Mountain Bikers Don't Like Sharing, After All!



J

Jeff Strickland

Guest
Curtis,
You need to understand that Mike thinks that mountain bikes CAUSE global
warming because you haul them to the trail head in your Geo Metro. He
ignores the fact that hikers also drive to the trail head. But, Mike never
was big on facts ...




"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yy56g.30316$k%[email protected]
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Mountain bikers complain that hikers don't like to "share" the trails
>> with bikes. Now the shoe is on the other foot! Suddenly mountain
>> bikers don't like to share, after all! The smell of hypocrisy is
>> pretty strong....
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Single Track threatened by Single Desire for Oil and Gas
>> Energy Development Could Impact Aspenites Bike Trips to Fruita

>
> So... you state you are against auto dependence and road construction:
> "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.)"
>
> Yet you post a piece showing cyclists upset by the threat of oil / gas
> exploration in a natural area?
>
> You would rather have an area exploited for oil exploration rather than
> have mountain bikes on the trails...?
>
> You hate off-road cyclists so much, you would rather sacrifice natural
> space and area wildlife to oil companies rather than have bicycles in the
> area?
>
> You should be first in line to speak against the possibility of oil
> exploration in a natural area yet you dare to speak of hypocrosy on the
> part of cyclists for speaking out against something you say you have been
> fighting for "the previous 8 years"...?
>
> Wow... If this is not proof positive you have lost your marbles and gone
> completely insane, I don't know what else would.
>
>
>
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]
>
>>
>> Immoral...? Again with language of religious superiority...? You have
>> areas where bikes are not allowed. Imposing your narrow views onto the
>> rest of us who did not ask for it and have moved beyond it is "immoral".

>
> Bless him Father, for he knows not what he says!


Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules or
restrictions on the larger whole. Especially when those rules are based only
on opinions, perceptions and false assumptions.
>
>>>>>> Yet you post a piece showing cyclists upset by the threat of oil /
>>>>>> gas exploration in a natural area?
>>>>>
>>>>> Damn right! It will mean nothing but more roads in the end.
>>>>
>>>> So here you support the cyclists' actions to stop this advancement...
>>>
>>> No, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

>>
>> So you want the companies instead of having some bicycles around...?

>
> I want neither the companies nor the bicycles. That is what I meant by
> being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Well... The cyclists are already there. Organized tours, events and
activities concerning off-road cycling have been established. Their stance
against the intrusion of oil should be praised. Why condemn another's
interest in preserving any area? And these areas have been deemed
appropriate for off-road cycling. This is not "wilderness".
>
>>>>>> You would rather have an area exploited for oil exploration rather
>>>>>> than have mountain bikes on the trails...?
>>>>>
>>>>> We do not want any more roads in the Aspen area and we do not want
>>>>> mountain bikes on the trails. What is there about this that you do not
>>>>> understand?
>>>> Who us "we"...? Another elitist nut tugging on the tails of Vandeman...
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Elitism has its' place in the scheme of things. Without elites, there
>>> would be nothing for anyone. We would all of us be living like pigs in a
>>> pigsty. I am proud to count myself among the elite. It has taken me a
>>> lifetime of making discriminations to get to where I am now at.

>>
>> You are nowhere and nothing. No more important than me or anyone else.
>> Your claim of otherwise is meaningless. It takes others to recognize
>> status. Claiming it, instead of having it given, is meaningless. However,
>> I am perfectly capable of maintaining myself, making decisions and moving
>> about without having any "elite" step in for my own good. For the most
>> part, whenever one of these "elite" say something is "for my own good",
>> the reality is that they are trying to get their "goods" first and
>> foremost.

>
> No, we elites are above all petty considerations. We only want what is
> good for humanity in general, not what is good for some jerk who goes by
> the name of Curtiss, with two s' no less.
>

Your claim, beyond and above everyone, to have the answer for what is "good
for humanity" is meaningless. Your claim to be an "elite" is meaningless. A
quick search of "Edward Dolan" and your email comes up with a handfull of
references to usenet groups. Wow! You may be the most anonymous "elite" out
there. You can claim to be whatever you want.

