or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking." - Page 3

post #31 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:43:25 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3eja9291tcj2ulqcv1d6s118q7t4rjhd1t@4ax.com...
>
>[newsgroups trimmed]
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
>> wrote:

>[...]
>>>My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
>>>do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
>>>do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
>>>kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.

>>
>> True, but without wildlife (living things), there would be nowhere
>> worth hiking. That is the long view.

>
>Yes, you are quite right about that. I have been on many a long hike in the
>wilderness where I never saw any wild creatures at all. I am more into plant
>life than I am animal life, but to never see any wild animals is on outrage
>and we should be ashamed of ourselves for having eliminated so much of their
>habitat.
>[...]


Yes. I have 3, no, 4 criteria for a successful hike: (1) see and try
an edible plant, (2) see a wild animal (common ones like insects and
birds don't count, UNLESS, SADLY, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE), (3) go to
some high place and get a wide view to see the lay of the land, (4)
don't see any bikes (I just added this one, which I used to be able to
take for granted ...).

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

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #32 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:10 GMT, jason <me@invalid.address.com>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>My qualifications are just as good as yours are.

>>
>>
>> Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know
>> what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh
>> Shifty One.

>
>In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in
>plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are.
>
>I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any
>damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc.
>
>We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree


There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
are willing to talk about)!

> and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods
>differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you
>to talk on the environment.


I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.

>If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your
>degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you
>can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you
>and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it from.


===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #33 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:19:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax.com...
>[...]
>> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>> results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>> be asked to give such a paper.

>
>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


I know. They are probably thinking right now that you are talking
about a different -- more base -- kind of rigor. I just hope that
there are some people like you out there that WILL understand. It took
10 years, but the wait was worth it.

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

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #34 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:00 -0700, cc <cc@nospam.edu> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax.com...
>> [...]
>>
>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>be asked to give such a paper.

>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>

>
>Can you two please take your
>stroking offline? It's making
>me sick. And yes, there are
>many qualified to do research
>in this audience,


How would YOU know?????

and the
>consensus is that you are
>WRONG. So stop with your
>fascist, bigoted polemic and
>do something USEFUL!!

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #35 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:14:32 GMT, jason <me@invalid.address.com>
wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>

>
>
>More broke back hiking I see, this time on usenet. Go get a room you two.


Lost? I think your home is alt.smut. You must have stumbled into this
newsgroup by accident.
===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #36 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:13:52 GMT, jason <me@invalid.address.com>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
>> are willing to talk about)!
>>

>
>Just as you aren't qualified to talk about this subject.


That's not what the SCIENTISTS think. In fact, I have studied ALL of
the research on mountain biking impacts, which makes me the world
expert on that.

>> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.

>
>I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
>how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
>university you went to that gave you a phd as well.


UCLA is alive and well, and certainly doesn't need YOUR help.

>I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
>phds in real science.


They aren't immune to bias. Especially when they are themselves
mountain bikers.

>It
>> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>> results.

>
>Yet you still think you're the only one in the world who can speak on
>the damage caused even though you aren't qualified to speak on it.


I'm the most qualified person in the world to discuss this subject.
YOU certainly aren't the least bit qualified.

> Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>> be asked to give such a paper.
>>

>
>
>So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
>and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
>speak and see the reaction of the others attending.


See my web site. It's all there. But you have to be able to READ.
===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #37 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:bbl8925rckmvecusmjmjsh49i75bfp8noh@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:0su692hof3q300gjah1vlsd8vfi6cf17v4@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:4491ffef$0$96935$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
>>>>>> different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the
>>>>>> MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They
>>>>> are not
>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>>>>> Unless
>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
>>>>> trails.
>>>>
>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>>>trails.
>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things
>>>>up for hikers.
>>>>
>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>> hikers to
>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
>>>>> would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to
>>>>> learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users
>>>>> off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>
>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>>>trails
>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing
>>>>too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first
>>>>place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see
>>>>bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have
>>>>always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd
>>>>> enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories
>>>>> about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>
>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I
>>>>leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>and wilderness.
>>>
>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get
>>> along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their
>>> bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are
>>> at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars.

>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>"experience" that is his determining factor.

>
> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>
> You have to sidestep that and
>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you
>>use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more
>>concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than
>>whining about a few bikes.

>
> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
> issue?



He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
complaining about each other in a newsgroup.

Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that you
actually do is ***** in this NG. That accomplishes nothing.



>
>>> That is
>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife
>>>>is of secondary importance.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>aka
>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>
>>> ===
>>> 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 construction.)
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>

> ===
> 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 construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
post #38 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:bicd92tl6rcbks0s85hrqpk3npq2dd4jjh@4ax.com:

> On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
> <john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
>>news:bbl8925rckmvecusmjmjsh49i75bfp8noh@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>> <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:0su692hof3q300gjah1vlsd8vfi6cf17v4@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:4491ffef$0$96935$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with
>>>>>>>> the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is
>>>>>>>> the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails.
>>>>>>> They are not
>>>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are
>>>>>>> trails. Unless
>>>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use
>>>>>>> the trails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were
>>>>>>hiking trails.
>>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing
>>>>>>things up for hikers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>>>> hikers to
>>>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some
>>>>>>> bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We
>>>>>>> just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real
>>>>>>> problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be
>>>>>>some trails
>>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without
>>>>>>causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in
>>>>>>the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not
>>>>>>like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the
>>>>>>West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that
>>>>>>> he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up
>>>>>>> stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue.
>>>>>>I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO
>>>>> get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without
>>>>> their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but
>>>>> they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars.
>>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to
>>>>his "experience" that is his determining factor.
>>>
>>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>>
>>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool
>>>>you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be
>>>>more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building
>>>>than whining about a few bikes.
>>>
>>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>>> issue?

>>
>>
>>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>>
>>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that
>>you actually do is ***** in this NG.

>
> BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
> biking -- something you are incapable of doing.
>
> That accomplishes nothing.



You have done what? Educated the whole world? Oh my god, you have
quite a high opinion of your self. Other than a few people on the NG
who you ***** with, nobody has even heard of you. And sadly, the very
few people who have heard of you, don't agree with you. Get a grip
Mikey. Just admit it, you're a complete failure.





>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> That is
>>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and
>>>>>>wildlife is of secondary importance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>>aka
>>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
>>>>>>Minnesota
>>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>> 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 construction.)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>
>>> ===
>>> 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 construction.)
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>

> ===
> 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 construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
post #39 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc <cc@nospam.edu> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "cc" <cc@nospam.edu> wrote in message news:e74sa2$gvl$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax.com...
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!

>>
>>
>> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
>> numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
>> mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>>
>> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
>> you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
>> research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

>
>You haven't a degree, which
>you already admitted. And no,
>working as a librarian does
>NOT count.
>
>I do have a research degree,
>but it doesn't matter.


Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.

I don't
>have to defend myself to you,
>who are clueless and mentally
>incapacitated. Should I dig up
>your post about needing your
>medications?
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #40 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
<john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
>news:bbl8925rckmvecusmjmjsh49i75bfp8noh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>news:0su692hof3q300gjah1vlsd8vfi6cf17v4@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4491ffef$0$96935$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
>>>>>>> different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the
>>>>>>> MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They
>>>>>> are not
>>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
>>>>>> Unless
>>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
>>>>>> trails.
>>>>>
>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>>>>trails.
>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things
>>>>>up for hikers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>>> hikers to
>>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
>>>>>> would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to
>>>>>> learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users
>>>>>> off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>>>>trails
>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing
>>>>>too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first
>>>>>place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see
>>>>>bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have
>>>>>always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd
>>>>>> enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories
>>>>>> about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I
>>>>>leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>
>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get
>>>> along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their
>>>> bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are
>>>> at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars.
>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>>"experience" that is his determining factor.

>>
>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>
>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you
>>>use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more
>>>concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than
>>>whining about a few bikes.

>>
>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>> issue?

>
>
>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>
>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that you
>actually do is ***** in this NG.


BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
biking -- something you are incapable of doing.

That accomplishes nothing.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> That is
>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife
>>>>>is of secondary importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>aka
>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> 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 construction.)
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>

>> ===
>> 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 construction.)
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #41 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On 19 Jun 2006 13:42:43 GMT, Chris Foster
<john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
>news:bicd92tl6rcbks0s85hrqpk3npq2dd4jjh@4ax.com:
>
>> On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
>> <john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
>>>news:bbl8925rckmvecusmjmjsh49i75bfp8noh@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>>> <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:0su692hof3q300gjah1vlsd8vfi6cf17v4@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:4491ffef$0$96935$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with
>>>>>>>>> the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
>>>>>>>>> recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
>>>>>>>>> reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is
>>>>>>>>> the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
>>>>>>>>> believe I can say it any clearer than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails.
>>>>>>>> They are not
>>>>>>>> hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are
>>>>>>>> trails. Unless
>>>>>>>> a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use
>>>>>>>> the trails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were
>>>>>>>hiking trails.
>>>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing
>>>>>>>things up for hikers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
>>>>>>>> hikers to
>>>>>>>> not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some
>>>>>>>> bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We
>>>>>>>> just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real
>>>>>>>> problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be
>>>>>>>some trails
>>>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without
>>>>>>>causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in
>>>>>>>the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not
>>>>>>>like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the
>>>>>>>West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that
>>>>>>>> he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up
>>>>>>>> stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue.
>>>>>>>I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO
>>>>>> get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without
>>>>>> their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but
>>>>>> they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars.
>>>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to
>>>>>his "experience" that is his determining factor.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>>>
>>>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool
>>>>>you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be
>>>>>more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building
>>>>>than whining about a few bikes.
>>>>
>>>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>>>> issue?
>>>
>>>
>>>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>>>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>>>
>>>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that
>>>you actually do is ***** in this NG.

>>
>> BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
>> biking -- something you are incapable of doing.
>>
>> That accomplishes nothing.

>
>
>You have done what? Educated the whole world? Oh my god, you have
>quite a high opinion of your self. Other than a few people on the NG
>who you ***** with, nobody has even heard of you. And sadly, the very
>few people who have heard of you, don't agree with you. Get a grip
>Mikey. Just admit it, you're a complete failure.


If you've failed to learn anything, that's not MY failure. I doubt
that many of your teachers would but that BS.

>>>>>> That is
>>>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and
>>>>>>>wildlife is of secondary importance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>>>aka
>>>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
>>>>>>>Minnesota
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> 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 construction.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> 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 construction.)
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>

>> ===
>> 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 construction.)
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #42 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:cf5g92524nqccle48fi1pe2h704s8ki5so@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are
>>>> into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is
>>>> a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
>>>> you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
>>>> ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and
>>>> I meant it.

>>
>>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
>>> "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do
>>> not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but
>>> yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in
>>> the woods to have the same motives as you.

>>
>>At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
>>groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
>>the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
>>been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.
>>
>>Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
>>people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
>>mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers
>>tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other
>>to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding
>>without talking.
>>
>>There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are
>>prohibited,

>
> It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
> have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
> it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....



I have, plenty of them. I have NEVER seen mountain bike tracks in RMNP.


>
>>but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail
>>head.

> ===
> 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 construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
post #43 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
>>> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
>>> hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
>>> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
>>> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

>
>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
>> bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to
>> elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray
>> all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you.

>
>At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
>groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
>the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
>been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.
>
>Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
>people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
>mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
>to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
>engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
>talking.
>
>There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,


It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....

>but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head.

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #44 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc <cc@nospam.edu> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc <cc@nospam.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"cc" <cc@nospam.edu> wrote in message news:e74sa2$gvl$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax.com...
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>>>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>>>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>>>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
>>>>numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
>>>>mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>>>>
>>>>Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
>>>>you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
>>>>research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.
>>>
>>>You haven't a degree, which
>>>you already admitted. And no,
>>>working as a librarian does
>>>NOT count.
>>>
>>>I do have a research degree,
>>>but it doesn't matter.

>>
>>
>> Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
>> bikers.
>>

>
>Mike, I am stating my opinion.
>My interpretation of the
>facts. I am being honest, and
> I think you are wrong. Get
>it straight, idiot. At least
>when I state my OPINION I am
>clear about it. That is a
>requisite of science.
>Something which you clearly
>know nothing about.


That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.

>What did they teach you in
>school Mike? How to write your
>name? It certainly wasn't how
>to do research or interpret
>data . . . ever heard of the
>"scientific method" ?

===
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 construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #45 of 147

Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in
news:a-6dnX8nIJARyAXZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@prairiewave.com:

>
> "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:9UAlg.6673$FR1.6123@dukeread05...
>
> [newswgroups trimmed]
>
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>> news:O7ydnesHu7fefQnZnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>>
>>>>> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
>>>>> share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
>>>>> different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation
>>>>> in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They
>>>>> are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do
>>>>> not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it
>>>>> any clearer than that.
>>>>
>>>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and
>>>> mysticism and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in
>>>> many places without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared
>>>> use areas may have cyclists. Choose your environment.
>>>
>>> My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and
>>> hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not
>>> have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on
>>> wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and
>>> to wilderness.

>> "We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails...
>> Not one has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.
>>>
>>> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into
>>> fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a
>>> playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
>>> you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
>>> ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I
>>> meant it.
>>>

>> You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
>> "mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not
>> recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself.
>> You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in the woods to
>> have the same motives as you. Nonsense.
>> Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not
>> accept that is the same for everyone who hikes.

>
> Curtiss, I would like you and Vandeman to trim the following
> newsgroups from your posts:
>
> rec.bicycles.misc, alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>
> All you need do is just delete the above groups from the headers of
> your posts. It is very simple to do and only takes a second.
>
> It is now apparent to me that we there is no one on the above two
> groups who are interested in the slightest with your ongoing war. I
> will continue to monitor rec.bicycles.soc and that group along with
> alt.mountain-bike go together. I will NOT however monitor
> alt.mountain-bike because I consider everyone there to be an idiot.




We all feel you are an idiot, but yet we still continue to post to you.





> However, I will see your posts and Vandeman's posts on
> rec.bicycles.soc and can respond from that group if I so choose. The
> important thing is to eliminate rec.bicycles.misc and
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from your posts.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mountain Bikes
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."