
amHk7P5M5Cc4pvBYIFI6R49d8gB2U9mijD8bnBGGQk.vAtJTF4 4iklHGSpXN
iRDl9W0dNWy1P.wnD7dPNRvE4rWu5krAcrCe73OoDhWP8tuRsv xHeRiCVwmQ
7eHrFb8AFNWKbn62VauWccC8JEDrWtKvv7QbGSfHZl_HrPzSQq lG1i2SD3bz
wUV59k3dMLiAAe0GaHbYbJKBqxdY_QZ2OizLUcwECQ1KTE1GGK vVfW81UdlM
SGCz7pJkAxKW_.3fpg2KVr7ldPxc7CQ6dJ_6bOvlTYVVkLDKFY Djv2yARtLE
.VeYGSSQmdMv2PTS
X-Originating-IP: [68.230.241.143]
Authentication-Results: mta1073.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=cox.net; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=cox.net; dkim=neutral (no sig)
X-Originating-IP: [68.230.241.143]
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.508FFE9C.004A,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs= 0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=TvtkdUrh c=1 sm=1
a=stoB9BfV3DM7cKQ24eoBbQ==:17 a=k1xERSJzxO8A:10 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10
a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=qrd2DHqrN9sA:10 a=YarKIx00AAAA:8
a=4Xo_5KxeAAAA:8 a=Mfb1CpD7AAAA:8 a=HqI4j69y_pvoABKsxGkA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
a=q03wWUK6tb4A:10 a=stoB9BfV3DM7cKQ24eoBbQ==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Authentication-Results: cox.net; auth=pass (PLAIN)

Subject: Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks
From: David Campbell >
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:21:27 -0700
To: Mike Vandeman >
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A405)


**** off ass hole!!!!


Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 27, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Mike Vandeman > wrote:


> To the Editor:
>
> Since the Park District is revising its Master Plan, now is the perfect time (by 10/31 at http://ebrpdmasterplan.org/) to ask them to get mountain biking out of the parks! Mountain bikes, with their "aggressive" knobby tires and high speed, grind the trails into powder, which washes away in the first rain, leaving V-shaped ruts and degraded creeks and other habitat. Even the mountain bikers themselves, with rare candor, use the term "shredding the trails" to refer to mountain biking.
>
> Countless insects, lizards, snakes, and other small plants and animals are killed by these "wheeled locusts". Hikers and equestrians are abandoning the trails and the parks, because it is unpleasant and dangerous to have to constantly be on the alert to avoid being hit by a biker coming around a blind turn at high speed. Illegal biking and even illegal trail-building are common in the parks.
>
> It's beyond me to understand why mountain bikers insist on biking in the parks, when walking provides the best way to actually see the parks. Careening through them at high speed -- or even low speed -- doesn't allow one to actually see anything, since you have to give all of your attention to controlling your bike on unpredictable terrain.
>
> It's high time that we restricted bikes to paved roads, where they can't do much harm!
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Fed up with mountain biking
>
> --
>
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat").
> Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>
> http://mjvande.nfshost.com
>

[Pete Puma]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>> To the Editor:

--> snipped psychotic ramblings of someone who can't get laid <--

>> It's high time that we restricted bikes to paved roads, where they can't
>> do much harm!
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>>
>> Fed up with mountain biking
>>
>> --
>>
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans
>> ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting
>> auto dependence and road construction.)

>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://mjvande.nfshost.com

He forgot to add:
"But I damned close to spending the previous 8 years wearing high heels and
eye shadow as a prison bitch"
"Wheeled Locusts is a registered trademark and cannot be used without
written permission of its unmedicated author"
"Could you ask the government to quit following me, especially when I use
the men's room at the bus terminal?"
"I will protest any unscientific whim you can sell to the media--for food"
"The December comet will smash down and judge mountain bikers once and for
all"
&
"Tin foil hats for sale, cheap"

However, the letter should have closed with:

Sincerely yours,
Sitting under a bare lightbulb counting cockroaches with my fork in a can of
Alpo

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>
>
> >> To the Editor:
>
>
>
> --> snipped psychotic ramblings of someone who can't get laid <--
>
>
>
> >> It's high time that we restricted bikes to paved roads, where they can't
>
> >> do much harm!
>
> >>
>
> >> Sincerely yours,
>
> >>
>
> >> Fed up with mountain biking
>
> >>
>
> >> --
>
> >>
>
> >> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans
>
> >> ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting
>
> >> auto dependence and road construction.)
>
>
>
> >> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>
> >> fond of!
>
> >>
>
> >> http://mjvande.nfshost.com
>
>
>
> He forgot to add:
>
> "But I damned close to spending the previous 8 years wearing high heels and
>
> eye shadow as a prison bitch"
>
> "Wheeled Locusts is a registered trademark and cannot be used without
>
> written permission of its unmedicated author"
>
> "Could you ask the government to quit following me, especially when I use
>
> the men's room at the bus terminal?"
>
> "I will protest any unscientific whim you can sell to the media--for food"
>
> "The December comet will smash down and judge mountain bikers once and for
>
> all"
>
> &
>
> "Tin foil hats for sale, cheap"
>
>
>
> However, the letter should have closed with:
>
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Sitting under a bare lightbulb counting cockroaches with my fork in a can of
>
> Alpo

Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for the millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER!

[Pete Puma]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> To the Editor:
>>
>>
>>
>> --> snipped psychotic ramblings of someone who can't get laid <--
>>
>>
>>
>> >> It's high time that we restricted bikes to paved roads, where they
>> >> can't
>>
>> >> do much harm!
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Sincerely yours,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Fed up with mountain biking
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> --
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans
>>
>> >> ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting
>>
>> >> auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>> >> are
>>
>> >> fond of!
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> http://mjvande.nfshost.com
>>
>>
>>
>> He forgot to add:
>>
>> "But I damned close to spending the previous 8 years wearing high heels
>> and
>>
>> eye shadow as a prison bitch"
>>
>> "Wheeled Locusts is a registered trademark and cannot be used without
>>
>> written permission of its unmedicated author"
>>
>> "Could you ask the government to quit following me, especially when I use
>>
>> the men's room at the bus terminal?"
>>
>> "I will protest any unscientific whim you can sell to the media--for
>> food"
>>
>> "The December comet will smash down and judge mountain bikers once and
>> for
>>
>> all"
>>
>> &
>>
>> "Tin foil hats for sale, cheap"
>>
>>
>>
>> However, the letter should have closed with:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>>
>> Sitting under a bare lightbulb counting cockroaches with my fork in a can
>> of
>>
>> Alpo
>
> Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for the
> millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER!

Well, I guess, just like yours!

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:56:07 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote: > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote: >> Mike Vandeman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> To the Editor: >> >> >> >> --> snipped psychotic ramblings of someone who can't get laid <-- >> >> >> >> >> It's high time that we restricted bikes to paved roads, where they >> >> can't >> >> >> do much harm! >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> >> >> >> >> Fed up with mountain biking >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans >> >> >> ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting >> >> >> auto dependence and road construction.) >> >> >> >> >> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you >> >> are >> >> >> fond of! >> >> >> >> >> >> http://mjvande.nfshost.com >> >> >> >> He forgot to add: >> >> "But I damned close to spending the previous 8 years wearing high heels >> and >> >> eye shadow as a prison bitch" >> >> "Wheeled Locusts is a registered trademark and cannot be used without >> >> written permission of its unmedicated author" >> >> "Could you ask the government to quit following me, especially when I use >> >> the men's room at the bus terminal?" >> >> "I will protest any unscientific whim you can sell to the media--for >> food" >> >> "The December comet will smash down and judge mountain bikers once and >> for >> >> all" >> >> & >> >> "Tin foil hats for sale, cheap" >> >> >> >> However, the letter should have closed with: >> >> >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> Sitting under a bare lightbulb counting cockroaches with my fork in a can >> of >> >> Alpo > > Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for the > millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER! Well, I guess, just like yours!

It's just like a mountain biker, not to be able to tell the difference....

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:13:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
>
> > Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for the millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER!


http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 7:57:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:13:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for the millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER!
>
>
>
>
>
> http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm

Only a fool would listent to someone too cowardly to use his real name. You are wasting your breath.

[Pete Puma]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Friday, November 2, 2012 7:57:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:13:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for
>> > the millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm
>
> Only a fool would listent to someone too cowardly to use his real name.
> You are wasting your breath.

Yes, give up your name so that MV can slap a cyber-bullying suit or shove
some harassment statute up your colon. Which may or may not sucessfully work
on someone who wears a virtual "Kick Me" sign.

<snore>

[Blackblade]

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:17:33 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2012 7:57:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:13:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for the millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm
>
>
>
> Only a fool would listent to someone too cowardly to use his real name. You are wasting your breath.

And only a fool would preferably believe a criminal, convicted by an impartial jury, who incessantly proclaims his innocence without the slightest shred of evidence.

Occam's Razor I think ...

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:22:18 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:17:33 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 2, 2012 7:57:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:13:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:31:41 PM UTC-7, Pete Puma wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain bikers are -- for the millionth time. Your character is on display here FOREVER!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Only a fool would listent to someone too cowardly to use his real name. You are wasting your breath.
>
>
>
> And only a fool would preferably believe a criminal, convicted by an impartial jury, who incessantly proclaims his innocence without the slightest shred of evidence.
>
>
>
> Occam's Razor I think ...

What would you accept as evidence? By the way, my words ARE evidence. Yours are not, since you weren't there. Yours are nothing but hearsay, as you well know, and therefore a waste of breath.

[Blackblade]

> What would you accept as evidence? By the way, my words ARE evidence. Yours are not, since you weren't there. Yours are nothing but hearsay, as you well know, and therefore a waste of breath.

I would accept impartial testimony or objective evidence.

The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !

Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.

My words are merely commentary; I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal and that others should consider that when deciding what weight to give your future pronouncements.

As Shraga points out, you have never offered any narrative of what you claim happened beyond simple denials and unsupported assertions that everyone else lied.

So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault/battery. On that point, the law clearly shows you to be misguided.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:09:29 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > What would you accept as evidence? By the way, my words ARE evidence. Yours are not, since you weren't there. Yours are nothing but hearsay, as you well know, and therefore a waste of breath.
>
>
>
> I would accept impartial testimony or objective evidence.

You don't have any. Neither does anyone else.

> The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !

You know that's a lie. Since they weren't there, they aren't qualified to judge.

> Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.

That's right. You know NOTHING, and should stop pretending to know anything.. (But if you did, you would no longer be a mountain biker. Pretending is their stock in trade.)

> My words are merely commentary;

Then they are WORTHLESS.

> I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal

You don't even know that. You are believing other mountain bikers who are known liars.

> and that others should consider that when deciding what weight to give your future pronouncements.

All of which rests on AIR.

> As Shraga points out, you have never offered any narrative of what you claim happened beyond simple denials and unsupported assertions that everyone else lied.

BS. I explained what happened several times. You pretend not to know that.

> So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault

I didn't say that. I said it's not assault. You should already know that. Nevertheless, I never did that.

/battery. On that point, the law clearly shows you to be misguided.

[Blackblade]

> > The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !
>
> You know that's a lie. Since they weren't there, they aren't qualified to judge.

Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do.

> > Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.
>
> That's right. You know NOTHING, and should stop pretending to know anything. (But if you did, you would no longer be a mountain biker. Pretending is their stock in trade.)

I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery.

> > My words are merely commentary;
>
> Then they are WORTHLESS.

Why ? Another assertion without facts.

> > I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal
>
> You don't even know that. You are believing other mountain bikers who are known liars.

I don't know that ? I can't read the public record that states that you were tried and convicted on three counts.

> > So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault/battery
>
> I didn't say that. I said it's not assault. You should already know that. Nevertheless, I never did that.

I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery"

You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:56:33 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > > The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !
>
> >
>
> > You know that's a lie. Since they weren't there, they aren't qualified to judge.
>
>
>
> Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do.

That's like saying a scientist is qualified to say what happened when he wasn't present. BS.

> > > Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.
>
> >
>
> > That's right. You know NOTHING, and should stop pretending to know anything. (But if you did, you would no longer be a mountain biker. Pretending is their stock in trade.)
>
>
>
> I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery.

BS. You obviously know nothing about the law -- or anything else.

> > > My words are merely commentary;
>
> >
>
> > Then they are WORTHLESS.
>
>
>
> Why ? Another assertion without facts.

BS. You admitted your words are "just commentary" -- in other words, they are WORTHLESS. Hearsay. Not admissible in court, unlike my statements.

> > > I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal
>
> >
>
> > You don't even know that. You are believing other mountain bikers who are known liars.
>
>
>
> I don't know that ? I can't read the public record that states that you were tried and convicted on three counts.

What "public record"? You haven't read it.

> > > So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault/battery
>
> >
>
> > I didn't say that. I said it's not assault. You should already know that. Nevertheless, I never did that.
>
>
>
> I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery"

You accused me of assault. That's nonsense. That charge was DISMISSED. If you had really read the "pulic record", you would have known that. You haven't.

> You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

BS. Pedestrians have the right of way on trails. I can freely go wherever I want to.

[Blackblade]

> > Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do.
>
> That's like saying a scientist is qualified to say what happened when he wasn't present. BS.

What a load of ********* ! So, you want us to completely disregard a court and accept your evidence at face value ? On that basis, I doubt that there would be very many criminals in jail !!! So, Mr X, did you do it ? No ? Well, obviously, the court can't decide so we will have to take your word for it !!
> > I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery.

> BS. You obviously know nothing about the law -- or anything else.

I appear to know an awful lot more than you about it :-)

> BS. You admitted your words are "just commentary" -- in other words, they are WORTHLESS. Hearsay. Not admissible in court, unlike my statements.

Great, well done. Your statements managed to get you convicted :-)

> > I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery"
>
> You accused me of assault. That's nonsense. That charge was DISMISSED. If you had really read the "pulic record", you would have known that. You haven't.

No, I accused you of assault/battery ... and you edited my text to change it. How dishonest can you get ? The difference between the two relates to intent ... as I'm sure you know ... and you were convicted of two counts of battery.

> > You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
>
> BS. Pedestrians have the right of way on trails. I can freely go wherever I want to.

I already stated here ... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/g6-looFBysM/nYQ7Q36X8akJ ... a detailed refutation. You cannot use Right of Way Precedence for pedestrians to detain someone. Your right of way was not impinged in any way ... you intentionally moved in order to stop a rider. Having no authority whatsoever to take that action you put yourself on the wrong side of the law.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 1:39:09 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > > Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do. > > That's like saying a scientist is qualified to say what happened when he wasn't present. BS. What a load of ********* ! So, you want us to completely disregard a court and accept your evidence at face value ? On that basis, I doubt that there would be very many criminals in jail !!! So, Mr X, did you do it ? No ? Well, obviously, the court can't decide so we will have to take your word for it !! > > I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery. > BS. You obviously know nothing about the law -- or anything else. I appear to know an awful lot more than you about it :-) > BS. You admitted your words are "just commentary" -- in other words, they are WORTHLESS. Hearsay. Not admissible in court, unlike my statements. Great, well done. Your statements managed to get you convicted :-) > > I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery" > > You accused me of assault. That's nonsense. That charge was DISMISSED. If you had really read the "pulic record", you would have known that. You haven't. No, I accused you of assault/battery ... and you edited my text to change it. How dishonest can you get ? The difference between the two relates to intent ... as I'm sure you know ... and you were convicted of two counts of battery. > > You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum. > > BS. Pedestrians have the right of way on trails. I can freely go wherever I want to. I already stated here ... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.mountain-bike/g6-looFBysM/nYQ7Q36X8akJ ... a detailed refutation. You cannot use Right of Way Precedence for pedestrians to detain someone. Your right of way was not impinged in any way ... you intentionally moved in order to stop a rider. Having no authority whatsoever to take that action you put yourself on the wrong side of the law.

Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!

[Blackblade]

> Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!

Bigger yawn. Yeah, keep accusing me of lying without pointing any out ... how's that working for you ?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 1:40:17 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
> > Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!
>
>
>
> Bigger yawn. Yeah, keep accusing me of lying without pointing any out ... how's that working for you ?

ANOTHER whopper!As I said, you just don't even know what a lie is!

[Blackblade]

> > > Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!
>
> > Bigger yawn. Yeah, keep accusing me of lying without pointing any out ... how's that working for you ?
>
> ANOTHER whopper!As I said, you just don't even know what a lie is!

Well, if it's so obvious and easy ... just point one out. Go on, surely that's not beyond you ?

Idiot !