Cliff plunge mountain biker saved by mobile phone

rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G"
wrote:

there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
a lie.


BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.

There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G"
wrote:

there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
a lie.


BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.

There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.


You haven't proven that all mountain biking causes harm. You also haven't
proven that all mountain bike riders behave in a harmful manner. And, you
have not proven that mountain bike riding, per se, causes harm to mountain
bike riders.

You have managed to prove to most of us that you are self absorbed ...

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G"
wrote:

there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
a lie.


BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.

There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.


You haven't proven that all mountain biking causes harm. You also
haven't proven that all mountain bike riders behave in a harmful
manner. And, you have not proven that mountain bike riding, per se,
causes harm to mountain bike riders.

Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it. Some people don't like
to hike, swim or ride bicycles on streets. If they get their excercise
on mountain bikes because they enjoy it, fine: those managing parks
and similar areas are responsible for ensuring that user activities
will not damage the resource. The only question is whose judgement
you trust - professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find
the choice obvious.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G"
wrote:

there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
a lie.


BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.

There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.


You haven't proven that all mountain biking causes harm. You also
haven't proven that all mountain bike riders behave in a harmful
manner. And, you have not proven that mountain bike riding, per se,
causes harm to mountain bike riders.

Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!

Some people don't like
to hike, swim or ride bicycles on streets. If they get their excercise
on mountain bikes because they enjoy it, fine: those managing parks
and similar areas are responsible for ensuring that user activities
will not damage the resource. The only question is whose judgement
you trust - professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find
the choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!


Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.

Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!


Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.

Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

MV in dishonesty shock!

Nothing new to see here, move along folks.

Oh, and by the way MV, keep your self absorbed gob****e over that side of
the "pond" you have NO (see the capitalisation there for your benefit)
insight on mountain biking in the UK where the real impact on our
environment comes from the MX ******* and horsey brigade.

Just my 2p sterling.

Andy H

(It is my real name but why should I have to give my full surname for a
whois lookup for potential thieves, spammers Etc?)

On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:50:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!


Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

That's THEIR problem. It doesn't imply that the PUBLIC should provide
them with wildlife habitat to destroy, just because they are too lazy
to walk.

Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.

Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

OOPS, you CONVENIENTLY forgot this little bit: " Most readers will
find the choice obvious".
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:24:51 GMT, "Whatsit"
wrote:


"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!


Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.

Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

MV in dishonesty shock!

Nothing new to see here, move along folks.

Oh, and by the way MV, keep your self absorbed gob****e over that side of
the "pond" you have NO (see the capitalisation there for your benefit)
insight on mountain biking in the UK where the real impact on our
environment comes from the MX ******* and horsey brigade.

And mountain bikers. You aren't foolong anyone.

Just my 2p sterling.

Andy H

(It is my real name but why should I have to give my full surname for a
whois lookup for potential thieves, spammers Etc?)

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:50:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!


Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

That's THEIR problem. It doesn't imply that the PUBLIC should provide
them with wildlife habitat to destroy, just because they are too lazy
to walk.

No, Vandeman, the issue we were discussing is *your* problem - your
tendency to call people "dishonest" for no reason whatsoever. In this
case, I simply reported what happens in the real world, and you had
the unmitigated gall to call that "dishonest". If you had even a
shred of decency, you would apologize for that outburst.

Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.

Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

OOPS, you CONVENIENTLY forgot this little bit: " Most readers will
find the choice obvious".

They *will* find it obvious. Even with the low opinion many have of
government officials, nearly anyone familiar with your posts would
consider said officials far more trustworthy than you. That is
simply a fact. It has nothing to do with whatever goals you think
you have, but it has a lot to do with how you behave in public.

Also, read what I said closely - I was basically saying that we should
expect government officials to do their jobs and protect the
environment in parks and wilderness areas. If you think anyone
reading these newsgroups would hold your opinions higher than those of
professionals, you are deluded. Finally, I did not post so much as one
single word suggesting that mountain bikes should be allowed on any
particular trail (nor that they should not be allowed - I just left
the decision to professionals).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 07 May 2007 20:57:09 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:50:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!


Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

That's THEIR problem. It doesn't imply that the PUBLIC should provide
them with wildlife habitat to destroy, just because they are too lazy
to walk.

No, Vandeman, the issue we were discussing is *your* problem - your
tendency to call people "dishonest" for no reason whatsoever. In this
case, I simply reported what happens in the real world, and you had
the unmitigated gall to call that "dishonest". If you had even a
shred of decency, you would apologize for that outburst.

If you are so honest, why are you always removing the text of your
messages, making it impossible for people to see exactly what I am
responding to? You are transparently dishonest.

Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.

Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

OOPS, you CONVENIENTLY forgot this little bit: " Most readers will
find the choice obvious".

They *will* find it obvious. Even with the low opinion many have of
government officials, nearly anyone familiar with your posts would
consider said officials far more trustworthy than you. That is
simply a fact. It has nothing to do with whatever goals you think
you have, but it has a lot to do with how you behave in public.

Also, read what I said closely - I was basically saying that we should
expect government officials to do their jobs and protect the
environment in parks and wilderness areas. If you think anyone
reading these newsgroups would hold your opinions higher than those of
professionals, you are deluded. Finally, I did not post so much as one
single word suggesting that mountain bikes should be allowed on any
particular trail (nor that they should not be allowed - I just left
the decision to professionals).

They aren't professionals at protecting wildlife. They are
professionals at responding to political pressure and propaganda. Very
few of them make rational decisions. Too much political pressure. But
I wouldn't expect YOU to be honest about that. You are too busy trying
to prove yourself right.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande