Re: Mountain Bikers Angry About Their Illegal Jump Being Destroyed (was Re: They destroyed our jump spot :()

[spademan o---[\) *]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:11:20 +0100, "spademan o---[\) *"
> c.gov.uk> wrote:
> .
> .I feel your pain. Hope you can get another spot running, either through
the
> .council or out of the way somewhere. Our local council just spent 20k on
a
> .small cookie-cutter skatepark which although I'm grateful for means they
> .won't donate any land for trails. At the moment we have a mutual
agreement
> .on a privately owned piece of land. As long as we keep the place
relatively
> .litter free and don't have any late night bonfires etc we're okay. The
> .landowner figures we keep the land looking 'used' and stops people
> .fly-tipping, gypsies camping there and leaving all kinds of ****
(literally)
> .etc. Still have to put up with random acts of vandalism from people that
> .ought to know better though.
> .
> .Steve.
>
> Note the "entitlement attitude", fostered by IMBA, which encourages
mountain
> bikers to do whatever they like to right this alleged "discrimination".
The only
> mystery is why anyone supports them in taking land away from wildlife and
other
> trail users....
>

You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and the
like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work. The area
is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I stated
the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that people
are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to wildlife
far more serious than a few paths.

Steve.

[S o r n i]

spademan o---[) * wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:11:20 +0100, "spademan o---[\) *"
>> c.gov.uk> wrote:
>> .
>> .I feel your pain. Hope you can get another spot running, either
>> through the .council or out of the way somewhere. Our local council
>> just spent 20k on a .small cookie-cutter skatepark which although
>> I'm grateful for means they .won't donate any land for trails. At
>> the moment we have a mutual agreement .on a privately owned piece of
>> land. As long as we keep the place relatively .litter free and don't
>> have any late night bonfires etc we're okay. The .landowner figures
>> we keep the land looking 'used' and stops people .fly-tipping,
>> gypsies camping there and leaving all kinds of **** (literally)
>> .etc. Still have to put up with random acts of vandalism from people
>> that .ought to know better though. .
>> .Steve.
>>
>> Note the "entitlement attitude", fostered by IMBA, which encourages
>> mountain bikers to do whatever they like to right this alleged
>> "discrimination". The only mystery is why anyone supports them in
>> taking land away from wildlife and other trail users....
>>
>
> You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and
> the like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work.
> The area is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town
> and as I stated the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious
> use means that people are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and
> other threats to wildlife far more serious than a few paths.

First of all, Steve, thanks for trimming the JILLION LINES of unintelligible
gobbledygook that Vandekook inexplicably attaches to such posts. Between
that and his ridiculous "one dot" quoting method ("style" clearly not
appropriate word), it's no wonder that NO ONE reads his rants 'n ramblings,
even if they were slightly interested.

Second, it should be pointed out that Vandecrit sees a pic of a muddy,
plowed hill -- no telling how much "habitat" was destroyed -- and rather
than condemn it, all he does is exploit it to advance his wacky, useless
"cause".

Bill "taste of bait in mouth, but so what" S.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:42:41 +0100, "spademan o---[\) *"
c.gov.uk> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
. ..
..> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:11:20 +0100, "spademan o---[\) *"
..> c.gov.uk> wrote:
..> .
..> .I feel your pain. Hope you can get another spot running, either through
..the
..> .council or out of the way somewhere. Our local council just spent 20k on
..a
..> .small cookie-cutter skatepark which although I'm grateful for means they
..> .won't donate any land for trails. At the moment we have a mutual
..agreement
..> .on a privately owned piece of land. As long as we keep the place
..relatively
..> .litter free and don't have any late night bonfires etc we're okay. The
..> .landowner figures we keep the land looking 'used' and stops people
..> .fly-tipping, gypsies camping there and leaving all kinds of ****
..(literally)
..> .etc. Still have to put up with random acts of vandalism from people that
..> .ought to know better though.
..> .
..> .Steve.
..>
..> Note the "entitlement attitude", fostered by IMBA, which encourages
..mountain
..> bikers to do whatever they like to right this alleged "discrimination".
..The only
..> mystery is why anyone supports them in taking land away from wildlife and
..other
..> trail users....
..>
..
..You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and the
..like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work. The area
..is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I stated
..the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that people
..are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to wildlife
..far more serious than a few paths.
..
..Steve.

