58-year-old Dies while Mountain Biking!

Fole Haafstra wrote:

You also express no human decency, compassion, or respect in such matters.



He expresses none because he apparently has none. This level of callous
brutality - even smugly self-satisfied glee - appears every time mikey
scrounges up some news item wherein some person encounters misfortune
("hopefully" death) while within shouting distance of a mountain bike.

We've seen it an obnoxiously large number of times.

Along with an astounding degree of misogeny, there is actual
satisfaction in the face of others' ill fortune.

PH

pmhilton wrote:

Along with an astounding degree of misogeny, there is actual
satisfaction in the face of others' ill fortune.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think you meant misanthropy, rather
than misogyny. I know, because I'm a bit of a misanthrope myself.

wrote in message
oups.com...
pmhilton wrote:

Along with an astounding degree of misogeny, there is actual
satisfaction in the face of others' ill fortune.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think you meant misanthropy, rather
than misogyny. I know, because I'm a bit of a misanthrope myself.


The best fit seems to be "Schadenfreude".

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:27:05 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:06:46 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:00:03 GMT, Artoi wrote:



In article ,
Mike Vandeman wrote:



On 4 Sep 2006 07:05:10 -0700, "CanopyCo" wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:


More evidence that mountain biking's alleged "health benefits" are
exaggerated. If you die, where is the net benefit???

He died of a heart attack.
That can happen during any kind of exercise.

But it didn't. He didn't die from running marathons. He died from
MOUNTAIN BIKING. Face the facts!

Mike, you are ignoring the root cause of his death, which is a heart
attack of some form.


Yes, DUE TO MOUNTAIN BIKING.

Due to physical exertion. Any
number of activities involve
the level of physical exertion
involved in mountain biking.


You missed the point. Several marathons didn't kill him. MOUNTAIN
BIKING did.


No, you missed the point.
Mountain biking did not kill
him, and you really have no
way of showing it was even he
exertion due to mountain biking.

He didn't die sipping a latte. He died mountain biking. 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.)

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, 07 Sep 2006 10:28:44 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:08:06 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:57:32 GMT, Artoi wrote:



In article .com,
"CanopyCo" wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:


More evidence that mountain biking's alleged "health benefits" are
exaggerated. If you die, where is the net benefit???

He died of a heart attack.
That can happen during any kind of exercise.
I presume that you are a fat turd that never exercises?
If so, then you also can die due to the excess fat.
If not, then you also can die from a heart attack while doing your
exercise.

Some of your posts make you look like an idiot.
That will not help your cause.

Correct, or even acute mental stress just sitting at a desk can start a
so called heart attack.


But it didn't. He died from mountain biking. You are just afraid to
admit the truth!

Considering the semantic
masturbation you are so keen
on, I would expect you to not
make such a ridiculous
statement. You cannot die from
mountain biking any more than
you can die from walking down
the street.


It happens all the time! It just happened again. Ride off a cliff, and
then tell me you can't die from mountain biking.

You, sir, are an idiot. If you
ride a bike off a cliff, you
may die from breaking your
neck, but not from mountain
biking.

So if you are shot to death, I guess the shooter had nothing to do
with it! It was all the bullet's fault. Right.

It's so clear how
muddy your mental waters are .
. seek help.
===
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 7 Sep 2006 09:54:14 -0700, "Marz" wrote:

A man dies at 58 years old while mtbing. Yahooo!!

I feel bad for his family, but a hundred 100 years the average man
wasn't expected to make 50 and now he's out mtbing. I can only hope for
having such a sweet exit from this world.

Death "sweet"? You are LYING. And rationalizing.

laters,

marz
===
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, 07 Sep 2006 10:21:08 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:05:02 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:21:52 -0400, pmhilton wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:
It's OBVIOUS!


Your opinion that a given conclusion is obvious is very nearly worthless
as an assumption uless some form of mental rigor is brought to bear. In
this instance, you have brought nothing to the discussion but a single
hastily formed opinion.


CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT is YOUR assessment of why he died. OBVIOUSLY, you
are afraid to ADMIT that he died from mountain biking, which he
OBVIOUSLY did.

No, he died of a heart attack.
Idiot.


Triggered by mountain biking, but NOT by running marathons.
Interesting....

You don't even know it was
triggered by mountain biking.
All you know is that it
occurred while he was mountain
biking,

What a coincidence! It was probably the latte he drank before mountain
biking that killed him! Right. Idiot.

making whatever
connections you wish to draw
untenable. As usual.



Make all the claims you wish. In support of that


opinion you must offer objective data & logically sound reasoning. You
have offered neither.

Seems to me this fundamental lack, along with your monomaniacle
androgeny has been mentioned hundreds of times by scores of posters.

PH

===
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
===
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, 07 Sep 2006 10:24:23 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:05:30 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:53:43 GMT, Artoi wrote:



In article ,
Mike Vandeman wrote:



Simply asserting that doesn't make it true. Prove that there is a NET
benefit from mountain biking (that couldn't be gotten by hiking or
other exercise)! You CAN'T. That's because mountain biking is one of
the most dangerous activities. People die or get seriously injured

from it all the time.

He didn't die of specific mountain biking related activity


Prove it. Liar.


The burden of proof is on you,
fool.


Nope, you just made a claim. Prove it (hint: you CAN'T!).


Your claim is that mountain
biking's health benefits are
exaggerated.

If mountain biking had a health benefit, he would still be alive. It
has no NET health benefit.

You cannot prove
that. One person dying means
nearly nothing statistically,
especially compared to other
recreational activities.

The burden is on you to prove
that you have a point, which
you don't. Moron.
===
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 7 Sep 2006 13:44:03 -0700, "mamba"
wrote:

There's that incisive, objective mind at work again. If it's OBVIOUS
to Mikey, well then, it's got to be FACT to the planet.

Mikey, got any FACTS about how many people have heart attacks while
driving LA freeways every year? Want to guess how many hundreds of
times it exceeds the same rate among mountain bikers partaking in their
sport?

It's obvious to you as well as me that mountain biking has a higher
rate of heart attacks.

Sure this doesn't address the original context of relative sport safety
- if that's what your first troll was all about. But it's at least as
relevant as the correlation you're inferring between mountain biking
and deaths due to exertion.

OK, I'm bored now. Go away.

Mike Vandeman wrote:

But it is BY FAR the most likely explanation. Of course, you avoid
giving an alternative explanation, because it's OBVIOUS that he dies
from 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:24:23 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:05:30 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:53:43 GMT, Artoi wrote:



In article ,
Mike Vandeman wrote:



Simply asserting that doesn't make it true. Prove that there is a NET
benefit from mountain biking (that couldn't be gotten by hiking or
other exercise)! You CAN'T. That's because mountain biking is one of
the most dangerous activities. People die or get seriously injured
from it all the time.

He didn't die of specific mountain biking related activity

Prove it. Liar.

The burden of proof is on you,
fool.

Nope, you just made a claim. Prove it (hint: you CAN'T!).

Your claim is that mountain
biking's health benefits are
exaggerated.

If mountain biking had a health benefit, he would still be alive. It
has no NET health benefit.


You idiot. By that logic, nothing has a NET health benefit. I have news
for you: we all die.

You cannot prove
that. One person dying means
nearly nothing statistically,
especially compared to other
recreational activities.

The burden is on you to prove
that you have a point, which
you don't. Moron.
===
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