Access to walking areas - Page 4

"Bernie Hughes" <berniehughes@bevy.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BJI6c.24850$F.8688@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
> message
> news:5da3666f.0403190638.20a0605@posting.google.com...
> > BTW, it is not trolling to raise a legitimate subject of
> > concern when most of the ill feeling and s**t stirring
> > seems to come from people who belong to the walking
> > fraternity. Where should I raise the subject IYO?
> > alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?
>
> We don't care where you raise it, as long as it's
> somewhere else. It's a private feud between yourself & the
> RA. Take it up with them, stop
bothering
> urw with loud-mouthed & opinionated non-walking crap.
>
> You're not doing your own side of the argument any good by
> the way. I'd no opinion whatsoever on 4x4s till I read a
> few of your apocalyptic posts.
Now
> I despise them. Myself & KRO have argued about practically
> every subject that's come up on this newsgroup, but even
> we agree on this! So back under the bridge for you.

Bernard! You can be so sweet at times :-)

KRO

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:09:47 GMT, highcruxroad@blueyonder.co.uk (RJ
Webb) wrote:

>
>>Some of the regs are old enough to be ramblers though!
>
>I reject the way of the red sock.
>
>Richard Webb

Good man! I intend to reject the company of 40 or 50 other
people, clad in red socks and map cases!

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Wfsf7ABgf0WAFwoK@local.mail...

> But the reason I pointed this story out to you was well
> meant, the results of that poll are going to be used as a
> stick to bash you with over the next couple of months and
> you need to come up with a response. Not the 'there isn't
> a problem' response either, I suggest.

Oh? So who do you think said this in their response to the
DEFRA consultation?

"We are concerned that Defra seems to think that all
vehicular use of rights of way is damaging. This is not so,
it is wrong to treat vehicular users any differently from
walkers and riders"

and also

"Much of the vehicular damage is in fact caused by private,
especially agricultural, vehicles and these proposals do
nothing to address that."

and also

"The government and local authorities should be
concentrating on these issues and not spending time trying
to take away people's lawful rights when there is no good
reason to do so."

Go on - have a guess. Which of the following was it?

a) Me
b) Green Lane Association (GLASS)
c) All Wheel Drive Club (AWDC)
d) LARA
e) Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF)

Actually it was none of these. It was the Open Spaces
Society. See: http://www.oss.org.uk/responses/2004%20mar.htm

Cheers Andrew Kay

Peter Browning wrote:
> highcruxroad@blueyonder.co.uk (RJ Webb) wrote in message
> news:<405ae06d.5006859@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
> Those of us who are the resposible types (sorry) do not go
> 'bashing ruts', at least I don't - a nice smoothish byway
> will do very nicely for me as my 20 year old range rover
> would not put up with too much bashing! I pootle along the
> byways at tickover speeds.

The problem for those who want to use motor vehicles on
unsurfaced routes are the "irresponsible motorised
vehicle users".

There have been voluntary codes for quite some time. The
"responsible types" have voluntary speed limits, codes for
courteous driving, and other constraints to minimise impact.
Some of the responsible groups organise maintenance of
unsurfaced routes.

But, the growth of 4*4s and off-road motorcycles continues a
pace. There are enough "irresponsible types" to cause grief.
The irresponsibles include the speed & noise hooligans and
those who go off road with no idea as to the problems they
are causing. There is regular promotion (advertising of new
vehicles being particularly bad at this) of driving off-road
at speed, splashing through muddy holes, spraying stones on
corners, clambering to the highest peaks, etc. This
promotion probably adds to the problems.

Ultimately, whatever the rights and wrongs, the recreational
motorised users of unsurfaced roads are likely to loose
their access shortly. That's because the "irresponsibly
types" have been noticed by too many people, with access to
power and influence, who don't like what they do.

--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/ Replies to
newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

>Good man! I intend to reject the company of 40 or 50 other
>people, clad in red socks and map cases!

I have the mapcase

But its rolled up under my pack strap usually. Never ever
dangling - that is the way of Stan.

Richard Webb

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:47:49 GMT, highcruxroad@blueyonder.co.uk (RJ
Webb) wrote:

>
>>Good man! I intend to reject the company of 40 or 50 other
>>people, clad in red socks and map cases!
>
>I have the mapcase
>
>But its rolled up under my pack strap usually. Never ever
>dangling - that is the way of Stan.
>
>Richard Webb

That's OK then. It's their being worn as garments that I
object to! Anyway, *why* do they wear red socks?

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

In a recent message <c3g3rd$o0c$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.

[...]
>Actually it was none of these. It was the Open Spaces
>Society. See:
>http://www.oss.org.uk/responses/2004%20mar.htm
[...]

Interesting site, thanks for the link. In general I agree
with what they say, with the exception of what they say
about you-know-what. It helps that I've always had a soft
spot for one of their founders, J.S. Mill, a utilitarian.
They also think a lot of William Morris, but what Morris
would have thought about infernal machines in green places
doesn't bear thinking about.

One interesting point though, the OSS's chief executive
officer is Kate Ashbrook, who is also a member of RA's
executive committee. It must be very difficult to reconcile
the opposing positions of these two organisations on the
bitterly divisive issue of recreational vehicles and green
lanes. There was another Kate, wasn't there? Who wrote a
book called 'I Don't Know How She Does It' <g>.

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<hopton@dsl.pipex.com

me@privacy.net said...
> The problem for those who want to use motor vehicles on
> unsurfaced routes are the "irresponsible motorised
> vehicle users".
>
ITYF they're in the minority, like everything else where
there are problems. Most people who go to watch a football
match do so because they want to see the game; the minority
who cause disproportionate amounts of trouble and damage
give them all a bad name. It's the same with off-road
drivers. Personally I'd love to be able to afford a 4x4 off-
roader; I'd love to experience the thrills first-hand, and I
hope I'd be responsible whilst doing so. But some damage is
inevitable, no matter how careful one might be, just as it
is every time we get into our 'ordinary' cars and drive off
down the road to go shopping or to pay the annual homage to
Great Aunt Ethel. People cause damage. People try to
conserve, but even whilst doing so some damage is caused.
Walkers and other non- motorised folk can get off their high
horse (ha ha) and think for a moment about exactly what
they're complaining about.
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.

paulrooney@aol.com said...

> Anyway, *why* do they wear red socks?

Maybe they like red?
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.

In message <bffl50tikv3s7u5ho1laigtum9qoga4e72@4ax.com>,
Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:17:03 +0000, Michael Farthing
><mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>If unanimity be irrelevant and it be not for me to decide,
>>then tell me do, who or what does decide?
>
>Decides? If, as I say, it's not subjective, then there's no
>reason to suppose any decision comes into it. The world's
>roundness doesn't depend on anyone's decision; nor does it
>require unanimity. Objective facts are like that!

OK. There are scientific procedures that enable us to
determine the roundness of the Earth. Granted, the
fundamental philosophical underpinning of the scientific
method is shaky, but, for now perhaps we are able to
accept its basic validity. What similar reliable mechanism
can we use to determine an absolute moral value? (and I
amend my original word 'decide' here in deference to your
persuasive argument)

>
>You appear to have swallowed the woolly mid-20th century
>fashionable and dangerous 'argument' that values and facts
>must be separate entities. It's a silly position that
>doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Maybe, maybe not. But the rigorous scrutiny has not yet been
provided (By you, in this thread, I mean. Though I have yet
to encounter it elsewhere and wait with interest).

>It also entails that you have no grounds for complaint if
>someone beats the **** out of you for fun, as it's 'right
>for him'.

I accept that, with the proviso that it 'may' be right for
him. He may simply have no moral sense at all. I don't have
grounds for complaint in any absolute sense. I could, of
course, appeal to the regulations put in force by the de
facto ruling force, or seek to apply social pressure, or
simply beat the **** out of him in return, but no, there is
no absolute moral principle breached. I have no grounds for
complaint, but that is not the same as saying I can't do
anything about it. I invite you to come and beat the ****
out of me and see what happens to you in return, regardless
of whether I have grounds for complaint! (Actually, to save
you the trouble I can tell you in advance that I'd probably
run a mile. I'm a coward).

To move from the idiosyncratic viewpoint of humanity, no
moral principle is breached when a lion captures, kills and
eats an impala, or a farmer murders a sheep, or I have bacon
for breakfast. There are norms of human conduct that,
through long usage and admiration, have acquired a meme
status as moral behaviour. But these are based on culture,
not any underlying absolute moral precepts. Further, they
are far from constant in human time and geography. Those
things that appear as sacred moral principles to us have
little sacredness to others from different times or places.
Similarly, much-revered moral principles from those other
societies leave us cold and unsympathetic.

>

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House

"Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:qplwmmDAKCXAFwkJ@local.mail...

> One interesting point though, the OSS's chief executive
> officer is Kate Ashbrook, who is also a member of RA's
> executive committee. It must be very difficult to
> reconcile the opposing positions of these two
> organisations on the bitterly divisive issue of
> recreational vehicles and green lanes.

Impossible rather than difficult, I would have thought.

As an R.A. member, maybe you should ask her to resign her
position on the
R.A.'s national exec at the next AGM on the basis that she
must have a conflict of interests. :-)

Cheers Andrew Kay

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:56:37 +0000, Michael Farthing
<mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <bffl50tikv3s7u5ho1laigtum9qoga4e72@4ax.com>,
>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:17:03 +0000, Michael Farthing
>><mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>If unanimity be irrelevant and it be not for me to
>>>decide, then tell me do, who or what does decide?
>>
>>Decides? If, as I say, it's not subjective, then there's
>>no reason to suppose any decision comes into it. The
>>world's roundness doesn't depend on anyone's decision; nor
>>does it require unanimity. Objective facts are like that!
>
>OK. There are scientific procedures that enable us to
>determine the roundness of the Earth. Granted, the
>fundamental philosophical underpinning of the scientific
>method is shaky, but, for now perhaps we are able to accept
>its basic validity. What similar reliable mechanism can we
>use to determine an absolute moral value? (and I amend my
>original word 'decide' here in deference to your persuasive
>argument)

Whether there is a reliable mechanism to establish it is a
completely separate question from whether it exists!
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were no
reliable way of determining the world's roundness. Would
that affect its objective validity? I think not!

>>
>>You appear to have swallowed the woolly mid-20th century
>>fashionable and dangerous 'argument' that values and facts
>>must be separate entities. It's a silly position that
>>doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. But the rigorous scrutiny has not yet
>been provided (By you, in this thread, I mean. Though I
>have yet to encounter it elsewhere and wait with interest).
>
>>It also entails that you have no grounds for complaint if
>>someone beats the **** out of you for fun, as it's 'right
>>for him'.
>
>I accept that, with the proviso that it 'may' be right for
>him. He may simply have no moral sense at all. I don't have
>grounds for complaint in any absolute sense. I could, of
>course, appeal to the regulations put in force by the de
>facto ruling force, or seek to apply social pressure, or
>simply beat the **** out of him in return, but no, there is
>no absolute moral principle breached. I have no grounds for
>complaint, but that is not the same as saying I can't do
>anything about it.

Not the same at all - but that is hardly relevant to my
argument. I didn't suppose it was the same.
> I invite you to come and beat the **** out of me and see
> what happens to you in return, regardless of whether I
> have grounds for complaint! (Actually, to save you the
> trouble I can tell you in advance that I'd probably run a
> mile. I'm a coward).
>
>To move from the idiosyncratic viewpoint of humanity, no
>moral principle is breached when a lion captures, kills and
>eats an impala, or a farmer murders a sheep, or I have
>bacon for breakfast. There are norms of human conduct that,
>through long usage and admiration, have acquired a meme
>status as moral behaviour. But these are based on culture,
>not any underlying absolute moral precepts. Further, they
>are far from constant in human time and geography. Those
>things that appear as sacred moral principles to us have
>little sacredness to others from different times or places.
>Similarly, much-revered moral principles from those other
>societies leave us cold and unsympathetic.
>
>>

The problem (well, one of the problems) with subjectivism is
that it reduces our criticism of eg. (to take a deliberately
extreme case) Brady and Hindley's actions to an expression
of dislike, on a par with one's liking or disliking coffee.
We are, if subjectivism is followed, not saying anything
true or false when we say he was wrong - merely that we
would have acted otherwise because of our preferences. I
recommend C S Lewis's 'The Poison of Subjectivism' (he was
religious, but that's not essential to his position).

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>
>Whether there is a reliable mechanism to establish it is a
>completely separate question from whether it exists!
>Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were no
>reliable way of determining the world's roundness. Would
>that affect its objective validity? I think not!
>
Oh but there is a scientific mechanism to test the earths
roundness. But as you may already know it ain't round but
more of a quashed tomato. Fatter at the equator and leaner
at the pole. thats why gravity at the pole is more than at
the equator- well by a small margin. :-))))))
--
david hill

In message <4tvo50t1peee1124qdoo74db31tpqq4qoa@4ax.com>,
Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes

>>OK. There are scientific procedures that enable us to
>>determine the roundness of the Earth. Granted, the
>>fundamental philosophical underpinning of the scientific
>>method is shaky, but, for now perhaps we are able to
>>accept its basic validity. What similar reliable mechanism
>>can we use to determine an absolute moral value? (and I
>>amend my original word 'decide' here in deference to your
>>persuasive argument)
>
>
>Whether there is a reliable mechanism to establish it is a
>completely separate question from whether it exists!
>Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were no
>reliable way of determining the world's roundness. Would
>that affect its objective validity? I think not!

There is more than one point at which the absolutism exists.
'Right' has more than one aspect: there is the label itself
and the abstract 'ideal'. For the label (or word) 'right' to
be treated as an absolute it must be absolutely associated
with the 'ideal' it is labelling (which ideal is henceforth
capitalised). If the 'ideal' 'RIGHT' exists absolutely but
we are unable to absolutely associate the label to it, then
the label itself is not absolute. That association is where
the determinism becomes required. So if, for the sake of
argument, there is an absolute concept of 'RIGHT' but we
cannot say in any instance whether our label 'right' is
correctly referencing it then the label 'right' is not
referencing an absolute. A universe with absolutes that
cannot be determined is isomorphic to a universe of
relatives.

>The problem (well, one of the problems) with subjectivism
>is that it reduces our criticism of eg. (to take a
>deliberately extreme case) Brady and Hindley's actions to
>an expression of dislike, on a par with one's liking or
>disliking coffee.

Because something is a problem does not affect its veracity.
It is a problem that I cannot get into Lancaster in the
morning in less than an hour because of the traffic. That
does not affect the truth of the assertion.

I have not said that there is no general consensus over
moral values in a large number of instances: there clearly
is. However, this consensus is not an absolute but merely
provides an inertial bulk of common thinking that provides a
workable environment in which the concept can be applied.
This is no different from many other similarly relative
concepts. Goods have no absolute monetary value, but there
are societal norms that make monetary value a workable
system. Similarly, ones ability at boxing [where there are
several absolute measures (or used to be, at any rate) :-)]
or on a larger scale, the Time-Space continuum.

>We are, if subjectivism is followed, not saying anything
>true or false when we say he was wrong - merely that we
>would have acted otherwise because of our preferences.

We are using a shorthand that can be generally
accepted, but in an absolute sense we are not saying
anything true or false.

Even if we accept your view that absolute right exists but
we may not be able to determine it in all instances we are
actually in the same quandary. Such an assertion, though
indeed being either true or false, would not get us very far
because we wouldn't know which of the two it was. If
something can be absolute but not determinable it might just
as well be relative for all the use that is.

>I recommend C S Lewis's 'The Poison of Subjectivism' (he
>was religious, but that's not essential to his position).
>

It can go in the queue - somewhere around 9871. It's quite
an interesting discussion on the Net, but not for extended
study. And one has to make summary decisions about what
might be worth reading. I'm afraid Mr Lewis has long ago
been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

You say that religion is not essential to his position. The
problem with Lewis is that his weddedness to his religion
interferes with his judgement: indeed the very title
suggests that he views the philosophical concept as a threat
that must be countered rather an exploration for truth.
However, the comment brings to the fore something I have not
yet put forward: that any concept of the existence of an
absolute rightness would require a philosophical basis as
justification. That is, what I would term a religion.
'right' does not label a concept governed by physical law -
it is something outside the physical universe. For 'RIGHT'
to exist absolutely (without twisting its everyday meaning
beyond recognition) there must be an absolute provider of
that meaning. It requires God.

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House

In message <P3e7c.2$9I5.1@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Bernie Hughes <berniehughes@bevy.blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>"Michael Farthing" <mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:biK2OwA5+VXAFwTx@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>. For 'RIGHT' to exist absolutely (without twisting
>> its everyday meaning beyond recognition) there must be an
>> absolute provider of that meaning. It requires God.
>
>I'm not sure that it does require God. It just tends to
>come bundled with God for historical reasons.
>
>As I understand it, the argument between yourself & Paul is
>based on a false premise: it assumes that either there is a
>fixed objective moral framework (Position 1 -Paul's view)
>or that moral reasoning is a purely subjective derivation
>from cultural practice (Position 2- Michael's view). This
>objective/subjective dichotomy is unhelpful; it's not a
>Yes/No question. There is a middle position, in which a
>moral judgement derives its strength from the width of
>perspective taken by the judge. The wider the perspective,
>the greater coherence & more certain application of the
>judgement.
>
>This position differs from Position 1 (& agrees with
>Position 2) insofar as it denies that the human mind can
>ever have access to a neutral 'outside the game' position
>from where an absolute inherent moral framework could be
>witnessed in action; all judgements are human judgments, &
>all human judgements are contextual.
>
>It differs from Position 2 (& agrees with Position 1)
>insofar as it denies that all human judgements are equally
>subjective. A judgement which can be shown to depend
>entirely on the interests of a given Ego will be of limited
>value. As a judgement is gradually cleansed of Ego factors
>it becomes of greater accuracy & value. This stripping away
>of Ego factors can be thought of as a widening of
>perspective. A judgement made from the valley bottom will
>be limited in application & accuracy. By climbing a little
>higher up the hill, a wider perspective will be achieved,
>and hence a more valuable understanding reached.
>

Goodness me! Someone else has been reading all this. I agree
with you absolutely Bernie! (Well, relatively absolutely).

I would actually argue that my position is not actually
really quite your position 2 - or rather not that position 2
overstates my view. When I talked of a common inertia it was
your perspective position that I was embracing, though I
don't see any real contradiction with Position
2. A collection of individual moral stances combine to
produce a common consensus that constructs a workable
society. Perhaps the real question is whether such a
process is reliable, in the sense that it always tends
towards the same common pattern of moral values. That is
(one thing) I am denying. For example, for long Rome
held the right of the head of household over the life
and death of his family to be sacrosanct and beyond the
competence of the state. Our own society has not tended
to that position.

>Position 1 leads to the insane 'exclusive right' of Bush,
>Blair, Bin Laden, Zionism, Marxism and all other varieties
>of Yahweyism. Position 2 leads to the morally bankrupt
>greed & stupidity of Western liberal society. Perspectivism
>attempts to find a way between these twin Yes/No evils.

These things MAY happen. But the truth of the matter is just
that The Youth Of Today are irresponsible. As they have
always been.

My main regret in life is my lack of irresponsibility in
youth.

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House