What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?

If you are a mountain biker, there IS no difference!

"How ironic, then, that cyclists can't use them".

Please explain why mountain bikers are incapable of WALKING like
everyone else. If they ARE capable of walking, please explain why you
continue to LIE, and say that they can't use those trails (have you
noticed that "lawyer" sounds a lot like "liar"?).

Mike (not a lawyer OR a liar) Vandeman


Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Stroll
Subject: Irony of the Little Sur River, bikes, and Wilderness

I've been following this discussion with interest. I went to the
website that Jim Preston included in his first e-mail and noted that
he says the trail is little-used and neglected. I've heard similar
things about certain trails in Wilderness elsewhere in the western
United States: they're deteriorating or disappearing because of lack
of use and inadequate maintenance. How ironic, then, that cyclists
can't use them, all because of federal agency misinterpretations of
the Wilderness Act of 1964, which in my view does not prohibit
mountain biking in Wilderness. If cyclists could ride in the Ventana
Wilderness, I have no doubt we'd be helping to maintain the trail and
by using it keep it clear for other users.

Ted Stroll
--
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

The liar has a PhD?

On May 10, 6:06 pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
The liar has a PhD?

The lawyer ISN'T Mike.

On May 11, 12:32 pm, Bruce Jensen wrote:
On May 10, 6:06 pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:

The liar has a PhD?

The lawyer ISN'T Mike.

I always thoguht lawyers & liars to be nearly indistiguishable (one
may have gone to school longer than the other), whereas raving nutters
are quite readily recognized.

PH

"On May 10, 5:50 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
If you are a mountain biker, there IS no difference!
Please explain why mountain bikers are incapable of WALKING like
everyone else. If they ARE capable of walking, please explain why you
continue to LIE, and say that they can't use those trails (have you
noticed that "lawyer" sounds a lot like "liar"?).
Mike (not a lawyer OR a liar) Vandeman"

Mike Vandeman,
You most certainly are a liar and a bigot.
Your tactics are transparent; as you have no logic or science to
support your position, you instead try to use insignificant details to
demonize those you feel are somehow not your equal, i.e. you label
"mountain bikers" as liars when they claim to not be able to use
trails closed to bicycle use.
Yes, a person who defines themselves as a cyclist can leave the
bicycle behind and walk on those trails that are closed to bicycle
use.
Yes, as people expressing our ideas and frustrations, we should all
try to be as accurate as possible.
Does the fact that many of us do use statements that are technically
incorrect make us liars?
No, it does not.
Does the fact that you, Mike Vandeman, use these honest, although
technically incorrect statements, to demonize "mountain bikers" as
"liars", make you a liar?
Yes it does.

My personal opinion is that you, Mike Vandeman, are, by your own
actions, a sad and lonely man, whose insignificance eats at you like a
cancer.
Though you are drowning in hatred, all you will cling to is that
hatred.
Singed,
L. Wright

"On May 10, 5:50 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
If you are a mountain biker, there IS no difference!
Please explain why mountain bikers are incapable of WALKING like
everyone else. If they ARE capable of walking, please explain why you
continue to LIE, and say that they can't use those trails (have you
noticed that "lawyer" sounds a lot like "liar"?).
Mike (not a lawyer OR a liar) Vandeman"

Mike Vandeman,
You most certainly are a liar and a bigot.
Your tactics are transparent; as you have no logic or science to
support your position, you instead try to use insignificant details to
demonize those you feel are somehow not your equal, i.e. you label
"mountain bikers" as liars when they claim to not be able to use
trails closed to bicycle use.
Yes, a person who defines themselves as a cyclist can leave the
bicycle behind and walk on those trails that are closed to bicycle
use.
Yes, as people expressing our ideas and frustrations, we should all
try to be as accurate as possible.
Does the fact that many of us do use statements that are technically
incorrect make us liars?
No, it does not.
Does the fact that you, Mike Vandeman, use these honest, although
technically incorrect statements, to demonize "mountain bikers" as
"liars", make you a liar?
Yes it does.

My personal opinion is that you, Mike Vandeman, are, by your own
actions, a sad and lonely man, whose insignificance eats at you like a
cancer.
Though you are drowning in hatred, all you will cling to is that
hatred.
Signed,
L. Wright

On 14 May 2007 12:50:36 -0700, ridewright
wrote:

"On May 10, 5:50 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
If you are a mountain biker, there IS no difference!
Please explain why mountain bikers are incapable of WALKING like
everyone else. If they ARE capable of walking, please explain why you
continue to LIE, and say that they can't use those trails (have you
noticed that "lawyer" sounds a lot like "liar"?).
Mike (not a lawyer OR a liar) Vandeman"

Mike Vandeman,
You most certainly are a liar and a bigot.

Hmmm. Not willing to admit that Stoll is a liar? He knows what he is
saying is false. That makes him a liar.

Your tactics are transparent; as you have no logic or science to
support your position, you instead try to use insignificant details to
demonize those you feel are somehow not your equal, i.e. you label
"mountain bikers" as liars when they claim to not be able to use
trails closed to bicycle use.

Correct. He CAN use the trails, but chooses to lie about it.

Yes, a person who defines themselves as a cyclist can leave the
bicycle behind and walk on those trails that are closed to bicycle
use.

So he isn't excluded from the trails.

Yes, as people expressing our ideas and frustrations, we should all
try to be as accurate as possible.
Does the fact that many of us do use statements that are technically
incorrect make us liars?

No, unless it is deliberate, as in this case.

No, it does not.
Does the fact that you, Mike Vandeman, use these honest, although
technically incorrect statements, to demonize "mountain bikers" as
"liars", make you a liar?

Nope. I just tell the truth.
--
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 May 10, 5:50 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
If you are a mountain biker, there IS no difference!"

So, while you "truthfully" were attacking Ted Stroll as an individual,
you instead chose to use the term "If you are a mountain biker",
thereby using the exact same type of generalization that you claim as
justification for your attacks.

The statement;
"...they're deteriorating or disappearing because of lack
of use and inadequate maintenance. How ironic, then, that cyclists
can't use them..."
is, as you well know, meant to convey "How ironic, then, that bicycles
can't be used on them..."

Yet you play your little word games, to score points with other bigots
and to make you feel good about yourself.
I realize I am wasteing my time trying to reason with a bigot, but it
is a natural reaction to scratch that annoying pimple on ones ass.

The difference is a lawyer has a license to lie. And they are
professionals at that. Ordinary liars are just amateurs.

On 15 May 2007 10:22:32 -0700, ridewright
wrote:

"On May 10, 5:50 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
If you are a mountain biker, there IS no difference!"

So, while you "truthfully" were attacking Ted Stroll as an individual,
you instead chose to use the term "If you are a mountain biker",
thereby using the exact same type of generalization that you claim as
justification for your attacks.

Huh? Some generalizations are VALID. DUH!
--
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