Re: How do you get to the trail?

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

Quoted message said:

It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had

in

Quoted message said:

the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and everything else.

It is only NOT fun to you, Mike. everybody else, apparently, likes it.
Everybody else is capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You say .occasionally that you bike on the road, but I get the
impression that you .see it as purely an alternative form of
transportation, and not as .something "fun" to do.

It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
had in the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and
everything else.

Note, I said biking on PAVEMENT/ROAD. So from this I gather that you hate
any form of riding a bicycle...anywhere?

Quoted message said:

I guess you guys feel you need to mountain bike precisely BECAUSE you
are incapable of enjoying anything else

We already know what you think of mountain biking. All I asked you is what
do you find fun. It's a simple question.

"Brett Jaffee" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

We already know what you think of mountain biking. All I asked you is

what

Quoted message said:

do you find fun. It's a simple question.

[censored]/ranting/berating on usenet is his 'fun'

It *must* be fun for him, beause he spends so much time doing it.

Pete

On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:

..On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
..> MV blathers:
..>
..>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had in
..>>the outdoors.
..>
..> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's great
..> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must we all
..> conform to the party line?
..
..In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
..(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
..Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
..
..Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
..his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
..went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
..about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...

No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
===
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 Wed, 12 May 2004 13:47:04 GMT, "TM" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> .
..> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
..>
..> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
..>
..
..Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
..post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
..mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
..document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
..decision making.
..
..I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.

That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone lying
through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker. They are used to lying, as you
obviously are.
===
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:

On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> MV blathers:
.>
.>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever

had in

Quoted message said:

.>>the outdoors.
.>
.> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's

great

Quoted message said:

.> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must

we all

Quoted message said:

.> conform to the party line?
.
.In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.
.Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...

No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
environmental rapists like that kind of thing.

There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
trail. But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody. Your
analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.

You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
completely unrelated argument.

For a PhD, you are sure one stupid idiot.

Mike Vandeman said:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 06:54:28 GMT, Brett Jaffee <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote in
.news:[email hidden]:
.
.> On Sun, 09 May 2004 03:22:35 GMT, Brett Jaffee
.> <[email hidden]> wrote:
.>
.> .Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote in
.> .news:[email hidden]:
.> .
.> .
.> .> Tell the truth. I know you dont want to hear that.
.> .
.> .So listening to your own voice and reading your own writings is your
.> only .source of fun? I wonder how "we" psychologists would
.> characterize that? .
.> .Seriously, what do you consider fun in life versus the so-called
.> "marketing .hype."
.>
.> Living. Without harming other people and wildlife. Something you know
.> nothing about.
.
.Chose anything fun Mike, beyond simple existance. Bike on the road, play
.basketball, watch cartoons, build sand castles, rollarblade, skateboard,
.play handball, swim, surf, go sailing, play soccer, build models, arrange
.flowers, work in your garden, redecorate other people's apartments, paint
.something, take pictures...there's pretty much an infinite number of fun
.things you can do in life.
.
.You hate mountain biking...fine, we all know that. But beyond that, my
.impression (or rather, the impression you put forth in this group) is that
.you cannot fathom why anyone would actually need to have fun. You say
.occasionally that you bike on the road, but I get the impression that you
.see it as purely an alternative form of transportation, and not as
.something "fun" to do.

It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had in
the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and everything else.

Your OPINION. You didn't like it. Irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

.If existance is the only true fun, well, I guess we're all victims of
."marketing hype." Well, everyone except you. Enjoy!

I guess you guys feel you need to mountain bike precisely BECAUSE you are
incapable of enjoying anything else, e.g. hiking. I can't see any other reason
why someone would risk their life doing something that is no fun at all.

Smart people KNOW that every aspect of life is fun, and has been for the 6 (?)
million years humans have been around.

Smart people know there are zealots, elitists and fools. Fortunately, they are
easily discounted by the truly intelligent. The ONLY reason you are given the
attention you get is so we can discount you before others who are less
knowledgeable on this topic are persuaded by your OPINIONS.

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 said:

On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> MV blathers:
.>
.>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever had in
.>>the outdoors.
.>
.> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's great
.> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must we all
.> conform to the party line?
.
.In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.
.Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...

No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
environmental rapists like that kind of thing.

....like developers who build on virgin land when existing structures may fit the
needs perfectly. So now mt bikers are "environmental rapists"? Guess what is more
dangerous than mt biking; Trying to follow MV on these leaps of logic! If you don't
break your leg, at least you will strain your brain.

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 said:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:47:04 GMT, "TM" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> .
.> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
.>
.> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
.>
.
.Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
.post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
.mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
.document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
.decision making.
.
.I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.

That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone lying
through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker. They are used to lying, as you
obviously are.

"(I know that there are bikes with a so-called "suspension", but there is no way to
make
a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)" OPINION
"but having to continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
was impossible to
enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of nature" OPINION
In the opening "I rode only on fire roads". Yet later in the piece: "I saw the usual
damage -- bikes being ridden off-trail (e.g. east of the Abrigo Trail), trails
getting rutted or torn into powder, skid marks, and "moonscape" caused by the
presence of cows and bikes during wet conditions. Huge cracks cut through the
surface of the road, where upcoming rains would carry away large chunks of the road.
It is obvious that the erosion caused by bikes and cows will be extremely expensive
to repair, if it is even repairable (eroded and destroyed soil is not coming
back!)!"
Fire roads, by design, may have motor traffic. Jeeps, SUVS, forest equipment, etc.
Yet MV explains away ALL damage (as he calls it) by the presence of Mt Bikes.
(OK... Cows get some blame... but cows have enough trouble without throwing them
under the bus for MV...) Even his observations of this "fire road" are OPINION.
"I parked the bike at the east end of the Bear Creek Trail and hiked it and back,
looking for bike tracks (it is part of the tiny percentage of park trails off-limits
to bikes). Luckily, there were none." All mt bikers ride in posted areas...
except, apparently, in this case....
....and while on his hike "But I noticed that the feeling of ecstasy that I felt
while being in this wild area of the
park was present on none of the other trails." again... OPINION
"The hard part will be removing the huge network of roads (I know -- you call them
"trails"!), and the acres of exotic plants and animals, that prevent this
once-beautiful place from being what it so desperately wants and needs to be."
....so desperately wants and needs to be? What a bunch of "feel good" babble to throw
your emotion and desires onto the natural surroundings. It may well be a different
environment without the cows and trails. But to throw human traits onto other living
things is nothing more than a meaningless emotional statement. At least it isn't a
Wal-Mart and totally gone.

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

Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
ever had in the outdoors. It PREVENTED the enjoyment of nature and
everything else.

Your OPINION. You didn't like it. Irrelevant.

C'mon guys, you know you aren't going to convince him that mountain biking
is fun, even for other people. What's more interesting/disturbing is that
the whole concept of any kind of activity done for fun's sake seems alien
to him.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
..>
..> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
..> .> MV blathers:
..> .>
..> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
..had in
..> .>>the outdoors.
..> .>
..> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
..great
..> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
..we all
..> .> conform to the party line?
..> .
..> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
..> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
..> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
..> .
..> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
..> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
..> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
..> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
..>
..> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
..> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
..
..There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
..trail.

Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?

But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
..to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.

BS. I never said anything about anyone else.

Your
..analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
..be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
..
..You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
..constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
..fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
..switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
..quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
..ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
..make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
..completely unrelated argument.

How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.

..For a PhD, you are sure one stupid idiot.
..

===
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 Wed, 12 May 2004 14:47:34 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:47:04 GMT, "TM" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> .
..> .> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
..> .>
..> .> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
..> .>
..> .
..> .Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
..> .post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
..> .mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
..> .document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
..> .decision making.
..> .
..> .I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.
..>
..> That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone lying
..> through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
..> pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker. They are used to lying, as you
..> obviously are.
..
.."(I know that there are bikes with a so-called "suspension", but there is no way to
..make
..a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)" OPINION
.."but having to continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
..was impossible to
..enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of nature" OPINION
..In the opening "I rode only on fire roads". Yet later in the piece: "I saw the usual
..damage -- bikes being ridden off-trail (e.g. east of the Abrigo Trail), trails
..getting rutted or torn into powder, skid marks, and "moonscape" caused by the
..presence of cows and bikes during wet conditions. Huge cracks cut through the
..surface of the road, where upcoming rains would carry away large chunks of the road.
..It is obvious that the erosion caused by bikes and cows will be extremely expensive
..to repair, if it is even repairable (eroded and destroyed soil is not coming
..back!)!"
..Fire roads, by design, may have motor traffic. Jeeps, SUVS, forest equipment, etc.
..Yet MV explains away ALL damage (as he calls it) by the presence of Mt Bikes.
..(OK... Cows get some blame... but cows have enough trouble without throwing them
..under the bus for MV...) Even his observations of this "fire road" are OPINION.
.."I parked the bike at the east end of the Bear Creek Trail and hiked it and back,
..looking for bike tracks (it is part of the tiny percentage of park trails off-limits
..to bikes). Luckily, there were none." All mt bikers ride in posted areas...
..except, apparently, in this case....
.....and while on his hike "But I noticed that the feeling of ecstasy that I felt
..while being in this wild area of the
..park was present on none of the other trails." again... OPINION
.."The hard part will be removing the huge network of roads (I know -- you call them
.."trails"!), and the acres of exotic plants and animals, that prevent this
..once-beautiful place from being what it so desperately wants and needs to be."
.....so desperately wants and needs to be? What a bunch of "feel good" babble to throw
..your emotion and desires onto the natural surroundings. It may well be a different
..environment without the cows and trails. But to throw human traits onto other living
..things is nothing more than a meaningless emotional statement. At least it isn't a
..Wal-Mart and totally gone.

That says it all about mountan bikers' destruction of nature: "At least it isn't
a Wal-Mart and totally gone." You are SICK.
===
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 said:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 14:47:34 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:47:04 GMT, "TM" <[email hidden]> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> .news:[email hidden]...
.> .> .
.> .> .The shame of it all is that he never posted a ride report!
.> .>
.> .> Yes I did, liar: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm.
.> .>
.> .
.> .Well, there is a difference in operational definition. I was hoping you'd
.> .post a ride report similar to the ones more common in the newsgroup. To my
.> .mind, your ride report is what I would classify as a persuasive letter - a
.> .document addressed to policy makers hoping to influence their future
.> .decision making.
.> .
.> .I was hoping you would post a real ride report, that's all.
.>
.> That IS a real (truthful) ride report. If you want a puff piece -- someone lying
.> through their teeth about mountain biking, pretending it's a fun, harmless
.> pasttime, you'll have to ask a mountain biker. They are used to lying, as you
.> obviously are.
.
."(I know that there are bikes with a so-called "suspension", but there is no way to
.make
.a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)" OPINION
."but having to continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
.was impossible to
.enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of nature" OPINION
.In the opening "I rode only on fire roads". Yet later in the piece: "I saw the usual
.damage -- bikes being ridden off-trail (e.g. east of the Abrigo Trail), trails
.getting rutted or torn into powder, skid marks, and "moonscape" caused by the
.presence of cows and bikes during wet conditions. Huge cracks cut through the
.surface of the road, where upcoming rains would carry away large chunks of the road.
.It is obvious that the erosion caused by bikes and cows will be extremely expensive
.to repair, if it is even repairable (eroded and destroyed soil is not coming
.back!)!"
.Fire roads, by design, may have motor traffic. Jeeps, SUVS, forest equipment, etc.
.Yet MV explains away ALL damage (as he calls it) by the presence of Mt Bikes.
.(OK... Cows get some blame... but cows have enough trouble without throwing them
.under the bus for MV...) Even his observations of this "fire road" are OPINION.
."I parked the bike at the east end of the Bear Creek Trail and hiked it and back,
.looking for bike tracks (it is part of the tiny percentage of park trails off-limits
.to bikes). Luckily, there were none." All mt bikers ride in posted areas...
.except, apparently, in this case....
....and while on his hike "But I noticed that the feeling of ecstasy that I felt
.while being in this wild area of the
.park was present on none of the other trails." again... OPINION
."The hard part will be removing the huge network of roads (I know -- you call them
."trails"!), and the acres of exotic plants and animals, that prevent this
.once-beautiful place from being what it so desperately wants and needs to be."
....so desperately wants and needs to be? What a bunch of "feel good" babble to throw
.your emotion and desires onto the natural surroundings. It may well be a different
.environment without the cows and trails. But to throw human traits onto other living
.things is nothing more than a meaningless emotional statement. At least it isn't a
.Wal-Mart and totally gone.

That says it all about mountan bikers' destruction of nature: "At least it isn't
a Wal-Mart and totally gone." You are SICK.

If by "sick" you mean I am upset that unneeded construction expands outward from
populated centers on a daily basis while you are consumed with a personal vendetta
against bicycles in the woods... then I accept your definition.

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:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
.>
.> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> .> MV blathers:
.> .>
.> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I

ever

Quoted message said:

.had in
.> .>>the outdoors.
.> .>
.> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think

it's

Quoted message said:

.great
.> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or

must

Quoted message said:

.we all
.> .> conform to the party line?
.> .
.> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.> .
.> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he

took

Quoted message said:

.> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He

obviously

Quoted message said:

.> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.>
.> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature?

Only

Quoted message said:

.> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
.
.There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike

on a

Quoted message said:

.trail.

Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals &

plants?

Quoted message said:

It's easy.

Quoted message said:

But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
.to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.

BS. I never said anything about anyone else.

That is correct, you never SAID anything about anybody else, you INFERRED
that your experience should be extrapolated out to everybody else. You said
(I'll paraphrase here) that you are a baby, and inferred that we shoujld all
also be babies. We are not, thought clearly you are.

Quoted message said:

Your
.analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should

also

Quoted message said:

.be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
.
.You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
.constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
.fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
.switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
.quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant

time I

Quoted message said:

.ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
.make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with

another

Quoted message said:

.completely unrelated argument.

How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.

I can't refute YOUR experience, I can only refute your tendency to apply
that experience to anybody else, much less everybody else. Your experience
is just that, your experience. You had an unpleasant time, fine. It is
inappropriate to insist that everybody else also have an unpleasant time
when clearly they have a wonderful time more often than not.

Quoted message said:

.For a PhD, you are sure one stupid idiot.
.

Interesting that you do not refute the assertion that you are an idiot. I
will take this to mean that you agree that you are an idiot.

Mike Vandeman said:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
.>
.> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> .> MV blathers:
.> .>
.> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
.had in
.> .>>the outdoors.
.> .>
.> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
.great
.> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
.we all
.> .> conform to the party line?
.> .
.> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.> .
.> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.>
.> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
.> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
.
.There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
.trail.

Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?

I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet. Stay on the trail and you don't hit
plants (duh). (*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
than hiking. You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
animals. People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas. The extra
presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
doesn't kill by the mere presence of it) is of no relevance. You say it is.
(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
consequence than the presence of any other large animal. Adding a bicycle under our
presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
ride without killing... your OPINION.

Quoted message said:

But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
.to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.

BS. I never said anything about anyone else.

Yes... you did.
"contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
fun at all!"
"...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
"So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"

Quoted message said:

Your
.analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
.be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
.
.You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
.constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
.fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
.switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
.quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
.ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
.make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
.completely unrelated argument.

How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.

Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
the thousands who ride off-road.

Quoted message said:

.For a PhD, you are sure one stupid idiot.
.

===
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, 14 May 2004 14:01:38 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
..> .> .> MV blathers:
..> .> .>
..> .> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
..> .had in
..> .> .>>the outdoors.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
..> .great
..> .> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
..> .we all
..> .> .> conform to the party line?
..> .> .
..> .> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
..> .> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
..> .> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
..> .> .
..> .> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
..> .> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
..> .> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
..> .> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
..> .>
..> .> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
..> .> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
..> .
..> .There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
..> .trail.
..>
..> Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?
..
..I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet.

How would you know? Don't forget that insects are also animals, and more animals
live in the soil.

Stay on the trail and you don't hit
..plants (duh).

Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
to grow in the trail.

(*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
..As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
..Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
..than hiking.

Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
FAR less control over what you run over.

You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
..people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
..animals.

So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
only to Africa.

.. People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.

BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.

The extra
..presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
..doesn't kill by the mere presence of it)

Yes, it does kill small animals & plants.

is of no relevance. You say it is.
..(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
..it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
..consequence than the presence of any other large animal.

BS. Read _Wildlife and Recreationists_. The presence of humans drives the
wildlife away.

Adding a bicycle under our
..presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
..ride without killing... your OPINION.

No, FACT.

..> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
..> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
..>
..> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
..
..Yes... you did.
.."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
..fun at all!"
.."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
.."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"

The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.

..>
..> Your
..> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
..> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
..> .
..> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
..> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
..> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
..> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
..> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
..> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
..> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
..> .completely unrelated argument.
..>
..> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
..
..Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
..the thousands who ride off-road.

My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.
===
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 said:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:01:38 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> .news:[email hidden]...
.> .> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> .> .> MV blathers:
.> .> .>
.> .> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
.> .had in
.> .> .>>the outdoors.
.> .> .>
.> .> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
.> .great
.> .> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
.> .we all
.> .> .> conform to the party line?
.> .> .
.> .> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.> .> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.> .> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.> .> .
.> .> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.> .> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.> .> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> .> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.> .>
.> .> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
.> .> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
.> .
.> .There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
.> .trail.
.>
.> Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?
.
.I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet.

How would you know? Don't forget that insects are also animals, and more animals
live in the soil.

Hiking, horseback, biking... all are equally "guilty" if you want to play that card.
Stop pointing at cyclists as greater than any other.

Quoted message said:

Stay on the trail and you don't hit
.plants (duh).

Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
to grow in the trail.

(See *) Hikers are more likely to go off trail. (My opinion... which has the same weight
as yours) Again... why do cyclists get the blame for crushing everything. If we all
ventured into the woods on foot, you would be upset because of too much foot traffic.
Traffic is traffic....

Quoted message said:

(*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
.As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
.Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
.than hiking.

Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
FAR less control over what you run over.

I have as much control where I go as a hiker. The distance on a dirt trail is irrelevant.
The trail has a beginning and an end. Hikers go the distance as often as cyclists do.
Especially in park systems where trails are not so long.

Quoted message said:

You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
.people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
.animals.

So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
only to Africa.

So now you are going to tell wildlife where it can and can not go....

Quoted message said:

. People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.

BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.

You are confused. The abuse of the environment (polution, expanded construction, waste,
etc) cause depletion of habitat and life. To confuse destructive activities man can do
with riding a bicycle on a trail is delusional.

Quoted message said:

The extra
.presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
.doesn't kill by the mere presence of it)

Yes, it does kill small animals & plants.

Your bias is showing... again.

Quoted message said:

is of no relevance. You say it is.
.(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
.it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
.consequence than the presence of any other large animal.

BS. Read _Wildlife and Recreationists_. The presence of humans drives the
wildlife away.

I would say it is not the mere presence of humans, but the repeated abusive presence of
humans. Construction and hunting have conditioned species to flee from our presence. Our
presence is not a hazard. How we choose to live with other creatures is the thing. We can
kill them (hunting and destroying there homeland) or we can share with them. While the
bicycle may, at times, expand our presence, that alone is not going to destroy them.

Quoted message said:

Adding a bicycle under our
.presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
.ride without killing... your OPINION.

No, FACT.

Then it is also a FACT that you kill whenever you venture into the woods on foot. Stop
transplanting your guilt of existence onto everybody else.

Quoted message said:

.> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
.> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
.>
.> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
.
.Yes... you did.
."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
.fun at all!"
."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"

The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.

The subject of a sentence is a noun, not a verb...

Quoted message said:

.>
.> Your
.> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
.> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
.> .
.> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
.> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
.> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
.> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
.> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
.> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
.> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
.> .completely unrelated argument.
.>
.> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
.
.Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
.the thousands who ride off-road.

My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.

But it does not carry any more case for argument than the experience of any one else. My
experience says I haven't caused the destruction you blame me (and other off-road
cyclists) for.

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

On Sun, 16 May 2004 05:40:21 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:01:38 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .
..> .> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .
..> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .> .> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
..> .> .> .> MV blathers:
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
..> .> .had in
..> .> .> .>>the outdoors.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
..> .> .great
..> .> .> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
..> .> .we all
..> .> .> .> conform to the party line?
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
..> .> .> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
..> .> .> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
..> .> .> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
..> .> .> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
..> .> .> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
..> .> .>
..> .> .> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
..> .> .> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
..> .> .
..> .> .There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
..> .> .trail.
..> .>
..> .> Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?
..> .
..> .I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet.
..>
..> How would you know? Don't forget that insects are also animals, and more animals
..> live in the soil.
..
..Hiking, horseback, biking... all are equally "guilty" if you want to play that card.
..Stop pointing at cyclists as greater than any other.

Nonsense. Hikers can avoid stepping on insects. Bikers cannot. They are going
too fast, and can't watch the trail that closely, or they will crash. There are
too few horses to matter.

..> Stay on the trail and you don't hit
..> .plants (duh).
..>
..> Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
..> to grow in the trail.
..
..(See *) Hikers are more likely to go off trail. (My opinion... which has the same weight
..as yours) Again... why do cyclists get the blame for crushing everything. If we all
..ventured into the woods on foot, you would be upset because of too much foot traffic.
..Traffic is traffic....

Mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES as far as hikers. Stop trying to pretend
that their impacts are the same.

..> (*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
..> .As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
..> .Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
..> .than hiking.
..>
..> Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
..> FAR less control over what you run over.
..
..I have as much control where I go as a hiker.

BS. You can't step over an animal or plant. You are rolling on the ground 99.99%
of the time.

The distance on a dirt trail is irrelevant.
..The trail has a beginning and an end. Hikers go the distance as often as cyclists do.
..Especially in park systems where trails are not so long.

Bikers can and do ride several times as far as hikers. If the finish one park,
they go to another and abuse it, too.

..> You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
..> .people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
..> .animals.
..>
..> So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
..> only to Africa.
..>
..
..So now you are going to tell wildlife where it can and can not go....

We have always done that. Exotic species don't belong.

..> . People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.
..>
..> BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.
..
..You are confused. The abuse of the environment (polution, expanded construction, waste,
..etc) cause depletion of habitat and life. To confuse destructive activities man can do
..with riding a bicycle on a trail is delusional.

Anyone who is HONEST will agree that bikes are very destructive off of pavement.

..> The extra
..> .presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
..> .doesn't kill by the mere presence of it)
..>
..> Yes, it does kill small animals & plants.
..
..Your bias is showing... again.
..
..>
..> is of no relevance. You say it is.
..> .(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
..> .it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
..> .consequence than the presence of any other large animal.
..>
..> BS. Read _Wildlife and Recreationists_. The presence of humans drives the
..> wildlife away.
..>
..
..I would say it is not the mere presence of humans, but the repeated abusive presence of
..humans.

You obviously haven't read the book, and know NOTHING about conservation
biology.

Construction and hunting have conditioned species to flee from our presence. Our
..presence is not a hazard.

See above.

How we choose to live with other creatures is the thing. We can
..kill them (hunting and destroying there homeland) or we can share with them. While the
..bicycle may, at times, expand our presence, that alone is not going to destroy them.

Yes, it is. It drives them away from the resources that they need.

..> Adding a bicycle under our
..> .presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
..> .ride without killing... your OPINION.
..>
..> No, FACT.
..
..Then it is also a FACT that you kill whenever you venture into the woods on foot. Stop
..transplanting your guilt of existence onto everybody else.
..
..>
..>
..> .> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
..> .> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
..> .>
..> .> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
..> .
..> .Yes... you did.
..> ."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
..> .fun at all!"
..> ."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
..> ."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"
..>
..> The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.
..
..The subject of a sentence is a noun, not a verb...

Right, dummkopf. And "claims" in that sentence is a noun.

..> .> Your
..> .> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
..> .> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
..> .> .
..> .> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
..> .> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
..> .> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
..> .> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
..> .> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
..> .> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
..> .> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
..> .> .completely unrelated argument.
..> .>
..> .> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
..> .
..> .Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
..> .the thousands who ride off-road.
..>
..> My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.
..
..But it does not carry any more case for argument than the experience of any one else. My
..experience says I haven't caused the destruction you blame me (and other off-road
..cyclists) for.

You are LYING. You have killed numerous animals & plants.
===
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 said:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 05:40:21 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:01:38 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> .
.> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .
.> .> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:25:23 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .
.> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> .> .news:[email hidden]...
.> .> .> On 10 May 2004 23:29:04 GMT, BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
.> .> .>
.> .> .> .On 10 May 2004 21:17:01 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
.> .> .> .> MV blathers:
.> .> .> .>
.> .> .> .>>It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I ever
.> .> .had in
.> .> .> .>>the outdoors.
.> .> .> .>
.> .> .> .> Well, some people don't like sailing, either. Personally I think it's
.> .> .great
.> .> .> .> fun. Have you never heard of people liking different things, or must
.> .> .we all
.> .> .> .> conform to the party line?
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .In college I had a 22' flying dutchman that I somewhat restored
.> .> .> .(fortunately the sails were in great shape) and my friend had a Hobie.
.> .> .> .Sailing in Kansas - imagine that (never any lack of wind, though)!
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .Mikey had been saying that mountain biking wasn't fun long before he took
.> .> .> .his little excursion to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. He obviously
.> .> .> .went with the INTENT of not having fun. One can have no fun doing just
.> .> .> .about anything, if one has a lousy enough attitude...
.> .> .>
.> .> .> No, a GOOD attitude. How can any sane person enjoy destroying nature? Only
.> .> .> environmental rapists like that kind of thing.
.> .> .
.> .> .There is no guarantee that nature must be destroyed while riding a bike on a
.> .> .trail.
.> .>
.> .> Okay, explain how you can ride a bike on a trail and not kill animals & plants?
.> .
.> .I haven't come back with blood on the bike yet.
.>
.> How would you know? Don't forget that insects are also animals, and more animals
.> live in the soil.
.
.Hiking, horseback, biking... all are equally "guilty" if you want to play that card.
.Stop pointing at cyclists as greater than any other.

Nonsense. Hikers can avoid stepping on insects. Bikers cannot. They are going
too fast, and can't watch the trail that closely, or they will crash. There are
too few horses to matter.

So... when you hike, your eyes are on the ground 100% of the time. How do you "enjoy nature"
by staring at the ground?

Quoted message said:

.> Stay on the trail and you don't hit
.> .plants (duh).
.>
.> Mountain bikers never stay on the trail, and besides, there are plants trhat try
.> to grow in the trail.
.
.(See *) Hikers are more likely to go off trail. (My opinion... which has the same weight
.as yours) Again... why do cyclists get the blame for crushing everything. If we all
.ventured into the woods on foot, you would be upset because of too much foot traffic.
.Traffic is traffic....

Mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES as far as hikers. Stop trying to pretend
that their impacts are the same.

Stop trying to say it is different. Hikers often cover the same ground. Cyclists may do it
more quickly. Hikers may spend hours in the woods. Cyclists can cover the ground, then leave
in a shorter time. The hiker is often in the wilderness longer causing the same impact as the
cyclists greater distance.

Quoted message said:

.> (*Of course, you say we don't stay on trail, but that is your OPINION)
.> .As animals (yes the human being is an animal), we encounter insects all the time.
.> .Like other larger animals, we may step on them unknowingly. Cycling is no different
.> .than hiking.
.>
.> Yes it is, because (1) you travel several times as far as a hiker & (2) you have
.> FAR less control over what you run over.
.
.I have as much control where I go as a hiker.

BS. You can't step over an animal or plant. You are rolling on the ground 99.99%
of the time.

I can steer to avoid them. Or stop and let them pass off the path.

Quoted message said:

The distance on a dirt trail is irrelevant.
.The trail has a beginning and an end. Hikers go the distance as often as cyclists do.
.Especially in park systems where trails are not so long.

Bikers can and do ride several times as far as hikers. If the finish one park,
they go to another and abuse it, too.

"Abuse" is your description.

Quoted message said:

.> You step on an ant, we may roll over an ant. No difference. Saying
.> .people (animals) do not belong in the woods at all is also invalid since we are also
.> .animals.
.>
.> So are elephants, but they only belong where they are native. Humans are bative
.> only to Africa.
.>
.
.So now you are going to tell wildlife where it can and can not go....

We have always done that. Exotic species don't belong.

The mere nature of life is to expand. That is the natural order. Do you plan on putting fences
in your "pure habitat" so these animals won't mix with those animals?

Quoted message said:

.> . People (animals) and "wildlife" can co-exist in "natural" areas.
.>
.> BS. If that were true, there wouldn't be any endangered species.
.
.You are confused. The abuse of the environment (polution, expanded construction, waste,
.etc) cause depletion of habitat and life. To confuse destructive activities man can do
.with riding a bicycle on a trail is delusional.

Anyone who is HONEST will agree that bikes are very destructive off of pavement.

Anyone who is HONEST would realize the mere existence of a human does not destroy. The mere
existence of a human with a bicycle is not destructive. The destruction is caused by removal
of habitat, not the co-existence in it.

Quoted message said:

.> The extra
.> .presence of a bicycle (doesn't polute, doesn't shoot a projectile, doesn't eat,
.> .doesn't kill by the mere presence of it)
.>
.> Yes, it does kill small animals & plants.
.
.Your bias is showing... again.
.
.>
.> is of no relevance. You say it is.
.> .(OPINION) As animals with machines, we are capable of destroying an area. (Bulldoze
.> .it for a building, for example) Our mere presence as an animal is of no more
.> .consequence than the presence of any other large animal.
.>
.> BS. Read _Wildlife and Recreationists_. The presence of humans drives the
.> wildlife away.
.>
.
.I would say it is not the mere presence of humans, but the repeated abusive presence of
.humans.

You obviously haven't read the book, and know NOTHING about conservation
biology.

Construction and hunting have conditioned species to flee from our presence. Our
.presence is not a hazard.

See above.

You've obviously drawn your own conclusions interlaced with your own bias.

Quoted message said:

How we choose to live with other creatures is the thing. We can
.kill them (hunting and destroying there homeland) or we can share with them. While the
.bicycle may, at times, expand our presence, that alone is not going to destroy them.

Yes, it is. It drives them away from the resources that they need.

If they leave, how can we run over them?

Quoted message said:

.> Adding a bicycle under our
.> .presence is of no concern as the bicycle does not present a danger. You say we can't
.> .ride without killing... your OPINION.
.>
.> No, FACT.
.
.Then it is also a FACT that you kill whenever you venture into the woods on foot. Stop
.transplanting your guilt of existence onto everybody else.
.

Quoted message said:

Just noting how you skipped over that one...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.>

.> .> But, your first argument in this post was that YOU didn't find it fun
.> .> .to ride, and inferred that it must therefore not be fun for anybody.
.> .>
.> .> BS. I never said anything about anyone else.
.> .
.> .Yes... you did.
.> ."contrary to what the mountain bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no
.> .fun at all!"
.> ."...there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or enjoyable.)"
.> ."So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to "enjoy nature"!"
.>
.> The subject of that sentence is "claims", not people.
.
.The subject of a sentence is a noun, not a verb...

Right, dummkopf. And "claims" in that sentence is a noun.

If you say so... But you must include the entire phrase "mountain bikers' claims", which
does infer other people which does negate you phrase "BS. I never said anything about anyone
else." You said it wasn't fun for you and therefore could not be fun for anyone else. That is
clear in your own writing.

Quoted message said:

.> .> Your
.> .> .analogy seems to be that because you are a baby, everybody else should also
.> .> .be a baby. Clearly your premise is flawed.
.> .> .
.> .> .You need to formulate an argument, and stick with it. You must not
.> .> .constantly change the target as liberals are prone to do. It is perfeclty
.> .> .fine to make several points, or arguments, but you cannot go around
.> .> .switching from one argument to another. Your argument in this post, and I
.> .> .quote, is "It's NOT fun. I tried it once. It was the most unpleasant time I
.> .> .ever had in the outdoors." It is fine that you have such an argument to
.> .> .make, but when it is refuted, you are not allowed to replace it with another
.> .> .completely unrelated argument.
.> .>
.> .> How can you refute my experience? It doesn't even make sense.
.> .
.> .Your experience is largely based on your OPINION. Your experience hardly overcomes
.> .the thousands who ride off-road.
.>
.> My experience can't be refuted, because it's a fact.
.
.But it does not carry any more case for argument than the experience of any one else. My
.experience says I haven't caused the destruction you blame me (and other off-road
.cyclists) for.

You are LYING. You have killed numerous animals & plants.

You are LYING. You don't know how and where I ride. You don't know my experience on a bike.
You only know your experience. And it is of no more importance as an OPINION than any other
description of experience.

Quoted message said:

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉.

And apparently off-limits to wildlife he determines doesn't belong in any given area. How is
he going to keep unwelcome animals out? By policing it? Who is going to police it? People? How
will they get in to police it? By trails and roads? How will he remove animals that aren't
suppose to be there? By truck? Where will he put them? In there own designated area? How often
will he be trucking unwelcome animals back and forth to where they are supposed to be? How
will he determine where they are supposed to be? Will animals follow the rules? Do animals
understand the rules? Who will create the rules? MV? Poor animals.

Quoted message said:

Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Actually, he's spent most of it on usenet voicing OPINIONS about bicycles. As far as I know,
fighting road construction and auto dependence by attacking bicyclists is counter-productive.

Quoted message said: