So, what happened to Mikey V.

"SMS" wrote in message
...

Vandeman's goal of protecting wilderness has merit. But he's so
_incredibly_ confused about the relative impacts of different activities
on wilderness. Every study on the subject has shown that the impact of
mountain bikers is not any more than the impact of hikers, and less than
that of equestrians, and actually the mountain bike impact is often less
than that of hikers. Vandeman should be redirecting his time and energy
into campaigning against snowmobiles and other motorized off-road
vehicles.

The reality is that hikers often make trails unpleasant for use by
mountain bikers and vice-versa. They have to learn to share somehow.
Scheduling some days for each group of users would be fair. It's not a
question of who was there first.

I agree that Vandeman's actions may hurt the cause more than help.

Where did your find studies of mountain bike impact on the environment? My
observation is that bicycles cause more erosion than foot traffic and the
number of cyclists doing trail maintenance is far less than the number of
hikers doing trail maintenance.

FYI, if you're wondering where the beginning of Vandeman's obsession
with MTB's came from, it was due to a single encounter with MTB riders
on a trail Vandeman was hiking on in the early 1990's. Combined with
his failure to generate any interest in his anti-automobile positions,
and his generally obsessive nature on any environmental topic, he
latched on to this as an "early adopter" against MTB's. He's not
interested in the impacts of equestrians or off-road vehicles, because
in those areas, he doesn't seem himself as a pioneer and a leader,
because many others were ahead of him.

BTW, one of the things that I had to laugh about when I saw Peter's
blog about his defense opening statement is how the attorney
emphasized his employment with Pac Bell for 20+ years as an example of
what a stable citizen he is. Every time we confronted Vandeman with
the fact that his employer destroyed miles of habitat and killed
thousands of trees (telephone poles) and caused far more damage in
California than all MTB'ers combined, he would dodge the issue by
saying "You don't know where I work!". Well, Mike, now that it's
public record, I guess it's time for you to answer those questions we
posed so long ago.

I'm not holding my breath.

On 02/22/2011 08:46 AM, Moderate wrote:
"Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote in
message ...

The elites have plans to survive, while most of the "worthless eaters"
(the other 99%) die off. That is why those with real power are doing
nothing to stop global climate change or ecological depletion.

The elites :-) I love the smell of a good conspiracy theory in the morning.

There isn't much we can do about the global climate change. Mother Nature
and all that. Slowing the population growth is the only solution to
ecological depletion. Figure out a way to stop every third world country
from ****ting out so many kids and you will have accomplished something.


Having lots of kids in a third world country is
Social Security.

You have lots of kids so that at least one of them
will take care of you in your old age.

I don't have an answer for this. Do you?

"SMS" wrote in message
...
[...]
The reality is that hikers often make trails unpleasant for use by
mountain bikers and vice-versa. They have to learn to share somehow.
Scheduling some days for each group of users would be fair. It's not a
question of who was there first.

Mountain bikers need their own trails. They ruin hiking trails as Mr.
Vandeman has well stated.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
FYI, if you're wondering where the beginning of Vandeman's obsession
with MTB's came from, it was due to a single encounter with MTB riders
on a trail Vandeman was hiking on in the early 1990's. Combined with
his failure to generate any interest in his anti-automobile positions,
and his generally obsessive nature on any environmental topic, he
latched on to this as an "early adopter" against MTB's. He's not
interested in the impacts of equestrians or off-road vehicles, because
in those areas, he doesn't seem himself as a pioneer and a leader,
because many others were ahead of him.

The hell you say! How do we know you are not lying?

BTW, one of the things that I had to laugh about when I saw Peter's
blog about his defense opening statement is how the attorney
emphasized his employment with Pac Bell for 20+ years as an example of
what a stable citizen he is. Every time we confronted Vandeman with
the fact that his employer destroyed miles of habitat and killed
thousands of trees (telephone poles) and caused far more damage in
California than all MTB'ers combined, he would dodge the issue by
saying "You don't know where I work!". Well, Mike, now that it's
public record, I guess it's time for you to answer those questions we
posed so long ago.

The hell you say! How do we know you are not lying?

I'm not holding my breath.

Go ahead and choke to death. Just one less mountain biker in the world.

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In article , VtSkier says...

On 02/22/2011 08:46 AM, Moderate wrote:
"Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote in
message ...

The elites have plans to survive, while most of the "worthless eaters"
(the other 99%) die off. That is why those with real power are doing
nothing to stop global climate change or ecological depletion.

The elites :-) I love the smell of a good conspiracy theory in the morning.

There isn't much we can do about the global climate change. Mother Nature
and all that. Slowing the population growth is the only solution to
ecological depletion. Figure out a way to stop every third world country
from ****ting out so many kids and you will have accomplished something.


Having lots of kids in a third world country is
Social Security.

You have lots of kids so that at least one of them
will take care of you in your old age.

I don't have an answer for this. Do you?

Easy answer. These third worlders need to decrease the number of offspring they
generate, and increase their efforts to illegally immigrate to the US. :-)

"VtSkier" wrote in message
...
On 02/22/2011 08:46 AM, Moderate wrote:
"Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote in
message ...

The elites have plans to survive, while most of the "worthless eaters"
(the other 99%) die off. That is why those with real power are doing
nothing to stop global climate change or ecological depletion.

The elites :-) I love the smell of a good conspiracy theory in the
morning.

There isn't much we can do about the global climate change. Mother
Nature
and all that. Slowing the population growth is the only solution to
ecological depletion. Figure out a way to stop every third world country
from ****ting out so many kids and you will have accomplished something.


Having lots of kids in a third world country is
Social Security.

You have lots of kids so that at least one of them
will take care of you in your old age.

I don't have an answer for this. Do you?

No, you have made my point. Tim's theory of elite's grand conspiracy is not
based in reality.

Per VtSkier:
Having lots of kids in a third world country is
Social Security.

You have lots of kids so that at least one of them
will take care of you in your old age.

I don't have an answer for this. Do you?

The traditional answer in developed countries has been social
security, pension plans, and child labor laws.

In some countries, kids earn a net return from a very young
onwards - and it makes sense to have more of them.

In other countries, they're a financial liability right through
their teens and even later.

As already observed, with no pensions or social security, kids
constitute one's only retirement plan.

Somebody, somewhere observed that - with or without "birth
control" technology - people all over the world manage to
regulate their families so that the number of offspring is
rational in their immediate contexts.
--
PeteCresswell

On 02/23/2011 09:47 AM, Moderate wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 02/22/2011 08:46 AM, Moderate wrote:
"Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote in
message ...

The elites have plans to survive, while most of the "worthless eaters"
(the other 99%) die off. That is why those with real power are doing
nothing to stop global climate change or ecological depletion.

The elites :-) I love the smell of a good conspiracy theory in the
morning.

There isn't much we can do about the global climate change. Mother
Nature
and all that. Slowing the population growth is the only solution to
ecological depletion. Figure out a way to stop every third world country
from ****ting out so many kids and you will have accomplished something.


Having lots of kids in a third world country is
Social Security.

You have lots of kids so that at least one of them
will take care of you in your old age.

I don't have an answer for this. Do you?

No, you have made my point. Tim's theory of elite's grand conspiracy is not
based in reality.


I agree.

On 02/23/2011 09:53 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per VtSkier:
Having lots of kids in a third world country is
Social Security.

You have lots of kids so that at least one of them
will take care of you in your old age.

I don't have an answer for this. Do you?

The traditional answer in developed countries has been social
security, pension plans, and child labor laws.

In some countries, kids earn a net return from a very young
onwards - and it makes sense to have more of them.

In other countries, they're a financial liability right through
their teens and even later.

As already observed, with no pensions or social security, kids
constitute one's only retirement plan.

Somebody, somewhere observed that - with or without "birth
control" technology - people all over the world manage to
regulate their families so that the number of offspring is
rational in their immediate contexts.

Excellent point. Humans have NEVER been capable
of doing things with the long view in mind.