Mountain Bikers LOVE Censorship

because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

Mike


At 12:58 AM 4/5/2010, wrote:
mjvande,

dave_atkinson (http://road.cc/users/dave-atkinson) has sent you a message via
your contact form (http://road.cc/users/mjvande/contact) at road.cc.

If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at
http://road.cc/users/mjvande.

Message:

i've deleted your post because it was neither relevant to the event you'd
posted it on (which takes place on dedicated mtb trails designed and
created
specifically for that purpose) nor the territory it takes place in
(the uk,
where there is a legal right to cycle on bridleways and other rights
of way)

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

Mike


At 12:58 AM 4/5/2010, wrote:
mjvande,

dave_atkinson (http://road.cc/users/dave-atkinson) has sent you a message via
your contact form (http://road.cc/users/mjvande/contact) at road.cc.

If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at
http://road.cc/users/mjvande.

Message:

i've deleted your post because it was neither relevant to the event you'd
posted it on (which takes place on dedicated mtb trails designed and
created
specifically for that purpose) nor the territory it takes place in
(the uk,
where there is a legal right to cycle on bridleways and other rights
of way)

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

Like I've been saying Mike, ramming your ideas down
other people's throats does not make you a hero with
them. It ****es them off. Soften your approach and
you'll make lots more points. Your post apparently
was off-topic, inappropriate and not in accordance
with the charter of the newsgroup.

What I want to know is what were the happenstances
which caused you to be so unhappy with one group?
This group doesn't cause any more damage than others
and less than some I can think of. Why all the angst?
Who, who rides a mountain bike, hurt you?

On Apr 6, 1:06*pm, VtSkier wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

Mike

At 12:58 AM 4/5/2010, wrote:
mjvande,

dave_atkinson (http://road.cc/users/dave-atkinson) has sent you a message via
your contact form (http://road.cc/users/mjvande/contact) at road.cc.

If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at
http://road.cc/users/mjvande.

Message:

i've deleted your post because it was neither relevant to the event you'd
posted it on (which takes place on dedicated mtb trails designed and
created
specifically for that purpose) nor the territory it takes place in
(the uk,
where there is a legal right to cycle on bridleways and other rights
of way)

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

Like I've been saying Mike, ramming your ideas down
other people's throats does not make you a hero with
them. It ****es them off. Soften your approach and
you'll make lots more points. Your post apparently
was off-topic, inappropriate and not in accordance
with the charter of the newsgroup.

What I want to know is what were the happenstances
which caused you to be so unhappy with one group?
This group doesn't cause any more damage than others
and less than some I can think of. Why all the angst?
Who, who rides a mountain bike, hurt you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need to know - Michael has been this way since the beginning of
time. He has some good ideas (and has done some good things), but he
invariably makes people despise him though a combination of paranoid
schizophrenia, contemptuous derision for those who disagree, and an
authoritarian attitude that makes Dick Cheney look like the Dalai
Lama. He is 1,000% certain that his viewpiont is infallible and is
sure that if he just gets his message out a tiny bit more strongly,
the masses MUST come around and follow him.

I am no fan of mountain bikes on small hiking trails either - but Mike
goes far overboard. I guarantee you will not get an objective answer
out him, no matter what you say. He does not have it in him.

Bruce Jensen

On Apr 6, 11:28*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

-snip-

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

So if the person sending the message gets to decide if it's
censorship, how do you explain this?

"Whenever you get abusive email, you should do the following..."

"Send it to the person who sent it to you, with the words: "Don't send
me any more email. EVER! I added you to my idiot filter". Add their
email address to your filters, sending their email to your Trash..."

"Any email [in your trash] represents someone whom you have told to
stop sending you email, which is a clear violation of their AUP. Copy
that entire email (INCLUDING ALL HEADERS) into a new email, and send
it to their ISP with the Subject "Unsolicited email from your
subscriber". In the email, say "Please cancel this account! I asked
them to stop sending me email, but they persist." If they have replied
to your request to stop sending you email, say "Please cancel this
account! As you can see, I asked them to stop sending me email, but
they persist." Many mountain bikers are stupid enough to do just that.
They just can't help being defiant."

