Re: Proof that MOST Mountain Bikers Break the Law

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ngM5g.8025$B42.6268@dukeread05...
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions and
>old
>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not offending
the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them are
nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports which
show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to be...?

Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as Vandeman.
Are you cousins?

Quoted message said:

Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out
for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of what
nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to do is
to f*** nature.

Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of others.
"After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis in comparison
or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of riding a bicycle
and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your scope of experience.

Quoted message said:

Trail cyclists think a natural area is there for them to have some fun,
never dreaming it might have greater import than that. Cyclists who want
to use natural areas for their fun and games should be rounded up and
dumped on the shores of Daytona where they could cycle on the beach there
with all the automobiles and trucks. After all, their mentality is the
same. Birds of a feather should flock together.

Actually, the intent has never been to take bicycles into every area. The
intent has always been on allowing bicycles in designated multi-use areas.
Of course there are places not suitable for the bicycle, the kayak or the
hunter. Your (and Vandeman's) opinions of cyclists motives are meaningless.

Quoted message said:

Cyclists do not belong in natural areas of great beauty since they are
unable to respond to anything but their freaking fun and games. The kind
of mentality they bring to the wilderness is all wrong. They would be
better off to just go to freaking Disney World!

Again... You attempt to place yourself into a position of authority as to
what motivates someone else. Your claim of why someone chooses to ride a
bicycle off-road is meaningless as it only states your opinion from a point
of view outside the cyclists' frame of reference

Quoted message said:

Ideally, areas of great natural beauty should be reserved strictly for
walkers (hikers). It is only by walking that you transcend yourself and
gain some insight into the world of the eternal verities.

The kind of mentality you bring to the wilderness is all wrong. You would be
better off to just go to Church! Then you can park your happy ass in a
Church pew to transcend yourself and gain that insight into eternal veritis
that you are after.

Quoted message said:

Regards,

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

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pmq6g.8472$B42.5347@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ngM5g.8025$B42.6268@dukeread05...
[...]

Quoted message said:

> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>and old
>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them
are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports
which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
be...?

Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
Vandeman. Are you cousins?

I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
and other mountain resorts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out
for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of
what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to
do is to f*** nature.

Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of others.
"After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis in
comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
scope of experience.

I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt. Then
and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of why he is
where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he can see is
what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially appreciating
nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle course. What
total and sheer idiocy!

I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was. I
end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down the
damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on anything
but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say that?
[...]

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

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Newsgroups restored.

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 4 May 2006 03:48:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ngM5g.8025$B42.6268@dukeread05...
[...]

Quoted message said:

Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
you
report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time and
universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
recognition
of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic effects on
the
losses from other trail users would have been enough for the agencies
involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are recognizing the
cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the information,
definitions
and opinions you cling to and insist upon have either been proven false
or
no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and your opinions have been left
behind.

Quoted message said:

> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>and
>>old
>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
that
manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not offending the
users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them are nothing
but
slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports which show things
are not as bad as we all know them to be.

Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.

I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).

I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
bikes which are inanimate objects.

Quoted message said:

They need to have special trails

Quoted message said:

constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.

They already have them: they are called "roads".

Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of what
nature
is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to do is to
f***
nature.

Trail cyclists think a natural area is there for them to have some fun,
never dreaming it might have greater import than that. Cyclists who want
to
use natural areas for their fun and games should be rounded up and dumped
on
the shores of Daytona where they could cycle on the beach there with all
the
automobiles and trucks. After all, their mentality is the same. Birds of a
feather should flock together.

Cyclists do not belong in natural areas of great beauty since they are
unable to respond to anything but their freaking fun and games. The kind
of
mentality they bring to the wilderness is all wrong. They would be better
off to just go to freaking Disney World!

But they can't tell the difference! They thought they WERE in
Disneyland.

It all goes back to the mentality that you bring with you. You simply cannot
have the right mentality for nature when you are on a bike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ideally, areas of great natural beauty should be reserved strictly for
walkers (hikers). It is only by walking that you transcend yourself and
gain
some insight into the world of the eternal verities.

Well said. But there's no need to exclude cyclists (without their
bikes), because they are too LAZY to walk. That's why they insist on
biking everywhere -- where they don't belong.

