Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Catching Mountain Bikers With Honey

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Vandeman

unread,
May 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/15/98
to

At 11:05 AM 5/14/98 -0700, Mark_F...@intuit.com wrote:
>
>>At 05:41 PM 5/13/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>So.. someone asks for more information about your views, and you
blow
>>>them away with accusations of lies?
>
>>So what am I supposed to do when people lie? IGNORE it? I just tell
the
>>truth. If you find that upsetting, I suggest that you move to a
country
>>where they don't have freedom of speech.
>
>How do you KNOW he's lying?

Look at the posts where I say that. It isn't hard to know when someone
is lying, at least SOME of the time. For example, they say something
about ME, which I know isn't true.

Where did you buy your crystal ball, because
>I'd like one too?!? You don't KNOW the guy you were responding to,
do
>you? Have you met him? That's the problem.. you pretend to know
what
>someone's intentions are, but often you are wrong. YOU DO NOT give
>people the benefit of the doubt.

I agree that there is a fine line between lying and ignorance. But in
most cases, when there is a way to eliminate their ignorance, and they
don't do it, we have to assume it's lying.

> >Just exactly how seriously are
>>>people to take you if you don't learn to act like a human being?
>
>>So human beings aren't supposed to tell the truth? You have a
strange idea
>>of what a human being is, not something I care to emulate. I suggest
that it
>>is not possible tot tell the truth about mountain biking and not
cause the
>>reaction I get. I have seen the way they attack other people who do
it (not
>>many people care to put up with that).
>
>I'm not saying you shouldn't tell the truth, although I think you may
be
>intelligent enough to know 'truth' is never as simple as you're
pretending it
>is.

I tell the truth as I know it, after LOTS of research and careful
choice of words. From what I have seen, most of the mountain bikers
who post on the 'net "shoot from the hip", ASSUMING I am wrong, and
usually not reading me carefully.

>I suggest it IS possible to tell the truth and not cause the reaction
you
>get, if you refrain from silly postings like the one I responded to.

I DID, on my web page. That didn't stop the mountain bikers from
attacking me. You are extremely naive. They won't accept anyone
telling the truth about mountain biking. Period. It isn't just me.
ANYONE who tells the truth gets the same response: venom!

Outline
>the issues, be succinct and direct, and don't insult people..

Look at my web page. All of my original articles are there. You will
see pure rational, non-insulting FACT. It isn't good enough for the
MTBers, because it undermines their campaign to open up more & more
trails to bikes. It threatens them.

all it does is
>undermine whatever credibility you have left. If you're so insecure
you have
>to insult those who disagree with you (and no, I don't care who
insulted
>first), then maybe you need a little bit of self analysis.

Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
community, where it matters. I don't expect MTBers to love me. You are
looking at this in a very superficial way, forgetting that my posts
are directed at EVERYONE, not just MTBers. Only the MTBers, and a few
others like you who seem to feel threatened by my posts react with
hostility. Many people send me private thank you's. I can understand
why they don't want to do it publicly, and incur the wrath of the
MTBers.

>Be reasonable, direct, and don't insult people's intelligence by your

>constant badgering.. all you're doing is showing them that people who
believe
>the way you do are wackos who cannot relate in the real world.

You are looking at the surface only, and apparently not reading my
posts carefully. Some people believe that "you catch more flies with
honey". But it is like a religious belief, and I don't believe it is
the best approach in the long run. HONESTY is. Besides, I am not
looking for flies.... :)

> >Give
>>>people the benefit of the doubt once in a while.
>
>>I do. But I have to judge them by what they say and do, and not
pretend that
>>everything is okay when it isn't.
>
>Again, how do you KNOW he was lying? You DON'T! And to pretend
otherwise is
>for YOU to LIE!! You did not give him the benefit of the doubt.

I see only two possibilities -- lying or ignorance. Take your pick.

>>>BTW, I agree with a good portion of what you are saying, I think
you
>>and >your attitude do FAR more harm then good at helping people
>>understand >the impact of their actions.
>
>>What IS my attitude? Professional psychologists need special
measuring
>>instruments to determine attitudes, and even then don't come too
close. If
>>you are able to determine people's attitudes, you should get an
honorary
>>doctorate in psychology.
>
>Thanks for the doctorate.. :).
>
>Guess what.. it doesn't take a genius to see you have problems to
relating
>to people on a reasonable level. I've only read 5-6 of your posts
and all
>of them are filled with insults, accusations, and defensiveness from
you.

You aren't reading my original posts. You came in in the middle of the
movie. Besides, social pressure is how the community enforces its
standards. That is all I am doing: expecting a high standard of
behaviour, especially honesty.

If you disagree, send me a complete post, and be specific. This
arguing the abstract is for the birds.

>Again, you're not helping yourself! You're not convincing anyone!
If you
>want to be effective in spreading your gospel, LEARN about how humans

>listen and learn.

There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike. If you think
it IS possible, TRY it. You are amazingly naive. They can only be
convinced by public pressure, just as racist remarks were made
unacceptable in society. I am doing the same for MTBing.

>>>I wonder if you are actually pro mountain biking, attempting to
turn
>>>people away from environmental causes with your attitude.. some
sort of
>>>twisted attempt at reverse psychology.
>
>>You won't learn much by projecting your own paranoia on the world.
>
>Again, I have a hard time believing you are who you say you are ONLY
BECAUSE of
>your immense failure at presenting yourself in a credible, reasonable
light.

I have no such trouble. The many organizations that have asked me to
speak to them obviously don't agree. Are you really taking your
standard from the crazies on the 'net???

>It's impossible for me to see how you have convinced a single
person!! In fact,
>I see you are successful at getting the rest of us environmentalists
painted as
>wackos along with you.

I have actually convinced MANY people. I don't know how many, but I
get several significant thank you's each week from PEOPLE WHO MATTER,
not crazies.

>>>-Mark
>>
>>>PS.. before you paint me as a mountain biker, I've never even
ridden one
>>>in my life.
>
>>Then why do you act like one? You sound threatened somehow by what I
am
>>saying. Why is that?
>
>This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How am I the LEAST bit
threatened
>by what you're saying?

I don't know. Only you can tell me. What is your main concern? Are you
trying to help my cause? If so, I can't understand why you don't speak
up PUBLICLY.

Maybe YOU should have that honorary doctorate for
>knowing somehow that I "act like one" (a mountain biker). Are there
some
>universal truths about how mountain bikers act? Exactly what are
those
>truths?

One is that they all lie. Constantly. This is not a theory. I have
OBSERVED that every day on the 'net and off.

How about black people? How about Jews? What good does it do
>for you to harbor your stereotypes? It's easy when you dehumanize
your
>perceived enemy, but it's unreal. There are as many different belief

>systems among mountain bikers as there are among backpackers.

It's not a belief. It is a concrete OBSERVATION. You are ASSUMING.

>Evidently, you are having a hard time grasping what I'm saying, so
I'll
>put it in the most simple terms possible: I have no problem with
what you
>are saying, I agree with quite a bit of it (although you go too far
for my
>taste, but I digress).. the problem is THE WAY YOU SAY IT! You have
lost
>tons of credibility for your defensive, petty, whiny tone of your
posts,
>and you're not convincing ANYONE!

You are wrong. You are only looking at the surface, on the 'net. You
forgot about all the people who are quietly reading it.

>Again, take a little time to study HOW to change people's minds. You
are
>going about it at exactly the WRONG way, and doing more harm to your
cause
>then you are advocating it.

Then show me how. YOU convince some mountain bikers not to ride
off-road. Maybe you are good at it, but so far, you are just a
sidewalk superintendent. If you are right, it should be easy for you!
:) :) :) :)

>-Mark
>
>PS. I'm probably not going to waste my time anymore about this,
because
>you seem to have no capacity for self analysis, no humility, no
desire to
>increase your effectiveness as a messenger.

Nonsense. You forget that in order to teach, you have to first get the
student's attention. I am VERY GOOD at that part. Also the part about
telling the truth. I leave the spin control to those who like that.
---
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

bdb...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/15/98
to

In article <355ba676...@news.pacbell.net>,
mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:

> Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
> community, where it matters.

<AUDIENCE BURSTS OUT IN LOUD LAUGHTER>

Ahh, that must be why we keep seeing posts from professional widlife
biologists and others in the sci.environment group about how you don't know
what you're talking about, and what a detriment to environmentalism you
are...an NO posts from anyone that believes in your "bikes vs wildlife"
fiction.

> There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike. If you think
> it IS possible, TRY it. You are amazingly naive. They can only be
> convinced by public pressure, just as racist remarks were made
> unacceptable in society. I am doing the same for MTBing.

<AUDIENCE AGAIN BURSTS OUT IN LOUD LAUGHTER>

WHAT social pressure!?!?! SOCIAL pressure implies that MANY people (at least
more than zero!) are taking your side on this "bikes vs wildlife" fiction.
After all these years, you're still just one kook, on his own!

Keep it up! You're well on your way to becoming Usenet kook of the year!

Blaine

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Geoff

unread,
May 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/15/98
to

I must speak my 2 cents about this whole Mike Vandeman issue.
When I first heard about it I thought everyone has an opinion and if we as
individuals take the time to see what that opinion is we can have a better
understanding of each other. We may not agree with someone who differs in
opinion or even what they present as fact but at least we have opened our
mind up to consider the possibilities. What we choose to do with that info
is ours as individuals to make. I thought, what has made all these people
so adamant in there opposition to this guy , and even more curious was most
people appear not so much opposed to his cause but him, from what I could
see.
I made a reasonable attempt to be unbiased and balanced on my view of the
arguments made but I've had my fill of this issue and am now going to
delegate anything to do with mountain bike access and natural habitat to my
kill file. It has become pointless and childish with its " your a liar!!...
no your a liar!" discussions.
Mike your argument, which had potential of raising some good points has been
made ludicrous by your paranoid delusional rants. It reminds me of "chicken
little", "the boy who cried wolf", and all those other stories we learn as
kids of ones who eventually are ignored by everyone because their failure to
communicate in a sane way.

I hope rec.backcountry can get back to being a source of info of
backcountry activity and away from this now pointless thread (yes I know I
just added to it.....sorry! it is my 1st and last on this matter.)


Geoff


Mark Fassett

unread,
May 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/15/98
to mjv...@pacbell.net

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> >How do you KNOW he's lying?
>
> Look at the posts where I say that. It isn't hard to know when someone
>
> is lying, at least SOME of the time. For example, they say something
> about ME, which I know isn't true.

The poster in question DIDN'T say anything about you. Again, you swear
by science, but where is your method to determine when someone is lying
or not? This is hypocritical.

> I tell the truth as I know it, after LOTS of research and careful
> choice of words. From what I have seen, most of the mountain bikers
> who post on the 'net "shoot from the hip", ASSUMING I am wrong, and
> usually not reading me carefully.

You don't have a good track record in other areas. You don't represent
yourself well, you call others who disagree with you liars without
actually knowing whether they are or not, and yet you expect us to trust
your science? I think not...

> I DID, on my web page. That didn't stop the mountain bikers from
> attacking me. You are extremely naive. They won't accept anyone
> telling the truth about mountain biking. Period. It isn't just me.
> ANYONE who tells the truth gets the same response: venom!

That's a cop out. I haven't seen a well-reasoned post from you on
rec.backcountry. Try it and see if it works.. of course, now it's
probably too late because you've lost your credibility.

> Look at my web page. All of my original articles are there. You will
> see pure rational, non-insulting FACT. It isn't good enough for the
> MTBers, because it undermines their campaign to open up more & more
> trails to bikes. It threatens them.

Irrelavent.. I'm talking about your method, not your message.

> Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
> community, where it matters. I don't expect MTBers to love me. You are
>
> looking at this in a very superficial way, forgetting that my posts
> are directed at EVERYONE, not just MTBers. Only the MTBers, and a few
> others like you who seem to feel threatened by my posts react with
> hostility. Many people send me private thank you's. I can understand
> why they don't want to do it publicly, and incur the wrath of the
> MTBers.

I am NOT a mountain biker. You seem to have no trouble reposting my
personal emails to usenet, why haven't I seen any post from the
supporters you allude to?

> You are looking at the surface only, and apparently not reading my
> posts carefully. Some people believe that "you catch more flies with
> honey". But it is like a religious belief, and I don't believe it is
> the best approach in the long run. HONESTY is. Besides, I am not
> looking for flies.... :)

Fine.. you're doing more harm then good. It's crystal clear to any
unbiased observer.

> >Again, how do you KNOW he was lying? You DON'T! And to pretend
> otherwise is
> >for YOU to LIE!! You did not give him the benefit of the doubt.
>
> I see only two possibilities -- lying or ignorance. Take your pick.

Fine, you've proven my point. You INSISTED several times in your
response to him that he was a liar. Now you have at least admitted
there's a possibility you were wrong. Thank you.

> You aren't reading my original posts. You came in in the middle of the
>
> movie. Besides, social pressure is how the community enforces its
> standards. That is all I am doing: expecting a high standard of
> behaviour, especially honesty.

I'm not coming in at the middle, as you evidently reposted the email
under a different subject line. That, to me, is the beginning of a
thread.

BTW, your "high degree of honesty" proves your hypocrisy, as above. You
DON'T KNOW anyone is a liar, yet you accused them the same.


> There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike. If you think
> it IS possible, TRY it. You are amazingly naive. They can only be
> convinced by public pressure, just as racist remarks were made
> unacceptable in society. I am doing the same for MTBing.

Give me a break. If you think there's no way, then why do you keep
trying? What's your point?

> >Again, I have a hard time believing you are who you say you are ONLY
> BECAUSE of
> >your immense failure at presenting yourself in a credible, reasonable
>
> light.
>
> I have no such trouble. The many organizations that have asked me to
> speak to them obviously don't agree. Are you really taking your
> standard from the crazies on the 'net???

Uh.. pot.. kettle.. eh? You seem at least as crazy as many, more then
most, to not recognize what I'm saying.

> >This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How am I the LEAST bit
> threatened
> >by what you're saying?
>
> I don't know. Only you can tell me. What is your main concern? Are you
>
> trying to help my cause? If so, I can't understand why you don't speak
>
> up PUBLICLY.

I AM speaking up publicly, and have all along. My main concern is for
you to stop making all environmentalists look like silly, irrational
wackos. I'm sorry to say you are far more like the 'crazies' you refer
to then most .

> Maybe YOU should have that honorary doctorate for
> >knowing somehow that I "act like one" (a mountain biker). Are there
> some
> >universal truths about how mountain bikers act? Exactly what are
> those
> >truths?
>
> One is that they all lie. Constantly. This is not a theory. I have
> OBSERVED that every day on the 'net and off.

This really seems like high school logic to me.. just what is your
educational level, anyway?>Evidently, you are having a hard time


grasping what I'm saying, so

> I'll
> >put it in the most simple terms possible: I have no problem with
> what you
> >are saying, I agree with quite a bit of it (although you go too far
> for my
> >taste, but I digress).. the problem is THE WAY YOU SAY IT! You have
> lost
> >tons of credibility for your defensive, petty, whiny tone of your
> posts,
> >and you're not convincing ANYONE!
>
> You are wrong. You are only looking at the surface, on the 'net. You
> forgot about all the people who are quietly reading it.

Great.. happy trails, buddy. The surface IS THE NET. Don't you get
it? The only way people will find you is through forums like this..
except after reading your posts, they'll never take you seriously.

> hen show me how. YOU convince some mountain bikers not to ride
> off-road. Maybe you are good at it, but so far, you are just a
> sidewalk superintendent. If you are right, it should be easy for you!
> :) :) :) :)

I never said it was easy.. as a matter of fact, changing someone's mind
about anything is difficult, just look at history, it's no revelation.
It's also no relavation HOW to change people's minds about something, or
at least it shouldn't be.

> Nonsense. You forget that in order to teach, you have to first get the
>
> student's attention. I am VERY GOOD at that part. Also the part about
> telling the truth. I leave the spin control to those who like that.

What good is getting the student's attention when you've lost your
credibility in doing so? More high school logic..

-Mark

Maybe everyone is right to treat you like a wacko.. the more I
correspond with you, the more you sound like one.


Mark Fassett

unread,
May 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/15/98
to mjv...@pacbell.net

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> >How do you KNOW he's lying?
>
> Look at the posts where I say that. It isn't hard to know when someone
>
> is lying, at least SOME of the time. For example, they say something
> about ME, which I know isn't true.

The poster in question DIDN'T say anything about you. Again, you swear


by science, but where is your method to determine when someone is lying
or not? This is hypocritical.

> I tell the truth as I know it, after LOTS of research and careful


> choice of words. From what I have seen, most of the mountain bikers
> who post on the 'net "shoot from the hip", ASSUMING I am wrong, and
> usually not reading me carefully.

You don't have a good track record in other areas. You don't represent


yourself well, you call others who disagree with you liars without
actually knowing whether they are or not, and yet you expect us to trust
your science? I think not...

> I DID, on my web page. That didn't stop the mountain bikers from


> attacking me. You are extremely naive. They won't accept anyone
> telling the truth about mountain biking. Period. It isn't just me.
> ANYONE who tells the truth gets the same response: venom!

That's a cop out. I haven't seen a well-reasoned post from you on


rec.backcountry. Try it and see if it works.. of course, now it's
probably too late because you've lost your credibility.

> Look at my web page. All of my original articles are there. You will


> see pure rational, non-insulting FACT. It isn't good enough for the
> MTBers, because it undermines their campaign to open up more & more
> trails to bikes. It threatens them.

Irrelevant.. I'm talking about your method, not your message.

> Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
> community, where it matters. I don't expect MTBers to love me. You are
>
> looking at this in a very superficial way, forgetting that my posts
> are directed at EVERYONE, not just MTBers. Only the MTBers, and a few
> others like you who seem to feel threatened by my posts react with
> hostility. Many people send me private thank you's. I can understand
> why they don't want to do it publicly, and incur the wrath of the
> MTBers.

I am NOT a mountain biker. You seem to have no trouble reposting my


personal emails to usenet, why haven't I seen any post from the
supporters you allude to?

> You are looking at the surface only, and apparently not reading my


> posts carefully. Some people believe that "you catch more flies with
> honey". But it is like a religious belief, and I don't believe it is
> the best approach in the long run. HONESTY is. Besides, I am not
> looking for flies.... :)

Fine.. you're doing more harm then good. It's crystal clear to any
unbiased observer.

> >Again, how do you KNOW he was lying? You DON'T! And to pretend


> otherwise is
> >for YOU to LIE!! You did not give him the benefit of the doubt.
>
> I see only two possibilities -- lying or ignorance. Take your pick.

Fine, you've proven my point. You INSISTED several times in your


response to him that he was a liar. Now you have at least admitted

there's a possibility you were wrong. Thank you.

> You aren't reading my original posts. You came in in the middle of the
>
> movie. Besides, social pressure is how the community enforces its
> standards. That is all I am doing: expecting a high standard of
> behaviour, especially honesty.

I'm not coming in at the middle, as you evidently reposted the email


under a different subject line. That, to me, is the beginning of a
thread.

BTW, your "high degree of honesty" proves your hypocrisy, as above. You
DON'T KNOW anyone is a liar, yet you accused them the same.

> There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike. If you think
> it IS possible, TRY it. You are amazingly naive. They can only be
> convinced by public pressure, just as racist remarks were made
> unacceptable in society. I am doing the same for MTBing.

Give me a break. If you think there's no way, then why do you keep


trying? What's your point?

> >Again, I have a hard time believing you are who you say you are ONLY


> BECAUSE of
> >your immense failure at presenting yourself in a credible, reasonable
>
> light.
>
> I have no such trouble. The many organizations that have asked me to
> speak to them obviously don't agree. Are you really taking your
> standard from the crazies on the 'net???

Uh.. pot.. kettle.. eh? You seem at least as crazy as many, more then


most, to not recognize what I'm saying.

> >This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How am I the LEAST bit


> threatened
> >by what you're saying?
>
> I don't know. Only you can tell me. What is your main concern? Are you
>
> trying to help my cause? If so, I can't understand why you don't speak
>
> up PUBLICLY.

I AM speaking up publicly, and have all along. My main concern is for


you to stop making all environmentalists look like silly, irrational
wackos. I'm sorry to say you are far more like the 'crazies' you refer
to then most .

> Maybe YOU should have that honorary doctorate for


> >knowing somehow that I "act like one" (a mountain biker). Are there
> some
> >universal truths about how mountain bikers act? Exactly what are
> those
> >truths?
>
> One is that they all lie. Constantly. This is not a theory. I have
> OBSERVED that every day on the 'net and off.

This really seems like high school logic to me.. just what is your
educational level, anyway?>Evidently, you are having a hard time


grasping what I'm saying, so

> I'll
> >put it in the most simple terms possible: I have no problem with
> what you
> >are saying, I agree with quite a bit of it (although you go too far
> for my
> >taste, but I digress).. the problem is THE WAY YOU SAY IT! You have
> lost
> >tons of credibility for your defensive, petty, whiny tone of your
> posts,
> >and you're not convincing ANYONE!
>
> You are wrong. You are only looking at the surface, on the 'net. You
> forgot about all the people who are quietly reading it.

Great.. happy trails, buddy. The surface IS THE NET. Don't you get


it? The only way people will find you is through forums like this..
except after reading your posts, they'll never take you seriously.

> hen show me how. YOU convince some mountain bikers not to ride


> off-road. Maybe you are good at it, but so far, you are just a
> sidewalk superintendent. If you are right, it should be easy for you!
> :) :) :) :)

I never said it was easy.. as a matter of fact, changing someone's mind


about anything is difficult, just look at history, it's no revelation.
It's also no relavation HOW to change people's minds about something, or
at least it shouldn't be.

> Nonsense. You forget that in order to teach, you have to first get the


>
> student's attention. I am VERY GOOD at that part. Also the part about
> telling the truth. I leave the spin control to those who like that.

What good is getting the student's attention when you've lost your

Chris Clarke

unread,
May 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/15/98
to

|
| all it does is
| >undermine whatever credibility you have left. If you're so insecure
| you have
| >to insult those who disagree with you (and no, I don't care who
| insulted
| >first), then maybe you need a little bit of self analysis.
|
| Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
| community, where it matters.

LOL!

--
Chris Clarke
Editor, Earth Island Journal
my opinions alone

Mike Vandeman

unread,
May 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/16/98
to

On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:46:03 -0700, Mark Fassett
<mark_f...@intuit.com> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> >How do you KNOW he's lying?
.>
.> Look at the posts where I say that. It isn't hard to know when someone
.>
.> is lying, at least SOME of the time. For example, they say something
.> about ME, which I know isn't true.
.
.The poster in question DIDN'T say anything about you. Again, you swear
.by science, but where is your method to determine when someone is lying
.or not? This is hypocritical.

Post the article you are talking about. This abstract discussion is
BS.

.> I tell the truth as I know it, after LOTS of research and careful
.> choice of words. From what I have seen, most of the mountain bikers
.> who post on the 'net "shoot from the hip", ASSUMING I am wrong, and
.> usually not reading me carefully.
.
.You don't have a good track record in other areas. You don't represent
.yourself well, you call others who disagree with you liars without
.actually knowing whether they are or not,

That is a lie, which you well know. You have no way of knowing what I
know or don't know, do you? :) See my point? It is EASY to see when
you guys are lying!!!

and yet you expect us to trust

.your science? I think not...
.
.> I DID, on my web page. That didn't stop the mountain bikers from
.> attacking me. You are extremely naive. They won't accept anyone
.> telling the truth about mountain biking. Period. It isn't just me.
.> ANYONE who tells the truth gets the same response: venom!
.
.That's a cop out. I haven't seen a well-reasoned post from you on
.rec.backcountry.

Then you haven't read my web page. There are plenty there. By the way,
with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.

Try it and see if it works.. of course, now it's

.probably too late because you've lost your credibility.
.
.> Look at my web page. All of my original articles are there. You will
.> see pure rational, non-insulting FACT. It isn't good enough for the
.> MTBers, because it undermines their campaign to open up more & more
.> trails to bikes. It threatens them.
.
.Irrelavent.. I'm talking about your method, not your message.

My method is to tell the truth. What's wrong with THAT?! :)

.> Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
.> community, where it matters. I don't expect MTBers to love me. You are
.>
.> looking at this in a very superficial way, forgetting that my posts
.> are directed at EVERYONE, not just MTBers. Only the MTBers, and a few
.> others like you who seem to feel threatened by my posts react with
.> hostility. Many people send me private thank you's. I can understand
.> why they don't want to do it publicly, and incur the wrath of the
.> MTBers.
.
.I am NOT a mountain biker. You seem to have no trouble reposting my
.personal emails to usenet, why haven't I seen any post from the
.supporters you allude to?

You haven't been watching! Look in Dejanews for "Anti-Mountain Biking
Fan Mail" for a few examples.

.> You are looking at the surface only, and apparently not reading my
.> posts carefully. Some people believe that "you catch more flies with
.> honey". But it is like a religious belief, and I don't believe it is
.> the best approach in the long run. HONESTY is. Besides, I am not
.> looking for flies.... :)
.
.Fine.. you're doing more harm then good. It's crystal clear to any
.unbiased observer.
.
.> >Again, how do you KNOW he was lying? You DON'T! And to pretend
.> otherwise is
.> >for YOU to LIE!! You did not give him the benefit of the doubt.
.>
.> I see only two possibilities -- lying or ignorance. Take your pick.
.
.Fine, you've proven my point. You INSISTED several times in your
.response to him that he was a liar. Now you have at least admitted
.there's a possibility you were wrong. Thank you.

I don't know which he would prefer. Probably neither.

.> You aren't reading my original posts. You came in in the middle of the
.>
.> movie. Besides, social pressure is how the community enforces its
.> standards. That is all I am doing: expecting a high standard of
.> behaviour, especially honesty.
.
.I'm not coming in at the middle, as you evidently reposted the email
.under a different subject line. That, to me, is the beginning of a
.thread.
.
.BTW, your "high degree of honesty" proves your hypocrisy, as above. You
.DON'T KNOW anyone is a liar, yet you accused them the same.

There you go again, LYING. You have k=no way to know what I know or
don't know. Get it yet?

.> There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike. If you think
.> it IS possible, TRY it. You are amazingly naive. They can only be
.> convinced by public pressure, just as racist remarks were made
.> unacceptable in society. I am doing the same for MTBing.
.
.Give me a break. If you think there's no way, then why do you keep
.trying? What's your point?

Because others also read these articles. If I don't convince the
MTBers, maybe they, or their children, will.

.> >Again, I have a hard time believing you are who you say you are ONLY
.> BECAUSE of
.> >your immense failure at presenting yourself in a credible, reasonable
.>
.> light.
.>
.> I have no such trouble. The many organizations that have asked me to
.> speak to them obviously don't agree. Are you really taking your
.> standard from the crazies on the 'net???
.
.Uh.. pot.. kettle.. eh? You seem at least as crazy as many, more then
.most, to not recognize what I'm saying.

You didn't answer my question. You don't answer any question, as far
as I can tell.

.> >This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How am I the LEAST bit
.> threatened
.> >by what you're saying?
.>
.> I don't know. Only you can tell me. What is your main concern? Are you
.>
.> trying to help my cause? If so, I can't understand why you don't speak
.>
.> up PUBLICLY.
.
.I AM speaking up publicly, and have all along.

Give me an example.

My main concern is for

.you to stop making all environmentalists look like silly, irrational
.wackos.

Another lie. There is no way I or anyone else can make ALL
environmentalists look a certain way. See my point? Thanks for helping
me prove my case!

I'm sorry to say you are far more like the 'crazies' you refer

.to then most .
.


.> Maybe YOU should have that honorary doctorate for

.> >knowing somehow that I "act like one" (a mountain biker). Are there
.> some
.> >universal truths about how mountain bikers act? Exactly what are
.> those
.> >truths?
.>
.> One is that they all lie. Constantly. This is not a theory. I have
.> OBSERVED that every day on the 'net and off.
.
.This really seems like high school logic to me..

Observation is the foundat for science. Yes, that IS learned in high
school. So? :)

just what is your
.educational level, anyway?>Evidently, you are having a hard time
.grasping what I'm saying, so
.
.> I'll
.> >put it in the most simple terms possible: I have no problem with
.> what you
.> >are saying, I agree with quite a bit of it (although you go too far
.> for my
.> >taste, but I digress).. the problem is THE WAY YOU SAY IT! You have
.> lost
.> >tons of credibility for your defensive, petty, whiny tone of your
.> posts,
.> >and you're not convincing ANYONE!
.>
.> You are wrong. You are only looking at the surface, on the 'net. You
.> forgot about all the people who are quietly reading it.
.
.Great.. happy trails, buddy. The surface IS THE NET. Don't you get
.it? The only way people will find you is through forums like this..
.except after reading your posts, they'll never take you seriously.

Another lie. Many people DO take me very seriously. In fact, so do the
mountain bikers. Otherwise, they would ignore me. But they KNOW that I
am convincing people to ban off-road biking, so they try
(unsuccessfully) to discredit me.

.> hen show me how. YOU convince some mountain bikers not to ride
.> off-road. Maybe you are good at it, but so far, you are just a
.> sidewalk superintendent. If you are right, it should be easy for you!
.> :) :) :) :)
.
.I never said it was easy.. as a matter of fact, changing someone's mind
.about anything is difficult, just look at history, it's no revelation.
.It's also no relavation HOW to change people's minds about something, or
.at least it shouldn't be.

To complain about someone's method, you have to be able to demonstrate
a better method. You haven't! You lie as much as the mountain bikers!

.> Nonsense. You forget that in order to teach, you have to first get the
.>
.> student's attention. I am VERY GOOD at that part. Also the part about
.> telling the truth. I leave the spin control to those who like that.
.
.What good is getting the student's attention when you've lost your
.credibility in doing so? More high school logic..

I haven't. Anyone who is unbiased can look at the facts & see that I
am right.

.-Mark
.
.Maybe everyone is right to treat you like a wacko.. the more I
.correspond with you, the more you sound like one.

I thought you don't respect name-calling. I don't do that, BTW. I just
call a spade a spade. "Wacko" is too vague to be tested.

David Ryan

unread,
May 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/16/98
to

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:46:03 -0700, Mark Fassett
> <mark_f...@intuit.com> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> >How do you KNOW he's lying?
> .>
> .> Look at the posts where I say that. It isn't hard to know when someone
> .>
> .> is lying, at least SOME of the time. For example, they say something
> .> about ME, which I know isn't true.
> <snip>

> you haven't read my web page. There are plenty there. By the way,
> with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.

The falacy of arguing from authority is faulty reasoning.

***********************************************************************
* David e /NO NO PACK TOO TIGHT NO CORNER , Fast *
* Ryan /<> /HILL oO@O)o_@ __e IS TOO e ',' Forward *
* aka '>(x)/THAT'S <>\<>>\<> ,\<> SHARP ,)> o Racing *
*_PACKMAN!_(x)/TOO_HIGH___(*)((*))(*)x)/(x)___=====_/'__->~\\_Team____*
c1997************ http://www.louisville.edu/~csmayh01 ************LouKY

Bill

unread,
May 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/16/98
to

A person in known, in part, by the quality of his/her enemies.
Mr. V. considers his enemies fools, liars, etc.
By attacking them, he put himself in their company.
A fellow is known by the company he keeps.
I rest my case.
Happy trails,
Bill

Robert Crawford

unread,
May 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/16/98
to

I started out triming this letter and then it occured to me that this is classic MV and that with any attempt to clean it up it starts
to lose it's point. So, here we have for you yet another example of MV loseing his grip on reality and trashing one of his few
supporters.

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:46:03 -0700, Mark Fassett
> <mark_f...@intuit.com> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> >How do you KNOW he's lying?
> .>
> .> Look at the posts where I say that. It isn't hard to know when someone
> .>
> .> is lying, at least SOME of the time. For example, they say something
> .> about ME, which I know isn't true.
> .
> .The poster in question DIDN'T say anything about you. Again, you swear
> .by science, but where is your method to determine when someone is lying
> .or not? This is hypocritical.
>
> Post the article you are talking about. This abstract discussion is
> BS.
>

Pure BS, not diluted Bs, but pure BS. A common trend in MV's posting.

> .> I tell the truth as I know it, after LOTS of research and careful
> .> choice of words. From what I have seen, most of the mountain bikers
> .> who post on the 'net "shoot from the hip", ASSUMING I am wrong, and
> .> usually not reading me carefully.
>

MV shoot from the hip? read on.

> .
> .You don't have a good track record in other areas. You don't represent
> .yourself well, you call others who disagree with you liars without
> .actually knowing whether they are or not,
>
> That is a lie, which you well know. You have no way of knowing what I
> know or don't know, do you? :) See my point? It is EASY to see when
> you guys are lying!!!
>

Who are,"you guys"? read on.

> and yet you expect us to trust
> .your science? I think not...
> .
> .> I DID, on my web page. That didn't stop the mountain bikers from
> .> attacking me. You are extremely naive. They won't accept anyone
> .> telling the truth about mountain biking. Period. It isn't just me.
> .> ANYONE who tells the truth gets the same response: venom!
> .
> .That's a cop out. I haven't seen a well-reasoned post from you on
> .rec.backcountry.
>
> Then you haven't read my web page. There are plenty there. By the way,
> with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.
>

Well, those of us who have read MV's web page haveeny\t been converted in droves ether. If you havent read it, well, to let you know.
It's a lot of what you see here and some "c" grade high school papers that have the only coninstant feature of regullary having nothing
to do with the books that they refrence.

> Try it and see if it works.. of course, now it's
> .probably too late because you've lost your credibility.
> .
> .> Look at my web page. All of my original articles are there. You will
> .> see pure rational, non-insulting FACT. It isn't good enough for the
> .> MTBers, because it undermines their campaign to open up more & more
> .> trails to bikes. It threatens them.
>

MV, we have looked at your web page, see my last paragraph.

> .Irrelavent.. I'm talking about your method, not your message.
>
> My method is to tell the truth. What's wrong with THAT?! :)
>

Truth only as you see it.

> .> Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
> .> community, where it matters. I don't expect MTBers to love me. You are
> .>
> .> looking at this in a very superficial way, forgetting that my posts
> .> are directed at EVERYONE, not just MTBers. Only the MTBers, and a few
> .> others like you who seem to feel threatened by my posts react with
> .> hostility. Many people send me private thank you's. I can understand
> .> why they don't want to do it publicly, and incur the wrath of the
> .> MTBers.
> .
> .I am NOT a mountain biker. You seem to have no trouble reposting my
> .personal emails to usenet, why haven't I seen any post from the
> .supporters you allude to?
>
> You haven't been watching! Look in Dejanews for "Anti-Mountain Biking
> Fan Mail" for a few examples.
>

Have you still got the one from Dot Morrison in there? (for those if you who don't know, Dot Morrison was an AOL pesu-name that MV used
to spam some mailing lists about a year ago, he also got quite a bit of fan mail from Dot Morrison)

> .> You are looking at the surface only, and apparently not reading my
> .> posts carefully. Some people believe that "you catch more flies with
> .> honey". But it is like a religious belief, and I don't believe it is
> .> the best approach in the long run. HONESTY is. Besides, I am not
> .> looking for flies.... :)
> .
> .Fine.. you're doing more harm then good. It's crystal clear to any
> .unbiased observer.
> .
> .> >Again, how do you KNOW he was lying? You DON'T! And to pretend
> .> otherwise is
> .> >for YOU to LIE!! You did not give him the benefit of the doubt.
> .>
> .> I see only two possibilities -- lying or ignorance. Take your pick.
> .
> .Fine, you've proven my point. You INSISTED several times in your
> .response to him that he was a liar. Now you have at least admitted
> .there's a possibility you were wrong. Thank you.
>
> I don't know which he would prefer. Probably neither.
>

Mike, if others can not speak for you, then how can you suppose to speak for them?

> .> You aren't reading my original posts. You came in in the middle of the
> .>
> .> movie. Besides, social pressure is how the community enforces its
> .> standards. That is all I am doing: expecting a high standard of
> .> behaviour, especially honesty.
> .
> .I'm not coming in at the middle, as you evidently reposted the email
> .under a different subject line. That, to me, is the beginning of a
> .thread.
> .
> .BTW, your "high degree of honesty" proves your hypocrisy, as above. You
> .DON'T KNOW anyone is a liar, yet you accused them the same.
>
> There you go again, LYING. You have k=no way to know what I know or
> don't know. Get it yet?

No MV, most of us don't. You have threaded so large a circle of shouting liar, that you seem to have run into yourself. So MV, is this
guy a MTBer or not?

>
>
> .> There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike. If you think
> .> it IS possible, TRY it. You are amazingly naive. They can only be
> .> convinced by public pressure, just as racist remarks were made
> .> unacceptable in society. I am doing the same for MTBing.
> .
> .Give me a break. If you think there's no way, then why do you keep
> .trying? What's your point?
>
> Because others also read these articles. If I don't convince the
> MTBers, maybe they, or their children, will.
>

I read some of your posts to my children, they think that you are funny, as they put it,"stupid but funny".

> .> >Again, I have a hard time believing you are who you say you are ONLY
> .> BECAUSE of
> .> >your immense failure at presenting yourself in a credible, reasonable
> .>
> .> light.
> .>
> .> I have no such trouble. The many organizations that have asked me to
> .> speak to them obviously don't agree. Are you really taking your
> .> standard from the crazies on the 'net???
> .
> .Uh.. pot.. kettle.. eh? You seem at least as crazy as many, more then
> .most, to not recognize what I'm saying.
>
> You didn't answer my question. You don't answer any question, as far
> as I can tell.

Uh... pot... kettle..., that about says it.

>
>
> .> >This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How am I the LEAST bit
> .> threatened
> .> >by what you're saying?
> .>
> .> I don't know. Only you can tell me. What is your main concern? Are you
> .>
> .> trying to help my cause? If so, I can't understand why you don't speak
> .>
> .> up PUBLICLY.
> .
> .I AM speaking up publicly, and have all along.
>
> Give me an example.

MV, you have yet to give an example of one of your speaking engagements by posting an announcement before the event. To get to the
point on this, a lot of us don't think that many of these speaking engagements happen, and those few that do, well... I doubt that they
are well recieved by any creditable audience.

>
>
> My main concern is for
> .you to stop making all environmentalists look like silly, irrational
> .wackos.
>
> Another lie. There is no way I or anyone else can make ALL
> environmentalists look a certain way. See my point? Thanks for helping
> me prove my case!
>

Uh MV... what case?

> I'm sorry to say you are far more like the 'crazies' you refer
> .to then most .
> .
> .> Maybe YOU should have that honorary doctorate for
> .> >knowing somehow that I "act like one" (a mountain biker). Are there
> .> some
> .> >universal truths about how mountain bikers act? Exactly what are
> .> those
> .> >truths?
> .>
> .> One is that they all lie. Constantly. This is not a theory. I have
> .> OBSERVED that every day on the 'net and off.
> .
> .This really seems like high school logic to me..
>
> Observation is the foundat for science. Yes, that IS learned in high
> school. So? :)
>

Yes, Arostottole made a large number of observations that he called science. To bad that he was wrong about so many of them.

Who are,"they"? at the begining of this letter you were calling this guy a MTB'er. So, who are,"they"? (or were you just shooting from
the hip?)

> .> hen show me how. YOU convince some mountain bikers not to ride
> .> off-road. Maybe you are good at it, but so far, you are just a
> .> sidewalk superintendent. If you are right, it should be easy for you!
> .> :) :) :) :)
> .
> .I never said it was easy.. as a matter of fact, changing someone's mind
> .about anything is difficult, just look at history, it's no revelation.
> .It's also no relavation HOW to change people's minds about something, or
> .at least it shouldn't be.
>
> To complain about someone's method, you have to be able to demonstrate
> a better method. You haven't! You lie as much as the mountain bikers!
>

I saw you say this guy was a MTB'er earler in this post MV, is this just more shooting from the hip?Next point, falure to demonstrate
does not make one by defualt a lier, as example, if while working on a project, someone says,"there is a better way, I just don't know
what it is" that person my not be a liar, quite the opposite, they might be the most honost person at the time.

> .> Nonsense. You forget that in order to teach, you have to first get the
> .>
> .> student's attention. I am VERY GOOD at that part. Also the part about
> .> telling the truth. I leave the spin control to those who like that.
> .
> .What good is getting the student's attention when you've lost your
> .credibility in doing so? More high school logic..
>
> I haven't. Anyone who is unbiased can look at the facts & see that I
> am right.
>

Or to be more to the point, MV lost his credibility so long agt that it seems that it has ceased to matter.

> .-Mark
> .
> .Maybe everyone is right to treat you like a wacko.. the more I
> .correspond with you, the more you sound like one.
>
> I thought you don't respect name-calling. I don't do that, BTW. I just
> call a spade a spade. "Wacko" is too vague to be tested.
>

What's this'"call a spade a spade" line all about MV? Read up in this post and you will see where he condemms racist remarks, and for
his closing line he makes one.

> ---
> 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.)
>

Read MV's web site MTB'ers and MV agree that it tells a lot about him.

> http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles


Tim Mallery

unread,
May 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/17/98
to

mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) wrote:

>There are plenty there. By the way, with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.

ROFL!!!!!!

Rob Pauley

unread,
May 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/18/98
to

> > Then you haven't read my web page. There are plenty there. By the
> way,
> > with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.
>

This is a small, yet very insightful look at a whole bunch of yadda
yadda nothin'!!!

Very succinctly (using the logic and argument styles of those in this
dialogue), I have a Ph.D. from Purdue so obviously I am right and you
are wrong (degrees mean nothing and mine is bigger ;) so to speak).

It is obvious that we as rec.back readers are witnessing a beautiful
moment in backcountry wildlife...a menajatua (sp?). These guys are so
in love with themselves and each other, my computer is starting to
sweat. They need to bike/hike into the wilderness, find a cozy spot
under a tree and consumate the relationship. And again, if we are going
to toss degrees around and validity, I have a PhD so I must be right!

Enjoy your finger-typing love boys (pick up the phone and really get
heated up!)


Joe Rizzo

unread,
May 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/19/98
to

>mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) wrote:
>
>>There are plenty there. By the way, with an M.A. from Harvard, my
reasoning is not likely to be faulty.

You have no reasoning to be faulty and what is that, Harvard school of truck
driving? Your circular logic of "they are lieing therefore I am not" is not
typical of an educated person.

As usual, don't go away mad, just go away.

Joe Rizzo

unread,
May 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/19/98
to

Learn to read, then spell. The person with the yada yada logic is one of
you rec.backcountry boys. This is his cross posting not ours.


Rob Pauley wrote in message <35605C29...@co.douglas.ne.us>...


>> > Then you haven't read my web page. There are plenty there. By the
>> way,
>> > with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.
>>
>

Mike Vandeman

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

At 10:40 AM 5/18/98 -0700, you wrote:

You sent me email after I asked you to stop. That is unsolicited email
and harassment, and thus is against the law. You guys (you are an
honorary mountain biker, because you lie so much) have no ethics
whatsoever.

>First, let me make it clear.. I am an environmentalist. Mr.
Vandeman's views do NOT represent those of the majority of people who
>consider themselves environmentalists.

That is a LIE, since you haven't done a scientific survey. Why do you
think you can get anywhere by lying???

>Now..


>
>
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:46:03 -0700, Mark Fassett
> <mark_f...@intuit.com> wrote:

> ..You don't have a good track record in other areas. You don't


represent
> .yourself well, you call others who disagree with you liars without
> .actually knowing whether they are or not,
>
> That is a lie, which you well know. You have no way of knowing what
I
> know or don't know, do you? :) See my point? It is EASY to see when
> you guys are lying!!!
>

>How did I become part of "you guys?" Exactly what kind of "you guys"
am I? I don't represent anyone but myself.

You liars.

>You expect people to trust your science, yet you demonstrate time and
time again your inability to come to a sane conclusion.

Since you didn't deny lying, I have to conclude that you ADMIT to
being a liar! There is no point to anyone listening to a liar.

> .Irrelavent.. I'm talking about your method, not your message.
>
> My method is to tell the truth. What's wrong with THAT?! :)
>

>Anyone with an MA from Harvard would understand the complexity of
"truth."


>
> .I am NOT a mountain biker. You seem to have no trouble reposting
my
> .personal emails to usenet, why haven't I seen any post from the
> .supporters you allude to?
>
> You haven't been watching! Look in Dejanews for "Anti-Mountain
Biking
> Fan Mail" for a few examples.

You never acknowledge it, when I prove you wrong! Hmmm.

>Again, you have reposted my personal emails to usenet without my
permission. This is clearly an ethical breach.

Nonsense. Abusive email DESERVES to be published. Like this one.

In my case, I don't
>send anything via email that I wouldn't want as public knowledge, but
nonetheless, the fact that you continually engage in this
>unethical behavior clearly brings up questions about your ethics in
other areas. You don't have a high degree of credibility.

It is not only ethical to post abusive email, it would be unethical
NOT to post it, because it would encourage that kind of behaviour.

> ..Fine, you've proven my point. You INSISTED several times in your


> .response to him that he was a liar. Now you have at least
admitted
> .there's a possibility you were wrong. Thank you.
>
> I don't know which he would prefer. Probably neither.
>

>Faulty conclusion once again...
>
>1) You told me you KNEW FOR SURE that he was lying.

If i said so, then I did. But I have no idea who you are talking
about, and I doubt that you do, either.

>2) You admit that he may not have been lying, that he may be
"ignorant."

No, I didn't.

>3) When confronted with this obvious error in logic, you state "I


don't know which he would prefer."
>

>Statement #1 IS A LIE, you have proven this yourself twice.

Nonsense. Where?

Other people lying seems to be your biggest issue.. so how do you
reconcile
>your obvious lying with your extreme denouncements in anyone you deem
as a liar?

I don't lie. If you think I do, you will have to provide some
evidence. You have none!

> ..> There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike. If you


think
> .> it IS possible, TRY it. You are amazingly naive. They can only
be
> .> convinced by public pressure, just as racist remarks were made
> .> unacceptable in society. I am doing the same for MTBing.
> .
> .Give me a break. If you think there's no way, then why do you
keep
> .trying? What's your point?
>
> Because others also read these articles. If I don't convince the
> MTBers, maybe they, or their children, will.
>

>Again, you state:
>
>1) "There is no way to convince MTBers not to mountain bike."

Not now. It will take years.

>2) "If I don't convince the MTBers, maybe they (the articles), or
their children, will."
>
>So.. I'm a little confused here.. which is it? Is it possible to
convince mountain bikers, or is it impossible?
>
>
> .My main concern is for


> .you to stop making all environmentalists look like silly,
irrational
> .wackos.
>
> Another lie. There is no way I or anyone else can make ALL
> environmentalists look a certain way. See my point? Thanks for
helping
> me prove my case!
>

>Let me put it in more simple terms for someone from Harvard to
understand. Among the uneducated masses on usenet, one wacko
>environmentalist can reinforce reactionary conservative stereotypes
>about environmentalists in general. This makes these people far less
likely or willing to listen to environmental concerns.. the "Boy
>Who Cried Wolf" syndrome, if you will.
>
>You are correct, there's no way you can make all environmentalists
look a certain way to ALL people (that's not what I meant), but you
>can certainly help make all environmentalists look bad to a certain
group of people.

Only to someone extraordinarily stupid. What I do has NOTHING to do
with what other environmentalists do.

> .> One is that they all lie. Constantly. This is not a theory. I
have
> .> OBSERVED that every day on the 'net and off.
> .
> .This really seems like high school logic to me..
>
> Observation is the foundat for science. Yes, that IS learned in
high
> school. So? :)
>

>More high school logic.. except now I appear to be giving you too
much credit. We're in junior high now.
>
>Clearly, you can't know that "all mountain bikers lie," since you
don't know all mountain bikers.

I can conclude that because in my HUGE sample of mountain bikers who
post on the 'net, every one has lied. Science is based on statistics.

The only way your statement could be
>correct is if the larger statement, "all PEOPLE lie," is correct. If
that statement is correct, then you, since I believe you are at
>least partially human :) , also lie.
>
>Otherwise, you are making the mistake that others have made
throughout history.. damning one group of people after observing a
very tiny
>sample relative to the numbers of that group.

No, it is a very LARGE sample!

That is something uneducated people tend to do, people who have
attained a level of
>education of.. say, junior high school.


>
> .Great.. happy trails, buddy. The surface IS THE NET. Don't you
get
> .it? The only way people will find you is through forums like
this..
> .except after reading your posts, they'll never take you seriously.
>
> Another lie. Many people DO take me very seriously. In fact, so do
the
> mountain bikers. Otherwise, they would ignore me. But they KNOW
that I
> am convincing people to ban off-road biking, so they try
> (unsuccessfully) to discredit me.
>

>Ignoring the obvious questions I have about how you are
scientifically quantifying your success, I have
>to point out another error in your reasoning.
>
>You state: "so do the mountain bikers (take me seriously).


Otherwise, they would ignore me."
>

>I don't take you seriously as an authority, I don't take you
seriously as a person. I don't think you are a serious representative
of
>your cause.
>
>I didn't ignore you at first because I thought, mistakenly, I could
help you see that the way you represent your views is doing more
>harm then good to environmentalism. Now I don't ignore you because I
need to ensure that others do not see you as a credible
>representative of the environmental
>community.. (plus I enjoy pointing out the obvious errors in your
logic).

So you DO take me seriously, contradicting yourself!

> .Maybe everyone is right to treat you like a wacko.. the more I
> .correspond with you, the more you sound like one.
>
> I thought you don't respect name-calling. I don't do that, BTW. I
just
> call a spade a spade. "Wacko" is too vague to be tested.
>

>In my opinion, there is little difference between name calling and
stereotyping, which you clearly do engage in.

Stereotyping is just the use of generalization, which is valid, when
done with the use of statistics. It is the basis of science. There may
be a mountain biker who doesn't lie, but in several years of looking,
I haven't found one! :)

---
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

David G.

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Mike, you keep mentioning your statistics but I haven't actually seen any
of them. In order for your statistics to be meaningful, we would need to
know the sample size, sampling methodology, standard deviation, which alpha
you used, etc. Even a beginner would know to include this important
information when giving a statistic, if they expect to be credible.

BTW, I don't remember the terminology "Liar, liar, pants on fire" or any of
its permutations in my statistics classes.


Sean B.

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to


David G. wrote:

All of his "TRUTHS" are on his web page, so we all can learn from the
"MASTER". Ha ha , masterbat#$, maybe.


Trekkie Dad

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Mikey's losing it. Just see if you can follow this.

To see how far he's come, go to http://www.plain.net/~rbor
--
Trekkie Dad
trekk...@yahoo.com

See my web site at http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/2356/

jpai...@rocketmail.com

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <355da6ad...@news.pacbell.net>,
mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:


> .The poster in question DIDN'T say anything about you. Again, you swear
> .by science, but where is your method to determine when someone is lying
> .or not? This is hypocritical.
>
> Post the article you are talking about. This abstract discussion is
> BS.

But arent most of the articles on your "website" abstracts or speeches?


>
> That is a lie, which you well know. You have no way of knowing what I
> know or don't know, do you? :) See my point? It is EASY to see when
> you guys are lying!!!

as usual, irrelevant drivel
>

> .> I DID, on my web page. That didn't stop the mountain bikers from
> .> attacking me. You are extremely naive. They won't accept anyone
> .> telling the truth about mountain biking. Period. It isn't just me.
> .> ANYONE who tells the truth gets the same response: venom!
> .
> .That's a cop out. I haven't seen a well-reasoned post from you on
> .rec.backcountry.
>
> Then you haven't read my web page. There are plenty there. By the way,
> with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.

I have, His statement stands! Nothing on your "website" is logical or
reasoned, but it is occasionally well stated, although open to discussion
(that you lack the courage to engage in)


>
> .Irrelavent.. I'm talking about your method, not your message.
>
> My method is to tell the truth. What's wrong with THAT?! :)

then your method needs updating. Pay close attention to the attitude you have
when telling the "Truth" (as you see it, not as it has been scientifically
established.).

>
> .> Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
> .> community, where it matters. I don't expect MTBers to love me. You are


hehehe


> .
> .I am NOT a mountain biker. You seem to have no trouble reposting my
> .personal emails to usenet, why haven't I seen any post from the
> .supporters you allude to?
>
> You haven't been watching! Look in Dejanews for "Anti-Mountain Biking
> Fan Mail" for a few examples.


is that appropriate to post in this group. How does e-mail, no matter who it
is from, relate to this ng????
It doesnt!


>
> .> You are looking at the surface only, and apparently not reading my
> .> posts carefully. Some people believe that "you catch more flies with
> .> honey". But it is like a religious belief, and I don't believe it is
> .> the best approach in the long run. HONESTY is. Besides, I am not
> .> looking for flies.... :)
> .
> .Fine.. you're doing more harm then good. It's crystal clear to any
> .unbiased observer.

ummmmmmmm

Nope!


>
> .> You aren't reading my original posts. You came in in the middle of the
> .>
> .> movie. Besides, social pressure is how the community enforces its
> .> standards. That is all I am doing: expecting a high standard of
> .> behaviour, especially honesty.
> .
> .I'm not coming in at the middle, as you evidently reposted the email
> .under a different subject line. That, to me, is the beginning of a
> .thread.
> .
> .BTW, your "high degree of honesty" proves your hypocrisy, as above. You
> .DON'T KNOW anyone is a liar, yet you accused them the same.
>
> There you go again, LYING. You have k=no way to know what I know or
> don't know. Get it yet?


state the specific lie please?

> .
> .I AM speaking up publicly, and have all along.
>
> Give me an example.

usenet is public


> Another lie. There is no way I or anyone else can make ALL
> environmentalists look a certain way. See my point? Thanks for helping
> me prove my case!

I dont know, you've done a pretty good job so far with your actions and words

>
> Observation is the foundat for science. Yes, that IS learned in high
> school. So? :)

Nope, nice try though. Proof through experimentation and observation is the
foundation of science. You observe alot, but you leave out a few steps, dont
you.

sooo easy

> To complain about someone's method, you have to be able to demonstrate
> a better method. You haven't! You lie as much as the mountain bikers!

Ok
1. Get the scientific proof of your beliefs and opinions that you obviously
lack on your "website"
2. Discuss them rationally and allow them to be improved and refined through
rational discussion.
3. DOnt whine like a baby about your opponet.


>
> I thought you don't respect name-calling. I don't do that, BTW. I just
> call a spade a spade. "Wacko" is too vague to be tested.

yes, welll perhaps you should hold your own words up to the standard you
impose on his????

jpai...@rocketmail.com

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <3562e62f...@news.pacbell.net>,

mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> You sent me email after I asked you to stop. That is unsolicited email
> and harassment, and thus is against the law. You guys (you are an
> honorary mountain biker, because you lie so much) have no ethics
> whatsoever.

the above is irrelevant, pointless drivel.

>
> >First, let me make it clear.. I am an environmentalist. Mr.
> Vandeman's views do NOT represent those of the majority of people who
> >consider themselves environmentalists.
>
> That is a LIE, since you haven't done a scientific survey. Why do you
> think you can get anywhere by lying???
>

and what specific studies have you done Mike
Ill hazard to guess that the anwser is "0"


>
> You liars.

the accusation lacks proof as usual

>
> Since you didn't deny lying, I have to conclude that you ADMIT to
> being a liar! There is no point to anyone listening to a liar.

why deny that which is 1. not a lie or 2. not relevant in any way


>
> You never acknowledge it, when I prove you wrong! Hmmm.

hehehehe


> Nonsense. Abusive email DESERVES to be published. Like this one.

This is not a forum for the discussion and posting of abusive e-mail. EVER!

Grow up

I would hope that by now we have discovered that any attempt to discuss the
logical implications of mikes assumptions is an invitation to one tangent
after another and semantics on a grand scale

Yawwwwn

It is soooo easy!

Thaedeus Zefuldar

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to


Oh, yeah... an M.A. from Harvard proves he's smart, doesn't it!

Apparently they don't teach spelling, grammar, logic, or common sense
at Harvard anymore.

Not to mention, that the last time I checked the A stood for Arts -- not
science!

--L8R

jpai...@rocketmail.com wrote in article
<6k1eed$7vl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

> > .The poster in question DIDN'T say anything about you. Again, you
swear
> > .by science, but where is your method to determine when someone is
lying
> > .or not? This is hypocritical.
> >
> > Post the article you are talking about. This abstract discussion is
> > BS.

> But arent most of the articles on your "website" abstracts or speeches?
>
>
> >

> > That is a lie, which you well know. You have no way of knowing what I
> > know or don't know, do you? :) See my point? It is EASY to see when
> > you guys are lying!!!
>

> as usual, irrelevant drivel


> >
>
> > .> I DID, on my web page. That didn't stop the mountain bikers from
> > .> attacking me. You are extremely naive. They won't accept anyone
> > .> telling the truth about mountain biking. Period. It isn't just me.
> > .> ANYONE who tells the truth gets the same response: venom!
> > .
> > .That's a cop out. I haven't seen a well-reasoned post from you on
> > .rec.backcountry.
> >
> > Then you haven't read my web page. There are plenty there. By the way,
> > with an M.A. from Harvard, my reasoning is not likely to be faulty.
>

> I have, His statement stands! Nothing on your "website" is logical or
> reasoned, but it is occasionally well stated, although open to discussion
> (that you lack the courage to engage in)
>
>
> >

> > .Irrelavent.. I'm talking about your method, not your message.
> >
> > My method is to tell the truth. What's wrong with THAT?! :)
>

> then your method needs updating. Pay close attention to the attitude you
have
> when telling the "Truth" (as you see it, not as it has been
scientifically
> established.).
>
>
>
> >

> > .> Nonsense. I have an excellent reputation in the environmental
> > .> community, where it matters. I don't expect MTBers to love me. You
are
>
>

> hehehe


>
>
> > .
> > .I am NOT a mountain biker. You seem to have no trouble reposting my
> > .personal emails to usenet, why haven't I seen any post from the
> > .supporters you allude to?
> >
> > You haven't been watching! Look in Dejanews for "Anti-Mountain Biking
> > Fan Mail" for a few examples.
>
>

> is that appropriate to post in this group. How does e-mail, no matter who
it
> is from, relate to this ng????
> It doesnt!
>
>
> >

> > .> You are looking at the surface only, and apparently not reading my
> > .> posts carefully. Some people believe that "you catch more flies with
> > .> honey". But it is like a religious belief, and I don't believe it is
> > .> the best approach in the long run. HONESTY is. Besides, I am not
> > .> looking for flies.... :)
> > .
> > .Fine.. you're doing more harm then good. It's crystal clear to any
> > .unbiased observer.

> ummmmmmmm
>
> Nope!


>
>
>
>
> >
> > .> You aren't reading my original posts. You came in in the middle of
the
> > .>
> > .> movie. Besides, social pressure is how the community enforces its
> > .> standards. That is all I am doing: expecting a high standard of
> > .> behaviour, especially honesty.
> > .
> > .I'm not coming in at the middle, as you evidently reposted the email
> > .under a different subject line. That, to me, is the beginning of a
> > .thread.
> > .
> > .BTW, your "high degree of honesty" proves your hypocrisy, as above.
You
> > .DON'T KNOW anyone is a liar, yet you accused them the same.
> >
> > There you go again, LYING. You have k=no way to know what I know or
> > don't know. Get it yet?
>
>

> state the specific lie please?
>

> > .
> > .I AM speaking up publicly, and have all along.
> >
> > Give me an example.
>

> usenet is public


>
>
>
>
> > Another lie. There is no way I or anyone else can make ALL
> > environmentalists look a certain way. See my point? Thanks for helping
> > me prove my case!
>

> I dont know, you've done a pretty good job so far with your actions and
words
>
>
>
> >

> > Observation is the foundat for science. Yes, that IS learned in high
> > school. So? :)
>

> Nope, nice try though. Proof through experimentation and observation is
the
> foundation of science. You observe alot, but you leave out a few steps,
dont
> you.
>
> sooo easy
>
>
>
>
>

> > To complain about someone's method, you have to be able to demonstrate
> > a better method. You haven't! You lie as much as the mountain bikers!

> Ok
> 1. Get the scientific proof of your beliefs and opinions that you
obviously
> lack on your "website"
> 2. Discuss them rationally and allow them to be improved and refined
through
> rational discussion.
> 3. DOnt whine like a baby about your opponet.
>
>
>
>
> >

> > I thought you don't respect name-calling. I don't do that, BTW. I just
> > call a spade a spade. "Wacko" is too vague to be tested.
>

> yes, welll perhaps you should hold your own words up to the standard you
> impose on his????
>
>
>
>

Sean B.

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Thaedeus Zefuldar wrote:

        Oh, yeah... an M.A. from Harvard proves he's smart, doesn't it!

        Apparently they don't teach spelling, grammar, logic, or common sense
at Harvard anymore.

        Not to mention, that the last time I checked the A stood for Arts -- not
science!

        --L8R
 

Bingo! Well we all went to school(college) with people you never should have been there in the first place. And most these people got their degrees also. If he is so smart in this biology, then why did he get a math and psych/or what ever his PhD is in. Oh I forgot, HE does his home work.

Jason and Melissa Nulton

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

Can't we all just get along?

Jason

jpai...@rocketmail.com wrote in message
<6k1cp9$5ms$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <3562e62f...@news.pacbell.net>,


> mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:
>>
>> You sent me email after I asked you to stop. That is unsolicited email
>> and harassment, and thus is against the law. You guys (you are an
>> honorary mountain biker, because you lie so much) have no ethics
>> whatsoever.
>

>the above is irrelevant, pointless drivel.
>
>>

>> >First, let me make it clear.. I am an environmentalist. Mr.
>> Vandeman's views do NOT represent those of the majority of people who
>> >consider themselves environmentalists.
>>
>> That is a LIE, since you haven't done a scientific survey. Why do you
>> think you can get anywhere by lying???
>>

>and what specific studies have you done Mike
>Ill hazard to guess that the anwser is "0"
>
>
>>
>> You liars.
>
>the accusation lacks proof as usual
>
>>

>> Since you didn't deny lying, I have to conclude that you ADMIT to
>> being a liar! There is no point to anyone listening to a liar.
>

>why deny that which is 1. not a lie or 2. not relevant in any way
>
>
>>

>> You never acknowledge it, when I prove you wrong! Hmmm.
>

>hehehehe


>
>
>> Nonsense. Abusive email DESERVES to be published. Like this one.
>

>This is not a forum for the discussion and posting of abusive e-mail. EVER!
>
>Grow up
>
>I would hope that by now we have discovered that any attempt to discuss the
>logical implications of mikes assumptions is an invitation to one tangent
>after another and semantics on a grand scale
>
>Yawwwwn
>
>It is soooo easy!
>

Mike Vandeman

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

On Fri, 22 May 1998 07:22:48 -0400, "Jason and Melissa Nulton"
<toos...@earthlink.net> wrote:

.Can't we all just get along?

Not as long as you insist on destroying the environment. :)

.Jason
.
.jpai...@rocketmail.com wrote in message
.<6k1cp9$5ms$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
.>In article <3562e62f...@news.pacbell.net>,
.> mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:
.>>
.>> You sent me email after I asked you to stop. That is unsolicited email
.>> and harassment, and thus is against the law. You guys (you are an
.>> honorary mountain biker, because you lie so much) have no ethics
.>> whatsoever.
.>
.>the above is irrelevant, pointless drivel.
.>
.>>
.>> >First, let me make it clear.. I am an environmentalist. Mr.
.>> Vandeman's views do NOT represent those of the majority of people who
.>> >consider themselves environmentalists.
.>>
.>> That is a LIE, since you haven't done a scientific survey. Why do you
.>> think you can get anywhere by lying???
.>>
.>and what specific studies have you done Mike
.>Ill hazard to guess that the anwser is "0"
.>
.>
.>>
.>> You liars.
.>
.>the accusation lacks proof as usual
.>
.>>
.>> Since you didn't deny lying, I have to conclude that you ADMIT to
.>> being a liar! There is no point to anyone listening to a liar.
.>
.>why deny that which is 1. not a lie or 2. not relevant in any way
.>
.>
.>>
.>> You never acknowledge it, when I prove you wrong! Hmmm.
.>
.>hehehehe
.>
.>
.>> Nonsense. Abusive email DESERVES to be published. Like this one.
.>
.>This is not a forum for the discussion and posting of abusive e-mail. EVER!
.>
.>Grow up
.>
.>I would hope that by now we have discovered that any attempt to discuss the
.>logical implications of mikes assumptions is an invitation to one tangent
.>after another and semantics on a grand scale
.>
.>Yawwwwn
.>
.>It is soooo easy!
.>
.>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
.>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
.
.

0 new messages