> Good grief, what is this status thing you mention. Have you not realized
> by now that I am a GOD. When I proclaim, you listen. What is there about
> this hierarchical relationship that you do not understand?

Is there a mime talking? Somebody left the imaginary door open to the
imaginary room....
>
>>>
>>> Footpaths are reserved indeed for an elite. All you have to do to join
>>> this elite is to get off your freaking bike and do a bit of walking.

>>
>> Nope - You want to walk without bikes, you have that option in many areas
>> and many ways. Your desire to remove our option based only on your
>> semi-religious, narrow mindset is painfully obvious with nothing "elite"
>> coming into play. The truth is... off-road cycling has developed into an
>> economic reality, an environmental lobby, an internationally recognized
>> sport, and a healthful and sustainable activity within thousands of miles
>> of trails across the country. The FACT you can hike and have your
>> "elitist" ego satisfied in more areas than cyclists are allowed should be
>> enough to keep you close to nature. Its going to have to. Off-road
>> cycling has matured and is recognized by the agencies that set the rules
>> and standards.

>
> You have millions of miles of roads to cycle on. Gravel roads are perfect
> for mountain bikes. Yet I have never seen anyone cycling on gravel roads
> except myself. I am convinced that the main reason mountain bikers like to
> bike on hiking trails is so that they can have the pleasure of annoying
> hikers. May a horse rear up someday on the trail and give them a good kick
> in the head! Then and only then will they ever come to their senses.
> [...]
>


You are entitled to your opinions. You may believe what you like. It does
not automatically make it correct. It does not make it more worthy than my,
or anyone else's, opinions.
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Sat, 06 May 2006 05:58:05 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> You want to ride your bike on footpaths. This is not only wrong but immoral.
>> There are already plenty of roads for you to ride your bike on.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>

>
>
>You may wish to be careful about getting into moral judgement
>issues....there are ordained folks on these newsgroups as well as those
>who's morality will vary from yours.
>
>Michael Halliwell


Yeah -- like this guy, who is an ordained LIAR. Kiss his ring, turn
into a toad like him.
===
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Sun, 7 May 2006 07:38:52 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:eek:[email protected]
>>
>>>
>>> Immoral...? Again with language of religious superiority...? You have
>>> areas where bikes are not allowed. Imposing your narrow views onto the
>>> rest of us who did not ask for it and have moved beyond it is "immoral".

>>
>> Bless him Father, for he knows not what he says!

>
>Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules or
>restrictions on the larger whole.


Then why did Yosemite National Park ban mountain biking? Because we
convinced them it was proper, which it is.
===
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
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 07:38:52 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>>self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules or
>>restrictions on the larger whole.

>
> Then why did Yosemite National Park ban mountain biking? Because we
> convinced them it was proper, which it is.
> ===

I do not believe for an instant the people making the decision(s) concerning
Yosemite were self-appinted. They were elected, or appointed by, elected
officials. Beyond that, and I have stated it before on many occasions.
Uniquie, uncommonly fragile and rare areas certainly should be preserved,
designated and held seperate from general recreation access.
This does not alter the correct designation of other areas for recreation
and multi-use. Where have I ever stated that I advocate all areas should be
completely open for recreation and/or cycling?
BTW... Are trying to claim involvement in the designation of Yosemite? That
goes back to 1864.
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:k%k7g.50898$k%[email protected]
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]
>>
>>>
>>> Immoral...? Again with language of religious superiority...? You have
>>> areas where bikes are not allowed. Imposing your narrow views onto the
>>> rest of us who did not ask for it and have moved beyond it is "immoral".

>>
>> Bless him Father, for he knows not what he says!

>
> Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
> self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules or
> restrictions on the larger whole. Especially when those rules are based
> only on opinions, perceptions and false assumptions.


You strike me as being rather self-appointed and self-righteous yourself.
But you are right about one thing, this will all be played out by groups,
not individuals. That is ever the way in a democracy. Slob mountain bikers
are their own worst enemies. That is what I am counting on to get them
banned from more and more trails.
[...]

>> No, we elites are above all petty considerations. We only want what is
>> good for humanity in general, not what is good for some jerk who goes by
>> the name of Curtiss, with two s' no less.
>>

> Your claim, beyond and above everyone, to have the answer for what is
> "good for humanity" is meaningless. Your claim to be an "elite" is
> meaningless. A quick search of "Edward Dolan" and your email comes up with
> a handfull of references to usenet groups. Wow! You may be the most
> anonymous "elite" out there. You can claim to be whatever you want.


We elites are always very small, sometimes just composed of a single
individual. That is ever the way it is when you are a superior being. Many
are called, but few are chosen.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Sun, 7 May 2006 18:12:35 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:p[email protected]
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 07:38:52 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>>>self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules or
>>>restrictions on the larger whole.

>>
>> Then why did Yosemite National Park ban mountain biking? Because we
>> convinced them it was proper, which it is.
>> ===

>I do not believe for an instant the people making the decision(s) concerning
>Yosemite were self-appinted. They were elected, or appointed by, elected
>officials. Beyond that, and I have stated it before on many occasions.
>Uniquie, uncommonly fragile and rare areas certainly should be preserved,
>designated and held seperate from general recreation access.
>This does not alter the correct designation of other areas for recreation
>and multi-use. Where have I ever stated that I advocate all areas should be
>completely open for recreation and/or cycling?
>BTW... Are trying to claim involvement in the designation of Yosemite? That
>goes back to 1864.


Oh, sure. In 1864 they banned mountain biking? You are hopelessly
brain-dead.
===
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
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 18:12:35 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]ll.net> wrote in message
>>news:p[email protected]
>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 07:38:52 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>>>>self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules
>>>>or
>>>>restrictions on the larger whole.
>>>
>>> Then why did Yosemite National Park ban mountain biking? Because we
>>> convinced them it was proper, which it is.
>>> ===

>>I do not believe for an instant the people making the decision(s)
>>concerning
>>Yosemite were self-appinted. They were elected, or appointed by, elected
>>officials. Beyond that, and I have stated it before on many occasions.
>>Uniquie, uncommonly fragile and rare areas certainly should be preserved,
>>designated and held seperate from general recreation access.
>>This does not alter the correct designation of other areas for recreation
>>and multi-use. Where have I ever stated that I advocate all areas should
>>be
>>completely open for recreation and/or cycling?
>>BTW... Are trying to claim involvement in the designation of Yosemite?
>>That
>>goes back to 1864.

>
> Oh, sure. In 1864 they banned mountain biking? You are hopelessly
> brain-dead.


Your statement; " Because we convinced them it was proper, which it is."
implies you had direct involvement. "We" is inclusive. Either you were
involved in the designation of Yosemite or you were not. Your statement
implies you were. I referenced only the authority of those making decisions.
You do not get to turn this around because it is obvious who stated what and
in what order it was said.
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>> Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>> self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules
>> or restrictions on the larger whole. Especially when those rules are
>> based only on opinions, perceptions and false assumptions.

>
> You strike me as being rather self-appointed and self-righteous yourself.
> But you are right about one thing, this will all be played out by groups,
> not individuals. That is ever the way in a democracy. Slob mountain bikers
> are their own worst enemies. That is what I am counting on to get them
> banned from more and more trails.


Only pointing out misinformation, fraud and deception. I am not trying to
stop anyone or place my opinion above that of any others.
You, Vandeman or the Queen want to hike. Have at it.
But do not use misleading information, partial truth, opinion or
generalization and present it as fact or authoritative.
> [...]
>
>>> No, we elites are above all petty considerations. We only want what is
>>> good for humanity in general, not what is good for some jerk who goes by
>>> the name of Curtiss, with two s' no less.
>>>

>> Your claim, beyond and above everyone, to have the answer for what is
>> "good for humanity" is meaningless. Your claim to be an "elite" is
>> meaningless. A quick search of "Edward Dolan" and your email comes up
>> with a handfull of references to usenet groups. Wow! You may be the most
>> anonymous "elite" out there. You can claim to be whatever you want.

>
> We elites are always very small, sometimes just composed of a single
> individual. That is ever the way it is when you are a superior being.
> Many are called, but few are chosen.


Claiming to be "elite" and being recognized by others for that status are
two very different things.
> [...]
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:GkL7g.50995$k%[email protected]
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

[...]
>> We elites are always very small, sometimes just composed of a single
>> individual. That is ever the way it is when you are a superior being.
>> Many are called, but few are chosen.

>
> Claiming to be "elite" and being recognized by others for that status are
> two very different things.


Try to get real, why don't you? Those of us who are superior to the common
run of humanity KNOW it and there is no reason why we should not claim what
is rightly ours. All three of us, Vandemann, Curtiss and I, are clearly
superior to the everyday slobs that we see all about us. Who cares if
others, who are far stupider than we are, recognize us or not. Nay, I shall
continue on my path of self-proclaimed Greatness until the Grim Reaper says
otherwise.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 8 May 2006 13:26:48 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 18:12:35 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:p[email protected]
>>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 07:38:52 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>>>>>self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules
>>>>>or
>>>>>restrictions on the larger whole.
>>>>
>>>> Then why did Yosemite National Park ban mountain biking? Because we
>>>> convinced them it was proper, which it is.
>>>> ===
>>>I do not believe for an instant the people making the decision(s)
>>>concerning
>>>Yosemite were self-appinted. They were elected, or appointed by, elected
>>>officials. Beyond that, and I have stated it before on many occasions.
>>>Uniquie, uncommonly fragile and rare areas certainly should be preserved,
>>>designated and held seperate from general recreation access.
>>>This does not alter the correct designation of other areas for recreation
>>>and multi-use. Where have I ever stated that I advocate all areas should
>>>be
>>>completely open for recreation and/or cycling?
>>>BTW... Are trying to claim involvement in the designation of Yosemite?
>>>That
>>>goes back to 1864.

>>
>> Oh, sure. In 1864 they banned mountain biking? You are hopelessly
>> brain-dead.

>
>Your statement; " Because we convinced them it was proper, which it is."
>implies you had direct involvement. "We" is inclusive. Either you were
>involved in the designation of Yosemite or you were not.


We aren't talking about " the designation of Yosemite", but about its
mountain biking policy.

Your statement
>implies you were. I referenced only the authority of those making decisions.
>You do not get to turn this around because it is obvious who stated what and
>in what order it was said.



You can't even stick to a topic.
===
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 8 May 2006 13:36:31 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]t>
wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>>> Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>>> self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place rules
>>> or restrictions on the larger whole. Especially when those rules are
>>> based only on opinions, perceptions and false assumptions.

>>
>> You strike me as being rather self-appointed and self-righteous yourself.
>> But you are right about one thing, this will all be played out by groups,
>> not individuals. That is ever the way in a democracy. Slob mountain bikers
>> are their own worst enemies. That is what I am counting on to get them
>> banned from more and more trails.

>
>Only pointing out misinformation, fraud and deception. I am not trying to
>stop anyone or place my opinion above that of any others.
>You, Vandeman or the Queen want to hike. Have at it.
>But do not use misleading information, partial truth, opinion or
>generalization and present it as fact or authoritative.
>> [...]
>>
>>>> No, we elites are above all petty considerations. We only want what is
>>>> good for humanity in general, not what is good for some jerk who goes by
>>>> the name of Curtiss, with two s' no less.
>>>>
>>> Your claim, beyond and above everyone, to have the answer for what is
>>> "good for humanity" is meaningless. Your claim to be an "elite" is
>>> meaningless. A quick search of "Edward Dolan" and your email comes up
>>> with a handfull of references to usenet groups. Wow! You may be the most
>>> anonymous "elite" out there. You can claim to be whatever you want.