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/abuse

That is just censorship, plain and simple. The option to email you is
there precisely because people DO disagree. Censorship, under any
name, is repugnant.

On Apr 6, 1:06*pm, VtSkier wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

Mike

At 12:58 AM 4/5/2010, wrote:
mjvande,

dave_atkinson (http://road.cc/users/dave-atkinson) has sent you a message via
your contact form (http://road.cc/users/mjvande/contact) at road.cc.

If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at
http://road.cc/users/mjvande.

Message:

i've deleted your post because it was neither relevant to the event you'd
posted it on (which takes place on dedicated mtb trails designed and
created
specifically for that purpose) nor the territory it takes place in
(the uk,
where there is a legal right to cycle on bridleways and other rights
of way)

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

Like I've been saying Mike, ramming your ideas down
other people's throats does not make you a hero with
them.

How can I do that, liar?

It ****es them off. Soften your approach and
you'll make lots more points.

You mean stop telling the truth? That's exactly what the mountain
bikers would like.

Your post apparently
was off-topic, inappropriate and not in accordance
with the charter of the newsgroup.

It's not a newsgroup, there's no charter, & it wasn't off-topic. Do
you EVER do your homework before opening your mouth?

What I want to know is what were the happenstances
which caused you to be so unhappy with one group?
This group doesn't cause any more damage than others
and less than some I can think of. Why all the angst?

What are you, an amateur psychologist? You would instantly go broke,
with that kind of BS.

Who, who rides a mountain bike, hurt you?- Hide quoted text -

I never said I'm "unhappy" with any group. I just tell the truth about
mountain biking. Why don't you like that? More people should start
telling the truth. It would do you some good. All you've proven is
that you can't tell the truth. EVER.

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 6, 1:14*pm, Bruce Jensen wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:06*pm, VtSkier wrote:





Mike Vandeman wrote:
because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

Mike

At 12:58 AM 4/5/2010, wrote:
mjvande,

dave_atkinson (http://road.cc/users/dave-atkinson) has sent you a message via
your contact form (http://road.cc/users/mjvande/contact) at road.cc.

If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at
http://road.cc/users/mjvande.

Message:

i've deleted your post because it was neither relevant to the event you'd
posted it on (which takes place on dedicated mtb trails designed and
created
specifically for that purpose) nor the territory it takes place in
(the uk,
where there is a legal right to cycle on bridleways and other rights
of way)

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

Like I've been saying Mike, ramming your ideas down
other people's throats does not make you a hero with
them. It ****es them off. Soften your approach and
you'll make lots more points. Your post apparently
was off-topic, inappropriate and not in accordance
with the charter of the newsgroup.

What I want to know is what were the happenstances
which caused you to be so unhappy with one group?
This group doesn't cause any more damage than others
and less than some I can think of. Why all the angst?
Who, who rides a mountain bike, hurt you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need to know - Michael has been this way since the beginning of
time. *He has some good ideas (and has done some good things), but he
invariably makes people despise him though a combination of paranoid
schizophrenia, contemptuous derision for those who disagree, and an
authoritarian attitude that makes Dick Cheney look like the Dalai
Lama. *He is 1,000% certain that his viewpiont is infallible'

So what have I ever said that is wrong, smartypants? Put your money
where your mouth is.

and is
sure that if he just gets his message out a tiny bit more strongly,
the masses MUST come around and follow him.

I am no fan of mountain bikes on small hiking trails either - but Mike
goes far overboard.

Exactly HOW? Your utter vagueness is a sure indication that you don't
know what you are talking about. You have said exactly NOTHING.

*I guarantee you will not get an objective answer
out him, no matter what you say. *He does not have it in him.

Bruce Jensen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 6, 5:02*pm, Shraga wrote:
On Apr 6, 11:28*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

-snip-

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

So if the person sending the message gets to decide if it's
censorship, how do you explain this?

"Whenever you get abusive email, you should do the following..."

"Send it to the person who sent it to you, with the words: "Don't send
me any more email. EVER! I added you to my idiot filter". Add their
email address to your filters, sending their email to your Trash..."