BS. If it were so beneficial to wildlife & people, the local authorities would
have been glad to authorize it. They DIDN'T. You took the law into your own
hands, and now you expect SYMPATHY?! Ha ha ha.
===
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 Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:08:43 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

..spademan o---[) * wrote:
..> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
..> ...
..>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:11:20 +0100, "spademan o---[\) *"
..>> c.gov.uk> wrote:
..>> .
..>> .I feel your pain. Hope you can get another spot running, either
..>> through the .council or out of the way somewhere. Our local council
..>> just spent 20k on a .small cookie-cutter skatepark which although
..>> I'm grateful for means they .won't donate any land for trails. At
..>> the moment we have a mutual agreement .on a privately owned piece of
..>> land. As long as we keep the place relatively .litter free and don't
..>> have any late night bonfires etc we're okay. The .landowner figures
..>> we keep the land looking 'used' and stops people .fly-tipping,
..>> gypsies camping there and leaving all kinds of **** (literally)
..>> .etc. Still have to put up with random acts of vandalism from people
..>> that .ought to know better though. .
..>> .Steve.
..>>
..>> Note the "entitlement attitude", fostered by IMBA, which encourages
..>> mountain bikers to do whatever they like to right this alleged
..>> "discrimination". The only mystery is why anyone supports them in
..>> taking land away from wildlife and other trail users....
..>>
..>
..> You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and
..> the like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work.
..> The area is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town
..> and as I stated the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious
..> use means that people are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and
..> other threats to wildlife far more serious than a few paths.
..
..First of all, Steve, thanks for trimming the JILLION LINES of unintelligible
..gobbledygook that Vandekook inexplicably attaches to such posts. Between
..that and his ridiculous "one dot" quoting method ("style" clearly not
..appropriate word), it's no wonder that NO ONE reads his rants 'n ramblings,
..even if they were slightly interested.
..
..Second, it should be pointed out that Vandecrit sees a pic of a muddy,
..plowed hill -- no telling how much "habitat" was destroyed -- and rather
..than condemn it, all he does is exploit it to advance his wacky, useless
.."cause".
..
..Bill "taste of bait in mouth, but so what" S.

Too bad you don't have the guts to tell the TRUTH: that it was created
ILLEGALLY. DUH! No wonder you guys get no respect: you haven't earned 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[spademan o---[\) *]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:42:41 +0100, "spademan o---[\) *"
> c.gov.uk> wrote:

> .You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and the
> .like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work. The
area
> .is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I
stated
> .the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that people
> .are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to wildlife
> .far more serious than a few paths.
> .
> .Steve.
>
> BS. If it were so beneficial to wildlife & people, the local authorities
would
> have been glad to authorize it. They DIDN'T. You took the law into your
own
> hands, and now you expect SYMPATHY?! Ha ha ha.

Nope its not bull****, and we didn't ask them to authorize it because its on
private land which is unused and has been for 30+ years. As I've already
pointed out to you the owner of the land can appreciate the benefits we
bring and so can other trail users. You seem to be getting me mixed up with
the original poster BTW, do try and keep up.

Steve.

[Scott Burley]

> .You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and the
> .like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work. The
area
> .is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I
stated
> .the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that people
> .are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to wildlife
> .far more serious than a few paths.
> .
> .Steve.
>
> BS. If it were so beneficial to wildlife & people, the local authorities
would
> have been glad to authorize it. They DIDN'T. You took the law into your
own
> hands, and now you expect SYMPATHY?! Ha ha ha.

Gee, do you really trust local authorities to be so omniscient as to always
do the right thing?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:02 GMT, "Scott Burley" >
wrote:

..> .You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and the
..> .like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work. The
..area
..> .is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I
..stated
..> .the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that people
..> .are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to wildlife
..> .far more serious than a few paths.
..> .
..> .Steve.
..>
..> BS. If it were so beneficial to wildlife & people, the local authorities
..would
..> have been glad to authorize it. They DIDN'T. You took the law into your
..own
..> hands, and now you expect SYMPATHY?! Ha ha ha.
..
..Gee, do you really trust local authorities to be so omniscient as to always
..do the right thing?

No, but they ARE in charge. YOU aren't.
===
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

[spademan o---[\) *]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:02 GMT, "Scott Burley"
>
> wrote:
> .Gee, do you really trust local authorities to be so omniscient as to
always
> .do the right thing?
>
> No, but they ARE in charge. YOU aren't.

So you are an advocate then of following the 'people in charge' rather than
doing the right thing.

[Scott Burley]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:02 GMT, "Scott Burley"
>
> wrote:
>
> .> .You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and
the
> .> .like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work. The
> .area
> .> .is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I
> .stated
> .> .the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that
people
> .> .are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to
wildlife
> .> .far more serious than a few paths.
> .> .
> .> .Steve.
> .>
> .> BS. If it were so beneficial to wildlife & people, the local
authorities
> .would
> .> have been glad to authorize it. They DIDN'T. You took the law into your
> .own
> .> hands, and now you expect SYMPATHY?! Ha ha ha.
> .
> .Gee, do you really trust local authorities to be so omniscient as to
always
> .do the right thing?
>
> No, but they ARE in charge. YOU aren't.

But that's contradictory. In your previous post you said that if the jump
had been beneficial to wildlife & people, the local authorities would have
been glad to authorize it. Now you say that local authorities cannot be
trusted to do the right thing. So which is it?


--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:19:08 +0100, "spademan o---[\) *"
c.gov.uk> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
. ..
..> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:02 GMT, "Scott Burley"
>
..> wrote:
..> .Gee, do you really trust local authorities to be so omniscient as to
..always
..> .do the right thing?
..>
..> No, but they ARE in charge. YOU aren't.
..
..So you are an advocate then of following the 'people in charge' rather than
..doing the right thing.

No, YOU said that. DUH!
===
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 Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:28:21 GMT, "Scott Burley" >
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman > wrote in message
. ..
..> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:02 GMT, "Scott Burley"
>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .> .You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers and
..the
..> .> .like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work. The
..> .area
..> .> .is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I
..> .stated
..> .> .the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that
..people
..> .> .are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to
..wildlife
..> .> .far more serious than a few paths.
..> .> .
..> .> .Steve.
..> .>
..> .> BS. If it were so beneficial to wildlife & people, the local
..authorities
..> .would
..> .> have been glad to authorize it. They DIDN'T. You took the law into your
..> .own
..> .> hands, and now you expect SYMPATHY?! Ha ha ha.
..> .
..> .Gee, do you really trust local authorities to be so omniscient as to
..always
..> .do the right thing?
..>
..> No, but they ARE in charge. YOU aren't.
..
..But that's contradictory. In your previous post you said that if the jump
..had been beneficial to wildlife & people, the local authorities would have
..been glad to authorize it. Now you say that local authorities cannot be
..trusted to do the right thing. So which is it?

Careful! This group doesn't like people to tell the truth.
===
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

[Scott Burley]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:28:21 GMT, "Scott Burley"
>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman > wrote in message
> .. .
> .> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:02 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> >
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .> .You dope. The paths we maintain and clear are used by dog walkers
and
> .the
> .> .> .like which would not be possible if it weren't for our hard work.
The
> .> .area
> .> .> .is hardly prime wilderness, its on the outskirts of a town and as I
> .> .stated
> .> .> .the fact that we keep the place tidy and in obvious use means that
> .people
> .> .> .are less likely to dump garbage/stolen cars and other threats to
> .wildlife
> .> .> .far more serious than a few paths.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Steve.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. If it were so beneficial to wildlife & people, the local
> .authorities
> .> .would
> .> .> have been glad to authorize it. They DIDN'T. You took the law into
your
> .> .own
> .> .> hands, and now you expect SYMPATHY?! Ha ha ha.
> .> .
> .> .Gee, do you really trust local authorities to be so omniscient as to
> .always
> .> .do the right thing?
> .>
> .> No, but they ARE in charge. YOU aren't.
> .
> .But that's contradictory. In your previous post you said that if the jump
> .had been beneficial to wildlife & people, the local authorities would
have
> .been glad to authorize it. Now you say that local authorities cannot be
> .trusted to do the right thing. So which is it?
>
> Careful! This group doesn't like people to tell the truth.

So are you admitting that you lied?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[Joshua Putnam]

In article >,
says...

> Careful! This group doesn't like people to tell the truth.

Thus explaining the volume of your postings here over the last decade?

--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:30:52 -0700, Joshua Putnam > wrote:

..In article >,
says...
..
..> Careful! This group doesn't like people to tell the truth.
..
..Thus explaining the volume of your postings here over the last decade?

Because SOMEONE has to tell the truth. You guys just don't LIKE 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman >:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:30:52 -0700, Joshua Putnam > wrote:
>
> .In article >,
> says...
> .
> .> Careful! This group doesn't like people to tell the truth.
> .
> .Thus explaining the volume of your postings here over the last decade?
>
> Because SOMEONE has to tell the truth. You guys just don't LIKE it.

And we're still waiting patiently Mike for you to start telling the
truth. Do you have an ETA so I know when to start listening? I'd had to
miss a red letter day like that.

Jason

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:09:48 GMT, Jason > wrote:

..* Mike Vandeman >:
..> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:30:52 -0700, Joshua Putnam > wrote:
..>
..> .In article >,
..> says...
..> .
..> .> Careful! This group doesn't like people to tell the truth.
..> .
..> .Thus explaining the volume of your postings here over the last decade?
..>
..> Because SOMEONE has to tell the truth. You guys just don't LIKE it.
..
..And we're still waiting patiently Mike for you to start telling the
..truth. Do you have an ETA so I know when to start listening? I'd had to
..miss a red letter day like that.

I ALWAYS listen. That's why I know that you guys always lie.

..Jason

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman >:
> I ALWAYS listen. That's why I know that you guys always lie.
>

We're human beings mikey we all lie at one point or another, just like
you are now by saying we always lie.

Jason

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:41:43 GMT, Jason > wrote:

..* Mike Vandeman >:
..> I ALWAYS listen. That's why I know that you guys always lie.
..>
..
..We're human beings mikey we all lie at one point or another, just like
..you are now by saying we always lie.

Sorry, it's true.

..Jason

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman >:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:41:43 GMT, Jason > wrote:
>
> .* Mike Vandeman >:
> .> I ALWAYS listen. That's why I know that you guys always lie.
> .>
> .
> .We're human beings mikey we all lie at one point or another, just like
> .you are now by saying we always lie.
>
> Sorry, it's true.
>
> .Jason
>

Sorry Mike but did I just find a flaw in your "logic? We always lie and
you always listen? I do belive your lying. Not good for someone rumoured
to be a scientist.

Jason

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:47:25 GMT, Jason > wrote:

..* Mike Vandeman >:
..> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:41:43 GMT, Jason > wrote:
..>
..> .* Mike Vandeman >:
..> .> I ALWAYS listen. That's why I know that you guys always lie.
..> .>
..> .
..> .We're human beings mikey we all lie at one point or another, just like
..> .you are now by saying we always lie.
..>
..> Sorry, it's true.
..>
..> .Jason
..>
..
..Sorry Mike but did I just find a flaw in your "logic? We always lie and
..you always listen? I do belive your lying.

No, I am listening.

Not good for someone rumoured
..to be a scientist.
..
..Jason

===
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