A FIRST! : A mountain biker who can learn from his mistakes

Not for a long time I think .... :-)

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:22:36 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Not for a long time I think .... :-)

This article I just posted proves my point: "Vindication! Wildlife officer sounds a note of caution on creating more trails". Read and weep.

On 28/09/2013 5:10 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:22:36 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Not for a long time I think .... :-)

This article I just posted proves my point: "Vindication! Wildlife officer sounds a note of caution on creating more trails". Read and weep.


No it doesn't you old criminal. They are a single-issue service:-

“Their role is to advocate for big game,” Pritchard said. “They are
pretty consistent in their desire to say they don’t want any more
recreation. They will always be that half of the equation to advocate
for animals that can’t speak.”

They don't want ANY recreation at all. Unfortunately for them,
they are paid by people called TAXPAYERS who WANT recreation.
They have to compromise.

So your poster-boy says:-

Wright said that if there is to be more trail development, it’s better
to cluster it in places like ski areas, where there is already
year-round disturbance.

He also said:-
He said he’d be happy to come to the table as part of a larger
discussion about mountain biking, but he hopes there would be a
good-faith effort to minimize impacts.

“It could be beneficial for everyone to get to the table and talk,”
Wright said. “ ... But it depends on whether or not people want to hear
what the impact of recreation would be.”

So, unlike you, who have an almost catatonic response to anything on
the subject, the person you claim represents your point of view
wants to "Discuss" You probably need one of your Commie mates
in the People's Republic of Berklistan to explain the word "Discuss"
to you. I don't think you've come across it before. It sure as hell
didn't happen in the court case where you were convicted.
You really are fighting a losing battle. It's amusing to watch
you disintegrate piece by piece.

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:26:28 AM UTC-7, injipoint wrote:
On 28/09/2013 5:10 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:22:36 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

Not for a long time I think .... :-)



This article I just posted proves my point: "Vindication! Wildlife officer sounds a note of caution on creating more trails". Read and weep.





No it doesn't you old criminal. They are a single-issue service:-



“Their role is to advocate for big game,” Pritchard said. “They are

pretty consistent in their desire to say they don’t want any more

recreation. They will always be that half of the equation to advocate

for animals that can’t speak.”



They don't want ANY recreation at all. Unfortunately for them,

they are paid by people called TAXPAYERS who WANT recreation.

They have to compromise.



So your poster-boy says:-



Wright said that if there is to be more trail development, it’s better

to cluster it in places like ski areas, where there is already

year-round disturbance.



He also said:-

He said he’d be happy to come to the table as part of a larger

discussion about mountain biking, but he hopes there would be a

good-faith effort to minimize impacts.



“It could be beneficial for everyone to get to the table and talk,”

Wright said. “ ... But it depends on whether or not people want to hear

what the impact of recreation would be.”

OF COURSE a mountain biker would completely miss the point. We all know that they DON'T CARE "what the impact of recreation would be", nor what the LAW says. That's why the place is full of ILLEGAL TRAILS. You and "Blackblade" also pretend not to hear how the impacts reach far from the trailbed.

So, unlike you, who have an almost catatonic response to anything on

the subject, the person you claim represents your point of view

wants to "Discuss" You probably need one of your Commie mates

in the People's Republic of Berklistan to explain the word "Discuss"

to you. I don't think you've come across it before. It sure as hell

didn't happen in the court case where you were convicted.

You really are fighting a losing battle. It's amusing to watch

you disintegrate piece by piece.

You are living in fantasyland. Legally, I've never been convicted of a crime. The only reason I was ever in court was because some mountain bikers LIED to retaliate against me for blowing the whistle on their ILLEGAL MOUNTAIN BIKING. DUH! Can't mountain bikers EVER tell the truth????? (That's a rhetorical question; we know the answer is "NO".)

Prove it then Vandeman. You are all lip and no action.

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 2:37:52 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
Prove it then Vandeman. You are all lip and no action.

You are the proof. QED

Is that your best line? Pathetic. Thanks for playing.

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:01:48 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:44:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:


Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of basic biology. There are thousands of miles of trails built for mountain biking, mostly illegal, and each one destroys a 2-mile swath of habitat, since the habitat is unusable when too many humans (in the case of mountain bikers, I use the term "humans" loosely) using it. Where on earth do you come up with a figure of 'thousands of miles of trails built for mountain biking" ? Justification for it ... or just your ludicrous conjecture ? IMBA admitted to creating 450 miles of trail just this year. That doesn't include all the miles created by others, legally or ILLEGALLY. That equates to an area of 0.225 square miles taken up.

450 miles X 2 miles = 900 square miles. DUH!

Interesting response. Could you give us the location of these 450 miles of trail constructed in perfectly straight lines that never come within two miles of each other?

You WOULD miss the point entirely. Deliberately.
Idiot.

Hardly. The point is that you constantly use exaggeration, biased observations and lies to make your flawed points because the facts don't support you.. This was yet another example.

I do like your new sig, though. It suits you.

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:53:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:01:48 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:44:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:





Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of basic biology. There are thousands of miles of trails built for mountain biking, mostly illegal, and each one destroys a 2-mile swath of habitat, since the habitat is unusable when too many humans (in the case of mountain bikers, I use the term "humans" loosely) using it. Where on earth do you come up with a figure of 'thousands of miles of trails built for mountain biking" ? Justification for it ... or just your ludicrous conjecture ? IMBA admitted to creating 450 miles of trail just this year. That doesn't include all the miles created by others, legally or ILLEGALLY. That equates to an area of 0.225 square miles taken up.



450 miles X 2 miles = 900 square miles. DUH!



Interesting response. Could you give us the location of these 450 miles of trail constructed in perfectly straight lines that never come within two miles of each other?



You WOULD miss the point entirely. Deliberately.

Idiot.



Hardly. The point is that you constantly use exaggeration, biased observations and lies to make your flawed points because the facts don't support you. This was yet another example.

Your utter lack of specifics proves that you are bluffing, and have no idea what you are talking about.

I do like your new sig, though. It suits you.

I rest my case. I did not ask you on the basis of some arcane legal nitpicking. I asked you if it happened.

Yes, the dismissal happened. Too bad you don't like it.

I asked you if the court case happened. What a liar you are Vandeman.

And, so far, you've provided not one shred of evidence of any dismissal ... which would be immaterial anyway to the thrust of the argument. You DID commit battery, you WERE convicted of it and you were sentenced. Man up you pathetic windbag.

You, a convicted criminal,

LIAR. You don't have any evidence of that, especially since it isn't true. Idiot.

Want references to court reports from your trial ? Happy to oblige since a Google search of "Vandeman Conviction" yields a lot of results ... whereas I can't seem to find a single reference to a dismissal that doesn't come from ... you :-))))