"Any email [in your trash] represents someone whom you have told to
stop sending you email, which is a clear violation of their AUP. Copy
that entire email (INCLUDING ALL HEADERS) into a new email, and send
it to their ISP with the Subject "Unsolicited email from your
subscriber". In the email, say "Please cancel this account! I asked
them to stop sending me email, but they persist." If they have replied
to your request to stop sending you email, say "Please cancel this
account! As you can see, I asked them to stop sending me email, but
they persist." Many mountain bikers are stupid enough to do just that.
They just can't help being defiant."

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/abuse

That is just censorship, plain and simple. The option to email you is
there precisely because people DO disagree. Censorship, under any
name, is repugnant.

BS. Censorship has to do with PUBLISHING. Email is not publishing.
Emailing someone who has asked you not to is a violation of your
internet provider's Acceptable Use Policy. One thing has nothing to do
withy the other. But, of course, you already knew that, and just CHOSE
to LIE.

On Apr 7, 3:38*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:02*pm, Shraga wrote:



On Apr 6, 11:28*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

-snip-

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

So if the person sending the message gets to decide if it's
censorship, how do you explain this?

"Whenever you get abusive email, you should do the following..."

"Send it to the person who sent it to you, with the words: "Don't send
me any more email. EVER! I added you to my idiot filter". Add their
email address to your filters, sending their email to your Trash..."

"Any email [in your trash] represents someone whom you have told to
stop sending you email, which is a clear violation of their AUP. Copy
that entire email (INCLUDING ALL HEADERS) into a new email, and send
it to their ISP with the Subject "Unsolicited email from your
subscriber". In the email, say "Please cancel this account! I asked
them to stop sending me email, but they persist." If they have replied
to your request to stop sending you email, say "Please cancel this
account! As you can see, I asked them to stop sending me email, but
they persist." Many mountain bikers are stupid enough to do just that.
They just can't help being defiant."

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/abuse

That is just censorship, plain and simple. The option to email you is
there precisely because people DO disagree. Censorship, under any
name, is repugnant.

BS. Censorship has to do with PUBLISHING. Email is not publishing.
Emailing someone who has asked you not to is a violation of your
internet provider's Acceptable Use Policy. One thing has nothing to do
withy the other. But, of course, you already knew that, and just CHOSE
to LIE.

Censorship is the practice of censoring, which is “to examine in order
to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.” That’s
according to Webster’s dictionary, not me. There’s nothing there about
PUBLISHING. You are lying about that.

By the dictionary definition, asking someone not to email you and
sending messages directly to your trash is censorship. You are
censoring them and hiding behind an Acceptable Use Policy. On your
Website you advocate censorship for all to see, yet you condemn it
when it inconveniences you.

Again, and I’m quoting you, “Censorship, under any name, is
repugnant.”

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:06 pm, VtSkier wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!
Mike
At 12:58 AM 4/5/2010, wrote:
mjvande,
dave_atkinson (http://road.cc/users/dave-atkinson) has sent you a message via
your contact form (http://road.cc/users/mjvande/contact) at road.cc.
If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at
http://road.cc/users/mjvande.
Message:
i've deleted your post because it was neither relevant to the event you'd
posted it on (which takes place on dedicated mtb trails designed and
created
specifically for that purpose) nor the territory it takes place in
(the uk,
where there is a legal right to cycle on bridleways and other rights
of way)
That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.
Like I've been saying Mike, ramming your ideas down
other people's throats does not make you a hero with
them.

How can I do that, liar?

Honey, not vinegar.


It ****es them off. Soften your approach and
you'll make lots more points.

You mean stop telling the truth? That's exactly what the mountain
bikers would like.

Oh, no! Tell the truth by all means. Just tell
ALL the truth and campaign against ALL wheeled
vehicles on land that won't support them. Don't
single out one group because someone in that
group has caused you some discomfort.


Your post apparently
was off-topic, inappropriate and not in accordance
with the charter of the newsgroup.

It's not a newsgroup, there's no charter, & it wasn't off-topic. Do
you EVER do your homework before opening your mouth?

Now there you go. Framing your response in a pejorative
way. You could have simply told me that the forum was
not a newsgroup. If that's the case, what was it? Was
it a private forum like a Yahoo group? Does the list have
rules? Did you break them? And on and on...


What I want to know is what were the happenstances
which caused you to be so unhappy with one group?
This group doesn't cause any more damage than others
and less than some I can think of. Why all the angst?

What are you, an amateur psychologist? You would instantly go broke,
with that kind of BS.

I'm no psychologist of any kind. I just recognize that
the kinds of attacks that you engage in are probably
pathological in nature because they target one single
group and one single activity, when there are other
groups and other activities which are more damaging
than the group you have targeted.


Who, who rides a mountain bike, hurt you?- Hide quoted text -

I never said I'm "unhappy" with any group. I just tell the truth about
mountain biking. Why don't you like that? More people should start
telling the truth. It would do you some good. All you've proven is
that you can't tell the truth. EVER.

The tone of your attacks say how unhappy you are with
the group called "mountain bikers". You go to great
lengths to show how allegedly dishonest MBers are. How
anybody who rides a mountain bike is a dishonest
mountain biker (which I've shown you to be patently
untrue) and that MBing allegedly causes more environmental
damage than any other activity known to man, also
patently untrue.

You may have a case. In fact I think you do have a case
but your presentation and gross exaggerations, not to
mention the anger in your presentation pushes people
away from your case in droves.

YOU are doing more to promote damage caused by mountain
biking than any other force on the planet.

There. Now there is a gross exaggeration, which has
enough truth in it to maybe reach even you.

Read it three times before your respond.


- Show quoted text -

On Apr 7, 12:34*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:14*pm, Bruce Jensen wrote:





On Apr 6, 1:06*pm, VtSkier wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
because they can't defend mountain biking. They would rather let
rec.bicycles.off-road DIE, than let me use it to tell the truth about
mountain biking!

Mike

At 12:58 AM 4/5/2010, wrote:
mjvande,

dave_atkinson (http://road.cc/users/dave-atkinson) has sent you a message via
your contact form (http://road.cc/users/mjvande/contact) at road.cc..

If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at
http://road.cc/users/mjvande.

Message:

i've deleted your post because it was neither relevant to the event you'd
posted it on (which takes place on dedicated mtb trails designed and
created
specifically for that purpose) nor the territory it takes place in
(the uk,
where there is a legal right to cycle on bridleways and other rights
of way)

That is just censorship, plain and simple. I put it back, because it
absolutely IS relevant! Do you think that an animal killed by a
mountain biker cares whether mountain biking is "legal" or not?! My
post has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Environmental
damage isn't okay, just because it's legal! If everyone agreed on
everything, there would be no need for comments, would there? The
option to comment is there precisely because people DO disagree.
Censorship, under any name, is repugnant.

Like I've been saying Mike, ramming your ideas down
other people's throats does not make you a hero with
them. It ****es them off. Soften your approach and
you'll make lots more points. Your post apparently
was off-topic, inappropriate and not in accordance
with the charter of the newsgroup.

What I want to know is what were the happenstances
which caused you to be so unhappy with one group?
This group doesn't cause any more damage than others
and less than some I can think of. Why all the angst?
Who, who rides a mountain bike, hurt you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need to know - Michael has been this way since the beginning of
time. *He has some good ideas (and has done some good things), but he
invariably makes people despise him though a combination of paranoid
schizophrenia, contemptuous derision for those who disagree, and an
authoritarian attitude that makes Dick Cheney look like the Dalai
Lama. *He is 1,000% certain that his viewpiont is infallible'

So what have I ever said that is wrong, smartypants? Put your money
where your mouth is.

*and is

sure that if he just gets his message out a tiny bit more strongly,
the masses MUST come around and follow him.

I am no fan of mountain bikes on small hiking trails either - but Mike
goes far overboard.

Exactly HOW? Your utter vagueness is a sure indication that you don't
know what you are talking about. You have said exactly NOTHING.

**I guarantee you will not get an objective answer



out him, no matter what you say. *He does not have it in him.

Bruce Jensen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All irrelevant. I have explained where you are wrong, in detail, in
past posts. The fact that you your level of perception is grossly
inferior to that of a dust bunny is not my fault.

I'm not on trial here, 'tard. You are, and always have been. You are
the one who makes outrageous and insulting statements and expects
people to fall in line behind you.

And you know for a fact that I have always supported "your" take on
bikes on small trails. You're lucky you even get that, ya schmuck.

Bruce