ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker

On Mar 10, 1:34*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 04:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44





wrote:
On Mar 9, 12:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:33*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:45:25 -0800 (PST), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:48*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:52:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:07*pm, Chris wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:17:33 -0800 (PST), Chris

wrote:
On Feb 28, 9:19 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:53:10 -0800 (PST), Chris
I have made this point in the past only to have Mike dispute it. It
seems his memory is selective and short.

Because it is not valid. DUH!
Your point is the one which is not valid Mike. You are not using
science to demonstrate that "mountain biking" (be it the type of
bicycle, type of riding, or the industry which makes mountain bikes)
killed anyone in any of the examples that I have seen you post here,
but instead your personal bias. There is no cause based effect, which
resulted in any of the deaths or injuries that you have posted which
are attributable to "mountain biking". It's roughly akin to saying
that it is the fault of the vehicle type which resulted in someone's
injury or death without looking at road/off road conditions, other
vehicles, weather conditions, health conditions, maintenance history
of the vehicles involved, piloting abilities of the driver(s)/rider(s)
involved, or any other mitigating circumstances.

Warning: Improbable, but relevant comparison ahead with bad humor, my
personal bias against SUVs, and personal adoration of steamrollers.

"Grr! An SUV just ran over my dog after hitting some ice, jumping a
curb, and crashing through my living room wall where my dog was
crated, therefore SUVs kill animals. Cars and steamrollers would have
never run over my dog if the driver had seen it, the road was dry,
they were driving 5 MPH, and we were 100 feet away! Damn you SUVs!"

If there is anyone avoiding any resemblance to scientific analysis,
and blatant disregard of the facts at hand, it is you Mike.

Chris
“I would like to dedicate this post to the amusement of others, and my
own ego! I never thought we could make it this far without either of
you! Thank to so much!”

Are you claiming that people never die from mountain biking? Where is
your evidence?
- Show quoted text -

I would ask you to stop trying to put words in my mouth, but if you
have so little class to mock the dead and their grieving friend who
witnessed them die for an activity they enjoy which plays no roll in
their death, it seem impossible that you would grant me such a simple
courtesy.
To answer your ridiculous question, no. I am not claiming mountain
biking has not ever claimed anyone's life, which is a damn sight
better than you for saying anyone who dies while in possition of one,
or while mountain biking deserved to die. I'm curious what else earns
the Mike Vandeman Deserves to Die award?

Oil companies? Car makers? Strip mining? Factory farming? Logging?

With all the people doing horrid things to the planet and one another,
it is short sighted of you in my opinion to suggest death is deserved
for a recreational sport. Maybe you haven't seen the news of late, but
there are more than a few wars going on just now, ethnic cleansing,
and other far more serious issues than mountain biking. You would be
well advised to gain some perspective on what is actually important,
versus what you are trying to manufacture as important.- Hide quoted text -

Those other problems are just too tough for a phony environmentalist
to tackle. Much easier to sit behind a keyboard and pretend to care
about the planet.

It's pretty LOW for mountain bikers to try to take advantage of those
other distractions to get away with murdering wildlife and the
environment. Thanks for demonstrating just how despicable mountain
bikers are!

The term "mountain-biker" has nothing to do with me, so your point it
moot.

Sorry. Mountain biker sympathizer.

Wrong again.

You should stop calling yourself an "environmentalist" and an
"advocate for wildlife" as you are neither.

You make no sense.

I make perfect sense. You should stop calling yourself an
"environmentalist" because you are not one. You should stop calling
yourself an "advocate for wildlife" because you are not one. You are
nothing more than an armchair scientist with a boner for mountain
bikers. You do nothing for the environment or wildlife. Makes perfect
sense.

Nope, it's not supported by the facts. I guess you've never bothered
to look at my website. If you aren't a mountain biker, why are as
ignorant and lazy as they are?
--

I've never seen, heard of or viewed ANY animal that has benefited from
your silly website.

Huge amounts of real habitat are being destroyed daily by surface
mining, gas and oil exploration, lumbering, fertilizer and chemical
runoff and other commercial activities while you sit on your lazy ass
and complain about someone riding a bicycle. You haven't the balls to
take on a real environmental problem.

Obviously, you STILL haven't seen my website, or you couldn't say
that. And you haven't the foggiest idea how to judge mountain biking
impacts on wildlife. But what can we expect from a mountain biker
sympathizer? Certainly not HONESTY!

You haven't the balls to take on a real environmental problem. You are
nothing more than a glory whore.

Highway construction is not "a real environmental problem"? You are a
joke.

With 61,000 square miles of the US paved for roadways and parking, you
haven't accomplished much, if anything, in that regard.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44
wrote:

On Mar 10, 1:34*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 04:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44





wrote:
On Mar 9, 12:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:33*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:45:25 -0800 (PST), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:48*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:52:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:07*pm, Chris wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:17:33 -0800 (PST), Chris

wrote:
On Feb 28, 9:19 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:53:10 -0800 (PST), Chris
I have made this point in the past only to have Mike dispute it. It
seems his memory is selective and short.

Because it is not valid. DUH!
Your point is the one which is not valid Mike. You are not using
science to demonstrate that "mountain biking" (be it the type of
bicycle, type of riding, or the industry which makes mountain bikes)
killed anyone in any of the examples that I have seen you post here,
but instead your personal bias. There is no cause based effect, which
resulted in any of the deaths or injuries that you have posted which
are attributable to "mountain biking". It's roughly akin to saying
that it is the fault of the vehicle type which resulted in someone's
injury or death without looking at road/off road conditions, other
vehicles, weather conditions, health conditions, maintenance history
of the vehicles involved, piloting abilities of the driver(s)/rider(s)
involved, or any other mitigating circumstances.

Warning: Improbable, but relevant comparison ahead with bad humor, my
personal bias against SUVs, and personal adoration of steamrollers.

"Grr! An SUV just ran over my dog after hitting some ice, jumping a
curb, and crashing through my living room wall where my dog was
crated, therefore SUVs kill animals. Cars and steamrollers would have
never run over my dog if the driver had seen it, the road was dry,
they were driving 5 MPH, and we were 100 feet away! Damn you SUVs!"

If there is anyone avoiding any resemblance to scientific analysis,
and blatant disregard of the facts at hand, it is you Mike.

Chris
“I would like to dedicate this post to the amusement of others, and my
own ego! I never thought we could make it this far without either of
you! Thank to so much!”

Are you claiming that people never die from mountain biking? Where is
your evidence?
- Show quoted text -

I would ask you to stop trying to put words in my mouth, but if you
have so little class to mock the dead and their grieving friend who
witnessed them die for an activity they enjoy which plays no roll in
their death, it seem impossible that you would grant me such a simple
courtesy.
To answer your ridiculous question, no. I am not claiming mountain
biking has not ever claimed anyone's life, which is a damn sight
better than you for saying anyone who dies while in possition of one,
or while mountain biking deserved to die. I'm curious what else earns
the Mike Vandeman Deserves to Die award?

Oil companies? Car makers? Strip mining? Factory farming? Logging?

With all the people doing horrid things to the planet and one another,
it is short sighted of you in my opinion to suggest death is deserved
for a recreational sport. Maybe you haven't seen the news of late, but
there are more than a few wars going on just now, ethnic cleansing,
and other far more serious issues than mountain biking. You would be
well advised to gain some perspective on what is actually important,
versus what you are trying to manufacture as important.- Hide quoted text -

Those other problems are just too tough for a phony environmentalist
to tackle. Much easier to sit behind a keyboard and pretend to care
about the planet.

It's pretty LOW for mountain bikers to try to take advantage of those
other distractions to get away with murdering wildlife and the
environment. Thanks for demonstrating just how despicable mountain
bikers are!

The term "mountain-biker" has nothing to do with me, so your point it
moot.

Sorry. Mountain biker sympathizer.

Wrong again.

You should stop calling yourself an "environmentalist" and an
"advocate for wildlife" as you are neither.

You make no sense.

I make perfect sense. You should stop calling yourself an
"environmentalist" because you are not one. You should stop calling
yourself an "advocate for wildlife" because you are not one. You are
nothing more than an armchair scientist with a boner for mountain
bikers. You do nothing for the environment or wildlife. Makes perfect
sense.

Nope, it's not supported by the facts. I guess you've never bothered
to look at my website. If you aren't a mountain biker, why are as
ignorant and lazy as they are?
--

I've never seen, heard of or viewed ANY animal that has benefited from
your silly website.

Huge amounts of real habitat are being destroyed daily by surface
mining, gas and oil exploration, lumbering, fertilizer and chemical
runoff and other commercial activities while you sit on your lazy ass
and complain about someone riding a bicycle. You haven't the balls to
take on a real environmental problem.

Obviously, you STILL haven't seen my website, or you couldn't say
that. And you haven't the foggiest idea how to judge mountain biking
impacts on wildlife. But what can we expect from a mountain biker
sympathizer? Certainly not HONESTY!

You haven't the balls to take on a real environmental problem. You are
nothing more than a glory whore.

Highway construction is not "a real environmental problem"? You are a
joke.

With 61,000 square miles of the US paved for roadways and parking, you
haven't accomplished much, if anything, in that regard.

More than you!
--
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

On Mar 12, 12:33*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44





wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:34*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 04:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 9, 12:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:33*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:45:25 -0800 (PST), Kayak44

wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:48*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:52:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:07*pm, Chris wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:28*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:17:33 -0800 (PST), Chris

wrote:
On Feb 28, 9:19 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:53:10 -0800 (PST), Chris
I have made this point in the past only to have Mike dispute it. It
seems his memory is selective and short.

Because it is not valid. DUH!
Your point is the one which is not valid Mike. You are not using
science to demonstrate that "mountain biking" (be it the type of
bicycle, type of riding, or the industry which makes mountain bikes)
killed anyone in any of the examples that I have seen you post here,
but instead your personal bias. There is no cause based effect, which
resulted in any of the deaths or injuries that you have posted which
are attributable to "mountain biking". It's roughly akin to saying
that it is the fault of the vehicle type which resulted in someone's
injury or death without looking at road/off road conditions, other
vehicles, weather conditions, health conditions, maintenance history
of the vehicles involved, piloting abilities of the driver(s)/rider(s)
involved, or any other mitigating circumstances.

Warning: Improbable, but relevant comparison ahead with bad humor, my
personal bias against SUVs, and personal adoration of steamrollers.

"Grr! An SUV just ran over my dog after hitting some ice, jumping a
curb, and crashing through my living room wall where my dog was
crated, therefore SUVs kill animals. Cars and steamrollers would have
never run over my dog if the driver had seen it, the road was dry,
they were driving 5 MPH, and we were 100 feet away! Damn you SUVs!"

If there is anyone avoiding any resemblance to scientific analysis,
and blatant disregard of the facts at hand, it is you Mike.

Chris
“I would like to dedicate this post to the amusement of others, and my
own ego! I never thought we could make it this far without either of
you! Thank to so much!”

Are you claiming that people never die from mountain biking? Where is
your evidence?
- Show quoted text -

I would ask you to stop trying to put words in my mouth, but if you
have so little class to mock the dead and their grieving friend who
witnessed them die for an activity they enjoy which plays no roll in
their death, it seem impossible that you would grant me such a simple
courtesy.
To answer your ridiculous question, no. I am not claiming mountain
biking has not ever claimed anyone's life, which is a damn sight
better than you for saying anyone who dies while in possition of one,
or while mountain biking deserved to die. I'm curious what else earns
the Mike Vandeman Deserves to Die award?

Oil companies? Car makers? Strip mining? Factory farming? Logging?

With all the people doing horrid things to the planet and one another,
it is short sighted of you in my opinion to suggest death is deserved
for a recreational sport. Maybe you haven't seen the news of late, but
there are more than a few wars going on just now, ethnic cleansing,
and other far more serious issues than mountain biking. You would be
well advised to gain some perspective on what is actually important,
versus what you are trying to manufacture as important.- Hide quoted text -

Those other problems are just too tough for a phony environmentalist
to tackle. Much easier to sit behind a keyboard and pretend to care
about the planet.

It's pretty LOW for mountain bikers to try to take advantage of those
other distractions to get away with murdering wildlife and the
environment. Thanks for demonstrating just how despicable mountain
bikers are!

The term "mountain-biker" has nothing to do with me, so your point it
moot.

Sorry. Mountain biker sympathizer.

Wrong again.

You should stop calling yourself an "environmentalist" and an
"advocate for wildlife" as you are neither.

You make no sense.

I make perfect sense. You should stop calling yourself an
"environmentalist" because you are not one. You should stop calling
yourself an "advocate for wildlife" because you are not one. You are
nothing more than an armchair scientist with a boner for mountain
bikers. You do nothing for the environment or wildlife. Makes perfect
sense.

Nope, it's not supported by the facts. I guess you've never bothered
to look at my website. If you aren't a mountain biker, why are as
ignorant and lazy as they are?
--

I've never seen, heard of or viewed ANY animal that has benefited from
your silly website.

Huge amounts of real habitat are being destroyed daily by surface
mining, gas and oil exploration, lumbering, fertilizer and chemical
runoff and other commercial activities while you sit on your lazy ass
and complain about someone riding a bicycle. You haven't the balls to
take on a real environmental problem.

Obviously, you STILL haven't seen my website, or you couldn't say
that. And you haven't the foggiest idea how to judge mountain biking
impacts on wildlife. But what can we expect from a mountain biker
sympathizer? Certainly not HONESTY!

You haven't the balls to take on a real environmental problem. You are
nothing more than a glory whore.

Highway construction is not "a real environmental problem"? You are a
joke.

With 61,000 square miles of the US paved for roadways and parking, you
haven't accomplished much, if anything, in that regard.

More than you!


You haven't a clue, as usual.

On Mar 8, 11:37 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
Show me where you see "glee", LIAR. Like all mountain bikers, you
FABRICATE everything, because you don't have the guts to tell the
truth.

Ah, the classic Mike foil, a battle over minutia. You want me to prove
your intent, versus the perception of intent. I concede that it is my
perception that you post these things with glee, or malice, but I have
no doubt that your intent is not altruistic. You continuing to suggest
that you are warning people about the dangers of mountain bikes is
disproved by the very things you post as they usually have nothing to
do with mountain biking, but instead just the inclusion of a mountain
bike.

You fabricated that. It simply states a fact.

No fabrication at all. As I stated, it is very much a "they got what
they deserved" implication. It is your tone which does this, not my
perception of it.

You are a liar because you claim as fact things that (1) aren't true
and which (2) you know aren't true. DUH!

I have made no such claims, and you cannot speak to what I know or do
not know. You are claiming that I am lying, but you have no proof of
this, nor could you prove it. It is a theory at best, and no less
wrong. It is a distraction from the point by assaulting my character
and accusing me of a liar and not addressing the merits of the
arguments.

BS. It's the best way to warn people of a danger, so they don't do the
same. You make no sense whatsoever. I guess we should never publish
articles about accidents & disasters? Do you complaing to the medis
for covering 911 etc? I doubt it, HYPOCRITE.

You are not warning people about the right thing. I have yet to see
one of the new stories you have posted here where mountain biking
cause anyone's death. Claming that I am lying about this point is
unfounded and unproven. Hypocrisy is something you specialize in, not
me.

Chris

On Mar 8, 5:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
I guess you've never bothered to look at my website.

Your website is ****e, devoid of credible citations, references, any
sort of readable presentation, or more than the most basic of HTML
programming. It is self-congratulatory at best.

Chris

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:

On Mar 8, 11:37 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
Show me where you see "glee", LIAR. Like all mountain bikers, you
FABRICATE everything, because you don't have the guts to tell the
truth.

Ah, the classic Mike foil, a battle over minutia. You want me to prove
your intent, versus the perception of intent. I concede that it is my
perception that you post these things with glee, or malice, but I have
no doubt that your intent is not altruistic.

As I said, you FABRICATED that, on the basis of no evidence
whatsoever. Admit it: you are an incorrigible LIAR.

You continuing to suggest
that you are warning people about the dangers of mountain bikes is
disproved by the very things you post as they usually have nothing to
do with mountain biking, but instead just the inclusion of a mountain
bike.

You fabricated that. It simply states a fact.

No fabrication at all. As I stated, it is very much a "they got what
they deserved" implication. It is your tone which does this, not my
perception of it.

BS. You can't define tone nor point to what creates the alleged
"tone". You are just LYING, plain & simple.

You are a liar because you claim as fact things that (1) aren't true
and which (2) you know aren't true. DUH!

I have made no such claims, and you cannot speak to what I know or do
not know. You are claiming that I am lying, but you have no proof of
this, nor could you prove it. It is a theory at best, and no less
wrong. It is a distraction from the point by assaulting my character
and accusing me of a liar and not addressing the merits of the
arguments.

BS. It's the best way to warn people of a danger, so they don't do the
same. You make no sense whatsoever. I guess we should never publish
articles about accidents & disasters? Do you complaing to the medis
for covering 911 etc? I doubt it, HYPOCRITE.

You are not warning people about the right thing. I have yet to see
one of the new stories you have posted here where mountain biking
cause anyone's death.

LIAR.

Claming that I am lying about this point is
unfounded and unproven. Hypocrisy is something you specialize in, not
me.

Chris
--
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

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:01:20 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:

On Mar 8, 5:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
I guess you've never bothered to look at my website.

Your website is ****e, devoid of credible citations, references, any
sort of readable presentation, or more than the most basic of HTML
programming. It is self-congratulatory at best.

Chris

If you had bothered to look at it, you would have known that I worked
to stop highway construction, probably while you were (1) in diapers
or (2) twiddled your thumbs.
--
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

On Mar 18, 8:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:01:20 -0700 (PDT), Chris

wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
I guess you've never bothered to look at my website.

Your website is ****e, devoid of credible citations, references, any
sort of readable presentation, or more than the most basic of HTML
programming. It is self-congratulatory at best.

Chris

If you had bothered to look at it, you would have known that I worked
to stop highway construction, probably while you were (1) in diapers
or (2) twiddled your thumbs.

By "worked" do you mean "added to an already boring website that
consisted mostly of other peoples writings"?

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Kayak44
wrote:

On Mar 18, 8:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:01:20 -0700 (PDT), Chris

wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:00*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
I guess you've never bothered to look at my website.

Your website is ****e, devoid of credible citations, references, any
sort of readable presentation, or more than the most basic of HTML
programming. It is self-congratulatory at best.

Chris

If you had bothered to look at it, you would have known that I worked
to stop highway construction, probably while you were (1) in diapers
or (2) twiddled your thumbs.

By "worked" do you mean "added to an already boring website that
consisted mostly of other peoples writings"?

No, things like filing lawsuits to stop highway construction.

My links contains links (DUH!) to other websites. The rest of my
website is my own writing. But you already knew that, and chose to lie
anyway. You are hopeless.
--
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