Do Mountain Bikers Have Any Balls?

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:27:39 +0000, Guy Chapman <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:36:23 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . .>There may be some
hikers and animals willing to tolerate being around bikes, but .>most will be driven away. The laws
of physics and biology are no different in .>England than anywhere else. . .Just as well the New
Forest fauna don't know that - and I'm not about .to tell them either. The thing which drives them
away is motor .traffic. They don't like the noise, and they don't like the smell. .Fair enough,
neither do I. They seem not to care too much about .walkers and cyclists - follow the trails far
enough from the roads and .you start to see all the butterflies, mammals, birds, occasional .snakes
- all the things you claim we've driven off.

BS. You are seeing only the ones that hold their noses and tolerate human presence.

.Guy

===
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

 

[Sorni]

"Ken B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 23:32:20 GMT, Bill Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Guy Chapman wrote:
> >> >His PhD is in psychology.
> >>
> >> Hard to believe - looking at his behaviour here you would assume that it was the work of a man
> >> who had absolutely no clue about how the human psyche works. How many people has he brought
> >> round to his position? Not the work of an expert in human psychology, methinks.
> >
> >Or maybe it is. Maybe Mike doesn't really care about this cause and it's really all just a big
> >psychological game he's playing with us. Then
again,
> >maybe he's just insane.
> >
> >Please note that psychology does not cover any of the environment related sciences. He bases his
> >"science" on books he's read (or mis-read). He equates biased observations with scientific proof
> >(which they are not).
A
> >real scientist would never do this.
> >
> >--Bill Davidson
>
> I work in the mental health sector. It's a joke. The only science involved in the field of
> psychology is the science of making it seem like it's actually scientifically based.
>
> Believe me, if these people were building bridges, well, there wouldn't be any bridges because no
> two of them would be able to agree on the principal of gravity.

You're officially the best-spoken (so far) member of my killfile. If you ever post about MOUNTAIN
BIKING, maybe someone will reply and I'll see it.

Till then, PLONK!

Bill "goin' down the list and takin' 'em out" S.

 

[Ken B]

On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 01:44:45 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:09:16 -0500, Ken B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>.On 30 Nov 2002 15:57:36 -0800, [email protected] (Muddy) .wrote: . .>Ok Ken. If there are
>thousands of walkers walking Snowdon each week, .>for hundreds of years. You not honestly think if
>Mountain bikes turned .>up in there thousands it would cause any more destruction? .> . .Where is
>the proof of destruction??? I haven't seen any yet. What I .HAVE seen, with my own eyes, is trees
>cut to prevent bikers from .riding
>
>Where? On illegal trails?

I don't ride on posted trails. My observations have only been on trails marked for bike usage.
Obviously, you break the law or else you would have gathered this. Oh, sorry, that would require you
to have a brain.

>
> and huge quantities of litter that could not have come from .anyone biking -- too large, too
> heavy, etc -- so it can only have been .hiked in or dropped in by aircraft (or UFO). I've seen
> saplings cut by .hikers for use as walking sticks and seen new trails cut around .naturally fallen
> obstacles the cut marks in the logs made from chain .rings and the lack of tire marks on the 'new'
> trail make it obvious .that bikers are going over the obstacle (that's a challenge) rather .than
> around it. . .>Walkers/Hikers cause destruction, and so do bikers. But where do you .>draw the
> line. You can't. Its impossible. .> .>LETS BAN EVERYONE FROM THE COUNTRYSIDE!!!!!!! . .How about
> this: In order to use the trails you must pay an annual .maintenance fee AND you must participate
> in the maintenance of each .and every trail you use. Those damaging the trails get fined, heavily,
> .and access is banned for a predetermined period of time. . .Revenue from fees and fines go
> towards maintenance (which shouldn't .cost much because few hikers will pay and most bikers will
> if it means .great trails) the rest can be put towards hiring the folk needed to .police the
> trails. . .> .>Muddy - 'Minded' .> .>'Still stirring strong'
>
>===
>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

 

[Chris McMartin]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .You have said BIKERS shouldn't be banned, just BIKES. If a person is ON
A
> .BIKE, and BIKES are BANNED, that person, in his or her current condition
is
> .also BANNED. QED
>
> BS. All he has to do is to park the bike. DUH!

Did you even bother to READ what I WROTE? A person NOT ON A BIKE is NOT BANNED. A person ON A BIKE
is BANNED. THAT was what he was saying. If he parked the bike, he wouldn't be ON A BIKE, which was
the ENTIRE POINT he was making.

If I'm not on the bike, am I hiking on the trail? I thought you didn't advocate hiking. Hypocrite!

>Your IQ is off the (lower end of the) chart.

Should I take that as opinion, though by your definition you would've had to state it was an
opinion? Or do you have my test results? Or did you just LIE?

 

[Durandal]

"Muddy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| > On 30 Nov 2002 15:57:36 -0800, [email protected] (Muddy) wrote:
| >
|
| Well belive me! bikes DO increase corrosion.

I really think you wanted to say erosion. Trails do not corrode ))

Skidding bikes increase erosion, and pearls that skid should not be on the trail... It's good that
they arent.

 

[Jonathan Harris]

Shaun Rimmer wrote:

> "Choise", no such bloody word, please don't use it.

Tell that to the poor French flatlander, Jimmy Petitet who was unfortunate enough to find an
illiterate tattooist, who covered his back with the 'Life is a choise' slogan.

> Happy a.m-b'ing folks. ',;~}
>
> *(Some tutu wearing long haired freak who's famous in Colorado, or something...).
>
> Shaun aRe (probably loads of spelling mistakes in that, but WGAF eh?

Amusingly, when Shaun sent the original version of this to me on Friday for inclusion in the FAQ
(denied, BTW), he misspelt 'dictionary'...

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://bombacommand.iwarp.com/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://bombacommand.iwarp.com/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Huw Pritchard]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:58:12 +0000, Shaun Rimmer did issue forth:

> one or more comma's, 'little wiggly tailed dots' are used. These are there

What's the apostrophe for in comma's? ;-)

--
Huw Pritchard | Replace bounce with huw | to reply by mail | www.secretworldgovernment.org

 

[Muddy]

"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Michael Dart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Michael Silver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Translation: I couldn't really think of an intelligent response, and you are probably right,
> > > but I have to maintain this "flood" of posts
> > >
> > > ...Michael...
> >
> > Don't you guys realize that you have the keys to the floodgates? Stop
> your
> > pointless arguing and replying and the flow will diminish to a trickle.
>
> Truth! Well, at least, if yer gonna reply, make sure you have lots of fun, and don't say anything
> whatsoever to do with the topic, if at all possible. Ever. IMNSHO, of course.
>
>
> Shaun aRe

Rimmer thats all you ever do!!!

 

[Muddy]

You sad, sad *******!!

Now thats what Im about!!! You think I can really be bothered writing an essay for YOU!

****ing hell, is only your pig ignorance that compels me to reply to you, let alone think how I
could structurally hold a good paragraph.

> Do not over use, under use, or miss use either of these - it makes reading what you are trying to
> say rather difficult at best. At worst, down right infuriating

Don't read my post then!!

> Now that you have read, digested, and implemented all of this in your postings, any other
> stupidities in the content of your ramblings are less likely to be picked on as severely, and hey,
> they may even go unnoticed altogether! (Well, except by *JD, but he'll call you stupid anyhow - it
> 'comes with the territory').

Actually, I got bored after the first description. But I read the start and the end, and you
normally talk bollocks in the middle anyway. Its good to see that you use good punctuation. But
could you just make your posts interesting now! : )

> Shaun aRe (probably loads of spelling mistakes in that, but WGAF eh? Heheheheh

Sorry didn't read it.

Muddy - So lit.'s not may strong point. No need the make fun of me!!

 

[Joshua E. Rodd]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> You are LYING. It is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid skidding, on steep slopes.

Since you never mountain bike, how do you know this?

