Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder



"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...

>> Awwwwwwwwwww.... Trapped by logic of reality and fact.... AGAIN!

> Typical MV response when cornered by actual information: "did you say
> something?" Awwwwwww... He's so cute when he's flustered.
>


He's not that cute, flustered or othewise.
 
Funny,
Your writings read like the unabombers manifesto. Are you guys related
?


Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:34:43 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:px%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
> >> See what I mean Steve?
> >>
> >> Did you really want to make him feel better?
> >>

> >I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
> >present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
> >organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
> >papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.

>
> Very funny. My papers speak for themselves.
> ===
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

>
> Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
> allowed. Try again.


That's because growing marijuana is illegal (at least in most parts of the
US and Canada), whereas MOUNTAIN BIKING IS LEGAL if the landowner allows it.
Understand the difference, or is that too deep of a concept to grasp?


> and it
>>has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

>
> That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.


That was funny. I'm still chuckling. Could you possibly be any more dumb?
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing
>>> >>> > bikes off of pavement.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.
>>> >>
>>> >>Ding! We have a winner.
>>> >>
>>> >>Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and
>>> >>am able to.
>>> >
>>> > You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason
>>> > for allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why
>>> > someone else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the
>>> > question. "Because YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND
>>> > MANAGER to allow you to do it. Otherwise. that same reason would
>>> > allow people to grow marijuana on public lands.
>>> >
>>> Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long
>>> as you continue to insist your views and definitions are the only
>>> acceptable options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's
>>> errand.

>>
>>And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
>>that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
>>footprint in nature than hikers.

>
> That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
> isn't any!



Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!


>
> And since the reality is that nobody
>>is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
>>access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
>>more access to more places. Including National Parks!
>>
>>I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if
>>it were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So
>>his opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of
>>these things is essentially singular, and of no importance.
>>
>>E.P.

> ===
> 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
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:p[email protected]:

> On 22 Nov 2006 12:41:02 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>> >>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >>> >>> >
>>> >>> >>> > WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing
>>> >>> >>> > bikes off of
>>> >>> >>> > pavement.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>Ding! We have a winner.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to,
>>> >>> >>and am able to.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good
>>> >>> > reason for allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should
>>> >>> > ride. Why someone else should LET you ride off-road. NOW
>>> >>> > answer the question. "Because YOU like it" is not a good
>>> >>> > reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to do it. Otherwise.
>>> >>> > that same reason would allow people to grow marijuana on
>>> >>> > public lands.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As
>>> >>> long as you
>>> >>> continue to insist your views and definitions are the only
>>> >>> acceptable options, you will continue to be looked at as on a
>>> >>> fool's errand.
>>> >>
>>> >>And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons
>>> >>are that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any
>>> >>bigger footprint in nature than hikers.
>>> >
>>> > That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research":
>>> > there isn't any!
>>> Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion
>>> does not make the statement in any way a "lie".

>>
>>That's one of his time-honored tactics - to claim there is no research
>>if none is presented a priori, and from that assume that the poster is
>>lying. It's neatly circular. :)

>
> Coincidentally, YOU didn't present any research, either! There isn't
> any! Put up or shut up.


Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!

>
>>E.P.

> ===
> 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
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road
>>cyclists
>>are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.

>
> So what? Trails don't go to transportation destinations, so they are
> irrelevant. The only solution to the car problem is to get rid of the
> cars. DUH!


Who said anything about a car problem? DUH!

>>On-road cyclists require roads that are created by decimating tracts of
>>land. Paved roads will not recover for eons. Off-road tracks leave a
>>significantly smaller footprint and if not used, will completely recover
>>in
>>a very short time.

>
> That's a LIE, as you well know.


No, a lie is you stating that what I said is a lie.

I often go by trails that were once ridden and/or hiked on, but are now
closed. The closure has only been for maybe 4 or 5 years, and it is very
hard to find the trail was unless you knew about it when it was in use.

Take one of the local mountains - Seymour. It has approximately 25
kilometres of trails that can be used for biking (some are shared with trail
runners and hikers). Each trail averages 2 metres wide, but for arguments
sake, we'll say every one is 3 metres wide. Sample:
http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/Seymour/Pangor/c.jpg

Oh, and if you want to see what a tree from a "pristine, virgin" rainforest
looks like, here's an example:
http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/June31_03/15.jpg

Anyway, simple math shows that the area used by trails is approximately 0.75
square kilometres. Compare that to the road that goes up the mountain (goes
to the ski area, but is popular with road cyclists as it is a fairly long
and steep climb). It's 12 kilometres long and 14 metres wide. That's
approximately 1.7 square kilometres. The power line that crosses the
mountain? I don't know the exact numbers, but the swath cut out is very
wide (approximately 100 metres) and it is approximately 4 kilometres in
length. That's 0.4 square kilometres a Then there's the ski area at the
top; the amount of land used by it is something I don't know, but it is a
lot. Here's a link. The top right photograph is just a small part of the
ski resort. The bottom left is the road going up the mountain.
http://www.ehabweb.net/seymour.html

Now look at this picture:
http://www.penmachine.com/photoessays/2002_06_aerial/Images/1.jpg

Notice what is prevalent in the photo? Maybe something similar to where
you're viewing this from? But wait. Stare closely at the top third - the
part that is dark green. Look really hard. Harder. That's where the
biking/hiking trails are! See them? See even one trail?

Want to see what search and rescue spends their time doing? Have a look at
this page, and you'll get an idea of what they spend most of their time on;
it isn't mountain biking.
http://www.northshorerescue.com/task.html

Here's our provincial and local governments' stance on biking on said
mountain, with indications of what is and isn't illegal (these are facts -
you know - the type of things rational people use).
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/mtseymou.html (look under
Park Info)
http://www.britishcolumbia.com/parks/?id=108 (9th paragraph)


Keep criticizing what we should do - there's nothing bad happening in your
area. We lying mountain bikers are the only group of people that maintain
the trails; hikers, horse riders, and trail runners do very little, if
anything with regards to trail maintenance. We mountain bikers work with
local groups and governments on preserving the trails. We work on improving
the trails systems so that they are safer for everyone (not just bikers)
whether it be trail maintenance or signage. We have environmental engineers
assisting us (yes, unlike you, there are people who actually know what they
are talking about when it comes to environmental issues, and some of them
like to bike on the mountains).

Keep living life between your ears. Keep posting non-factual information,
lies, and rhetoric. Keep referencing yourself as an authority. Keep trying
to stir the **** in areas you know less than nothing about so that you can
justify your ineffectual existence. Your epitaph will read "I lied", and it
will be justified.
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:20:57 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On 24 Nov 2006 23:28:35 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason".
>>>>> Those that
>>>>> do have already made the determination.
>>>>
>>>>Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do
>>>>it, and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any
>>>>attempt to deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but
>>>>that won't stop him, will it? :)
>>>>
>>>>Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,
>>>
>>> Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
>>> allowed. Try again.
>>>
>>> and it
>>>>has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.
>>>
>>> That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

>>
>>Referencing yourself to support your opinions...? Again...? You are
>>merely showing how long you have been casting lies and
>>missinformation. The FACT that mountain biking IS recognized by the
>>BLM and other OFFICIAL agencies proves your OPINIONS have been
>>REJECTED by those whose job it is protect public lands.
>>The LIE is your presentation of off-road cycling as a harmful
>>activity. That LIE has been recognized for what it is.

>
> Did you say something?


Yeah, he said go away, you are a fool.


> ===
> 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
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Exactly.

"jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:22:21 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps he could speak at something like this?
>>>http://www.imba.com/resources/summit/whistler_index.html

>>
>>
>> No, those "conferences" are censored.
>>

>
>
> Censored? You mean they only allow real scientists to talk or people that
> actually know what they're talking about? You fail on both accounts, no
> wonder they wouldn't let you talk.
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 27 Nov 2006 14:01:47 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing
>>>>> >>> > bikes off of pavement.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Ding! We have a winner.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to,
>>>>> >>and am able to.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason
>>>>> > for allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride.
>>>>> > Why someone else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the
>>>>> > question. "Because YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND
>>>>> > MANAGER to allow you to do it. Otherwise. that same reason would
>>>>> > allow people to grow marijuana on public lands.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As
>>>>> long as you continue to insist your views and definitions are the
>>>>> only acceptable options, you will continue to be looked at as on a
>>>>> fool's errand.
>>>>
>>>>And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
>>>>that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
>>>>footprint in nature than hikers.
>>>
>>> That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
>>> isn't any!

>>
>>
>>Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!

>
> Google won't help you, as demonstrated by the fact that you were
> unable to cite any such research. As usual.



Hey fool, I was simply responding to you in the same way you responded
to another poster. A little slow today??

>
>>> And since the reality is that nobody
>>>>is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to
>>>>have access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that
>>>>growth - more access to more places. Including National Parks!
>>>>
>>>>I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if
>>>>it were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So
>>>>his opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of
>>>>these things is essentially singular, and of no importance.
>>>>
>>>>E.P.
>>> ===
>>> 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
>>>

> ===
> 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
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:34:17 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

>>
>> Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
>> allowed. Try again.

>
>That's because growing marijuana is illegal (at least in most parts of the
>US and Canada),


Proving that "Because people want to do it" isn't a good reason for
allowing something. QED

whereas MOUNTAIN BIKING IS LEGAL if the landowner allows it.
>Understand the difference, or is that too deep of a concept to grasp?
>
>
>> and it
>>>has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

>>
>> That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

>
>That was funny. I'm still chuckling. Could you possibly be any more dumb?
>

===
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
 
On 27 Nov 2006 14:01:47 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing
>>>> >>> > bikes off of pavement.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Ding! We have a winner.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and
>>>> >>am able to.
>>>> >
>>>> > You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason
>>>> > for allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why
>>>> > someone else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the
>>>> > question. "Because YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND
>>>> > MANAGER to allow you to do it. Otherwise. that same reason would
>>>> > allow people to grow marijuana on public lands.
>>>> >
>>>> Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long
>>>> as you continue to insist your views and definitions are the only
>>>> acceptable options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's
>>>> errand.
>>>
>>>And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
>>>that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
>>>footprint in nature than hikers.

>>
>> That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
>> isn't any!

>
>
>Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!


Google won't help you, as demonstrated by the fact that you were
unable to cite any such research. As usual.

>> And since the reality is that nobody
>>>is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
>>>access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
>>>more access to more places. Including National Parks!
>>>
>>>I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if
>>>it were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So
>>>his opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of
>>>these things is essentially singular, and of no importance.
>>>
>>>E.P.

>> ===
>> 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
>>

===
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
 
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:04 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road
>>>cyclists
>>>are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.

>>
>> So what? Trails don't go to transportation destinations, so they are
>> irrelevant. The only solution to the car problem is to get rid of the
>> cars. DUH!

>
>Who said anything about a car problem? DUH!


YOU did: "Biking on-road is much more hazardous."

>>>On-road cyclists require roads that are created by decimating tracts of
>>>land. Paved roads will not recover for eons. Off-road tracks leave a
>>>significantly smaller footprint and if not used, will completely recover
>>>in
>>>a very short time.

>>
>> That's a LIE, as you well know.

>
>No, a lie is you stating that what I said is a lie.
>
>I often go by trails that were once ridden and/or hiked on, but are now
>closed. The closure has only been for maybe 4 or 5 years, and it is very
>hard to find the trail was unless you knew about it when it was in use.
>
>Take one of the local mountains - Seymour. It has approximately 25
>kilometres of trails that can be used for biking (some are shared with trail
>runners and hikers). Each trail averages 2 metres wide, but for arguments
>sake, we'll say every one is 3 metres wide. Sample:
>http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/Seymour/Pangor/c.jpg
>
>Oh, and if you want to see what a tree from a "pristine, virgin" rainforest
>looks like, here's an example:
>http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/June31_03/15.jpg
>
>Anyway, simple math shows that the area used by trails is approximately 0.75
>square kilometres. Compare that to the road that goes up the mountain (goes
>to the ski area, but is popular with road cyclists as it is a fairly long
>and steep climb). It's 12 kilometres long and 14 metres wide. That's
>approximately 1.7 square kilometres. The power line that crosses the
>mountain? I don't know the exact numbers, but the swath cut out is very
>wide (approximately 100 metres) and it is approximately 4 kilometres in
>length. That's 0.4 square kilometres a Then there's the ski area at the
>top; the amount of land used by it is something I don't know, but it is a
>lot. Here's a link. The top right photograph is just a small part of the
>ski resort. The bottom left is the road going up the mountain.
>http://www.ehabweb.net/seymour.html
>
>Now look at this picture:
>http://www.penmachine.com/photoessays/2002_06_aerial/Images/1.jpg
>
>Notice what is prevalent in the photo? Maybe something similar to where
>you're viewing this from? But wait. Stare closely at the top third - the
>part that is dark green. Look really hard. Harder. That's where the
>biking/hiking trails are! See them? See even one trail?
>
>Want to see what search and rescue spends their time doing? Have a look at
>this page, and you'll get an idea of what they spend most of their time on;
>it isn't mountain biking.
>http://www.northshorerescue.com/task.html
>
>Here's our provincial and local governments' stance on biking on said
>mountain, with indications of what is and isn't illegal (these are facts -
>you know - the type of things rational people use).
>http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/mtseymou.html (look under
>Park Info)
>http://www.britishcolumbia.com/parks/?id=108 (9th paragraph)
>
>
>Keep criticizing what we should do - there's nothing bad happening in your
>area. We lying mountain bikers are the only group of people that maintain
>the trails; hikers, horse riders, and trail runners do very little, if
>anything with regards to trail maintenance. We mountain bikers work with
>local groups and governments on preserving the trails. We work on improving
>the trails systems so that they are safer for everyone (not just bikers)
>whether it be trail maintenance or signage. We have environmental engineers
>assisting us (yes, unlike you, there are people who actually know what they
>are talking about when it comes to environmental issues, and some of them
>like to bike on the mountains).
>
>Keep living life between your ears. Keep posting non-factual information,
>lies, and rhetoric. Keep referencing yourself as an authority. Keep trying
>to stir the **** in areas you know less than nothing about so that you can
>justify your ineffectual existence. Your epitaph will read "I lied", and it
>will be justified.


Did you say something?
===
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
 
Mikey,
He completely discredited you and your arguments, and the only reply you
have is "Did you say something?"
How pathetic.

I love the smell of a good old fashioned ass-kicking in the morning




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

> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:04 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road
>>>>cyclists
>>>>are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.
>>>
>>> So what? Trails don't go to transportation destinations, so they are
>>> irrelevant. The only solution to the car problem is to get rid of
>>> the cars. DUH!

>>
>>Who said anything about a car problem? DUH!

>
> YOU did: "Biking on-road is much more hazardous."
>
>>>>On-road cyclists require roads that are created by decimating tracts
>>>>of land. Paved roads will not recover for eons. Off-road tracks
>>>>leave a significantly smaller footprint and if not used, will
>>>>completely recover in
>>>>a very short time.
>>>
>>> That's a LIE, as you well know.

>>
>>No, a lie is you stating that what I said is a lie.
>>
>>I often go by trails that were once ridden and/or hiked on, but are
>>now closed. The closure has only been for maybe 4 or 5 years, and it
>>is very hard to find the trail was unless you knew about it when it
>>was in use.
>>
>>Take one of the local mountains - Seymour. It has approximately 25
>>kilometres of trails that can be used for biking (some are shared with
>>trail runners and hikers). Each trail averages 2 metres wide, but
>>for arguments sake, we'll say every one is 3 metres wide. Sample:
>>http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/Seymour/Pangor/c.jpg
>>
>>Oh, and if you want to see what a tree from a "pristine, virgin"
>>rainforest looks like, here's an example:
>>http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/June31_03/15.jpg
>>
>>Anyway, simple math shows that the area used by trails is
>>approximately 0.75 square kilometres. Compare that to the road that
>>goes up the mountain (goes to the ski area, but is popular with road
>>cyclists as it is a fairly long and steep climb). It's 12 kilometres
>>long and 14 metres wide. That's approximately 1.7 square kilometres.
>>The power line that crosses the mountain? I don't know the exact
>>numbers, but the swath cut out is very wide (approximately 100 metres)
>>and it is approximately 4 kilometres in length. That's 0.4 square
>>kilometres a Then there's the ski area at the top; the amount of
>>land used by it is something I don't know, but it is a lot. Here's a
>>link. The top right photograph is just a small part of the ski
>>resort. The bottom left is the road going up the mountain.
>>http://www.ehabweb.net/seymour.html
>>
>>Now look at this picture:
>>http://www.penmachine.com/photoessays/2002_06_aerial/Images/1.jpg
>>
>>Notice what is prevalent in the photo? Maybe something similar to
>>where you're viewing this from? But wait. Stare closely at the top
>>third - the part that is dark green. Look really hard. Harder.
>>That's where the biking/hiking trails are! See them? See even one
>>trail?
>>
>>Want to see what search and rescue spends their time doing? Have a
>>look at this page, and you'll get an idea of what they spend most of
>>their time on; it isn't mountain biking.
>>http://www.northshorerescue.com/task.html
>>
>>Here's our provincial and local governments' stance on biking on said
>>mountain, with indications of what is and isn't illegal (these are
>>facts - you know - the type of things rational people use).
>>http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/mtseymou.html (look
>>under Park Info)
>>http://www.britishcolumbia.com/parks/?id=108 (9th paragraph)
>>
>>
>>Keep criticizing what we should do - there's nothing bad happening in
>>your area. We lying mountain bikers are the only group of people that
>>maintain the trails; hikers, horse riders, and trail runners do very
>>little, if anything with regards to trail maintenance. We mountain
>>bikers work with local groups and governments on preserving the
>>trails. We work on improving the trails systems so that they are
>>safer for everyone (not just bikers) whether it be trail maintenance
>>or signage. We have environmental engineers assisting us (yes, unlike
>>you, there are people who actually know what they are talking about
>>when it comes to environmental issues, and some of them like to bike
>>on the mountains).
>>
>>Keep living life between your ears. Keep posting non-factual
>>information, lies, and rhetoric. Keep referencing yourself as an
>>authority. Keep trying to stir the **** in areas you know less than
>>nothing about so that you can justify your ineffectual existence.
>>Your epitaph will read "I lied", and it will be justified.

>
> Did you say something?
> ===
> 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
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:34:17 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,
>>>
>>> Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
>>> allowed. Try again.

>>
>>That's because growing marijuana is illegal (at least in most parts of the
>>US and Canada),

>
> Proving that "Because people want to do it" isn't a good reason for
> allowing something. QED


You are stating an OPINION. The FACT that people want to do it PLUS the FACT
that you have yet to offer substantive and external proof your OPINIONS have
substance in scientific evidence PLUS the rest of the statement below (which
you ignored) is reason enough.
>
> whereas MOUNTAIN BIKING IS LEGAL if the landowner allows it.
>>Understand the difference, or is that too deep of a concept to grasp?
>>
>>> and it has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Pat O'Connell wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> S Curtiss wrote:

>> [MV schnipped]
>>>> We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
>>> When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
>>> Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
>>> construction is a fool's errand.
>>>
>>> He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
>>> has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.
>>>
>>> His demand for "reason" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
>>> paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
>>> alt.mountain-bike?"
>>>
>>> If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
>>> MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?

>> Question: If you guys would put Mikey in your plonk filters, and no one
>> would reply to him, would he make an ass of himself anyway?
>>
>> Answer: probably, but no one would care. I haven't seen a direct post
>> from him in well over two years.

>
> Nobody cares *now*.
>
> You can also kill by message content, such that if he's quoted, those
> messages are killed as well.
>
> Try it.
>
> E.P.
>


remember when dealing with mike the **** that PHD in his case stands for
"Piled Higher and Deeper
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:04 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road
>>>>cyclists
>>>>are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.
>>>
>>> So what? Trails don't go to transportation destinations, so they are
>>> irrelevant. The only solution to the car problem is to get rid of the
>>> cars. DUH!

>>
>>Who said anything about a car problem? DUH!

>
> YOU did: "Biking on-road is much more hazardous."


I didn't say anything about cars. Once again, you're lying.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>I often go by trails that were once ridden and/or hiked on, but are now
>>closed. The closure has only been for maybe 4 or 5 years, and it is very
>>hard to find the trail was unless you knew about it when it was in use.
>>
>>Take one of the local mountains - Seymour. It has approximately 25
>>kilometres of trails that can be used for biking (some are shared with
>>trail
>>runners and hikers). Each trail averages 2 metres wide, but for
>>arguments
>>sake, we'll say every one is 3 metres wide. Sample:
>>http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/Seymour/Pangor/c.jpg
>>
>>Oh, and if you want to see what a tree from a "pristine, virgin"
>>rainforest
>>looks like, here's an example:
>>http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/June31_03/15.jpg
>>
>>Anyway, simple math shows that the area used by trails is approximately
>>0.75
>>square kilometres. Compare that to the road that goes up the mountain
>>(goes
>>to the ski area, but is popular with road cyclists as it is a fairly long
>>and steep climb). It's 12 kilometres long and 14 metres wide. That's
>>approximately 1.7 square kilometres. The power line that crosses the
>>mountain? I don't know the exact numbers, but the swath cut out is very
>>wide (approximately 100 metres) and it is approximately 4 kilometres in
>>length. That's 0.4 square kilometres a Then there's the ski area at the
>>top; the amount of land used by it is something I don't know, but it is a
>>lot. Here's a link. The top right photograph is just a small part of the
>>ski resort. The bottom left is the road going up the mountain.
>>http://www.ehabweb.net/seymour.html
>>
>>Now look at this picture:
>>http://www.penmachine.com/photoessays/2002_06_aerial/Images/1.jpg
>>
>>Notice what is prevalent in the photo? Maybe something similar to where
>>you're viewing this from? But wait. Stare closely at the top third - the
>>part that is dark green. Look really hard. Harder. That's where the
>>biking/hiking trails are! See them? See even one trail?
>>
>>Want to see what search and rescue spends their time doing? Have a look
>>at
>>this page, and you'll get an idea of what they spend most of their time
>>on;
>>it isn't mountain biking.
>>http://www.northshorerescue.com/task.html
>>
>>Here's our provincial and local governments' stance on biking on said
>>mountain, with indications of what is and isn't illegal (these are facts -
>>you know - the type of things rational people use).
>>http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/mtseymou.html (look under
>>Park Info)
>>http://www.britishcolumbia.com/parks/?id=108 (9th paragraph)
>>
>>
>>Keep criticizing what we should do - there's nothing bad happening in your
>>area. We lying mountain bikers are the only group of people that maintain
>>the trails; hikers, horse riders, and trail runners do very little, if
>>anything with regards to trail maintenance. We mountain bikers work with
>>local groups and governments on preserving the trails. We work on
>>improving
>>the trails systems so that they are safer for everyone (not just bikers)
>>whether it be trail maintenance or signage. We have environmental
>>engineers
>>assisting us (yes, unlike you, there are people who actually know what
>>they
>>are talking about when it comes to environmental issues, and some of them
>>like to bike on the mountains).
>>
>>Keep living life between your ears. Keep posting non-factual information,
>>lies, and rhetoric. Keep referencing yourself as an authority. Keep
>>trying
>>to stir the **** in areas you know less than nothing about so that you can
>>justify your ineffectual existence. Your epitaph will read "I lied", and
>>it
>>will be justified.

>
> Did you say something?


Yes, I said something. Try pulling your fingers out of your ears.

I said a lot, and I put a fair degree of factual information into it. It's
even quoted above.

But of course you have no retort for other than the usual rhetoric, which
only proves without a doubt what I said above is true.

QED.
 
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:59:20 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:04 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road
>>>>>cyclists
>>>>>are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> So what? Trails don't go to transportation destinations, so they are
>>>> irrelevant. The only solution to the car problem is to get rid of the
>>>> cars. DUH!
>>>
>>>Who said anything about a car problem? DUH!

>>
>> YOU did: "Biking on-road is much more hazardous."

>
>I didn't say anything about cars. Once again, you're lying.


What's the "on-road hazard", if it's not cars, liar?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Buses.

They take up the whole lane, come far too close with little regard, and spew
huge amounts of black exhaust that is not just choking, but often makes
visibility very bad. In the dark and/or rain, it is even worse.

But what would you know. You're probably one of the bus riders.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
 
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:56:39 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Buses.
>
>They take up the whole lane, come far too close with little regard, and spew
>huge amounts of black exhaust that is not just choking, but often makes
>visibility very bad. In the dark and/or rain, it is even worse.
>
>But what would you know. You're probably one of the bus riders.


I bike and bus. Our buses are MUCH cleaner than that. My impression of
Canada is that their environmental legislation is WAY behind ours.

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

>

===
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