Cliff plunge mountain biker saved by mobile phone

[Mike Vandeman]

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...bjectid=19039614&siteid=50082-name_page.html:

Cliff plunge cyclist saved by mobile phoneMay 3 2007

A mountain biker who fell over a cliff was rescued after calling for
help on his mobile phone.

After an hour-long rescue operation he was airlifted to hospital from
Hurlestone Point near Porlock Bay, north Somerset.

Swansea Coastguard watch assistant Colin Hickon, who spoke to the man,
said today: “He said he had decided to walk with his mountain bike
along this track above where he fell.

“He cannot remember what happened but seems to have slipped,” said Mr
Hickson.

“Luckily he had a mobile phone with a full battery. He was well off
the beaten track and in quite a precarious position.”

The cyclist fell 40ft down the cliff yesterday afternoon but his bike
crashed another 300ft to the bottom.


The coastguard said it took some time to find the man because he was
off the track and did not know exactly where he was.


Fire crews and lifeboats helped in the search for the cyclist, and
local walkers pointed out the area where he had fallen.


After a lifeboat crew spotted him he was airlifted to hospital
following a joint operation by the coastguard, RAF Chivenor and Devon
and Somerset fire and rescue service.


A fire service spokesman said the man was suffering from shock and
hypothermia as a result of the incident.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[OzCableguy]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...bjectid=19039614&siteid=50082-name_page.html:
>
> Cliff plunge cyclist saved by mobile phoneMay 3 2007
>
>

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...&q=walker+cliff+fall+rescue&btnG=Search&meta=

Results 1 - 10 of about 494,000 for walker cliff fall rescue.


http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...-41,GGLG:en&q=cyclist+cliff+fall+rescue&meta=

Results 1 - 10 of about 140,000 for cyclist cliff fall rescue.

 

[Ken Wood]

On May 3, 8:57 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=cliff-p...
>
> Cliff plunge cyclist saved by mobile phoneMay 3 2007
>
> A mountain biker who fell over a cliff was rescued after calling for
> help on his mobile phone.
>
> After an hour-long rescue operation he was airlifted to hospital from
> Hurlestone Point near Porlock Bay, north Somerset.
>
> Swansea Coastguard watch assistant Colin Hickon, who spoke to the man,
> said today: "He said he had decided to walk with his mountain bike
> along this track above where he fell.
>
> "He cannot remember what happened but seems to have slipped," said Mr
> Hickson.
>
> "Luckily he had a mobile phone with a full battery. He was well off
> the beaten track and in quite a precarious position."

He was also lucky that he could a connection. In the canyons and
mountains you often can't.


KW

 

[JWL]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...bjectid=19039614&siteid=50082-name_page.html:
>
> Cliff plunge cyclist saved by mobile phoneMay 3 2007
> <snip>

I wonder what your motivation is for posting these reports?

As far as I'm concerned, the health benefits of mountain biking far
outweight any risk of injury out on the trail (which aren't that great
anyway).

 

[Jeff Strickland]

<eom>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:10:37 +0100, JWL <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...bjectid=19039614&siteid=50082-name_page.html:
>>
>> Cliff plunge cyclist saved by mobile phoneMay 3 2007
>> <snip>
>
>I wonder what your motivation is for posting these reports?

To save your worthless life.

>As far as I'm concerned, the health benefits of mountain biking far
>outweight any risk of injury out on the trail (which aren't that great
>anyway).

There's no net "health benefit" to mountain biking (as opposed to
other forms of aerobic exercise). In other words, you are REDUCING the
net benefit by biking off-road.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Scott G]

> There's no net "health benefit" to mountain biking (as opposed to
> other forms of aerobic exercise). In other words, you are REDUCING the
> net benefit by biking off-road.

After 10 years of riding, I've got lower body weight (was 215 now 175),
blood pressure, cholesterol, resting heartrate, and body body fat to dispute
that claim.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:11:44 -0500, "Scott G" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> There's no net "health benefit" to mountain biking (as opposed to
>> other forms of aerobic exercise). In other words, you are REDUCING the
>> net benefit by biking off-road.
>
>After 10 years of riding, I've got lower body weight (was 215 now 175),
>blood pressure, cholesterol, resting heartrate, and body body fat to dispute
>that claim.

You don't understand. You could have done the same thing with many
other forms of aerobic exercise, which DON'T have the same
environmental drawbacks. NONE of that is specifically due to mountain
biking. There's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
a lie.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Scott G]

> there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
> better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
> a lie.


BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:11:44 -0500, "Scott G" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> There's no net "health benefit" to mountain biking (as opposed to
>>> other forms of aerobic exercise). In other words, you are REDUCING the
>>> net benefit by biking off-road.
>>
>>After 10 years of riding, I've got lower body weight (was 215 now 175),
>>blood pressure, cholesterol, resting heartrate, and body body fat to
>>dispute
>>that claim.
>
> You don't understand. You could have done the same thing with many
> other forms of aerobic exercise, which DON'T have the same
> environmental drawbacks. NONE of that is specifically due to mountain
> biking. There's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
> better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
> a lie.

