How Mountain Bikers "Enjoy Nature"

[Fish!]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> [email protected] (John) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Why do you care how someone else enjoys their life? Mind your own business.
> >
> > John
>
>
> When that enjoyment is derived from destroying nature, and the property of others, it is no longer
> a private affair. Terri Alvillar
> http://homepage.mac.com/terrialvillar/mountainbikedamage/PhotoAlbum11.html
>

oh look, its the ******* love child of vandeman, and his hand.

I think you'll find, idiot, that the 'destruction of nature' (which would indeed be
devastating, had you any ****ing clue what that really meant) is not a prerequisite for someone
on a bike to have fun.

Luckily your anal retentiveness and overeaction to minor things is matched my your inability to
create even a **** poor website.

Have a lovely, impotent day.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:05:50 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Why do you insist on viewing the world through a microscope instead of .binoculars? You look at a
> picture with a 3 degree field of view and apply .that narrow view to vast expanses of open space
> that simply are not .experiencing the same type of use. Indeed, the area outside that 3 degree
> .field of view has no use whatsoever. You have found a place that
represents
> .less than 0.0009% of a square mile, and a thousand such places in the
same
> .square mile will still be less than 1% of that square mile.
>
> Did you say something? I thought not.
>

You have a stated goal of preserving 0.0009% of a square mile, and you say I haven't said anything?!
You are the one with nothing to say.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Fish!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > [email protected] (John) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > Why do you care how someone else enjoys their life? Mind your own
business.
> > >
> > > John
> >
> >
> > When that enjoyment is derived from destroying nature, and the property of others, it is no
> > longer a private affair. Terri Alvillar
> >
http://homepage.mac.com/terrialvillar/mountainbikedamage/PhotoAlbum11.html
> >
>
>
> oh look, its the ******* love child of vandeman, and his hand.
>
> I think you'll find, idiot, that the 'destruction of nature' (which would indeed be devastating,
> had you any ****ing clue what that really meant) is not a prerequisite for someone on a bike to
> have fun.
>
> Luckily your anal retentiveness and overeaction to minor things is matched my your inability to
> create even a **** poor website.
>
> Have a lovely, impotent day.

The problem with this guy, and Mikey, is that they get the soap-box time and make lots of noise. You
and I can listen to them and we know that they are full of ****, but people that don't get out much
listen to them and think they have something smart to say.

FACTOID Did you know that for every person that goes out into the wilderness for any reason, there
are 20 people sitting at home mailing in a check to Sierra Club causes. These people send in their
checks because of morons like this guy you responded to and Mikey tell them how badly the
environment is getting hit by bike riders and Jeep drivers. Sadly, of the people that go out into
the wilderness for any reason -- and by any means -- only one in ten pay dues to an organization
that is dedicated to keeping the wilderness open. This means that for every person that pays a dues
to an organization to keep stuff open, there are 200 that pay dues to the Club to close stuff down.
What really sucks is that most of the fat asses that mail in checks to the Club don't even go
outside except to get into the car and drive to McDonalds for another burger.

We are outnumbered my friend, and we need to develop a fight smarter strategy, and we need to pay
dues to organizations that struggle every day to keep places open that we like to visit.

 

[John]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On 18 Feb 2003 06:13:36 -0800, [email protected] (John) wrote:
>
> .Why do you care how someone else enjoys their life? Mind your own business.
>
> Protecting wildlife from environmental rapists like mountin bikers IS my business.
>
snip

I suppose that makes you another irresponsible corporate monster.

Now that the flame is out of the way. Let me say that from my own experience, plain ole walking
trails are responsibe for the destruction of much more acreage than mountain bikers, or even
motorcycles ever have. Should we keep everyone out of the woods?

John

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> .> The photo on the cover of online bike magazine shows how mountain bikers .> like to "enjoy
> nature". .>
>
> .Define "enjoy."
>
> Destroy.
>

Well! This is obviously some new & esoteric use of the word "enjoy" of which I wasn't
previously aware.

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

This is one more hint that you may have a deep and serious lack of familiarity with the English
language and the uses to which it is generally put by the rest of us. And a deep and serious lack of
understanding the simple fact that we - meaning humans - are a part of the world and have been for
some 3-10 million years. Instead of carping so about the members of the cast, focus a bit on the
unnatural lodge handshakes that only started becoming de rigeur a few thousand years ago.

As any of the remaining Flower Children will tell you, you'll get nowhere going on about the
symptoms of a problem. Took them nearly a generation to blend back into what they at first thought
was the problem rather than merely symptoms of the problem.

The desire to "create habitat" is just as much a symptom of undesireable behavior in yourself as the
behavior in others you find undesireable. The fact that you seem alone in the world in finding a
certain behavior undesireable ought to be a hint that you're totally off-beam. You could go tilting
at windmills; they're much more glamorous than bicycles. And yet they represent one facet of the
industrial/economic revolution which seems to melt your crayons.

Yours in the north Maine woods, Pete Hilton aka The Ent

--
If you try to please everybody, somebody isn't going to like it.
D. Rumsfeld

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:25:36 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> .> The photo on the cover of online bike magazine shows how mountain
bikers .> .> like to "enjoy nature". .> .> .> .> .Define "enjoy." .> .> Destroy. .> . .Well! This is
obviously some new & esoteric use of the word "enjoy" of which I .wasn't previously aware.

Right. This usage is utilized only by mountain bikers and other environmental rapists. Example of
mountain biker usage "I am going to go enjoy nature", meaning "I am going to rip a park to shreds".

.> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to .> humans ("pure habitat"). .
.This is one more hint that you may have a deep and serious lack of familiarity .with the English
language and the uses to which it is generally put by the rest .of us. And a deep and serious lack
of understanding the simple fact that we - .meaning humans - are a part of the world and have been
for some 3-10 million .years.

But not bikes. DUH!

Instead of carping so about the members of the cast, focus a bit on the .unnatural lodge handshakes
that only started becoming de rigeur a few thousand .years ago. . .As any of the remaining Flower
Children will tell you, you'll get nowhere going .on about the symptoms of a problem. Took them
nearly a generation to blend back .into what they at first thought was the problem rather than
merely symptoms of .the problem. . .The desire to "create habitat" is just as much a symptom of
undesireable .behavior in yourself as the behavior in others you find undesireable. The fact .that
you seem alone in the world in finding a certain behavior undesireable .ought to be a hint that
you're totally off-beam.

BS. MOST hikers don't like mountain biking. DUH!

You could go tilting at .windmills; they're much more glamorous than bicycles. And yet they
represent .one facet of the industrial/economic revolution which seems to melt your .crayons. .
.Yours in the north Maine woods, .Pete Hilton aka The Ent

===
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]

On 19 Feb 2003 06:19:40 -0800, [email protected] (John) wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... .> On 18 Feb 2003 06:13:36 -0800,
[email protected] (John) wrote: .> .> .Why do you care how someone else enjoys their life? Mind
your own business. .> .> Protecting wildlife from environmental rapists like mountin bikers IS my .>
business. .> .snip . . .I suppose that makes you another irresponsible corporate monster. . .Now
that the flame is out of the way. Let me say that from my own .experience, plain ole walking trails
are responsibe for the .destruction of much more acreage than mountain bikers,

Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS FAST as hikers. Thus, they
destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat.

or even .motorcycles ever have. Should we keep everyone out of the woods? . .John

===
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

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

Fish! <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:27:54 -0900, James Connell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > .Hi again you silly useless piece of ****! . .still trolling eh, mikey? and still the same
> > drivel. been gone from
this
> > .group for 2 years or so end it looks the same. . .i've still got the auto responder - you need
> > a little mail? . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .the same useless mikey **** he's been spewing and
> > spamming multiple .groups with ( PLEASE trim your responces or better yet just Enail the .fool)
> > for more than 7 years snipped
> >
> > Did you say something?
>
>
> it must be so hard to hear when you have those voices in your head.

Nah - it's his fancy **** cheek earmuffs.

Shaun aRe - HTH, HAND!

 

[Jeff Strickland]

BIKER SAID
> .> .Define "enjoy." .>

MIKE SAID
> .> Destroy. .> .
BIKER SAID
> .Well! This is obviously some new & esoteric use of the word "enjoy" of
which I
> .wasn't previously aware.

> MIKE SAID Right. This usage is utilized only by mountain bikers and other
environmental
> rapists. Example of mountain biker usage "I am going to go enjoy nature", meaning "I am going to
> rip a park to shreds".
>
You are the one that morphed the word enjoy into the word destroy. You can't blame bikes for your
misunderstanding of english.

> .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to .> humans ("pure habitat"). .
> .This is one more hint that you may have a deep and serious lack of
familiarity
> .with the English language and the uses to which it is generally put by
the rest
> .of us. And a deep and serious lack of understanding the simple fact that
we -
> .meaning humans - are a part of the world and have been for some 3-10
million
> .years.
>
> But not bikes. DUH!
>
> Instead of carping so about the members of the cast, focus a bit on the
> .unnatural lodge handshakes that only started becoming de rigeur a few
thousand
> .years ago. . .As any of the remaining Flower Children will tell you, you'll get nowhere
going
> .on about the symptoms of a problem. Took them nearly a generation to
blend back
> .into what they at first thought was the problem rather than merely
symptoms of
> .the problem. . .The desire to "create habitat" is just as much a symptom of undesireable
> .behavior in yourself as the behavior in others you find undesireable. The
fact
> .that you seem alone in the world in finding a certain behavior
undesireable
> .ought to be a hint that you're totally off-beam.
>
> BS. MOST hikers don't like mountain biking. DUH!
>
MOST hikers don't care about bikes, they care about rudeness. If a bike can pass by without being
rude, then the hikers don't care. Hikers don't like other hikers if those hikers are rude.

I drive a motor vehicle in the backcountry, and the people that I drive with never (and I mean
NEVER) drive fast past pedestrians that we meet on the trail. Often times, several hikes will
converge on where we are to watch what we are doing. They ENJOY us. I have seen dozens of hikers
standing around watching vehicles, both motor and human powered, doing amazing stunts that you
wouldn't believe. When the stunts go well, they cheer wildly. So, the fact is that MOST hikers don't
care about vehicles, they care about rude vehicle operators.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS FAST
as
> hikers. Thus, they destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat.
>
This is false, and a lie. The term "several times" is a ratio of damage over distance travelled.
While a bike may travel a greater distance, the damage done (and the issue that any damage that is
even worth discussing has not been settled) also covers a greater distance, in this case the ratio
of the damage done by a bike tire could possibly be less than the damage done by a boot. If a boot
goes two miles on soft dirt, it can do more damage than a bike tire that goes 5 miles on hard dirt.
If a boot goes two miles on any dirt, and a bike goes the same distance on the same dirt, the odds
favor the truth that both will do the same damage.

Your entire premise is flawed, and self-serving. You have no environmental concern to your position,
your sole agenda is to make it so you can walk somewhere without seeing anouthe person.

 

[Peterh]

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> >
> > Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS FAST
> as
> > hikers. Thus, they destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat.

The "quantity equals quality" fallacy

>
> Jeff's reply abbreviated.....
>
> Your entire premise is flawed, and self-serving. You have no environmental concern to your
> position, your sole agenda is to make it so you can walk somewhere without seeing anouthe person.

You cannot overcome this sort of dunderheadedness with any known quantity of facts or
reality checks.

Consider the David Brower 4-Point Plan For Running The Universe The Right Way - Ours!

1. Grand, sweeping generalities totally lacking in factual support.

2. Wrench quotations from context so that they may be given personally pleasing interpretations
quite other than the speaker/writer intended.

3. Appeal to emotion, not facts.

4. Lie

In case the name David Brower is unfamiliar, he more or less single-handedly turned the Sierra
Club from a "John Muir Admiration Sociaety" into a lobbying effort that made large waves coast to
coast. Until his radicalism finally got his own Directors to toss him on his ear. Two of his
better statements are, "Too many of my colleagues make the mistake of trying to be reasonable;"
and "Objectivity is the greatest danger to the United States today." I can supply referent for
these quotes.

The above 4-point plan is used by eco types all over the place.

If you don't have it, I can supply you with a URL to the logical fallacies. It's a simple and
clearly laid out site; short reading is needed to see how many intellectual dishonesties the ecos,
greenies and watermelons dish out. Even when one tries to point out their twaddle is simply twaddle.

Yours in the north Maine woods, Pete Hilton aka The Ent

--
If you try to please everybody, somebody isn't going to like it.
D. Rumsfeld

 

[Peterh]

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> BIKER SAID

I'm not a biker.

> > .> .Define "enjoy."

But I did say that.

>
> > .>
>
> MIKE SAID
> > .> Destroy. .> .
> BIKER SAID

I sometimes hike. I more often go by canoe. But I did indeed say:

>
> > .Well! This is obviously some new & esoteric use of the word "enjoy" of
> which I
> > .wasn't previously aware.
>
> > MIKE SAID Right. This usage is utilized only by mountain bikers and other
> environmental
> > rapists.

It now seems that a simple everyday sort of phrase, when uttered only by a certain group, becomes
whatever the listener wishes it to mean and the uglier the better for therein lies an even nastier
irritant to rub into the bleeding creases of their masochistic pea brain. I name no names, but if
the shoe fits.....

> Example of mountain biker usage "I am going to go enjoy nature",
> > meaning "I am going to rip a park to shreds".

Even though I'm not a biker, I'm still concerned that rabid, unthinking fanaticism which is
impervious to another person's point of view is stinking up the land. And I'd like to purchase a
crystal ball such as Mike seems to have; it would allow me unfettered access to the deepest recesses
of anyone's mind and they could hide nothing from me. The world would be my oyster! And I like
oysters - except when I have to share them with The Walrus.

Yours in the north Maine woods, Pete Hilton aka The Ent

--
If you try to please everybody, somebody isn't going to like it.
D. Rumsfeld

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> The photo on the cover of online bike magazine shows how mountain bikers like to "enjoy nature".
>
> http://www.bikemag.com/
>
> Mountain bikers "enjoy nature" the way hunters "enjoy nature". I am working on creating wildlife
> habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?

Aside from the opportunity of starting ove with Mike's insane & impossible tag line, let's revisit
his original post.

Let's see how Mike might conceptualize hunters enjoying nature.

If this line of inquiry were pursued to its logical extreme, and if Mike's replies remain true
to their historical trends, it might be possible to establish that Mike subsists by eating
nothing at all.

OTOH - it may after all be possible to draw earthly sustenance from "pure thought."

Yours in the north Maine woods, Pete Hilton aka The Ent

--
If you try to please everybody, somebody isn't going to like it.
D. Rumsfeld

 

[Joan Watkins]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:42:00 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>____________

Oh look! It's Mikey again. Yawn.

Don't fall for responding to this guy. He's been around a long time. Educate yourself about it.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/3398/Mr-ABC.html

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:57:33 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

.Jeff Strickland wrote: . .> > .> > Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR
AND AS FAST .> as .> > hikers. Thus, they destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat. . .The "quantity
equals quality" fallacy . .> .> Jeff's reply abbreviated..... .> .> Your entire premise is flawed,
and self-serving. You have no environmental .> concern to your position, your sole agenda is to make
it so you can walk .> somewhere without seeing anouthe person. . .You cannot overcome this sort of
dunderheadedness with any known quantity of .facts or reality checks. . .Consider the David Brower
4-Point Plan For Running The Universe The Right Way - .Ours! . .1. Grand, sweeping generalities
totally lacking in factual support. . .2. Wrench quotations from context so that they may be given
personally pleasing .interpretations quite other than the speaker/writer intended. . .3. Appeal to
emotion, not facts. . .4. Lie . .In case the name David Brower is unfamiliar, he more or less
single-handedly .turned the Sierra Club from a "John Muir Admiration Sociaety" into a lobbying
.effort that made large waves coast to coast. Until his radicalism finally got .his own Directors to
toss him on his ear. Two of his better statements are, "Too .many of my colleagues make the mistake
of trying to be reasonable;" and ."Objectivity is the greatest danger to the United States today." I
can supply .referent for these quotes. . .The above 4-point plan is used by eco types all over the
place. . .If you don't have it, I can supply you with a URL to the logical fallacies. It's .a simple
and clearly laid out site; short reading is needed to see how many .intellectual dishonesties the
ecos, greenies and watermelons dish out. Even when .one tries to point out their twaddle is simply
twaddle. . .Yours in the north Maine woods, .Pete Hilton aka The Ent

You forgot "Spammer".
===
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]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:58:14 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

.BIKER SAID .> .> .Define "enjoy." .> .> . .MIKE SAID .> .> Destroy. .> .> .> . .BIKER SAID .>
.Well! This is obviously some new & esoteric use of the word "enjoy" of .which I .> .wasn't
previously aware. . .> MIKE SAID .> Right. This usage is utilized only by mountain bikers and other
.environmental .> rapists. Example of mountain biker usage "I am going to go enjoy nature", .>
meaning "I am going to rip a park to shreds". .> .You are the one that morphed the word enjoy into
the word destroy. You can't .blame bikes for your misunderstanding of english.

All you have to do is loot at the photo, to know that mountain bikers think DESTROYING NATURE
is fun. QED

.> BS. MOST hikers don't like mountain biking. DUH! .> .MOST hikers don't care about bikes, they
care about rudeness. If a bike can .pass by without being rude, then the hikers don't care. Hikers
don't like .other hikers if those hikers are rude.

And destruction of willdife habitat is the rudest act of all.

.I drive a motor vehicle in the backcountry,

That shows just what an idiot you are.

and the people that I drive with .never (and I mean NEVER) drive fast past pedestrians that we meet
on the .trail.

Nor do you EVER ask them if they want you and your exhaust fumes on their trail, I would bet!

Often times, several hikes will converge on where we are to watch .what we are doing. They ENJOY
us. I have seen dozens of hikers standing .around watching vehicles, both motor and human powered,
doing amazing stunts .that you wouldn't believe. When the stunts go well, they cheer wildly. So,
.the fact is that MOST hikers don't care about vehicles, they care about rude .vehicle operators.

You are obviously LYING, because you haven't counted them nor taken a poll, to see if they are
a majority.
===
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]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:46:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

.> .> Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS FAST .as .> hikers. Thus,
they destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat. .> .This is false, and a lie. The term "several times"
is a ratio of damage over .distance travelled. While a bike may travel a greater distance, the
damage .done (and the issue that any damage that is even worth discussing has not .been settled)
also covers a greater distance, in this case the ratio of the .damage done by a bike tire could
possibly be less than the damage done by a .boot. If a boot goes two miles on soft dirt, it can do
more damage than a .bike tire that goes 5 miles on hard dirt. If a boot goes two miles on any .dirt,
and a bike goes the same distance on the same dirt, the odds favor the .truth that both will do the
same damage.

Mountain bikers' own research claims that they do the same damage as a hiker, PER MILE. Since
mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS FAST as hikers, they therefore do SEVERAL TIMES
AS MUCH DAMAGE. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. DUH! As much as you squirm and lie,
you can't change that basic truth. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating, once again, just how
DISHONEST mountain bikers are!

.Your entire premise is flawed, and self-serving. You have no environmental .concern to your
position, your sole agenda is to make it so you can walk .somewhere without seeing anouthe person. .

===
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

 

[Michael J]

Impossible, since over history there have BEEN SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MORE MILES WALKED THEN
EVER BIKED - OR EVER WILL BE BIKED - DUH

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:46:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .> .> Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND
AS FAST
> .as .> hikers. Thus, they destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat. .> .This is false, and a lie. The
> term "several times" is a ratio of
damage over
> .distance travelled. While a bike may travel a greater distance, the
damage
> .done (and the issue that any damage that is even worth discussing has
not
> .been settled) also covers a greater distance, in this case the ratio
of the
> .damage done by a bike tire could possibly be less than the damage
done by a
> .boot. If a boot goes two miles on soft dirt, it can do more damage
than a
> .bike tire that goes 5 miles on hard dirt. If a boot goes two miles on
any
> .dirt, and a bike goes the same distance on the same dirt, the odds
favor the
> .truth that both will do the same damage.
>
> Mountain bikers' own research claims that they do the same damage as a
hiker,
> PER MILE. Since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS
FAST as
> hikers, they therefore do SEVERAL TIMES AS MUCH DAMAGE. It doesn't
take a rocket
> scientist to see this. DUH! As much as you squirm and lie, you can't
change that
> basic truth. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating, once again, just how
DISHONEST
> mountain bikers are!
>
> .Your entire premise is flawed, and self-serving. You have no
environmental
> .concern to your position, your sole agenda is to make it so you can
walk
> .somewhere without seeing anouthe person. .
>
> ===
> 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

 

[Rosco]

"Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Impossible, since over history there have BEEN SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MORE MILES WALKED THEN
> EVER BIKED - OR EVER WILL BE BIKED - DUH
>
And let us not forget the miles and miles of trails that are not accesible to bikes, horses or
motorized vehicles.

> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:46:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > .> .> Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND
> AS FAST
> > .as .> hikers. Thus, they destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat. .> .This is false, and a lie.
> > The term "several times" is a ratio of
> damage over
> > .distance travelled. While a bike may travel a greater distance, the
> damage
> > .done (and the issue that any damage that is even worth discussing has
> not
> > .been settled) also covers a greater distance, in this case the ratio
> of the
> > .damage done by a bike tire could possibly be less than the damage
> done by a
> > .boot. If a boot goes two miles on soft dirt, it can do more damage
> than a
> > .bike tire that goes 5 miles on hard dirt. If a boot goes two miles on
> any
> > .dirt, and a bike goes the same distance on the same dirt, the odds
> favor the
> > .truth that both will do the same damage.
> >
> > Mountain bikers' own research claims that they do the same damage as a
> hiker,
> > PER MILE. Since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS
> FAST as
> > hikers, they therefore do SEVERAL TIMES AS MUCH DAMAGE. It doesn't
> take a rocket
> > scientist to see this. DUH! As much as you squirm and lie, you can't
> change that
> > basic truth. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating, once again, just how
> DISHONEST
> > mountain bikers are!
> >
> > .Your entire premise is flawed, and self-serving. You have no
> environmental
> > .concern to your position, your sole agenda is to make it so you can
> walk
> > .somewhere without seeing anouthe person. .
> >
> > ===
> > 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

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:58:14 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .BIKER SAID .> .> .Define "enjoy." .> .> . .MIKE SAID .> .> Destroy. .> .> .> . .BIKER SAID .>
> .Well! This is obviously some new & esoteric use of the word "enjoy" of .which I .> .wasn't
> previously aware. . .> MIKE SAID .> Right. This usage is utilized only by mountain bikers and
> other .environmental .> rapists. Example of mountain biker usage "I am going to go enjoy
nature",
> .> meaning "I am going to rip a park to shreds". .> .You are the one that morphed the word enjoy
> into the word destroy. You
can't
> .blame bikes for your misunderstanding of english.
>
> All you have to do is loot at the photo, to know that mountain bikers
think
> DESTROYING NATURE is fun. QED
>

I take a wider view of the area, the tiny space of activity is not a siginficant environemtnal
event. Sorry, the space is so smal as to be completely irrelevent to the environment in the grand
scheme of things.

> .> BS. MOST hikers don't like mountain biking. DUH! .> .MOST hikers don't care about bikes, they
> care about rudeness. If a bike
can
> .pass by without being rude, then the hikers don't care. Hikers don't like .other hikers if those
> hikers are rude.
>
> And destruction of willdife habitat is the rudest act of all.
>

Not true.

> .I drive a motor vehicle in the backcountry,
>
> That shows just what an idiot you are.
>

Not true.

> and the people that I drive with .never (and I mean NEVER) drive fast past pedestrians that we
> meet on the .trail.
>
> Nor do you EVER ask them if they want you and your exhaust fumes on their
trail,
> I would bet!
>

I have no exhaust fumes. Sorry.

> Often times, several hikes will converge on where we are to watch .what we are doing. They ENJOY
> us. I have seen dozens of hikers standing .around watching vehicles, both motor and human
> powered, doing amazing
stunts
> .that you wouldn't believe. When the stunts go well, they cheer wildly.
So,
> .the fact is that MOST hikers don't care about vehicles, they care about
rude
> .vehicle operators.
>
> You are obviously LYING, because you haven't counted them nor taken a
poll, to
> see if they are a majority.

Just because you haven't been there doesn't mean it isn't true. I don't see yo out taking polls
either, does that make you a liar?