S
S Curtiss
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that mountain biking
> .has greater impacts..."
> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
>
> Dreamer.
No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information while
attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on pieces of the
whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
Now you attempt again to qualify this same piece from 5/30/05 "science
proves...." by prefacing with your distance "OPINION". You focus on bicycles
on trails while ignoring sprawl and construction which completely destroys
the habitat. Bicycles (and their riders) enter and leave... The Wal-Mart
stays surrounded by pavement.
Every anti-mt bike post you make shows your selfish desire to go hiking the
way you want with nobody else around. You say you speak for the "wildlife"
because it is convenient and easy. Convenient because they can not speak.
Easy because it gives you a righteous platform to defend. Anyone disagrees -
they must hate wildlife. Anyone disagrees - they must be as smart. Anyone
disagrees - they must be stupid.
You hate mt bikes because, in your mind, they disrupt your experience.
Usenet is paved with over 8 years of your reposted articles, out-of-context
quotes, personal attacks, name-calling, opinion as fact, and truthless
conclusions. A search proves it. Just as it does when anyone searches the
posts in these ng of 5/30/05 titled "science proves that mountain biking has
greater impacts..."
>
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> Don't forget that this study, which shows that mountain biking has
> greater
> .> impacts than hiking and horseback riding, actually GREATLY
> UNDERESTIMATES
> .> the
> .> impacts of mountain biking, because it ignores the relative distance
> .> travelled!
> .> When mountain biking's already-significant impacts are multiplied by
> the
> .> distance travelled, the differences become even greater. The authors
> .> mentioned
> .> that they had to use THREE pairs of hikers to be able to cover the same
> .> ground
> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that mountain
> .> bikers
> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .>
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that mountain biking
> .has greater impacts..."
> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
>
> Dreamer.
No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information while
attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on pieces of the
whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
Now you attempt again to qualify this same piece from 5/30/05 "science
proves...." by prefacing with your distance "OPINION". You focus on bicycles
on trails while ignoring sprawl and construction which completely destroys
the habitat. Bicycles (and their riders) enter and leave... The Wal-Mart
stays surrounded by pavement.
Every anti-mt bike post you make shows your selfish desire to go hiking the
way you want with nobody else around. You say you speak for the "wildlife"
because it is convenient and easy. Convenient because they can not speak.
Easy because it gives you a righteous platform to defend. Anyone disagrees -
they must hate wildlife. Anyone disagrees - they must be as smart. Anyone
disagrees - they must be stupid.
You hate mt bikes because, in your mind, they disrupt your experience.
Usenet is paved with over 8 years of your reposted articles, out-of-context
quotes, personal attacks, name-calling, opinion as fact, and truthless
conclusions. A search proves it. Just as it does when anyone searches the
posts in these ng of 5/30/05 titled "science proves that mountain biking has
greater impacts..."
>
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> Don't forget that this study, which shows that mountain biking has
> greater
> .> impacts than hiking and horseback riding, actually GREATLY
> UNDERESTIMATES
> .> the
> .> impacts of mountain biking, because it ignores the relative distance
> .> travelled!
> .> When mountain biking's already-significant impacts are multiplied by
> the
> .> distance travelled, the differences become even greater. The authors
> .> mentioned
> .> that they had to use THREE pairs of hikers to be able to cover the same
> .> ground
> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that mountain
> .> bikers
> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .>