The Mike Vandeman Frequently Asked Questions

The Mike Vandeman Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Who is Mike Vandeman?
A: Some guy who really hates mountain biking, thinks all mountain
bikers are habitual liars, and wants them banned from everywhere except
paved roads.
Q: Is Mike Vandeman a kook?
A: You betcha, just read his posts.
Q: Is Mike Vandeman stupid?
A: No, he isn't. (He claims to have a Ph.D. in psychology.) That's
what makes him so difficult to deal with. If you're of average intelligence,
you will probably fall into several of his traps of logic, and completely
miss the point of his posts. If you really have trouble expressing yourself,
especially in written form, he will publicly skewer you (and you're the one
he's really after, which is why he posts here). Even some mountain-bikers in
this group admire him for his ability to make a fool out of you.
Q: What exactly is the point to Mike Vandeman's posts?
A: He hates mountain biking, and wants it banned. It conflicts with
his desire to hike on trails he wants to himself. He doesn't want you
mountain biking past him when he's hiking, and really gets ****ed when it
happens on a hiker only trail. Apparently this is a big problem in his area,
but even if it's only one errant MTBer every few months, it's a big deal to
Mike. He thinks *all* mountain bikers ride on hiker only trails, and he
thinks all mountain bikers are destructive, and behave the same. It's
bigotry, plain and simple.
He won't stop until all mountain biking is banned. (It's a personal
vendetta.) The purpose of his posts is to annoy mountain bikers and
manipulate them into making themselves look stupid, violent, or destructive.
He then takes those posts and passes them on to people unfamiliar with
mountain biking so they can form their own prejudiced, mis-informed
conclusions about the sport.

Q: Well, if Mike Vandeman is intelligent, as you say, I should be able
to convince him, using reason and logic, that mountain biking isn't as
harmful as he says, shouldn't I?
A: No. You've already missed the point. Mike Vandeman hates mountain
biking. Someone who hates something isn't interested in logic unless it
supports him. If he had solid, scientific data to back his claims, he would
be more calm and reasonable.
Q: Is Mike Vandeman some sort of master of logic and debate?
A: Some say he is. The obvious flaws in some of his posts are intended
to trap you into responding to him. Once you respond, he will attempt to
guide you down a path where he'll prove you wrong anyway, likely about
something that is completely irrelevant to your point. You'll give up long
before you win. Even if you're right, you will soon find that arguing with
him was a waste of time. We've all been there.
Q: Does Mike Vandeman play golf?
A: Hell if I know, but I've enjoyed accusing him of this extremely
destructive sport. I even got a rise out of him with some of my posts, so I
suspect he might be a golfer. (This, of course, is irrelevant anyway.)
Q: Isn't Mike Vandeman just a nutcase who doesn't know what the hell
he's talking about?
A: This kind of prejudice is exactly what Mikey preys upon. Most
people believe that if Mike is way off base on some things, he must be wrong
about everything. Arguing with such a person should be easy, right? Wrong!
Mike is right about a lot of things, and he will prove it. Like Bill
Clinton, he's not always saying what you think he's saying. He also knows
when he's wrong, better than you do. (That's how he knows which way to steer
you in a debate.) By the way, yes, he is a nutcase.
Q: So, what are Mike Vandeman's main arguments, and how do I fight
them?
A: You don't fight them, but here's a sampling:
Argument: Mountain Biking causes damage to the environment

Traps: He's right, it does cause damage. The problem is, people who
enjoy mountain biking think it's the kiss of death to admit this. However,
it isn't. Most people will try to deny it, which is what he wants, so he can
make you into a liar (which, of course, you are). Others will adopt an
antagonistic attitude and say "Yeah, I cause damage, I love to kill things
and destroy stuff. F*k You", etc. Mike loves this stuff. It supports his
claims that Mountain Bikers are A*holes. This is what he saves and passes
on.

The truth: MTBing does cause damage, though minor. You do kill plants
and animals when you ride. (They're usually insects.) You also frighten
animals when you go by (which is why they hide, but that's their natural
behavior). But Mike also causes damage when he hikes. In fact, we all kill
insects no matter where we walk. Before you decide to argue this point, he's
heard it all and ignored it all before.

Argument: Mountain Bikers are liars. (He loves this one, and will
prove you to be one if you fall into his traps.)

Traps: He's probably right. Most of us have been known to lie from
time to time. (I don't know anyone who hasn't.) Some people admit this
truth, and point out that Mike Vandeman is also a liar. (You're right, he
is! You're catching on!) By the way, Mike also has an alternate definition
of "liar": Someone who disagrees with him. By this definition, you are most
certainly a liar.

The truth: All humans are liars, so if you deny lying, he'll have a
field day with you. Don't even bother pointing out this obvious truth for
him, it means nothing. Also, by being accused of lying, Mike is not
necessarily saying that you're dishonest. He's using his own definition.
When he say's "All mountain bikers are liars", well, he's right. Everyone
lies sometimes. When he says "Mountain bikers lie constantly", he means we
all disagree with him constantly, and in his own world, we're liars. So, by
Mike's special definition of "liar", he's also usually right. But Mike lies
deliberately, and stretches the truth, and exaggerates, to make his point
against mountain biking.

Argument: Mountain biking is easier than hiking. Used to prove that
biking is more destructive than hiking because you go farther into the
woods. He also loves this one because MTBers interpret this as him saying we
are wimps.

Traps: This is a truly pointless argument. What does he mean by easy?
He means distance covered for a given number of leg strokes. However, you,
still sore from that last killer climb, will tell him no way is mountain
biking easier. The last thing you want to admit is that a ride that damn
near killed you was easy! You just found out that walking up that hill was
easier than riding it! Mike has discovered one of your buttons and will keep
pushing it.

The truth: Depends on a precise definition of a vague, relative term
like "easy". In reality, the bicycle acts as a transmission between your
legs and the ground. You trade speed for torque. For speed, high gearing is
easier. For torque (climbing), low gearing is easier. Walking is the
ultimate "first gear" for humans. Mike doesn't understand the point any
better than you do, so these arguments can go on for weeks. Relax. It means
nothing.

Mike takes basic truths, words them to be inflammatory (liar!), and
waits for you to deny them. He uses these basic truths as twisted proofs of
some really outrageous and extreme arguments, and seems to deliberately
employ poor logic calculated to get you to take the bait. When you do,
you'll likely make a flawed argument yourself, and he'll make a fool out of
you. You lose. If you make no mistakes, he'll ignore you. You still lose. If
you think you're going to change his mind, you are sadly mistaken, and you
will lose. (Sing, pig, SING, dammit!)

Argument: Mountain bikers frequently harass hikers and wildlife and
should be banned from the wilderness.

Traps: This is one of his most inflammatory and overgeneralized
statements, and will get your blood boiling. This is where he goes over, and
you'll really want to set him straight. Forget it. He won't budge. You'll
see posts from little old ladies (presumably Vandeman himself) who claim a
biker whizzed by and knocked her down, stopped, turned back, flipped her
off, uttered profanities, and sped off in a cloud of wildlife killing dust,
leaving a trail of trash behind. (There's also the whipsnake story.) You
can't deny or disprove it, since you weren't there. Pointing out that you've
never committed such an act is irrelevant. He'll accuse you of allowing it
to happen.

The Truth: Who knows. If it happened once, a dozen times, or never at
all, it's irrelevant to the way most of us ride. No need to point this out
to Mike, though, he's ignored it all before. If you contradict one of his
fabrications or flaws, he'll call you a liar (which, you'll recall, you
are), or state one of the other truths above. Your discussion will degrade
to some irrelevant point where he's right. You lose. By the way, he'll never
get back to the point about which he's wrong, so you'll never get a chance
to prove it. Even if you prove him wrong for the rest of us (which is easy),
you'll never prove it to him, which was the point of your post in the first
place, wasn't it?

Argument: All Mountain Bikers .

Traps: You: "Well, I've never " Mike: "Most mountain bikers have , so
by allowing your fellow bikers to , you are part of the problem!" You: "I
don't know of any bikers who , and I would never allow anyone in my group to
do that." Mike: "You are a liar. I see mountain bikers -ing all the time.
Why do mountain bikers always lie?"

Truth: Mike's claims that all mountain bikers behave the same as the
few extremes he's supposedly observed, are prejudice, plain and simple. We
all know this, but arguing it is useless. He'll ignore you, call you a liar,
or lead you down some other path where he's right, like "Mountain bikes go
farther than hikers do."

Q: So, how can we get Mike Vandeman to stop posting to this newsgroup?
A: I don't know. Several things have been tried, and haven't worked,
including:
Ignore him: Even if you're not new, it's really hard to ignore him.
Some of his posts are so obviously out of whack you'll just *have* to reply,
if for no other reason, than to get it out of your system. Even if you
decide to ignore him, there is a constant influx of newbies (even newer than
you) who will go down the same road over and over with him, thinking they
can change him.

Invite him for a one-on-one meeting: Forget it. He won't bite. He's
afraid of getting the sh*t kicked out of him or worse. (The man does have
enemies, after all.)

E-mail him: There is currently an E-mail campaign against Mike. He
hates this. If your e-mail is well crafted, well reasoned, and clever, it
will probably get ignored. If, however, your e-mail is abusive or poorly
written, he will complain to your ISP about harassment or spamming (and
depending on your ISP, you might actually have problems from that), and he
will post your message to this newsgroup and a whole bunch of others, to
show how stupid you are. (That's what he's trolling for, you know.)

If you threaten him, he will really have a field day. He will post
your e-mail with some kind of heading like "Mountain biker threatens
violence to protect his destructive activities", and cross post it to a
half-dozen newsgroups who don't want to hear it. If you mail-bomb him (send
multiple messages filled with gibberish), he'll post that, essentially
mail-bombing usenet. E-mail him or don't. That's up to you.

Complain to his ISP for spamming: Been there. Done that. He
successfully argues his first amendment right to post to alt.mountain-bike.
As long as his posts are related to mountain biking, he does have a right to
post here, and it's not spam. (Spam us usually considered to be off-topic
usenet posts, usually ads, or unsolicited bulk e-mail.) Like it or not,
messages condemning mountain biking are on-topic. (Another one where Mike is
right, and his ISP agrees with him.)

The purpose of this FAQ is not to keep Mike Vandeman from posting
here. It's not to keep you from responding to him. It is, however, to keep
you from wasting time doing things that have been done before, which we're
all tired of reading over and over.

So, you're left with making a choice:

You can set your own newsreader to ignore all of his posts. This will
keep you from seeing him and from being upset by his rants. You can also go
to rec.bicycles.off-road. Mike's posts have been banned there because that
NG is moderated. (Note, that Mike isn't banned, just his posts. ;-)

Or, you can decide to have fun with him, as many of us are tempted to
do from time to time. Think up something clever and amusing. Just understand
that you will soon tire of this exercise.

Q: So, what's the best way to respond to Mike's posts, if I choose to?
A: Amuse us. Amuse yourself. Don't take it seriously at all. If you
reply to Mike's post and he makes a fool out of you, you lose. If another
MTBer posts a reply to you, with "ROTFL" or other words of approval,
(especially if Mike ignores you), you win! (Come to think of it, even if the
only one chuckling at your post is you, you still win!)
Just remember, we've already seen these before, so don't bother
arguing them:

* There are worse things than mountain biking. (Not to Mike.) * Mike
hikes, yet condemns hiking. (Yep, it's true.) * Mike uses public
transportation, which pollutes the air. (He doesn't care.) * Mike uses
twisted logic to make his points. * "Mike, why do you keep ignoring my
question about ?" (Perhaps you have a valid point, which doesn't serve him.)
* Mike says MTBing is easier only because he's never done it. (And he knows
it ****es you off.) * Maybe Mike should try mountain biking. (Many invites,
yet he's never taken anyone up on it. I wonder why!) * Mike crossposts too
much. (To get everyone sick of mountain biking.) * Mike annoys all of us,
and we wish he'd go away. (He already knows this.) * Mike must be a golfer.
(Rumor has it!) * Mike is wasting his time here, since no one will change
their mind. (Except his sock puppets.) * Mike should be working on larger
issues like clear-cutting. (His mission is banning mountain biking, though,
remember?) * Mike is giving true environmentalists a bad name. (He doesn't
care.) * Mike should be nicer to people, then they might agree with him
more. (He thinks the way to change people is to **** them off. How's it
working?)

Q: If Mike Vandeman is such a nutcase, and people want him to go away,
why are so many people talking about him? What's the fascination?
A: I suspect he really has a Ph.D. in psychology. Initially, he causes
us to question a sport we find harmless. Then, he irritates and infuriates
us with his outlandish claims. He knows exactly which buttons to push to get
a rise out of old timers as well as a continuous influx of newbies. Perhaps
his only true mission is to generate long off-topic threads and dominate the
newsgroup.
Q: So what makes you such an expert on Mike Vandeman, and his use of
logic?
A: Not a damn thing. It's just my opinion!
Q: Where can I learn more about Mike Vandeman?
A: Why? OK, from the fool himself:
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
or, an excellent, balanced examination of Mike's claims:
http://members.xoom.com/bbauer/environ.html (Relax. Mountain biking doesn't
cause significant damage to natural areas. It's about the same as walking.)

On 10/15/2010 11:37 AM, "Lamblies" wrote:
[...]
Q: So, what's the best way to respond to Mike's posts, if I choose to?[...]

Mention handsaw assaults as much as possible, since Mikey V. could earn
himself more jail or probation time by responding.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:37:33 -0400, "Lamblies"
wrote:

Some of his posts are so obviously out of whack you'll just *have* to reply,
if for no other reason, than to get it out of your system.

There's an easy way to deal with this. Write the rant. Go all out.
Write it as well as you can, then save it as a draft and let it set
overnight so that you can polish it to a high gleam.

That will give you time to realize that you are offering pâté de foie
gras to a ravening wolf, and delete it.

Or, if you've come up with something good, re-write it to post
somewhere that the ravening wolf will never have the pleasure of
knowing that he inspired it.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

For the average person, Mike Vandeman is a fascinating phenomenon.

He is opposed to technological offenses against nature, yet brags about being an expert computer programmer. Computers are the very basis of all modern things against nature. He wrote programs for the phone company, so he helped facilitate better communication, possibly including enabling internet sites that promote tourism. This leads to increased travel to natural areas, leading to greater impacts upon them. In this way Mike Vandeman has contributed to the destruction of nature. Also, a computer programmer helped design the rear suspension of my mountain bike, making it possible for me to spend 20 percent more time riding from reduced fatigue. (In this way, all computer programming helps destroy nature more efficiently.) What makes it worse is that he taught computer programming. It would be ironic if he taught the very person who wrote the programs that helped design my mountain bike.

He lists his food preferences on his website. One of these favored delicacies is Apples from Washington. For an apple to get from Washington to California, a truck is needed. The truck burns diesel fuel, so an oil well must be drilled, oil refined, etc. The truck needs a road, but Mike Vandeman is opposed to road building. (Why can't he just plant an apple tree?) He also likes sushi. This delicacy depletes the oceans of fish to the point where the older individual tuna fish are becoming increasingly rare. Also, the Japanese hunt whales. Using a sweeping generalization, then, anyone who supports Japanese culture is in favor of the slaughter of whales. The reason I say this is that Vandeman sweeps everyone who rides a mountain bike into the same category, all bent on destroying nature for their own selfish pleasure. In this way there is no difference between the mountain biker and the sushi eater. The sushi eater is worse, however, as his avocation demands the wholesale slaughter of fish and other marine life (not to mention boats, fuel and so forth), while any deaths caused by mountain bikers (insects, snakes, squirrels or whatever) are only incidental to the sport.

Mike is an expert mathematician, but he got his PhD in psychometrics, which involves reducing human behaviors to measurable qualities. Mathematics deals with absolutes. All problems have specific solutions. This, I think, colors his view of everything. All mountain bikers destroy nature. All human activity must be eliminated from the wilderness. There is no room for error. He has studied it, he has a PhD in the measurement of human behaviors and he is right. End of story. Too bad his website exposes him as a hypocrite, open to rampant trolling.


Here are his qualifications, from his website:

"Qualifications:

I have a B.A. Magna cum Laude from the University of California at Berkeley in Mathematics, With Special Distinction in Mathematics. I also got straight A's in Honors Physics. As a Junior at U.C. Berkeley, I ranked 37 1/2th out of 1300 college math students in the nation in the annual mathematics contest sponsored by the Mathematical Association of America. I have an M.A. in Mathematics (including study in Statistics) from Harvard University. And my Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles is in Psychology, concentrating in Psychometrics. Psychometrics is the science of the measurement of human behavior and traits, and forms the scientific basis upon which transportation modeling and all other forms of human measurement rest. I taught measurement theory -- specifically, Reliability and Validity -- at California State University, San Francisco. I have been a computer programmer since 1962. I taught computer science for U.C. Berkeley Extension. In other words, I am an expert in mathematics, statistics, scientific method, measurement science (including modeling), and computer science."

I will quote his "favorite foods" paragraph before he takes it down (I would if I were him):

"Favorite Foods:

Fruit juice (especially pomegranate), Indian, Japanese (especially sushi), Mexican, Native American (especially pumpkin soup), olalieberry pie, organic tomatoes, Persian (especially chicken pomegranate), tropical fruit (especially durian, mango, and papaya), Washington State apples, Bartlett pears, blackberry pie, persimmons, and rhubarb pie "

Link to the above and mo
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1