Re: Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the TRUTH???!
On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:53:43 -0400, S Curtiss <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:15:36
-0400, S Curtiss <email@example.com> wrote: .> .> .>
.> . .> ."clipped for protection of the innocent" .> . .>
.> .> .> .> Sorry you've had some tough experiences with
mountain bikers. Do you think .> .> .> there is any place
appropriate for mountain biking? .> .> .> .> .> .> Of
course: on paved roads. .> .> . .> .> .Then it isn't
mountain biking, it is road biking. .> .> .> .> I don't
care what you want to call it. Stay on the pavement, where
you belong. .> .> .> . .> .Where "I" belong? Actually, I
call it "off road cycling". And I "belong" on legal trail
.> .systems, national parks and any area recognized for off
road cycling. .> .> National parks are closed to mountain
biking. . .A search of the National Park Service website
for "biking" returned 139 matches.
And almost NONE of that refers to legal mountain
.> Where you think I .> .belong is irrelevant. Which of
these doesn't belong? Mountains, Trees, Animals, Wal-Mart.
.> . .> .> .> .> .> That's nonsense. One look at my web site
would tell you otherwise. Why do .> .> .> mountain bikers
have such a hard time telling the truth??? .> .> . .> .>
.Really? If not half, then a third is devoted to anti-mt
mike propoganda... .> .> .certainly seems extraordinary in
comparison... .> .> .> .> ZERO propaganda. Just the truth. .
.Your truth as you interpret it. Lots of opinion.
BS. Of course, you wouldn't know, being unfamiliar with
.> .Selective "scientific" information to support opinions
is propoganda. Presenting opinion .> .as fact is propoganda.
Proclaiming yourself as an authority in an attempt to make
your .> .opinions sound important is propoganda. Claiming
absolute "truth" is propoganda. .> .> I've never claimed
"absolute truth", liar. . .Then why is it anyone who
disagrees with you is subject to name-calling and ridicule.
."Absolute" means an unwillingness to listen to, or
compromise, with differing ideas. You .present your opinion
as an absolute.
BS. Why compromise, if I am right?
.> .> .> WHAT hostility? I am just telling the truth --
something I guess you aren't used .> .> .> to. You interpret
that as hostility. .> .> . .> .> .No... calling people
liars, idiots, stupid, killers.... that is hostility. .> .>
.> .> No, it's just honesty. . .Your opinion of someone
else's intelligenge or integrity does not imply honesty in
any way, .shape or form.
You are dishonest. That's a FACT.
.> .You may honestly disagree with information or points of
view. But calling someone "liar" .> .and "idiot" is hostile.
.> .> No, it's just the truth. . .but when you get an e-mail
from someone, calling you the same names, you post it here
as being .from "another hostile mt biker". So it is hostile
when directed at you, and not when you .direct it at someone
else. Mr. "Double Standard" MV strikes again.
It's not the same at all.
.> Simply having different opinions or information from you
does not .> .make someone a liar. .> .> Of course. LYING
makes you a liar. . .No mirrors at home, huh? . .> .> .>
Stating the differing information or point of view does not
make .> .someone an "idiot". Calling them "stupid" for not
agreeing with you is not honesty. It is .> .antagonism. .>
.> No, it's truth. . .again... Your version. Which is so
tainted by your opinion it resembles "truth" like a .Wal-
Mart resembles a rain forest.
How would you know?
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