You and I are in solid agreement on this much at least.

Regards,

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

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:lIq6g.8477$B42.1964@dukeread05...

Newsgroups restored.

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Quoted message said:

So... you can not respond to direct inquiry. Instead, you correspond with
another like-minded nutjob on the phrasing of comments and agreeing on
supposition and opinion.

The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he have
two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he just in
love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his first name.

Quoted message said:

I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play tag
with another opinionated half-wit.

The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

Quoted message said:

So... again.

Please, not again!

Quoted message said:

Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions you
report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time and
universally represented the cycling community, the growth and recognition
of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic effects on the
losses from other trail users would have been enough for the agencies
involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are recognizing the
cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the information, definitions
and opinions you cling to and insist upon have either been proven false or
no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and your opinions have been left
behind.

The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The only
economics they care about is the number of users, because that brings money
to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry, please?

Regards,

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

Hey Dolan.... Give it a rest! Show me a badge. Show me some authority.
I'll post where I chose and don't need some nut with a self-written
proclamation to quote netiquette.
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So... you can not respond to direct inquiry. Instead, you correspond
with another like-minded nutjob on the phrasing of comments and agreeing
on supposition and opinion.

The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he
have two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he
just in love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his first
name.

Wow - character assasination...? Just like your pal Vandeman... But a
quick search of Google groups "dolan" comes up with a lot of the same in the
recumbents ng. Seems anybody who takes the time to challenge Dolan and his
claims of greatness gets some mud thrown at them. Since I ride a bicycle on
trails, a little mud should be no problem. WTF...? What has my name have to
do with the price of suspension forks in West Virginia?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play tag
with another opinionated half-wit.

The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

Wow... Your opinion is sharp as a condom.... Perhaps you should start
wearing them on your head... After all, you might as well dress like you
act.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So... again.

Please, not again!

Quoted message said:

Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
you report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time
and universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
recognition of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic
effects on the losses from other trail users would have been enough for
the agencies involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are
recognizing the cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the
information, definitions and opinions you cling to and insist upon have
either been proven false or no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and
your opinions have been left behind.

The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The
only economics they care about is the number of users, because that brings
money to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry, please?

Right... and if the other users were not coming because of the cyclists
then these agencies would have put more restrictions on cycling access.
Since the cooperation and access continues, the claim of other users being
driven away is unfounded. Since the only economics they care about is the
number of users, and the users of all types continue to come, then off-road
cyclists have not had the detrimental effects Vandeman has claimed. Case
proven. The end.

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>>and old
>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of
them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue
reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
be...?

Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
Vandeman. Are you cousins?

I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
and other mountain resorts.

And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too... What
is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants in
each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike" like
a girl finding a spider means nothing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
like to do is to f*** nature.

Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
scope of experience.

I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle
course. What total and sheer idiocy!

Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
instrument? Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the natural
surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

Quoted message said:

I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was.
I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down
the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say
that?

Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MFT6g.50835$k%3.18111@dukeread12...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>>>and old
>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
>
> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical
> slob trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The
> agencies that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of
> not offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority
> of them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to
> issue reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to
> be.

majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
be...?

Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
Vandeman. Are you cousins?

I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
and other mountain resorts.

And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too... What
is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
in each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
like a girl finding a spider means nothing.

Perceptions are everything in this world of woe. Facts are elusive to say
the least and, as everyone knows, statistics lie all the time. You probably
believe in polls too!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
> out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
> of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
> like to do is to f*** nature.

Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
scope of experience.

I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some
obstacle course. What total and sheer idiocy!

Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
instrument? Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
natural surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking.
The mere fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

Yes, just as I thought. Mountain biking is nothing but running an obstacle
course. Such shenanigans have no place in the wilderness. Another very
disgusting sight I have seen around Aspen are runners out running on the
mountain trails. Again, an inappropriate use of a natural resource.

What make you think a musician has much interaction with the audience? He is
only aware of the audience when the music stops and he is getting some
applause.

By the way, I am a cyclist and have been one for the past 30 years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that
was. I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and
down the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already
say that?

Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?

I am Joe Average when it comes to cycling. If I can't do it, then no one
should do it. You are behaving like a teenage clown. I can assure you that
all true walkers in the wilderness hate the sight of you when they encounter
you on your bike on their sacred footpaths. You are committing sacrilege and
not even aware of what you are doing.

Regards,

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

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ApT6g.50833$k%3.21331@dukeread12...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Quoted message said:

Hey Dolan.... Give it a rest! Show me a badge. Show me some authority.
I'll post where I chose and don't need some nut with a self-written
proclamation to quote netiquette.
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So... you can not respond to direct inquiry. Instead, you correspond
with another like-minded nutjob on the phrasing of comments and agreeing
on supposition and opinion.

The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he
have two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he
just in love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his
first name.

Wow - character assasination...? Just like your pal Vandeman...

I have noticed most of the name calling coming from you, not him.

But a

Quoted message said:

quick search of Google groups "dolan" comes up with a lot of the same in
the recumbents ng. Seems anybody who takes the time to challenge Dolan and
his claims of greatness gets some mud thrown at them. Since I ride a
bicycle on trails, a little mud should be no problem. WTF...? What has my
name have to do with the price of suspension forks in West Virginia?

I don't much like folks who fool around with their real names. They seem
like fools to me. However, if your name is really spelled with two s', then
you need to explain how that came to be. However, let me tell you what I
really don't like at all and that is folks who only have a user name, never
ever revealing their real name. You don't seem to fall into that category,
so you have passed a very critical test with the Great One.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play tag
with another opinionated half-wit.

The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

Wow... Your opinion is sharp as a condom.... Perhaps you should start
wearing them on your head... After all, you might as well dress like you
act.

Careful! You are now getting into the arena of sexual allusions and this is
likely to arouse Saint Edward the Great. Trust me on this, you do not want
to make HIS acquaintance. Ed Dolan the Great is a mouse compared to HIM!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So... again.

Please, not again!

Quoted message said:

Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
you report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time
and universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
recognition of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic
effects on the losses from other trail users would have been enough for
the agencies involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are
recognizing the cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the
information, definitions and opinions you cling to and insist upon have
either been proven false or no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and
your opinions have been left behind.

The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The
only economics they care about is the number of users, because that
brings money to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry, please?

Right... and if the other users were not coming because of the cyclists
then these agencies would have put more restrictions on cycling access.
Since the cooperation and access continues, the claim of other users being
driven away is unfounded. Since the only economics they care about is the
number of users, and the users of all types continue to come, then
off-road cyclists have not had the detrimental effects Vandeman has
claimed. Case proven. The end.

There are all kinds of conflicts going on between users under the surface.
The agencies are only concerned with the bottom line. As long as they are
not being deserted by one and all, they will continue to do business as
usual.

Bikers do not mind hikers, but hikers do mind bikers. So what? Exactly so!

Regards,

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

On Fri, 5 May 2006 15:59:58 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pmq6g.8472$B42.5347@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ngM5g.8025$B42.6268@dukeread05...
[...]
>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>>and old
>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them
are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports
which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
be...?

Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
Vandeman. Are you cousins?

I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
and other mountain resorts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out
for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of
what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to
do is to f*** nature.

Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of others.
"After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis in
comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
scope of experience.

I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt. Then
and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of why he is
where he is in the first place.

That's easy to prove: just watch any mountain biking video. They
hardly ever stop, and they move so fast that it's impossible for them
to appreciate ANYTHING. Just go to
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/links and search for "video".

While riding his bike, all he can see is

Quoted message said:

what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially appreciating
nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle course. What
total and sheer idiocy!

I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was. I
end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down the
damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on anything
but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say that?

Me, too. I felt rattled to death. It was impossible to pay attention
to anything but controlling the bike.

Quoted message said:

[...]

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

S Curtiss said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>>>and old
>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
>
> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
> trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
> that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
> offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of
> them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue
> reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
be...?

Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
Vandeman. Are you cousins?

I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
and other mountain resorts.

And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.

All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
science.

... What

Quoted message said:

is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants in
each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike" like
a girl finding a spider means nothing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
> out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
> of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
> like to do is to f*** nature.

Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
scope of experience.

I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle
course. What total and sheer idiocy!

Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
instrument?

Try it while riding a bike, then talk. A musician isn't going to crash
if he misses a note.

Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and

Quoted message said:

chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the natural
surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

Your primary skill is LYING.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was.
I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down
the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say
that?

Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?

===
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

On Fri, 5 May 2006 22:38:53 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MFT6g.50835$k%3.18111@dukeread12...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>>>>and old
>>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
>>
>> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical
>> slob trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The
>> agencies that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of
>> not offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority
>> of them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to
>> issue reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to
>> be.
>
>
> majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
> be...?
>
> Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
> Vandeman. Are you cousins?

I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
and other mountain resorts.

And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too... What
is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
in each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
like a girl finding a spider means nothing.

Perceptions are everything in this world of woe. Facts are elusive to say
the least and, as everyone knows, statistics lie all the time. You probably
believe in polls too!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
>> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
>> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
>> out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
>> of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
>> like to do is to f*** nature.
>
> Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
> attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
> others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
> out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
> in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
> riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
> scope of experience.

I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some
obstacle course. What total and sheer idiocy!

Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
instrument? Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
natural surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking.
The mere fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

Yes, just as I thought. Mountain biking is nothing but running an obstacle
course. Such shenanigans have no place in the wilderness. Another very
disgusting sight I have seen around Aspen are runners out running on the
mountain trails. Again, an inappropriate use of a natural resource.

What make you think a musician has much interaction with the audience? He is
only aware of the audience when the music stops and he is getting some
applause.

By the way, I am a cyclist and have been one for the past 30 years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that
was. I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and
down the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already
say that?

Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?

I am Joe Average when it comes to cycling. If I can't do it, then no one
should do it. You are behaving like a teenage clown. I can assure you that
all true walkers in the wilderness hate the sight of you when they encounter
you on your bike on their sacred footpaths. You are committing sacrilege and
not even aware of what you are doing.

Careful, you are way over his head. Try to stick to words of one
syl-la-ble. 🙂

Quoted message said:

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

On Fri, 5 May 2006 18:36:53 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Newsgroups restored.

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 4 May 2006 03:48:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ngM5g.8025$B42.6268@dukeread05...
[...]
> Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
> access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
> you
> report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time and
> universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
> recognition
> of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic effects on
> the
> losses from other trail users would have been enough for the agencies
> involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are recognizing the
> cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the information,
> definitions
> and opinions you cling to and insist upon have either been proven false
> or
> no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and your opinions have been left
> behind.

>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
>>>and
>>>old
>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
that
manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not offending the
users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them are nothing
but
slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports which show things
are not as bad as we all know them to be.

Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.

I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).

I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
bikes which are inanimate objects.

Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
basis of personality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They need to have special trails

Quoted message said:

constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.

They already have them: they are called "roads".

Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.

You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
habitat impacts go.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of what
nature
is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to do is to
f***
nature.

Trail cyclists think a natural area is there for them to have some fun,
never dreaming it might have greater import than that. Cyclists who want
to
use natural areas for their fun and games should be rounded up and dumped
on
the shores of Daytona where they could cycle on the beach there with all
the
automobiles and trucks. After all, their mentality is the same. Birds of a
feather should flock together.

Cyclists do not belong in natural areas of great beauty since they are
unable to respond to anything but their freaking fun and games. The kind
of
mentality they bring to the wilderness is all wrong. They would be better
off to just go to freaking Disney World!

But they can't tell the difference! They thought they WERE in
Disneyland.

It all goes back to the mentality that you bring with you. You simply cannot
have the right mentality for nature when you are on a bike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ideally, areas of great natural beauty should be reserved strictly for
walkers (hikers). It is only by walking that you transcend yourself and
gain
some insight into the world of the eternal verities.

Well said. But there's no need to exclude cyclists (without their
bikes), because they are too LAZY to walk. That's why they insist on
biking everywhere -- where they don't belong.

You and I are in solid agreement on this much at least.

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

Hey! Look! I'm posting on TOP of E Dolan! Woo-Hoo!
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ApT6g.50833$k%3.21331@dukeread12...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Quoted message said:

Hey Dolan.... Give it a rest! Show me a badge. Show me some authority.
I'll post where I chose and don't need some nut with a self-written
proclamation to quote netiquette.

Quoted message said:

The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he
have two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he
just in love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his
first name.

Wow - character assasination...? Just like your pal Vandeman...

I have noticed most of the name calling coming from you, not him.

Apparently, you have not taken the time to research Vandeman or his posting
methods. I suggest Google group search "vandeman".

Quoted message said:

But a

Quoted message said:

quick search of Google groups "dolan" comes up with a lot of the same in
the recumbents ng. Seems anybody who takes the time to challenge Dolan
and his claims of greatness gets some mud thrown at them. Since I ride a
bicycle on trails, a little mud should be no problem. WTF...? What has my
name have to do with the price of suspension forks in West Virginia?

I don't much like folks who fool around with their real names. They seem
like fools to me. However, if your name is really spelled with two s',
then you need to explain how that came to be. However, let me tell you
what I really don't like at all and that is folks who only have a user
name, never ever revealing their real name. You don't seem to fall into
that category, so you have passed a very critical test with the Great One.

I have to explain nothing. My name is what it is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
> challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play
> tag with another opinionated half-wit.

The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

Wow... Your opinion is sharp as a condom.... Perhaps you should start
wearing them on your head... After all, you might as well dress like you
act.

Careful! You are now getting into the arena of sexual allusions and this
is likely to arouse Saint Edward the Great. Trust me on this, you do not
want to make HIS acquaintance. Ed Dolan the Great is a mouse compared to
HIM!

Wow... a schizophrenic threat! That's a new one!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So... again.

Please, not again!

> Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
> access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
> you report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over
> time and universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
> recognition of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic
> effects on the losses from other trail users would have been enough for
> the agencies involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are
> recognizing the cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the
> information, definitions and opinions you cling to and insist upon have
> either been proven false or no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and
> your opinions have been left behind.

The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The
only economics they care about is the number of users, because that
brings money to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry,
please?

Right... and if the other users were not coming because of the cyclists
then these agencies would have put more restrictions on cycling access.
Since the cooperation and access continues, the claim of other users
being driven away is unfounded. Since the only economics they care about
is the number of users, and the users of all types continue to come, then
off-road cyclists have not had the detrimental effects Vandeman has
claimed. Case proven. The end.

There are all kinds of conflicts going on between users under the surface.
The agencies are only concerned with the bottom line. As long as they are
not being deserted by one and all, they will continue to do business as
usual.

Perhaps that explains why it is more important for the user groups to keep
communication open and cooperation a priority.

Quoted message said:

Bikers do not mind hikers, but hikers do mind bikers. So what? Exactly so!

Generalizations and opinions.

">>>>Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).

I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
bikes which are inanimate objects.

Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
basis of personality.

Google group search "vandeman" has years of this discussion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They need to have special trails
>constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.

They already have them: they are called "roads".

Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.

You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
habitat impacts go.

Google group search "vandeman" has this discussion repeated over years also.

Quoted message said:

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around
Aspen
and other mountain resorts.

And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.

All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
science.

Actually - You have it backwards. Observation leads to facts. A fact is
determined by repeated process and observation. An observation is not a
FACT. It is merely part of the process of determining a fact.
But someone who insists on their own definitions and opinions as the only
ones applicable can hardly claim scientific support.

Quoted message said:

.. What

Quoted message said:

is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
in
each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
like
a girl finding a spider means nothing.

Quoted message said:

Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and

Quoted message said:

chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
natural
surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

Your primary skill is LYING.

Opinion. Expressing it may be your primary skill.

Quoted message said:

S Curtiss said:

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!68.1.17.232.MISMATCH!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!p01!dukeread12.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
References: <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <kir5g.7791$B42.5845@dukeread05> <[email hidden]> <ngM5g.8025$B42.6268@dukeread05> <[email hidden]> <pmq6g.8472$B42.5347@dukeread05> <[email hidden]> <MFT6g.50835$k%3.18111@dukeread12> <[email hidden]>
Subject: Re: Proof that MOST Mountain Bikers Break the Law
Lines: 39
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <d4m7g.50906$k%3.39887@dukeread12>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 08:52:17 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.252.132.219
X-Complaints-To: [email hidden]
X-Trace: dukeread12 1147006345 24.252.132.219 (Sun, 07 May 2006 08:52:25 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 08:52:25 EDT
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: prodigy.net alt.mountain-bike:503401 rec.bicycles.soc:163742 rec.backcountry:444056 ca.environment:50809 sci.environment:556588 alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent:225063

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around
> Aspen
> and other mountain resorts.
And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.

All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
science.

Actually - You have it backwards. Observation leads to facts. A fact is
determined by repeated process and observation. An observation is not a
FACT.

So if I observe a mountain biker speeding, running over an animal,
creating a rut, skidding, or running into a hiker, it didn't really
happen? You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper in your morass
of lies. I've observed you lie so often, it must be a FACT, right?

It is merely part of the process of determining a fact.

Quoted message said:

But someone who insists on their own definitions and opinions as the only
ones applicable can hardly claim scientific support.

Quoted message said:

.. What

Quoted message said:

is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
in
each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
like
a girl finding a spider means nothing.
>

Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and

Quoted message said:

chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
natural
surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

Your primary skill is LYING.

Opinion. Expressing it may be your primary skill.

BS. When I OBSERVE you lying, that's all the evidence I need. Like the
lie above: "An observation is not a FACT". You are a LIAR. And when
it's repeated, you are an incorrigible liar.
===
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

S Curtiss said:

">>>>Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
> everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).

I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
bikes which are inanimate objects.

Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
basis of personality.

Google group search "vandeman" has years of this discussion.

And still right on the money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They need to have special trails
>>constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.
>
> They already have them: they are called "roads".

Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.

You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
habitat impacts go.

Google group search "vandeman" has this discussion repeated over years also.

And still right on the money.
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.

All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
science.

Actually - You have it backwards. Observation leads to facts. A fact is
determined by repeated process and observation. An observation is not a
FACT.

So if I observe a mountain biker speeding, running over an animal,
creating a rut, skidding, or running into a hiker, it didn't really
happen? You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper in your morass
of lies. I've observed you lie so often, it must be a FACT, right?

I have observed hikers leave garbage, go off trail, remove plants, and
create deep footprints in soft terrain....
Are these observations factual? Of course. Can I extrapolate that all
persons engaging in the activity of hiking will behave this way? No.
You make assumptions based on your "observations" which are already tainted
because you expect to find adverse evidence and you expect it to be caused
by cyclists. Your witness of poor behavior is not an indicator of behavior
by everyone. In your eyes, every mountain biker is doing harm. Therefore,
the mere presence represents poor behavior. Your observation is tainted to
begin with.

Quoted message said:

It is merely part of the process of determining a fact.

Quoted message said:

But someone who insists on their own definitions and opinions as the only
ones applicable can hardly claim scientific support.

Quoted message said:

.. What
>is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
>across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many
>participants
>in
>each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
>like
>a girl finding a spider means nothing.
>>

Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
>chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the
>degree
>of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
>Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
>natural
>surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The
>mere
>fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

Your primary skill is LYING.

Opinion. Expressing it may be your primary skill.

BS. When I OBSERVE you lying, that's all the evidence I need. Like the
lie above: "An observation is not a FACT". You are a LIAR. And when
it's repeated, you are an incorrigible liar.

You have yet to prove a lie on my part. Go for it. Google Group search and
find an instance of a lie on my part.
I disagree with your opinion. (disagreement is not a lie) I challenge your
status as an authority (challenge is not a lie) I make statements based on
my point of view and assimilated information (my expression of an opinion is
not a lie).
So... please.... Find a lie on my part. An actual, real presentation of
false information. Not merely a statement that goes against your opinion.

Quoted message said:

===
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

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

S Curtiss said:

Quoted message said:

Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
basis of personality.

Google group search "vandeman" has years of this discussion.

And still right on the money.

Monopoly money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
habitat impacts go.

Google group search "vandeman" has this discussion repeated over years
also.

And still right on the money.

Monopoly money

Quoted message said:

===