In Defense of Mike Vandeman

On 06/08/2010 07:15 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Jun 8, 10:27 pm, wrote:
landotter wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:39?pm, Andre wrote:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2010/mike-v...r-assault-with...

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

5. Mr Vandeman in that spirit of public service and *articulate reason*
for which he is famous, tried to reason with these criminals.

6. Mr Vandeman is no longer young. Consequently he was a bit out of
breath and held onto a handlebar to support himself while he recovered
his breath.

* emphasis mine

Shush, man, you're giving away my joke!

Two authoritarian douchbags sittin' in a tree...

Wait... AJ's post wasn't parody? ;-)

And then you accuse me of being crude! I leave parody to the less
talented, though it is true that I'm a pasticheur of such invention
that when I wrote a little red book called "The True Thoughts of the
Chairman", after the first printing in Hong Kong sold out in an hour,
two Chinese gentlemen turned up to show my publisher photographs of
his wife taking their child to school that morning, which was the end
of the reprint...

My "Defense of Mike Vandaman" is satire. It was understood as such by
those with even a modest sense of humour. The redneck and illiterate
polack scum who instantly started foaming at the mouth have zero sense
of humour.

This was going to be their great day, when their hated enemy Mike
Vandeman went down. They were smacking their lips in anticipation, a
nauseating spectacle, when I turned up to drain the glee from their
day, their week, their month.

It sure is getting harder to tell crazy from dry humor these days...

I truly believe in freedom of speech, including Mike Vandeman's right
to free speech, even if, as Jay Beattie says, he's a kook.

-t

BTW, it turns out a whole lotta lawyers have as little sense of humour
as RBT's wannabe Brownshirts. I have already received letters from
four lawyers congratulating me on my analysis... And only ten times
that much hate mail from knobbly-tired environment-wreckers.

Andre Jute
Whatever

Whatever, indeed. The truth is, that subtle satire never goes over
well, because no matter how witty you think you are, people are going to
have a hard time telling your writing from that of the true whackjobs
out there. And believe me, they're out there. For example, Westboro
Baptist apparently take themselves seriously. So do scientologists(tm).

Although I have to admit, it might be refreshing and relaxing to not
have to deal with all that pesky reason and rigorous logic all the time.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jun 8, 5:16*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/08/2010 07:15 PM, Andre Jute wrote:





On Jun 8, 10:27 pm, wrote:
landotter wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:39?pm, Andre *wrote:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2010/mike-v...r-assault-with....

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

5. Mr Vandeman in that spirit of public service and *articulate reason*
for which he is famous, tried to reason with these criminals.

6. Mr Vandeman is no longer young. Consequently he was a bit out of
breath and held onto a handlebar to support himself while he recovered
his breath.

* emphasis mine

Shush, man, you're giving away my joke!

Two authoritarian douchbags sittin' in a tree...

Wait... AJ's post wasn't parody? ;-)

And then you accuse me of being crude! I leave parody to the less
talented, though it is true that I'm a pasticheur of such invention
that when I wrote a little red book called "The True Thoughts of the
Chairman", after the first printing in Hong Kong sold out in an hour,
two Chinese gentlemen turned up to show my publisher photographs of
his wife taking their child to school that morning, which was the end
of the reprint...

My "Defense of Mike Vandaman" is satire. It was understood as such by
those with even a modest sense of humour. The redneck and illiterate
polack scum who instantly started foaming at the mouth have zero sense
of humour.

This was going to be their great day, when their hated enemy Mike
Vandeman went down. They were smacking their lips in anticipation, a
nauseating spectacle, when I turned up to drain the glee from their
day, their week, their month.

It sure is getting harder to tell crazy from dry humor these days...

I truly believe in freedom of speech, including Mike Vandeman's right
to free speech, even if, as Jay Beattie says, he's a kook.

-t

BTW, it turns out a whole lotta lawyers have as little sense of humour
as RBT's wannabe Brownshirts. I have already received letters from
four lawyers congratulating me on my analysis... And only ten times
that much hate mail from knobbly-tired environment-wreckers.

Andre Jute
Whatever

Whatever, indeed. *The truth is, that subtle satire never goes over
well, because no matter how witty you think you are, people are going to
have a hard time telling your writing from that of the true whackjobs
out there. *And believe me, they're out there. *For example, Westboro
Baptist apparently take themselves seriously. *So do scientologists(tm)..

Subtle satire often does not work on usenet because there are no
physical cues (facial expressions, postures, etc.), and words are
often misconstrued -- and thus we have emoticons, which I hate

Satire is often corrosive, too. And some subjects you just can't talk
about without being burned at the stake. See e.g.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2430 -- Jay Beattie.

On Jun 9, 1:16*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/08/2010 07:15 PM, Andre Jute wrote:





On Jun 8, 10:27 pm, wrote:
landotter wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:39?pm, Andre *wrote:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2010/mike-v...r-assault-with....

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

5. Mr Vandeman in that spirit of public service and *articulate reason*
for which he is famous, tried to reason with these criminals.

6. Mr Vandeman is no longer young. Consequently he was a bit out of
breath and held onto a handlebar to support himself while he recovered
his breath.

* emphasis mine

Shush, man, you're giving away my joke!

Two authoritarian douchbags sittin' in a tree...

Wait... AJ's post wasn't parody? ;-)

And then you accuse me of being crude! I leave parody to the less
talented, though it is true that I'm a pasticheur of such invention
that when I wrote a little red book called "The True Thoughts of the
Chairman", after the first printing in Hong Kong sold out in an hour,
two Chinese gentlemen turned up to show my publisher photographs of
his wife taking their child to school that morning, which was the end
of the reprint...

My "Defense of Mike Vandaman" is satire. It was understood as such by
those with even a modest sense of humour. The redneck and illiterate
polack scum who instantly started foaming at the mouth have zero sense
of humour.

This was going to be their great day, when their hated enemy Mike
Vandeman went down. They were smacking their lips in anticipation, a
nauseating spectacle, when I turned up to drain the glee from their
day, their week, their month.

It sure is getting harder to tell crazy from dry humor these days...

I truly believe in freedom of speech, including Mike Vandeman's right
to free speech, even if, as Jay Beattie says, he's a kook.

-t

BTW, it turns out a whole lotta lawyers have as little sense of humour
as RBT's wannabe Brownshirts. I have already received letters from
four lawyers congratulating me on my analysis... And only ten times
that much hate mail from knobbly-tired environment-wreckers.

Andre Jute
Whatever

Whatever, indeed. *The truth is, that subtle satire never goes over
well, because no matter how witty you think you are, people are going to
have a hard time telling your writing from that of the true whackjobs
out there. *And believe me, they're out there. *For example, Westboro
Baptist apparently take themselves seriously. *So do scientologists(tm)..

A satirist who gives a single **** what people think will never write
anything worth reading. The clever half of the people whom I expected
to get it, did, the other half turned out to be even more stupid than
I thought and didn't get it. Que sera sera.

Although I have to admit, it might be refreshing and relaxing to not
have to deal with all that pesky reason and rigorous logic all the time.

Eh? Successful satire depends crucially on the most rigorous logic. It
differs from straight reporting by taking reason to just short of the
extreme of absurdity, in the process exposing rotten reasoning and
partisan and emotional distortions introduced by those with axes to
grind. I went well over that limit -- my "Defense of Mike Vandeman" is
one of the crudest pieces of satire I've ever written ("fryman" gave
the example of me describing Vandeman's "spirit of public service and
*articulate reason*") but it looks like there still weren't anough
clues for the thicker louts on RBT (the Krygowski Krowd).

Andre Jute

On Jun 9, 1:47*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 8, 5:16*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:





On 06/08/2010 07:15 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

On Jun 8, 10:27 pm, wrote:
landotter wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:39?pm, Andre *wrote:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2010/mike-v...r-assault-with...

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

5. Mr Vandeman in that spirit of public service and *articulate reason*
for which he is famous, tried to reason with these criminals.

6. Mr Vandeman is no longer young. Consequently he was a bit out of
breath and held onto a handlebar to support himself while he recovered
his breath.

* emphasis mine

Shush, man, you're giving away my joke!

Two authoritarian douchbags sittin' in a tree...

Wait... AJ's post wasn't parody? ;-)

And then you accuse me of being crude! I leave parody to the less
talented, though it is true that I'm a pasticheur of such invention
that when I wrote a little red book called "The True Thoughts of the
Chairman", after the first printing in Hong Kong sold out in an hour,
two Chinese gentlemen turned up to show my publisher photographs of
his wife taking their child to school that morning, which was the end
of the reprint...

My "Defense of Mike Vandaman" is satire. It was understood as such by
those with even a modest sense of humour. The redneck and illiterate
polack scum who instantly started foaming at the mouth have zero sense
of humour.

This was going to be their great day, when their hated enemy Mike
Vandeman went down. They were smacking their lips in anticipation, a
nauseating spectacle, when I turned up to drain the glee from their
day, their week, their month.

It sure is getting harder to tell crazy from dry humor these days...

I truly believe in freedom of speech, including Mike Vandeman's right
to free speech, even if, as Jay Beattie says, he's a kook.

-t

BTW, it turns out a whole lotta lawyers have as little sense of humour
as RBT's wannabe Brownshirts. I have already received letters from
four lawyers congratulating me on my analysis... And only ten times
that much hate mail from knobbly-tired environment-wreckers.

Andre Jute
Whatever

Whatever, indeed. *The truth is, that subtle satire never goes over
well, because no matter how witty you think you are, people are going to
have a hard time telling your writing from that of the true whackjobs
out there. *And believe me, they're out there. *For example, Westboro
Baptist apparently take themselves seriously. *So do scientologists(tm).

Subtle satire often does not work on usenet because there are no
physical cues (facial expressions, postures, etc.), and words are
often misconstrued -- and thus we have emoticons, which I hate

Anyone who needs emoticons to express himself has an ersatz
personality.

Satire is often corrosive, too. *

Of course it is! The normal intention of satire is biting social
comment. When didn't biting social comment burn someone? In this
instance I was openly targeting RBT scum (I named them!) who disgraced
us all by gloating in public about the misfortunes of some poor
befuddled old man, and telling lies about him, and maliciously
encouraging lawbreaking by other cyclists further to outrage the
PBOM.

And some subjects you just can't talk
about without being burned at the stake.

Krygo's Klumsy Klumpers couldn't burn ready-sauced BBQ spare ribs at
the stake if they were given numbered instructions.

Andre Jute
Raining again on the Costa del Taxexile

landotter wrote, On 6/4/2010 12:47 AM:
On Jun 3, 7:39 pm, Andre wrote:

http://www.cyclelicio.us/2010/mike-v...r-assault-with...

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealer...52810-37NC.htm

The facts support an entirely different interpretation to the
railroading of this poor man Vandeman that certain parties on RBT are
trying to effect, with entirely unbecoming, lipsmacking glee. My
interpretation will be the one accepted by the DA as soon as Mr
Vandeman's lawyer explains the facts to him:

snip

And those cops should be disciplined for letting this cluster**** get
so far out of hand.

Two authoritarian douchbags sittin' in a tree...


We are going to need a bigger saw...

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

IMO, Vandeman's arrest for felony assault is not surprising. In the
past, he has attempted to get those that didn't agree with his viewed
fired from their employers, has used puppet accounts to spam thousands
of anti-mtb messages to bicycling groups, and has been resistant to
any form of open dialogue on this topic for over a decade. He was
kicked out of the Sierra Club, has apparently been a nuisance in his
neighborhood (as documented by a letter from his neighbor, Lance
Montauk), and has been a gadfly in community meetings for years.

However, in spite of all of his attempts, he's accomplished almost
nothing in terms of removing MTB riders from the trails he personally
wants to use. Perhaps that frustration reached a point where he took
to physical actions. Regardless, I trust that the complete story about
what happened on the trail with the multiple people who reported
encounters with Vandeman will emerge in pre-trial discovery, and
determine if this case is dropped, a deal is cut, or it goes to
trial.

Brad Anders

Brad Anders wrote:

:to physical actions. Regardless, I trust that the complete story about
:what happened on the trail with the multiple people who reported
:encounters with Vandeman will emerge in pre-trial discovery, and
:determine if this case is dropped, a deal is cut, or it goes to
:trial.

The police report claims that he admitted to the elements of the crime
that the prosecution would have to prove. If that's correct, there
will be a deal. Well, if he's sane, and listens to his lawyer. He
could insist on a trial, if he's not.

--
sig 40

On 11/06/10 2:49 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
Brad wrote:

:to physical actions. Regardless, I trust that the complete story about
:what happened on the trail with the multiple people who reported
:encounters with Vandeman will emerge in pre-trial discovery, and
:determine if this case is dropped, a deal is cut, or it goes to
:trial.

The police report claims that he admitted to the elements of the crime
that the prosecution would have to prove. If that's correct, there
will be a deal. Well, if he's sane, and listens to his lawyer. He
could insist on a trial, if he's not.

Clearly he's listening to his attorney because he does not appear to be
posting here anymore. I'm sure his lawyer has explained to him the risks
of allowing the case to go to trial, such as serious jail or prison
time. It's one thing for him to post here just to annoy anyone that
hasn't kill-filed him, but this is far more serious.

Still, he did not admit to an attack per-se, you can see the police
report he
"http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/documents/10-052810-37NC_000.pdf".
He said he held the saw in front of them and contacted one of them with
the saw. So who knows, he might try a self-defense angle.

SMS wrote:
:On 11/06/10 2:49 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
: Brad wrote:
:
: :to physical actions. Regardless, I trust that the complete story about
: :what happened on the trail with the multiple people who reported
: :encounters with Vandeman will emerge in pre-trial discovery, and
: :determine if this case is dropped, a deal is cut, or it goes to
: :trial.
:
: The police report claims that he admitted to the elements of the crime
: that the prosecution would have to prove. If that's correct, there
: will be a deal. Well, if he's sane, and listens to his lawyer. He
: could insist on a trial, if he's not.

:Clearly he's listening to his attorney because he does not appear to be
osting here anymore. I'm sure his lawyer has explained to him the risks
f allowing the case to go to trial, such as serious jail or prison
:time. It's one thing for him to post here just to annoy anyone that
:hasn't kill-filed him, but this is far more serious.

:Still, he did not admit to an attack per-se, you can see the police
:report he
:"http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/documents/10-052810-37NC_000.pdf".
:He said he held the saw in front of them and contacted one of them with
:the saw. So who knows, he might try a self-defense angle.

Assault doesn't have to result in an atual attack. he stopped them,
waved a saw at them, and gave them a lecture. The elements of assault
are (basi8caly; consult your attorney) taking an action that's likely
to result in an injury. waving a saw -- and actually making contact
-- counts. the felony part comes from using a weapon that's likely to
cause serious injury -- using a saw covers that. Stopping them --
instead of just shouting at them, for instance -- is pretty clearly
intent to commit the crime.

--
sig 56