Sun, 30 Dec 2001:
From: Joel Green <email@example.com>
Subject: Finn Hill 'ride report'
To: bbtc <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mailing-List: list email@example.com; contact firstname.lastname@example.org
I couldn't resist and did a spin through the 'closed' Finn Hill trails today. From what I could tell by the fresh tire tracks, there has been considerable riding going on there this week and in fact I came upon more mountain bikers using the park today than I ever have in a single outing before. Did my part to help out the financially strapped county and drove back later to grab the bag of trash that has been sitting by the sign.
Web Site: www.mountainmojo.com
Thu, 27 Dec 2001:
From: michaeldong <email@example.com>
Subject: Finn Hill Closure Sign
[me: Mountain bikers think "Park Closed" means "Come on in!"!]
I rode there today for the first time in months. I read the sign
very carefully and nowhere on it did it say anything about not using
the trails. The title was "Park Closed" and it mentioned closure
for January, February, November, and December (in that order). It
almost seemed to be meant for one of the King County Parks with
bathrooms, garbage cans, ballfields, etc..
Thu, 27 Dec 2001:
From: mtb_biker2000 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: trail closure!
The King County Parks web site has a notice about many park closures.
[me: Note that he neglects to mention that mountain biking greatly increases park maintenance costs (for enforcement and trail maintenance). He also repeats the mountain bikers' favorite lie that bike bans "exclude them": "I see no reason to shut us out of these trails". "I say a little civil disobediance is warrented in this case". Where is the injustice, to justify this law-breaking???]
There are closed signs at the entrances of the Big Finn Hill trails.
I have not seen signs posted at the athletic fields and the gates
have been open. Could it be that the soccer playing community has
more political pull then us mountain bikers? I don't see any cost
savings gained from closing these trails as I have never seen any
park employee activity in the area in the two years that I have been
riding there. I have ridden the trails several times in the past
week and have come across several other riders and lots of hikers
all out enjoying the good weather and their park. While I applaud
the counties efforts to get it's budget under control I see no
reason to shut us out of these trails. This park has been bought and
paid for and there is no reason why the tax paying public can't be
trusted to use the trails unsupervised. I'm not usually one to
condone breaking the rules, but I say a little civil disobediance is
warrented in this case.
Fri, 21 Dec 2001:
From: "MatthewH" <MatthewH@prism.co.za>
Ok, mountain biking is destructive to nature...
I will STILL mountain bike even though I know this because I am
too selfish to stop.. happy now?
Right, now we've both stated our cases, what's the next step
forward? How do we reach a COMPROMISE?
Wed, 19 Dec 2001:
From: Jeff Spahn <email@example.com>
You should be careful. You have no idea who the people you are pissing off are. Some time a guy you piss off could come at you and break your knee caps with a bat. Not that I am inclined to do such a thing or would encourage senseless violence like that, but then again, I wouldn't cry if someone did it the likes of you. There are lots of crazy people in the world and you might just provoke one of them with your asinine shotgun approach to environmentalism and mountain bikes. Do your health a favour, quit trolling the News Groups.
If you would like, I can send you our customer service number and you can call and complain about my personal use of company email. They would get a chuckle out of it.
By the way, how's the garbage pickup in Berkley? Your cans getting emptied okay? Are those homeless people you see on the street watching you. Ever notice how the same one's look at you different?
disclaimer - nothing in this email construes a threat to your person. It is merely an observation about the unknown nature of unbalanced people in the world and how they could react to your ranting.
Wed, 19 Dec 2001:
From: "Jeffrey Spahn \(Corporate Internet Mail\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Some very interesting facts about Mike Vandeman
Some day he might provoke the wrong person and end up with a Louisville
Slugger sandwich for lunch.
Wonder if I sent him an email if he would call our company? Since it's my
family's company and we all like mountain biking and 4 wheeling would anyone
If I get a good rise out of him (off the NG of course) I will surely share
the gorey details. with those who are interested.
I can see it now, Mikey fuming at his keyboard, foam coming out of the
corners of his mouth, teeth knashing. Not that this would make him go away,
but then, you have to stir the pot every now and again.
Tue, 18 Dec 2001:
From: Matthew Wilson-Vogler <email@example.com>
When it comes down to it I am still going to Mountain Bike on and off road, and so will my club and all my friends. It is like saying that no one should go swimming in the sea because it pollutes the water and hurts the sea creatures.
Sat, 15 Dec 2001:
From: punk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
fuck you what the hell are you going do with me. If i want to ride around gods green earth i'll do it and you better not get in my fuckin way or i'll run your ass over and if my tire marks. SO fuck off and go live your life and let us live ours. Do you get paid to be a fuckin taliban bastard or do you just think your right like the rest of your fuckin Nazi friends.
Thu, 13 Dec 2001:
From: punk <email@example.com>
Subject: wass up?
you must be some kinda of fuckin idiot comin into our club saying that we cant mt bike. What kinda of a club is it? Its for HARDCORE MT BIKERS not little pussys who ride down the fuckin road. Ok? So next time you get a bif fuckin thought like that shove it directly up your fat ass. So who the hell gave you a P.H.D. I thought they only give that to smart people, oh ya your a doctor right. One of those doctors who sit and listen to peoples problems and think that they can help when all you are is just a big fuck up yourself. You know what you should do, you should go join the fuckin talliban you communist ass hole. You know what they do in Afganistan, they act just like you trying to order every one around and tell them what they can and cant do. Well you know what, I'll ride my 2.5 inch tire right over your fuckin face if i ever see you. oh did i hear that you livve in sanfrancisco? Have ever ridden a mountian bike you fuckin fagget. Why dont you write me back and tell me tha!
t i'm being mean and that your going to go cry. YOUR ANOTHER OSAMA
By the way I'm only 15 so go FUCK YOURSELF
Wed, 12 Dec 2001:
From: DHDoug <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People
To: "Hardcore Mt. Biking" <HardcoreMtBiking@communities.msn.com>
Dear Michael J Vandeman, PH.d.:
I can see that you have done plenty of research on the subject of how destructive certain activities are for the natural habitat and how it existed for millions of years. I personally have done some damage to the environment myself over the years, and in someone like your's eyes, I may be eventually damned to hell for an eternity of doing nothing but riding on pavement.
But your commentary on the website made me realize that people like you are even worse than people like me. You sit there and argue that riding on pavement trails is what mountain bikes should be relegated to. Well, think about this for a little while. Do you really think that bulldozing a strip of land, tearing up all the natural vegetation and then placing a strip of tar coated gravel is really going to HELP the environment??? I'm not too sure if you have ever seen the work that takes place to create a paved trail for people who are not willing to step off the beaten path to enjoy what nature really has to offer.
People like you should really examine what good they are actually doing for the world, and what your motives really are. If I were to think the whole situation through with a clear mind, wouldn't you find it a little more eco-friendly to just do away with all asphalt roads, and all automobiles. I'm pretty sure that you drive a very nice vehicle to and from work every day, and never give a single thought to the fact of what the environment is actually going through just so you could get home just a little faster every evening to get home to your boring life of oppressing people other than yourself.
How about this postulate, how about you actually study the amount of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat that has been destroyed in the last 100 years since the automobile has been around, and get back to me on that one. I want the report summarized in triplicate, and just for kicks, how about you prepare a presentation on Microsoft's PowerPoint that lasts for approximately 2 hours on how you theorize to fix all the damage done by paving strips of ground across the world just so people like you can stay seated on their fat, lazy asses and zip around the globe.
As soon as you come up with a paper, and it should be a big one, jam it straight up your rectum, and see how it really feels to have someone who really knows nothing about you or your world tell you what you should really be doing.
Next time, think about what you are doing, and don't try to preach before you actually read through the bible beforehand.