Giving credit to a bike for shedding pounds is sorta like giving credit to
you for saving habitat. You could save far more habitat by going after
something that actually is harmful.






> --
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
>> better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
>> a lie.
>
>
>BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.

There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
>>> better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
>>> a lie.
>>
>>
>>BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.
>
> There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
> can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
> destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.


You haven't proven that all mountain biking causes harm. You also haven't
proven that all mountain bike riders behave in a harmful manner. And, you
have not proven that mountain bike riding, per se, causes harm to mountain
bike riders.

You have managed to prove to most of us that you are self absorbed ...

 

[Bill Z.]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
> >>> better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
> >>> a lie.
> >>
> >>
> >>BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.
> >
> > There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
> > can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
> > destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.
>
>
> You haven't proven that all mountain biking causes harm. You also
> haven't proven that all mountain bike riders behave in a harmful
> manner. And, you have not proven that mountain bike riding, per se,
> causes harm to mountain bike riders.

Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
exercise won't be had if people don't do it. Some people don't like
to hike, swim or ride bicycles on streets. If they get their excercise
on mountain bikes because they enjoy it, fine: those managing parks
and similar areas are responsible for ensuring that user activities
will not damage the resource. The only question is whose judgement
you trust - professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find
the choice obvious.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > rOn Sat, 5 May 2007 23:34:10 -0500, "Scott G" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> there's nothing special about mountain biking that makes it a
>> >>> better way to get those benefits. Giving credit to mountain biking is
>> >>> a lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>BS. It's fun. Therefore, I ride. Net health benefit.
>> >
>> > There's no net benefit from mountain biking per se. The health benefit
>> > can be gotten from hiking, swimming, street biking, etc., without the
>> > destruction of the environment that mountain biking causes.
>>
>>
>> You haven't proven that all mountain biking causes harm. You also
>> haven't proven that all mountain bike riders behave in a harmful
>> manner. And, you have not proven that mountain bike riding, per se,
>> causes harm to mountain bike riders.
>
>Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
>exercise won't be had if people don't do it.

You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
SOOO dishonest!

Some people don't like
>to hike, swim or ride bicycles on streets. If they get their excercise
>on mountain bikes because they enjoy it, fine: those managing parks
>and similar areas are responsible for ensuring that user activities
>will not damage the resource. The only question is whose judgement
>you trust - professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find
>the choice obvious.

Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
bikers, would try to claim otherwise.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
> >exercise won't be had if people don't do it.
>
> You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
> other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
> SOOO dishonest!
>

Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

> > Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
> >streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
> >enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
> >responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
> >resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
> >professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
> >choice obvious.
>
> Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
> the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
> Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
> bikers, would try to claim otherwise.

Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Whatsit]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
>> >exercise won't be had if people don't do it.
>>
>> You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
>> other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
>> SOOO dishonest!
>>
>
> Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
> truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
> fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
> some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.
>
>> > Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
>> >streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
>> >enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
>> >responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
>> >resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
>> >professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
>> >choice obvious.
>>
>> Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
>> the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
>> Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
>> bikers, would try to claim otherwise.
>
> Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
> atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
> for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
> would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

MV in dishonesty shock!

Nothing new to see here, move along folks.

Oh, and by the way MV, keep your self absorbed gobshite over that side of
the "pond" you have NO (see the capitalisation there for your benefit)
insight on mountain biking in the UK where the real impact on our
environment comes from the MX tossers and horsey brigade.

Just my 2p sterling.

Andy H

(It is my real name but why should I have to give my full surname for a
whois lookup for potential thieves, spammers Etc?)

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:50:45 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
>> >exercise won't be had if people don't do it.
>>
>> You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
>> other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
>> SOOO dishonest!
>>
>
>Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
>truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
>fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
>some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.

That's THEIR problem. It doesn't imply that the PUBLIC should provide
them with wildlife habitat to destroy, just because they are too lazy
to walk.

>> > Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
>> >streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
>> >enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
>> >responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
>> >resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
>> >professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
>> >choice obvious.
>>
>> Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
>> the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
>> Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
>> bikers, would try to claim otherwise.
>
>Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
>atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
>for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
>would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.

OOPS, you CONVENIENTLY forgot this little bit: " Most readers will
find the choice obvious".
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:24:51 GMT, "Whatsit"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
>>> >exercise won't be had if people don't do it.
>>>
>>> You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
>>> other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
>>> SOOO dishonest!
>>>
>>
>> Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
>> truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
>> fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
>> some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.
>>
>>> > Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
>>> >streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
>>> >enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
>>> >responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
>>> >resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
>>> >professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
>>> >choice obvious.
>>>
>>> Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
>>> the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
>>> Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
>>> bikers, would try to claim otherwise.
>>
>> Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
>> atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
>> for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
>> would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.
>>
>> --
>> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
>
>MV in dishonesty shock!
>
>Nothing new to see here, move along folks.
>
>Oh, and by the way MV, keep your self absorbed gobshite over that side of
>the "pond" you have NO (see the capitalisation there for your benefit)
>insight on mountain biking in the UK where the real impact on our
>environment comes from the MX tossers and horsey brigade.

And mountain bikers. You aren't foolong anyone.

>Just my 2p sterling.
>
>Andy H
>
>(It is my real name but why should I have to give my full surname for a
>whois lookup for potential thieves, spammers Etc?)
>
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:50:45 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
> >> >exercise won't be had if people don't do it.
> >>
> >> You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
> >> other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
> >> SOOO dishonest!
> >>
> >
> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
> >truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
> >fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
> >some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.
>
> That's THEIR problem. It doesn't imply that the PUBLIC should provide
> them with wildlife habitat to destroy, just because they are too lazy
> to walk.

No, Vandeman, the issue we were discussing is *your* problem - your
tendency to call people "dishonest" for no reason whatsoever. In this
case, I simply reported what happens in the real world, and you had
the unmitigated gall to call that "dishonest". If you had even a
shred of decency, you would apologize for that outburst.

> >> > Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
> >> >streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
> >> >enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
> >> >responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
> >> >resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
> >> >professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
> >> >choice obvious.
> >>
> >> Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
> >> the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
> >> Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
> >> bikers, would try to claim otherwise.
> >
> >Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
> >atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
> >for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
> >would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.
>
> OOPS, you CONVENIENTLY forgot this little bit: " Most readers will
> find the choice obvious".

They *will* find it obvious. Even with the low opinion many have of
government officials, nearly anyone familiar with your posts would
consider said officials far more trustworthy than you. That is
simply a fact. It has nothing to do with whatever goals you think
you have, but it has a lot to do with how you behave in public.

Also, read what I said closely - I was basically saying that we should
expect government officials to do their jobs and protect the
environment in parks and wilderness areas. If you think anyone
reading these newsgroups would hold your opinions higher than those of
professionals, you are deluded. Finally, I did not post so much as one
single word suggesting that mountain bikes should be allowed on any
particular trail (nor that they should not be allowed - I just left
the decision to professionals).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 07 May 2007 20:57:09 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:50:45 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Vandeman also doesn't realize that the health benefits of aerobic
>> >> >exercise won't be had if people don't do it.
>> >>
>> >> You are saying that mountain bikers are INCAPABLE of walking or doing
>> >> other less harmful forms of aerobic exercise? Bill Zaumen, you are
>> >> SOOO dishonest!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. Caling people "dishonest" for telling the
>> >truth is simply unacceptable conduct. You may not like it, but the
>> >fact is that people have different tastes and simply won't consider
>> >some forms of aerobic exercise, no matter what.
>>
>> That's THEIR problem. It doesn't imply that the PUBLIC should provide
>> them with wildlife habitat to destroy, just because they are too lazy
>> to walk.
>
>No, Vandeman, the issue we were discussing is *your* problem - your
>tendency to call people "dishonest" for no reason whatsoever. In this
>case, I simply reported what happens in the real world, and you had
>the unmitigated gall to call that "dishonest". If you had even a
>shred of decency, you would apologize for that outburst.

If you are so honest, why are you always removing the text of your
messages, making it impossible for people to see exactly what I am
responding to? You are transparently dishonest.

>> >> > Some people don't like to hike, swim or ride bicycles on
>> >> >streets. If they get their excercise on mountain bikes because they
>> >> >enjoy it, fine: those managing parks and similar areas are
>> >> >responsible for ensuring that user activities will not damage the
>> >> >resource. The only question is whose judgement you trust -
>> >> >professional managers or Vandeman. Most readers will find the
>> >> >choice obvious.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. One look at the aftermath of a mountain bike ride will show even
>> >> the stupidest person that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.
>> >> Only DISHONEST people, like Bill Zaumen, Jeff Strickland, and mountain
>> >> bikers, would try to claim otherwise.
>> >
>> >Only a liar like Mike Vandeman would make such a statement! All I
>> >atated was to that (government) officials managing parks are responsible
>> >for protecting resources (which is true) and then *asked* if the reader
>> >would trust them or Vandeman on resource-management decisions.
>>
>> OOPS, you CONVENIENTLY forgot this little bit: " Most readers will
>> find the choice obvious".
>
>They *will* find it obvious. Even with the low opinion many have of
>government officials, nearly anyone familiar with your posts would
>consider said officials far more trustworthy than you. That is
>simply a fact. It has nothing to do with whatever goals you think
>you have, but it has a lot to do with how you behave in public.
>
>Also, read what I said closely - I was basically saying that we should
>expect government officials to do their jobs and protect the
>environment in parks and wilderness areas. If you think anyone
>reading these newsgroups would hold your opinions higher than those of
>professionals, you are deluded. Finally, I did not post so much as one
>single word suggesting that mountain bikes should be allowed on any
>particular trail (nor that they should not be allowed - I just left
>the decision to professionals).

They aren't professionals at protecting wildlife. They are
professionals at responding to political pressure and propaganda. Very
few of them make rational decisions. Too much political pressure. But
I wouldn't expect YOU to be honest about that. You are too busy trying
to prove yourself right.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande