Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

Re: Hate Mail from a Typical Mountain Biker

Started by manmoose · · Last activity · 8 posts · 426 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
10 February 2005
Last activity
13 February 2005
Original author
manmoose
Posts
8
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
426
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–8 of 8
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman

    Quoted message said:

    Either you haven't read the articles on my web page, or you are incredibly
    stupid, because you have managed to COMPLETELY miss the point. The reason for
    banning bikes from natral areas has nothing to do with the rotten
    personalities of mountain bikers. Start here. If you can't understand this,
    there's nothing I can do to help you:

    I did read the article - I am not incredibly stupid and I did not miss
    your point(s) at all: some are valid for anyone who enjoys wilderness
    travel be it true backcountry or trail. I made no mention of the
    "rotten personalities of mountain bikers" yet the implication of the
    title of your post which summarizes the "typical mountain biker" _does_
    indicate that, for you, the "typical mountain biker" has a personality
    that displays the use of a simple and vulgar phrase - you say that is
    the reaction of "hate mail" that you receive from "a typical mountain
    biker". You, not I, brought 'personalities' into my response: my only
    observation concerning personalities was that there are unpleasant
    people to be found everywhere regardless of their preferred method of
    transportation and that there are many who do far more harm than
    mountain bikers.

    Quoted message said:

    Please share the following paper with all appropriate and interested parties.
    Please restrict bicycles and other vehicles to pavement, where they belong and
    where they can't do much harm to wildlife. Mountain biking is a very
    destructive
    activity, and has no place in natural areas. Anyone who wants to visit nature
    can already do so on foot (or via wheelchair). Mountain biking drives out all
    other trail users. There is absolutely no reason to allow access by large
    pieces of machinery, such as bicycles.

    I seldom share trails, period, as my main travel is on overgrown and
    neglected trails or, as I said, areas where "no one goes" during times
    that the sane do not travel. And yet, in one remote area on the IAT
    which is no longer maintained and where I understand I was the first to
    travel in over 2 years I did, in the distance, hear the sound of
    snowmobiles.

    The county in which I live, in Northern Maine, is 80% wooded area and
    the outdoor economy relies much more on hunting, fishing, canoeing and
    kayaking than the more accessible and snow filled areas to the south
    and north. I have learned to live with the roar of ATV's, the roar of
    snowmobiles, the sounds of off-road vehicles in National Forests and
    paper company owned property 'reclaiming' mining and forest roads and
    have learned to live with it. In my mind if there are modes of
    transportation that do great harm to wilderness areas I would focus my
    attention much more on these motorized vehicles than on mountain bikes.
    In several great National Forests of the southeast US I have shared
    trails with both mountain bikers and those traveling by horse - the
    horse is not, as you term the mountain bike, a machine but I give wide
    berth to both yet believe that the horse, and not the behemoth machine
    of a mountain bike, does more 'harm' to the areas than the machines.

    But some people must have a crusade - yours is a crusade against
    mountain bikes (and those who ride them). Fine. Have at it. In reading
    what you have posted, however, it reads more of eco-knee-jerking than
    science. It's rather like building a backcountry fire - there is a time
    and a place for it and when it can be accomplished with little impact
    it is as comfortable now as it was to those in pre-historic times. If
    you've travelled much in Europe, as an example, you know how little
    wilderness is left and how fortunate we are in the U.S. to enjoy
    wilderness areas - my particular crusade is to preserve those lands and
    to add to those lands when possible (a great debate now rages in Maine
    - but that is a different matter). We enjoy the wilderness for
    different reasons, and we travel in different ways: in my mind while
    the mountain bike may have a slightly greater impact than Vibram soled
    boots, it's just not something that keeps me awake at night or disturbs
    me to the point where it would become my crusade or, as you did in your
    message, resort to saying that the response that you receive from "a
    typical mountain biker" concerning your 'research' and opinions is as
    simplistic and vulgar as that which you reproduced.

    --
    manmoose

  2. manmoose said:
    Quoted message said:


    I did read the article - . . . .


    You're attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

    Pete H

    --
    Either everyone has rights or some have privileges.
    It's really that simple.
    Walt Kelly

  3. In article <[email hidden]>, pmhilton <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    manmoose said:
    Quoted message said:


    I did read the article - . . . .


    You're attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

    Pete H

    Yes, I'm beginning - finally - to see that.

    Nothing like an irrational fanatic to give fanatics a bad name.

    --
    manmoose

  4. On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:31:45 -0600, manmoose <[email hidden]> wrote:

    ..In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman
    ..<[email hidden]> wrote:
    ..
    ..> Either you haven't read the articles on my web page, or you are incredibly
    ..> stupid, because you have managed to COMPLETELY miss the point. The reason for
    ..> banning bikes from natral areas has nothing to do with the rotten
    ..> personalities of mountain bikers. Start here. If you can't understand this,
    ..> there's nothing I can do to help you:
    ..
    ..I did read the article - I am not incredibly stupid and I did not miss
    ..your point(s) at all: some are valid for anyone who enjoys wilderness
    ..travel be it true backcountry or trail.

    AGAIN you missed the point: mountain biking causes MORE damage than hiking or
    horseback riding.

    I made no mention of the
    .."rotten personalities of mountain bikers" yet the implication of the
    ..title of your post which summarizes the "typical mountain biker" _does_
    ..indicate that, for you, the "typical mountain biker" has a personality
    ..that displays the use of a simple and vulgar phrase - you say that is
    ..the reaction of "hate mail" that you receive from "a typical mountain
    ..biker". You, not I, brought 'personalities' into my response: my only
    ..observation concerning personalities was that there are unpleasant
    ..people to be found everywhere regardless of their preferred method of
    ..transportation and that there are many who do far more harm than
    ..mountain bikers.

    That's irrelevant. Besides, it's easy to see that mountain bikers are much more
    belligerent than other people.

    ..> Please share the following paper with all appropriate and interested parties.
    ..> Please restrict bicycles and other vehicles to pavement, where they belong and
    ..> where they can't do much harm to wildlife. Mountain biking is a very
    ..> destructive
    ..> activity, and has no place in natural areas. Anyone who wants to visit nature
    ..> can already do so on foot (or via wheelchair). Mountain biking drives out all
    ..> other trail users. There is absolutely no reason to allow access by large
    ..> pieces of machinery, such as bicycles.
    ..
    ..I seldom share trails, period, as my main travel is on overgrown and
    ..neglected trails or, as I said, areas where "no one goes" during times
    ..that the sane do not travel. And yet, in one remote area on the IAT
    ..which is no longer maintained and where I understand I was the first to
    ..travel in over 2 years I did, in the distance, hear the sound of
    ..snowmobiles.

    So what? No one here is advocating snowmobiles.

    ..The county in which I live, in Northern Maine, is 80% wooded area and
    ..the outdoor economy relies much more on hunting, fishing, canoeing and
    ..kayaking than the more accessible and snow filled areas to the south
    ..and north. I have learned to live with the roar of ATV's, the roar of
    ..snowmobiles, the sounds of off-road vehicles in National Forests and
    ..paper company owned property 'reclaiming' mining and forest roads and
    ..have learned to live with it.

    Coward.

    In my mind if there are modes of
    ..transportation that do great harm to wilderness areas I would focus my
    ..attention much more on these motorized vehicles than on mountain bikes.

    Go ahead. But it sounds like you don't have the guts.

    ..In several great National Forests of the southeast US I have shared
    ..trails with both mountain bikers and those traveling by horse - the
    ..horse is not, as you term the mountain bike, a machine but I give wide
    ..berth to both yet believe that the horse, and not the behemoth machine
    ..of a mountain bike, does more 'harm' to the areas than the machines.

    Because you didn't factor in DISTANCE TRAVELLED! I guess you didn't understand
    my paper.

    ..But some people must have a crusade - yours is a crusade against
    ..mountain bikes (and those who ride them). Fine. Have at it. In reading
    ..what you have posted, however, it reads more of eco-knee-jerking than
    ..science.

    BS. How would you know?

    It's rather like building a backcountry fire - there is a time
    ..and a place for it and when it can be accomplished with little impact
    ..it is as comfortable now as it was to those in pre-historic times. If
    ..you've travelled much in Europe, as an example, you know how little
    ..wilderness is left and how fortunate we are in the U.S. to enjoy
    ..wilderness areas - my particular crusade is to preserve those lands and
    ..to add to those lands when possible (a great debate now rages in Maine
    ..- but that is a different matter). We enjoy the wilderness for
    ..different reasons, and we travel in different ways: in my mind while
    ..the mountain bike may have a slightly greater impact than Vibram soled
    ..boots, it's just not something that keeps me awake at night or disturbs
    ..me to the point where it would become my crusade or, as you did in your
    ..message, resort to saying that the response that you receive from "a
    ..typical mountain biker" concerning your 'research' and opinions is as
    ..simplistic and vulgar as that which you reproduced.

    I'm familiar with Projection.... So far you haven't said ONE THING the least bit
    scientific.
    ===
    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

  5. Mike Vandeman said:

    On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:31:45 -0600, manmoose <[email hidden]>


    Quoted message said:


    .In article <[email hidden]>, Mike


    Vandeman

    Quoted message said:

    .<[email hidden]> wrote:
    .
    .> Either you haven't read the articles on my web page, or you are


    incredibly

    Quoted message said:

    .> stupid, because you have managed to COMPLETELY miss the point. The


    reason for

    Quoted message said:

    .> banning bikes from natral areas has nothing to do with the rotten
    .> personalities of mountain bikers. Start here. If you can't


    understand this,

    Quoted message said:

    .> there's nothing I can do to help you:
    .
    .I did read the article - I am not incredibly stupid and I did not


    miss

    Quoted message said:

    .your point(s) at all: some are valid for anyone who enjoys


    wilderness

    Quoted message said:

    .travel be it true backcountry or trail.

    AGAIN you missed the point: mountain biking causes MORE damage than


    hiking or

    Quoted message said:

    horseback riding.

    That is false.

    Quoted message said:

    Because you didn't factor in DISTANCE TRAVELLED! I guess you didn't


    understand

    Quoted message said:

    my paper.

    Distance traveled is irrelevant. Time spent in an area is relevant.
    Hikers spend more time in a given area. Hikers disrupt wildlife
    far more than mountain bikers. Mountain bikers have sex with your wife.

  6. Mike Vandeman said:

    On 12 Feb 2005 16:08:01 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:

    .
    .Mike Vandeman wrote:
    .> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:31:45 -0600, manmoose <[email hidden]>
    .wrote:
    .>
    .> .In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
    .Vandeman
    .> .<[email hidden]> wrote:
    .> .
    .> .> Either you haven't read the articles on my web page, or you are
    .incredibly
    .> .> stupid, because you have managed to COMPLETELY miss the point.


    The

    Quoted message said:

    .reason for
    .> .> banning bikes from natral areas has nothing to do with the


    rotten

    Quoted message said:

    .> .> personalities of mountain bikers. Start here. If you can't
    .understand this,
    .> .> there's nothing I can do to help you:
    .> .
    .> .I did read the article - I am not incredibly stupid and I did not
    .miss
    .> .your point(s) at all: some are valid for anyone who enjoys
    .wilderness
    .> .travel be it true backcountry or trail.
    .>
    .> AGAIN you missed the point: mountain biking causes MORE damage


    than

    Quoted message said:

    .hiking or
    .> horseback riding.
    .
    .That is false.

    Conveniently, you offer ZERO evidence (hint: because you HAVE none!).

    You can't refute me.

    Quoted message said:


    .> Because you didn't factor in DISTANCE TRAVELLED! I guess you


    didn't

    Quoted message said:

    .understand
    .> my paper.
    .
    .Distance traveled is irrelevant.

    If a hiker and a biker both creates x erosion per mile, then the


    hiker creates x

    Quoted message said:

    times d (distance travelled) erosion, whereas the biker creates x


    times D (D is

    Quoted message said:

    much greater than d). QED You guys are SOOO easy!

    That does nothing to refute me.

    Quoted message said:


    Time spent in an area is relevant.
    .Hikers spend more time in a given area.

    Where's the EVIDENCE? (hint: there isn't any)

    You can't refute me.

    Quoted message said:


    Hikers disrupt wildlife
    .far more than mountain bikers.

    Where's the EVIDENCE? (hint: there isn't any)

    You can't refute me.

    Quoted message said:


    All your lies are refuted by:

    The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
    A Review of the Literature
    Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
    July 3, 2004

    False.

    Quoted message said:


    "Every recreationist -- whether hiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey


    sniffer --

    Quoted message said:

    Again you've missed the entire point of my post.

    If limp [censored] enviromentalist wacko leaves home then his spouse is
    visited
    by x number of mountain bikers during his absence. Hence y is greater
    than z (y being mountain biker penis, z being enviro limp [censored]) whereas
    the biker
    creats more pleasure,. QED she is SOOO easy.

  7. On 13 Feb 2005 02:03:47 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:

    ..
    ..Mike Vandeman wrote:
    ..> On 12 Feb 2005 16:08:01 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .
    ..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
    ..> .> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:31:45 -0600, manmoose <[email hidden]>
    ..> .wrote:
    ..> .>
    ..> .> .In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
    ..> .Vandeman
    ..> .> .<[email hidden]> wrote:
    ..> .> .
    ..> .> .> Either you haven't read the articles on my web page, or you are
    ..> .incredibly
    ..> .> .> stupid, because you have managed to COMPLETELY miss the point.
    ..The
    ..> .reason for
    ..> .> .> banning bikes from natral areas has nothing to do with the
    ..rotten
    ..> .> .> personalities of mountain bikers. Start here. If you can't
    ..> .understand this,
    ..> .> .> there's nothing I can do to help you:
    ..> .> .
    ..> .> .I did read the article - I am not incredibly stupid and I did not
    ..> .miss
    ..> .> .your point(s) at all: some are valid for anyone who enjoys
    ..> .wilderness
    ..> .> .travel be it true backcountry or trail.
    ..> .>
    ..> .> AGAIN you missed the point: mountain biking causes MORE damage
    ..than
    ..> .hiking or
    ..> .> horseback riding.
    ..> .
    ..> .That is false.
    ..>
    ..> Conveniently, you offer ZERO evidence (hint: because you HAVE none!).
    ..
    ..You can't refute me.
    ..
    ..>
    ..> .> Because you didn't factor in DISTANCE TRAVELLED! I guess you
    ..didn't
    ..> .understand
    ..> .> my paper.
    ..> .
    ..> .Distance traveled is irrelevant.
    ..>
    ..> If a hiker and a biker both creates x erosion per mile, then the
    ..hiker creates x
    ..> times d (distance travelled) erosion, whereas the biker creates x
    ..times D (D is
    ..> much greater than d). QED You guys are SOOO easy!
    ..
    ..That does nothing to refute me.
    ..
    ..>
    ..> Time spent in an area is relevant.
    ..> .Hikers spend more time in a given area.
    ..>
    ..> Where's the EVIDENCE? (hint: there isn't any)
    ..
    ..You can't refute me.
    ..
    ..>
    ..> Hikers disrupt wildlife
    ..> .far more than mountain bikers.
    ..>
    ..> Where's the EVIDENCE? (hint: there isn't any)
    ..
    ..You can't refute me.

    You are refuted by:
    Wisdom, M. J. ([email hidden]), Alan A. Ager ([email hidden] ), H. K.
    Preisler ([email hidden]), N. J. Cimon ([email hidden]), and B. K.
    Johnson ([email hidden]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and
    elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
    Conference 69, 2004, in press.

    ===
    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

  8. Mike Vandelism said:

    On 13 Feb 2005 02:03:47 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:

    .
    .Mike Vandeman wrote:
    .> On 12 Feb 2005 16:08:01 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:
    .>
    .> .
    .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
    .> .> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:31:45 -0600, manmoose


    <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    .> .wrote:
    .> .>
    .> .> .In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
    .> .Vandeman
    .> .> .<[email hidden]> wrote:
    .> .> .
    .> .> .> Either you haven't read the articles on my web page, or you


    are

    Quoted message said:

    .> .incredibly
    .> .> .> stupid, because you have managed to COMPLETELY miss the


    point.

    Quoted message said:

    .The
    .> .reason for
    .> .> .> banning bikes from natral areas has nothing to do with the
    .rotten
    .> .> .> personalities of mountain bikers. Start here. If you can't
    .> .understand this,
    .> .> .> there's nothing I can do to help you:
    .> .> .
    .> .> .I did read the article - I am not incredibly stupid and I did


    not

    Quoted message said:

    .> .miss
    .> .> .your point(s) at all: some are valid for anyone who enjoys
    .> .wilderness
    .> .> .travel be it true backcountry or trail.
    .> .>
    .> .> AGAIN you missed the point: mountain biking causes MORE damage
    .than
    .> .hiking or
    .> .> horseback riding.
    .> .
    .> .That is false.
    .>
    .> Conveniently, you offer ZERO evidence (hint: because you HAVE


    none!).

    Quoted message said:

    .
    .You can't refute me.
    .
    .>
    .> .> Because you didn't factor in DISTANCE TRAVELLED! I guess you
    .didn't
    .> .understand
    .> .> my paper.
    .> .
    .> .Distance traveled is irrelevant.
    .>
    .> If a hiker and a biker both creates x erosion per mile, then the
    .hiker creates x
    .> times d (distance travelled) erosion, whereas the biker creates x
    .times D (D is
    .> much greater than d). QED You guys are SOOO easy!
    .
    .That does nothing to refute me.
    .
    .>
    .> Time spent in an area is relevant.
    .> .Hikers spend more time in a given area.
    .>
    .> Where's the EVIDENCE? (hint: there isn't any)
    .
    .You can't refute me.
    .
    .>
    .> Hikers disrupt wildlife
    .> .far more than mountain bikers.
    .>
    .> Where's the EVIDENCE? (hint: there isn't any)
    .
    .You can't refute me.

    You are refuted by:
    Wisdom, M. J. ([email hidden]), Alan A. Ager ([email hidden] ),


    H. K.

    Quoted message said:

    Preisler ([email hidden]), N. J. Cimon ([email hidden]), and


    B. K.

    Quoted message said:

    Johnson ([email hidden]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule


    deer and

    Quoted message said:

    elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural


    Resources

    Quoted message said:

    Conference 69, 2004, in press.

    They have refuted nothing I posted. YOU cannot refute me.

    Better check your wife for tire marks on her back.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.