Douglas C. Newell, DH MTBR, BA,
Thu, 06 Dec 2001:
From: Aaron Teasdale <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Wildlife and trails
While it's true that we're often in and out of areas more quickly than other trail users, it's also true that we cover more ground. Our greater reach can translate to greater impact on anthropophobic species like Grizzly Bears and Lynx. I'm not actually sure if anthropophobic is a word, but it seems like it should be.
Sun, 21 Oct 2001:
From: John Morgan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: What I believe
I am not replying to be inflamitory, to argue a point, or to convince you of
anything in any way, shape, or form. I have read nearly all the material on
your website and your many lengthy papers and I am familiar with most of
your opinions. Since you insist on flagrantly posting your opinions to the
newsgroups with differing views, I think it is only fair that I share my
opinion with you personally (not further disrupting the newsgroups you post
to). You may reply with a personal response if you wish, but please do not
use my address for any other purpose. =)
I have been an active mountain biker for almost a year now. I would even
say that I have become an avid mountain biker, judging by how often I
participate. I enjoy being away from the city in a natural setting; it is
one of my favorite means of relaxation. I feel that public trail use (note:
not abuse) is perfectly within my rights as an American citizen and as a
human being. The Bible (KJV) clearly states that this earth is meant for us
humans to use... or as it says to "subdue" it and have "dominion" over it
and the animals here. I believe that to be true. Humans have precidence
over animals. The animals exist, as do the other components of the earth,
for us. I remind you, I am not suggesting that we abuse the priviledges God
has given us humans, but I feel totally justified in using the land the way
I am not a member of any advocacy groups, and I've never helped as a
trailbuilder or maintainer, but my conscience is clear. I obey the rules of
the trail (and the laws of the land) to the best of my ability and that is
that. If the city wishes to establish a tax to maintain public trails, then
I have no problem paying it. Call me old fashioned, but this is how I was
raised. C'mon Mike, mountain biking is fun for a lot of people and it's
clearly not the biggest problem in the world today. You have a lot of
energy that I'm sure would be put to good use in other areas of life that
are truly worrysome. Maybe you could focus on convincing some Arabs about
the evils of terrorism. At least in that field you would have a chance of
persuading your audience. =)
The bottom line is: I like to ride my bike, it's recreation, and I see
nothing wrong with that. All I'm doing is using the rights that have been
given to me. If you choose not to use those rights...guess what? It's your
right not to use your rights. =P
Thank you for reading my opinion...I most definitely have spent time reading
Tue, 16 Oct 2001:
From: Rod Brown <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: [ROMP] Fw: [mbosc] Nisene Marks General Plan Alternatives
Here I go again, but it is true: this is another important meeting. To put
it bluntly, it would really suck if the top of Nisene Marks were made
wilderness and thus exclude any possibility of future bike access.
Fri, 21 Sep 2001:
From: "G.T." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: trail closure alert
I give up. I'm riding my bicycle when and where I want to. We lost
Sespe (a fucking road for Pete's sake), Johnson Ridge, and Little Mutau
Creek to wilderness along with many, many miles of beautiful closed to
motor vehicles but open to bicycles singletrack in the Los Padres and
Sequoia Natl Forests over the past few years. It's absolutely
Sun, 09 Sep 2001:
Reply-To: "JonnyBoy" <jonnyboy@NOSPAMPLEASEtunespotting.co.uk>
From: "JonnyBoy" <john@NOSPAMPLEASEtunespotting.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Robo Ranger of Griffith Pk Hog Ties Mtn Biker
> That's a scream............... I ride Griffith Park about twice a
> week. In fact, I just got back from poaching some of the trails
> about an hour ago. It's too bad that cyclist are considered
> these days. If you sit back and let them take one trail, they WILL
> them all.
This much is true. They start with a cycling prohibited sign here and
there and then it spreads. I say fsck em. I ride where I want, if they
want to arrest me they`ll have to catch me first.
Mon, 03 Sep 2001:
From: Mark Flint <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: IMBA: Trail structures...
Mountain biking seems to attract some people who have trouble with
authority; they don't like rules and restrictions, and feel they
should be able to ride and build trails where they please. We just
resolved a problem here in Tucson where a couple of individuals
decided to build a dual slalom course that crossed a popular riding
trail. Can you imagine some family group riding along and suddenly
being bowled over by a couple of Yahoos screaming down the slalom
course? Not to mention the major construction they'd begun, which
would have led eventually to dual erosion channels.
The resolution didn't please the people who wanted the slalom course -
- they were basically told to stop or else -- but it was more
important to protect the resource and the integrity of the trail than
worry about their feelings.
Sat, 07 Jul 2001:
From: ososcrew1 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You suck, mountain biking is an awesome sport and after viewing your craphole webpage im gonna mountain bike more often now.
Fri, 15 Jun 2001:
From: Bill Harris <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Snowshoe
I've followed the discussion, found some good points - this
is way a listserv should operate. Folks have pretty much
covered the gambit of viewpoints, but I have another.
I would like to come to the defense of racers in sort of a left-handed way.
Some have complained about the lack of racers when trail work is done, well,
I see that as a major
problem throughout the mountain biker ranks. My personal
experience is no matter how trail work days are advertised,
how I encourage, talk up an event, what kind of food/swag
is offered the numbers that turn out are disappointing most
of the time. Seems that everyone wants to ride, but few have time for even
one work day a year. Singling out racers isn't fair.
Sat, 14 Apr 2001:
From: Ward Tuttle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: mountain bikes
i am going to continue to ride mountain bikes in the
santa cruz mountains. do you know what you can do
Sun, 08 Apr 2001:
From: Mark Flint <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: the AT and other incindiary statements...
Much as I'd like to disagree with Richard, his points are valid. I
got to thinking about where I like to hike and it's not on trails
open to mountain biking. Mountain bikes _are_ invasive; they're fast,
silent and the minority that rides like idiots is out there often
enough to wreck it for the hikers. Even if they don't see one each
time out, having had a bad experience can make them apprehensive and
On the other hand, one of my favorite trails in Federation Space, and
possibly the known universe, is one that is shared by hikers and
mountain bikers, and it's in Richard's back yard: the Ape Canyon
Trail on Mount St. Helens in SW Washington. This trail, which really
should be an IMBA Epic if the Epics are to have any validity, IMHO,
is an 11-mile out-and-back that winds up through old growth and
across the volcano blast zone, then across a hogback ridge and
finally a dirt road to the Windy Ridge Visitors Center. Because of
its length and relative distance from any population centers (2 hour
drive from Portland, 3+ from Seattle) it's relatively uncrowded, and
that's the key. You can let it go on the downhill and see hikers in
time to slow down and not freak them out.
As far as the AT is concerned, a solution is in the offing, according
to The Only Mountain Bike Magazine Worth Reading Regularly (one
person's opinion; well, several of my friends share it, actually).
The current issue of Dirt Rag mentions the GEM (Great Eastern
Mountain) Trail which will more or less parallel the AT and be open
to mountain bikes -- indeed is being designed and built by mountain
Sounds to me like a good solution for that area. Let the HOHAs keep
the AT to themselves. Hikers do need some trails that are not used by
Another solution to consider is something else Richard touched on.
For hikers, a trail usually needs some kind of purpose, such as a
scenic overlook. For mountain bikers, the _trail_ can be the purpose.
The Molalla River Trail south of Portland, OR has hardly any hikers
but it's extremely popular with mountain bikers. It's a system of
loop trails (about 26 miles of singletrack plus around 20 miles of
gravel roads) that are fun as heck to ride but don't really go
In Tucson, the new Fantasy Island trail system is an urban trail park
built by mountain bikers that get the occasional walker from the
neighborhood, but bikes probably outnumber the pedestrians by 100-1.
It's a one-direction loop (with a 2.8-mile connecting spur that is
two-directional). Bikes take it counter-clockwise and the walkers
take it clockwise, so the two groups see each other coming. Like
Molalla, there is no "there" there; the trail is the thing.
Mon, 02 Apr 2001:
From: Shaun Reid <trailrider@MINDSPRING.COM>
Soil compaction? Mike, if mountain bikes are compacting the soil, then your recurring claims of erosion must be unfounded. As a civil engineer with a concentration in soils engineering, I can tell you that soil compaction and soil erosion are quite different and that if mountain bikes are compacting the soil, they are not eroding it.
Wed 21 Mar 2001:
Hello,Nice web site. You've taken up a cause. You're fighting for your beliefs. You are saving others from a certain horrible doom. What is this thing that will destroy our environment, livelihood, and possibly take our lives? Is is HIV, cancer, or possibly mass starvation? No. Do we fear blackouts, old age, or government corruption? No. What Evil lurks beneath the waters, waiting to destroy all we hold dear? TRAIL RUTS!!!<Scary music playing in the background> OH NO! Trail ruts! Erosion! SILT! How can we ever survive? What to do? What to do! Can't you people worry about something important? Get a life. Mike Estvanic, Dalton, Ohio, firstname.lastname@example.org
Wed, 28 Feb 2001:
From: Dan Harrison <email@example.com>
Bikers tend to blow by anything, however interesting, when they are enjoying a downhill run.
IMBA rep for Michigan
Tue, 27 Feb 2001:
Subject: Trail trials
Berry sez --
If the various land managing agencies dealt with the cycling
> > community in an "honest and constructive" way I'm sure there would
> be much less of this illegal trail building, especially by committed
> > cyclists with a long history of engagement with land managers.
> > Additionally, I doubt that the trail constitutes a harm or damage
> to the resource. If that was a primary concern to land managers they
> > would totally cease vehicle patrols and all rangers would be on
> foot, horseback or bike. Berry
> > >Comments anyone???
Sure, I'll take a stab...I think the illegal builders will continue
regardless of political realities...
As I've noted before, trails most certainly DO cause erosion, just as roads
and other soils disturbances do. If that's not harm to the resource, why are
we spending so much time worrying about erosion control? Indeed, it is the
main reason some trails should not be built in the first place.
The idea that we should have trail access to every square inch of everywhere
is truly outdated. It is precisely the sort of argument that will get
cyclists lumped together with dirt bikers, jet skiers and snowmobilers in the
minds of most conservationists. I for one have had it with the notion that
because we are low-impact (quiet, lightweight, human-powered) we are thus
entitled to any and all trails, and ought to have more of them all over the
place. The Bay Area's parks are in danger of becoming little more than
personal playgrounds for adults...this in a region with some of the most rare
and endangered habitats on earth.
Y'all are making a serious mistake if you dismiss Mike Vandeman out of
hand...he is plenty active on this and other wildland preservation issues.
Sure he's over the top when he discusses mountain bikes -- that doesn't
mean he's an idiot. Read through his whole website and find out how much
documentation he has. Build your own database of reasoned counterpoints;
weigh them against his. Are you still comfortable with riding all over the
hillsides all the time?
Berry -- get real about patrol. If an agency has tens of thousands of acres
spread over 2 or 3 counties, and little or no on-site housing for ranger
staff, and they are expected to respond to fires, serious medical
emergencies, natural disasters and criminal activity in remote areas by
themselves, how should they patrol but in vehicles, especially on existing
roads? Just because foot or mounted patrol is superior for ecologic reasons
does not mean it is always practical for resource protection purposes.
Mon, 19 Feb 2001:
From: Charles Jalgunas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [ROMP] On the way to the trailwork...
Volunteers, past and future,
The opportunity has come around again to pay for year-round mountain bike access to the Soquel Demonstration State Forest, and the price is an unbelievable bargain. We're meeting at Highland at 9:00am this Sunday the 25th for a few hours of good hard work maintaining the trails we all love to ride [Have you ever seen a clearer definition of a bribe? Mike].
The recent snow in the Summit area has proven to be more than a lot of our coastal climate Madrones and Redwoods can handle. The CDF and riders are reporting tree tops and whole trees have fallen on the upper roads and trails in the Demo and are making passage difficult for workers and recreators alike. This upcoming trail work day will be spent helping the CDF's newest employee, Tim, clear debris from the top of Ridge Trail, and time permitting, draining and removing stutter bumps on the bottom of Ridge near Saw Pit.
Stewards of Soquel Forest
H # 650-917-8699
W # 408-369-9666
Thu, 01 Feb 2001:
From: Miles Todd <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: San Diego Mountain Bikers
> And you know what? Next time we ride JD is going to kill me for saying
> this but a little well-placed civil disobedience doesn't hurt anybody or
> anything. No matter what kind of perfect example we set it only takes a
> very small but vocal minority to close areas.
In Mr. Sorni's defense, the trails on his list that are in fact of dubious
legality or clearly off limits are extremely well-used by the mountain bike
community here in San Diego, and have to a great extent become de facto
mountain bike riding areas. In fact, one time while I was riding Carrizo (with
Bill, mind you) we stopped to talk to the President of the SD&A railway corp
(which owns the property), who reminded us that we were tresspassing. "But,"
he said, "we don't mind the mountain bikers because they help keep an eye on
things." On another occaision I stopped to talk to a Viejas indian reservation
police officer who told me they don't mind riders on Anderson Truck Trail
(their property) but don't like people parking and littering on their turf...
So in other words, although illegal, these trails are ok to ride.
Thu, 25 Jan 2001:
Subject: RE: Mountain Bikers Censor Their Own Email List, to Cover Up Acci dent!
[from a friend:] I believe a lot of these thrill seekers have been involved in serious
accidents w/out wearing a helmet....they certainly act like it.
From: Mike Vandeman
To: Roland Vilett
Subject: Mountain Bikers Censor Their Own Email List, to Cover Up
Why, if you want to educate mountain bikers on how to behave, do you want
to censor the very information they need to hear?!
Why have you covered up the MAJOR accident during a mountain bike race in
Briones Regional Park on 9/23/2000, and the fact that the biker is STILL IN
A COMA, 4 months later?! Could it be that you don't want people to know the
truth about mountain biking?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:13:35 -0800
From: Roland Vilett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: My Wreck Report- Joaquin Miller Park
I was very sorry to read of your accident involving another mountain biker.
I agree wholeheartedly that certain individuals desperately need to learn
a valuable lesson in responsible riding. It's irresponsible individuals
like these that do more damage to the cause and rights of mountain bikers
than all the mountain-bike-haters combined.
On that note, I'd also like to suggest to everyone that they refrain
from posting this sort of information to this list. The point is of
course valid and important to make, however unfortunately there are
certain anti-mountain bike individuals who have unauthorized access
to this list and monitor it regularly looking for anything that they
can use against us, in or out of context. Stories like this are
*exactly* the sort of thing that they will happily copy
and parade around in front of every city council, park district,
and trails policy group they can find, as "proof" that mountain bikes
are dangerous and should be banned from all parks. The fact that these
types of incidents are in fact extremely rare (I have been mountain
biking in the east bay for more than five years and I've never even
come close to being hit by another mountain biker) of course never gets
From past experience we already know what would have happened if he
had hit a hiker. In all of the year 2000, exactly one hiker was hit
by a bicycle in Joaquin Miller and suffered injuries. The bike
haters are *still* crowing about this single incident every
chance they get, once again as "proof" that mountain bikes should be
banned. See the latest Sierra Club Yodeler for details.
At 10:07 AM 1/24/01 -0800, Cheryl Stockton wrote:
-My Wreck Report-
I was mtb'ing Saturday at noon in the Joaquin Miller park in Oakland. I was
riding towards a blind corner on my side of the trail. I was going about
8mph. Next thing you know a face appears 1/4" from mine. SMACK! Helmet to
helmet. (Are you wearing yours? I don't need to insert here that I probably
would have had my head cracked open if I hadn't had my helmet on.)
Some mtb DUDE was going way too fast and riding out of control. He crossed
to my side of the trail on a blind corner. His stats are: Robert D, from
Fremont, riding a yellow bike.His buddy was on a black bike.
So he took me out. My upper lip was huge and purple. About the size of a
golf ball for two days. My blood was everywhere. I feel like I was run over
by a bus. What would have happened if he ran over a hiker in Jouquin Miller
Park? I took two days off work to recover. I am not yet recovered.
My message --again-- to Robert D and to people who ride like Robert D:
Please ride safely and remember that there are others out on the trails
Should I mention that this is the second time I have been run over by a
fellow mountain biker in the East Bay Hills? I don't get it. These are
family trails. There a hundreds of people sharing the trails at the same
time. Slow down!
Thu, 25 Jan 2001:
At 02:51 PM 1/25/2001 -0500, TheBluRidr@aol.com wrote:
>I was just wondering, why do they have a problem with you?
[me:]Simple: mountain bikers don't want anyone to tell the truth about the harm that mountain biking does, because it could cause trails to be closed to bikes. It's a valid fear! It happens every day (thank God)!
I have read
>several of your postings, and while I don't agree with them all, you are
>certainly entitled to your opinion. Hopefully, public discourse will result
>in a positive outcome.
I agree. That's why I post all my writings directly in the MTB newsgroups & email lists. But they still want me to be censored. Or worse. It's a good thing our Constitution isn't being written today! :)
Sat, 20 Jan 2001:
From: Dale Cooper <email@example.com>
Mike: In my book your a crackpot, go save the moon. Have you ever seen what nature herself can do. I have I live in the shadow of Mt St Helens, and have seen first hand the amazing power of fire and water. What's a little knobby going to hurt.
Thu, 18 Jan 2001:
At 11:18 PM 1/18/2001 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>How many years have I been reading your anti-mountain bike diatribes now?
>One certainly has to admire your persistence, if nothing else. But in all
>honesty, has it helped?
[me:]Of course. I make it okay for others to express similar sentiments. Many people are timid, and let the mountain bikers intimidate them. Or they are afraid of conflict, and want everyone to "get along". There is a large anti-mountain bike movement. Of course, as long as people can get away with selfish behavior, it will continue.
Has your continued vigilance on the net garnered
>any support for your cause? I know a lot of cyclists get really ticked at
>you, but hey, you have as much right to express your opinion as anybody.
>I won't argue with that.
>Some times I read your stuff, sometimes I don't. I may not agree with
>you, but you are always interesting to read. Your detractors can be
>interesting, too. Some of them get a little hot about it. What can you
Just tell the truth. What I say is verifiable by anyone. In fact, it is OBVIOUS. Mountain bikers just don't want to admit what is obvious to everyone else.
>Interesting, yes. Convincing? No. I will continue to ride, and continue
>to help other riders. I like my bike. It helps keep me fit. I do seem to
>ride a lot more on pavement than I used to. Maybe that's a "medic thing."
>Or maybe, somewhere deep in my subconscious, you have won a small
Exactly. They won't admit it, of course, because they have tender egos, but I have forced the entire MTB community to think about wildlife and the harm they do to wildlife. But even the police can't make everyone obey the law. Keep siding with the criminals, if that's what turns you on. I suspect it isn't, which is why you wrote. It is scary breaking with your peers, which is why hardly any mountain bikers have had the guts to do it. But many bicyclists tell me privately that they agree with me.
Tue, 16 Jan 2001:
From: Mike Brixey <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: night riding on the front range...
We have 2 major State Parks in the Spokane, WA area. Both parks are
officially closed at dusk and opened at dawn. Trails in City and County
Parks are not regularly patrolled and I don't recall anyone ever asking if
night riding was ok or not - we just did it. There may be some official
policy, but right or wrong, the practice has been "Don't ask, Don't Tell".