(I don't mountain bike either, so I don't really know; I do know that on my road bike, I *never*
skid unless I'm doing something really wrong, regardless of the condition of the pavement.)

 

[Chris McMartin]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .Explain why animals will approach a motor vehicle, yet run from a person .that is out for a
> walk ...
>
> You are LYING, as usual.

I have observed this firsthand. Observation is the basis for science.

 

[Chris McMartin]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .> See _Wildlife and Recreationists_. . .Author? Spouting a cryptic reference isn't proof. YOU
> didn't do
anything
> .except cop out.
>
> Richard Knight & Kevin Gutzwiller. You could have looked it up, if you
were
> willing to lift a finger, other than the middle one.

That's cute, and a LIE, but the burden of proof is on YOU as per my original request.

> ."It's obvious..." Another weak argument and a cop out. I asked for .objective proof and once
> again you fail to deliver.
>
> It's not something that requires proof. DUH!

I'LL be the judge of that. My challenge still stands unanswered.

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

Jonathan Harris <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Shaun Rimmer wrote:
>
> > "Choise", no such bloody word, please don't use it.
>
> Tell that to the poor French flatlander, Jimmy Petitet who was unfortunate enough to find an
> illiterate tattooist, who covered his back with the 'Life is a choise' slogan.

Bwaaa-haaa! ',;~}

> > Happy a.m-b'ing folks. ',;~}
> >
> > *(Some tutu wearing long haired freak who's famous in Colorado, or something...).
> >
> > Shaun aRe (probably loads of spelling mistakes in that, but WGAF eh?
>
> Amusingly, when Shaun sent the original version of this to me on Friday for inclusion in the FAQ
> (denied, BTW)

It was just a thought......

> he misspelt 'dictionary'...

'Tis true. Not that IGAF though, heheheheh.....

What's another word for thesaurus BTW? <groan>

Shaun aRe

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

Huw Pritchard <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:58:12 +0000, Shaun Rimmer did issue forth:
>
>
> > one or more comma's, 'little wiggly tailed dots' are used. These are
there
>
> What's the apostrophe for in comma's? ;-)

It's a feral one. It jumped up and lodged itself there, and I can't get it out. I called the RSPCA
(Royal Society for Protecting Commas from Apostrophes).

Errrrmm, ........

I'll get me coat.......

Shaun aRe ',;~}

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 15:27:35 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:42:09 -0800, "Jeff
> Strickland" .<[email protected]> .> wrote: .> .> BS. Walking gives a much BETTER experience of
> nature. It's selfish
to
> .> .bike, .> .> because bikes drive away wildlife and other trail users. Tell the .truth, .> .for
> .> .> once. (I know, you CAN'T.) .> . .> .Walking might give you a better experience, .> .> So you
> admit that I'm RIGHT. .> .> but you shouldn't measure .> .everybody else by your yardstick. You
> have no proof that a bike drives .> .animals away more than a person on foot might do the very
> same thing. .> .> Yes, I actually DO. There was a paper given on that at the Society fro .>
> Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury, England. The conclusion was .that .> they have the
> same effect, PER INCIDENT. Since bikers travel several
times
> .as .> far as hikers, they have several times the impact. QED .> . .We have already debunked that
> stupid argument, Mike. If a hiker walks 3 .miles and disturbs 6 animals, then he has disturbed 2
> animals per mile.
If a
> .biker travels 5 miles and disturbs 10 animals, then he has disturbed 2 .animals per mile. This is
> a lower ratio of disturbance ...
>
> You just proved that bikers cause more disturbance: 10 animals vs. 6
animals.
> ACTUALLY, the difference is much greater, since bikers travel SEVERAL
TIMES AS
> FAR as hikers.
>

It is still two animals per mile, so it is the same.

> .> .that argument is ********. Indeed, animals are less frightened by .machines .> .than by people
> on foot, so you should ban hiking in order to
accomplish
> .your .> .agenda ... .> .> Not true. So sorry. . .Explain why animals will approach a motor
> vehicle, yet run from a person .that is out for a walk ...
>
> You are LYING, as usual.

So, you can not explain?

 

[Penny S]

"Muddy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You sad, sad *******!!
>
> Now thats what Im about!!! You think I can really be bothered writing an essay for YOU!
>
> ****ing hell, is only your pig ignorance that compels me to reply to you, let alone think how I
> could structurally hold a good paragraph.
>

hey muddy... lighten up, go for a ride man. You are new here, get the lay of the land before you
start blasting people. Oh and quit replying to HWSNBN, it's really pointless.

1¢

 

[Surgius]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1 Dec 2002 12:01:23 -0800, [email protected] (Muddy) wrote:
>
> .> On 30 Nov 2002 15:57:36 -0800, [email protected] (Muddy) .> wrote: .> .> >Ok Ken. If
> there are thousands of walkers walking Snowdon each week, .> >for hundreds of years. You not
> honestly think if Mountain bikes turned .> >up in there thousands it would cause any more
> destruction? .> > .> .> Where is the proof of destruction??? I haven't seen any yet. . .Well
> belive me! bikes DO increase corrosion. but that comes down to .controlling your bike. I think
> alot of hikers thing that we .skid...Anyone skiding known nothing about biking!
>
> You are LYING. It is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid skidding, on steep slopes.

Your the one lying now Mikey. I know many bikers that have no problem controlling their bikes and
not tearing up trails.

> ===
> 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

 

[Chris McMartin]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .Did you even bother to READ what I WROTE? A person NOT ON A BIKE is NOT .BANNED. A person ON A
> BIKE is BANNED.
>
> That's a LIE. Only BIKES are banned.

You still do not understand, and I'm running out of synonyms with only one or two syllables. Not
only are BIKES banned, the chosen activity is also banned (mountain biking).

The sure sign you've lost this argument is that once again it has devolved into quibbling over
semantics (YOUR meanings for terms versus the accepted meanings).

> .If I'm not on the bike, am I hiking on the trail? I thought you didn't .advocate hiking.
> Hypocrite!
>
> It's better than mountain biking.

Are you suggesting that I hike? I noticed you didn't refute the "advocation" or renounce the
"hypocrite" appellation. We're finally making progress.

>For you, I advocate a long ride off a short pier.

Well, that's a fundamental difference between you and me (one of many). I never suggest ill will
toward you. You, on the other hand, think approval of violence towards others helps your cause.
Therefore, the "hypocrite" remark fits here as well.

> .>Your IQ is off the (lower end of .> the) chart. . .Should I take that as opinion, though by your
> definition you would've had
to
> .state it was an opinion? Or do you have my test results? Or did you
just
> .LIE?
>
> It's an obvious FACT.

So you LIED? If not, please substantiate. I HAVE taken an IQ test, and am eager to see what you,
based on your Psychology doctorate, ascertain the score to be.

 

[Gary S.]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 03:57:20 GMT, "Chris McMartin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> .Explain why animals will approach a motor vehicle, yet run from a person .that is out for a
>> walk ...
>>
>> You are LYING, as usual.
>
>I have observed this firsthand. Observation is the basis for science.
>
But only observations that agree with the TRUTH are valid.

In Mikeyworld, everything is either 100% Mikey-compatible, or a deliberate LIE.

Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[G.T.]

Chris McMartin wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>.> See _Wildlife and Recreationists_. . .Author? Spouting a cryptic reference isn't proof. YOU
>>didn't do
>
> anything
>
>>.except cop out.
>>
>>Richard Knight & Kevin Gutzwiller. You could have looked it up, if you
>
> were
>
>>willing to lift a finger, other than the middle one.
>
>
> That's cute, and a LIE, but the burden of proof is on YOU as per my original request.
>
>
>>."It's obvious..." Another weak argument and a cop out. I asked for .objective proof and once
>>again you fail to deliver.
>>
>>It's not something that requires proof. DUH!
>
>
> I'LL be the judge of that. My challenge still stands unanswered.
>
>

You know, playing with the troll once or twice on each of his binges can be good fun. But more than
that is a ****ING WASTE OF TIME!

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons