CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   Mountain Biking (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   A Cure for Violence? (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=238686)

Mike Vandeman[_4_] October 10th 12 05:52 AM

A Cure for Violence?
 
To the Editor:

The Oakland Police Department is being threatened with being put
under court control ("receivership"), due to its history of abusive
behavior. But police work is dangerous! I can easily understand why a
policeman would sometimes, in an atmosphere of fear, make a bad
decision.

But maybe there is another solution! Where does violence come from?
Doesn't most of it revolve around money? Let's assume that it does.
There are two possible solutions to the money problem: (1) get more
or (2) spend less. There are plenty of people working on the former.
Let's look at the latter.

There are many simple ways that homeowners can reduce their expenses:
(1) convert incandescent (old-fashioned) light bulbs to compact
fluorescents; the latter use far less electricity, as well as lasting
much longer; (2) insulate your home, reducing heating costs in the
winter and cooling costs in the summer; the gas company and the
government will often subsidize this; (3) put all consumers of
"vampire power" (appliances that consume electricity even when they
are allegedly "off": TV, stereo, microwave, etc.) on switches or
power strips, so they can be turned completely off when not used; (4)
grow fruits and vegetables (and even chickens, rabbits, etc.) in your
own garden, saving on food costs; (5) sell all your motor vehicles
and get a bicycle -- bike riding is free; (6) we use too much water
for bathing; get wet and turn off the water; then wash and turn the
water back on to rinse; this will greatly reduce your water
consumption (you may have to convince the water company to base all
charges on consumption levels; currently, many charges are fixed, and
not proportional to usage).

People who don't own their home, or pay for their utilities directly,
should be able to negotiate a lower rent, when they reduce their
water and power consumption.

Instead of focusing on the downstream effect -- crime -- let's help
each other reduce the cause of crime: the need for money! Maybe the
police department would even offer to help! Anything that reduces
violence and crime would make their job easier, so they should be
willing to help....

Mike Vandeman

Blackblade October 26th 12 09:20 AM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:


Mike Vandeman


I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives !

Mike Vandeman[_4_] October 27th 12 04:20 PM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:





Mike Vandeman




I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives !


Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars.

Blackblade October 29th 12 02:32 PM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:












Mike Vandeman








I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives !




Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars.


What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence.

So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ?

Mike Vandeman[_4_] October 30th 12 08:30 PM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ?


There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick.

[email protected] October 31st 12 02:46 AM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ?




There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick.


No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent.

"The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff."

Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?


Mike Vandeman[_4_] October 31st 12 06:08 AM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?


I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth.

Blackblade October 31st 12 11:50 AM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:08:46 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?




I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth.


I fear that we will never get through to Mike V. He lives in his own world and, as far as I can tell from his writing, has real issues genuinely understanding that others could validly hold different views.

Thus, despite his conviction for violent crimes, he has not in any way altered his self image. Rational people might, faced with such a wakeup call, modify their behaviour and attitudes and question themselves. No such epiphany seems to have occurred with Mike and he is therefore seeking to try and impose such a worldview on everyone else.

In his mind, he is an innocent victim, wholly justified in his actions, brought low by contrary forces. In reality, he is someone prepared to countenance violence and physical confrontation in defence of his position and has provably sought such confrontations as he has admitted in his own testimony (specifically, where he refers to intentionally moving into the path of others to prevent them passing).

It's kind of fun verbally jousting with him, occasionally, but I no longer take what he says in any way seriously ... and I doubt now that he will ever change.

[email protected] October 31st 12 03:57 PM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:50:21 AM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:08:46 AM UTC, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:




On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?








I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth.




I fear that we will never get through to Mike V. He lives in his own world and, as far as I can tell from his writing, has real issues genuinely understanding that others could validly hold different views.



Thus, despite his conviction for violent crimes, he has not in any way altered his self image. Rational people might, faced with such a wakeup call, modify their behaviour and attitudes and question themselves. No such epiphany seems to have occurred with Mike and he is therefore seeking to try and impose such a worldview on everyone else.



In his mind, he is an innocent victim, wholly justified in his actions, brought low by contrary forces. In reality, he is someone prepared to countenance violence and physical confrontation in defence of his position and has provably sought such confrontations as he has admitted in his own testimony (specifically, where he refers to intentionally moving into the path of others to prevent them passing).



It's kind of fun verbally jousting with him, occasionally, but I no longer take what he says in any way seriously ... and I doubt now that he will ever change.


I have never taken him seriously, and I have no intention of changing his mind.

I am preserving his legacy in these forums.



[email protected] October 31st 12 04:06 PM

A Cure for Violence?
 
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:08:46 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:46:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:30:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:20:32 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:52:48 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: Mike Vandeman I suspect that a criminal with convictions for violent offences, who continues to deny that fact, is not likely to get much of a hearing when lecturing others on how to live their lives ! Liar. No one listens to mountain bikers, knowing that they are all incorrigible liars. What, precisely, do you contend is a lie Mr Vandeman ? You do have convictions for violent offences (battery and exhibiting a deadly weapon) and you do, despite that, keep claiming to be innocent without supporting that position with any objective evidence. So, I have public-record proof of my assertions. What do you have ? There was no violence whatsoever. "Battery" just means "touching". Brandishing in self-defense is not a crime. You are extraordinarily ignorant! Or lying. Take your pick. No, moron. "Battery" does not "just mean" "touching." You'd think you'd have taken the time to understand that after being convicted of it. The difference is in the intent. "The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff." Why are you so afraid to tell the truth?




I'm not. In this case it was just touching. No "violence". Of course, since you weren't there, you are DISHONEST to pretend to know what happened -- the same dishonesty that causes you to STILL not give your real name. Nothing new for mountain bikers -- they NEVER tell the truth.


Show me where I wrote "violence," liar.

Clearly, the courts believe you possessed "intent to cause harmful or offensive contact." I don't care if you believe it was "just touching," because that's not what battery is, no matter how many times you write it.

I don't pretend to know what happened. You are LYING about that, as usual. I am merely repeating the court's decision. I've asked you several times to present the details of your side of the story here in this forum, but you are obviously too big of a coward to comply.

Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is your problem, not mine.

You were arrested. You were convicted. Those are FACTS, and only a LIAR would refute them.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com