>>
>> We elites are always very small, sometimes just composed of a single
>> individual. That is ever the way it is when you are a superior being.
>> Many are called, but few are chosen.

>
>Claiming to be "elite" and being recognized by others


I am recognized by many people as the world expert on mountain biking
impacts. But being recognized has nothing to do with whether you are
correct. People with new ideas are often not recognized until late. In
fact, they are often ridiculed by ignorant people like you.

for that status are
>two very different things.
>> [...]

>

===
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
 
S

Sorni

Guest
di wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>
>> I am recognized by many people as the world expert on mountain biking
>> impacts.

>
>
>
> Name one, not many, just one!


Lemme guess: "See my website."

ROTFL
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 13:26:48 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually - I know exactly what I say. And it is simple. A handfull of
>>>>>>self-appointed and self-righteous individuals do not get to place
>>>>>>rules
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>restrictions on the larger whole.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why did Yosemite National Park ban mountain biking? Because we
>>>>> convinced them it was proper, which it is.
>>>>> ===
>>>>I do not believe for an instant the people making the decision(s)
>>>>concerning
>>>>Yosemite were self-appinted. They were elected, or appointed by, elected
>>>>officials. Beyond that, and I have stated it before on many occasions.
>>>>Uniquie, uncommonly fragile and rare areas certainly should be
>>>>preserved,
>>>>designated and held seperate from general recreation access.
>>>>This does not alter the correct designation of other areas for
>>>>recreation
>>>>and multi-use. Where have I ever stated that I advocate all areas should
>>>>be
>>>>completely open for recreation and/or cycling?
>>>>BTW... Are trying to claim involvement in the designation of Yosemite?
>>>>That
>>>>goes back to 1864.
>>>
>>> Oh, sure. In 1864 they banned mountain biking? You are hopelessly
>>> brain-dead.

>>
>>Your statement; " Because we convinced them it was proper, which it is."
>>implies you had direct involvement. "We" is inclusive. Either you were
>>involved in the designation of Yosemite or you were not.

>
> We aren't talking about " the designation of Yosemite", but about its
> mountain biking policy.

And again - You said "We convinced".. Inclusive of yourself. Implying you
were involved in the process of the recreation policies at Yosemite.
Were you part of the authority that created the rules at Yosemite or not?
>
> Your statement
>>implies you were. I referenced only the authority of those making
>>decisions.
>>You do not get to turn this around because it is obvious who stated what
>>and
>>in what order it was said.

>
>
> You can't even stick to a topic.
> ===

You brought up Yosemite. I have stayed on the topic of Yosemite. It is you
who made a statement and are now trying to back away from it.
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>>
>> Claiming to be "elite" and being recognized by others for that status are
>> two very different things.

>
> Try to get real, why don't you? Those of us who are superior to the common
> run of humanity KNOW it and there is no reason why we should not claim
> what is rightly ours. All three of us, Vandemann, Curtiss and I, are
> clearly superior to the everyday slobs that we see all about us. Who cares
> if others, who are far stupider than we are, recognize us or not. Nay, I
> shall continue on my path of self-proclaimed Greatness until the Grim
> Reaper says otherwise.
>


Please do not include me as being "superior". If you want to dance about
proclaiming "I am great - I am better than you" then have at it. I would
much rather be in the larger group simply looking away and shaking our heads
while wondering if your parents dropped you on your head as a child.
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Tue, 9 May 2006 07:58:04 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>
>>
>> I am recognized by many people as the world expert on mountain biking
>> impacts.

>
>
>
>Name one, not many, just one!


All the people (scientists) who have seen my lecture on the subject.
Not one could find any fault with it, making me the world expert on
the subject.
===
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
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8Vo8g.51114$k%[email protected]
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>
>>> Claiming to be "elite" and being recognized by others for that status
>>> are two very different things.

>>
>> Try to get real, why don't you? Those of us who are superior to the
>> common run of humanity KNOW it and there is no reason why we should not
>> claim what is rightly ours. All three of us, Vandemann, Curtiss and I,
>> are clearly superior to the everyday slobs that we see all about us. Who
>> cares if others, who are far stupider than we are, recognize us or not.
>> Nay, I shall continue on my path of self-proclaimed Greatness until the
>> Grim Reaper says otherwise.
>>

>
> Please do not include me as being "superior". If you want to dance about
> proclaiming "I am great - I am better than you" then have at it. I would
> much rather be in the larger group simply looking away and shaking our
> heads while wondering if your parents dropped you on your head as a child.


You obviously are not familiar with the membership of ARBR. You are superior
to them, but of course you are infinitely inferior to Ed Dolan the Great. I
thought that was understood without ME having to point it out to you.

I regard you as nothing but a biker slob.You have the morality of a cretin
with your despicable mountain biking agenda. May you rot in Hell forever for
desecrating my sacred footpaths with your freaking bike. I am going to
advise the Devil to single you out for special torments.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>>>> Claiming to be "elite" and being recognized by others for that status
>>>> are two very different things.
>>>
>>> Try to get real, why don't you? Those of us who are superior to the
>>> common run of humanity KNOW it and there is no reason why we should not
>>> claim what is rightly ours. All three of us, Vandemann, Curtiss and I,
>>> are clearly superior to the everyday slobs that we see all about us. Who
>>> cares if others, who are far stupider than we are, recognize us or not.
>>> Nay, I shall continue on my path of self-proclaimed Greatness until the
>>> Grim Reaper says otherwise.
>>>

>>
>> Please do not include me as being "superior". If you want to dance about
>> proclaiming "I am great - I am better than you" then have at it. I would
>> much rather be in the larger group simply looking away and shaking our
>> heads while wondering if your parents dropped you on your head as a
>> child.

>
> You obviously are not familiar with the membership of ARBR. You are
> superior to them, but of course you are infinitely inferior to Ed Dolan
> the Great. I thought that was understood without ME having to point it out
> to you.
>
> I regard you as nothing but a biker slob.You have the morality of a cretin
> with your despicable mountain biking agenda. May you rot in Hell forever
> for desecrating my sacred footpaths with your freaking bike. I am going to
> advise the Devil to single you out for special torments.


You pointing out your claim of superiority carries as much authority as me
stating my dog is the King of Minnesota.
I regard you as nothing. Simply nothing. You are merely words that appear on
my computer offering me an exercise in typing skills.
May I rot in Hell...? Doubtful... Since you have already proclaimed
yourself an "atheist" I also doubt you will be "advising the Devil" of
anything except your desire to have a glass of ice water. By all means, let
us know how that works out for ya.
>
 
S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 9 May 2006 07:58:04 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I am recognized by many people as the world expert on mountain biking
>>> impacts.

>>
>>
>>
>>Name one, not many, just one!

>
> All the people (scientists) who have seen my lecture on the subject.
> Not one could find any fault with it, making me the world expert on
> the subject.


You mean the like-minded individuals that attended the same conferences as
you? The people that managed to sit still for 15 minutes while you read from
a typed script that you presented as an answer to a "call for papers"? The
people that really attended because of the agenda of the conference and the
known authority of the keynote speakers (of which you have NEVER been
listed) ? You mean the people that sat in the room of the posters and
presenters with 5-10 minutes between each presentation? You mean these
conferences with "secret" reviews and unpublished findings and
recommendations with the only follow up being who gets an award for being
the best at making everyone feel good about themselves?
I've looked up the conferences you reference on your site. I've looked for
your name referenced by ANYONE else attending these things. And there is
NOTHING.
Your claim has about as much validity as water on the surface of the moon.