Mountain Bikers Don't Like to Stop!



B

Bill

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:03:00 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So if I troll you with the 50 MPH tricycle story you will say you have
>> done that, but did 55???

>
> No wonder you are so belligerent! You are mentally challenged, and
> have to compensate for it.
>
>> Bill Baka


I'm hardly challenged by anything, except figuring out how an abortion
candidate like you (and G.W. Bush) came to be.
Bill Baka
 
B

Bill

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:05:56 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:17:24 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Olebiker wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 9, 1:29 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> SOUNDS good, but the TRUTH is that there is no such thing as
>>>>>> "responsible" mountain biking, any more than there is "responsible"
>>>>>> killing of wildlife, "responsible" erosion-creation, or "responsible"
>>>>>> driving of hikers off of the trails.
>>>>> That's your opinion, Mike, not the truth. You are entitled to your
>>>>> opinion, but the rest of us don't have to accept it as truth when we
>>>>> know better.
>>>>>
>>>>> **** Durbin
>>>>>
>>>> Amen, again.
>>>> He makes it sound like riding in the wilderness is like shooting baby
>>>> ducks walking behind their mother.
>>> Not yet, but I HAVE seen animals killed by mountain bikers.

>> Oh ****, throw me in jail because I ran over a line of ants once.

>
> Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant of basic biology mountain
> bikers are. Those ants that you are dismissing are just as important
> as you are -- in fact, MORE important to the ecosystem. Humans don't
> contribute to the ecosystem. On balance, they only destroy. The fact
> that you don't understand and don't care makes no difference.


Since you continue to repeat how bad humans are, do the world a favor,
kill yourself.
Now try to tell us how important YOU are to the scheme of things.
>
>> Jesus H.......!
>> Mike,
>> Go tiptoe through the tulips with Tiny Tim.
>> Bill Baka
>>> I now know we have another nut case
>>>> loose on the groups.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>>> I sure wish Thunderbird had a kill file by name.
 
B

Bill

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:36:02 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:Do you ride closed trails? Or
>>> off-trail?

>> If it is marked as a do not trespass then I don't ride on it.

>
> That's not what I asked. Do you ride trails that are closed to bikes?
> I'm sure a macho guy like you doesn't let a little thing like a sign
> get in your way....
>

Non-reply. You aren't worth the wasted bandwidth.
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:29 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:36:02 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:Do you ride closed trails? Or
>>>> off-trail?
>>> If it is marked as a do not trespass then I don't ride on it.

>>
>> That's not what I asked. Do you ride trails that are closed to bikes?
>> I'm sure a macho guy like you doesn't let a little thing like a sign
>> get in your way....
>>

>Non-reply. You aren't worth the wasted bandwidth.


Implied "yes" is duly noted. Idiot.
--
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:22:51 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 10, 11:22 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 08:45:41 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jun 10, 3:47 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:47:24 -0700,Olebiker<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 9, 1:29 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> SOUNDS good, but the TRUTH is that there is no such thing as
>> >> >> "responsible" mountain biking, any more than there is "responsible"
>> >> >> killing of wildlife, "responsible" erosion-creation, or "responsible"
>> >> >> driving of hikers off of the trails.

>>
>> >> >That's your opinion, Mike, not the truth. You are entitled to your
>> >> >opinion, but the rest of us don't have to accept it as truth when we
>> >> >know better.

>>
>> >> I have provided theSCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You have provided nothing by
>> >> an assertion. See the difference? So does everyone else.

>>
>> >No, Mike, you have not provided proof to support your assertion that
>> >there is no such thing as responsible mountain biking. Just claiming
>> >to have done so does not make it so.

>>
>> >You keep posting links to your articles which merely express your
>> >opinion. You cite scientific articles that you claim support your
>> >position, but when challenged to quote specifics from those articles,
>> >you won't do it.

>>
>> BS. It's all explained in detail inhttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. You wouldn't know science if it
>> bit you.

>
>Thank you for providing the perfect example of why you have no
>scientific credibility. You reach conclusions not supported by the
>very papers you cite


Of course, because, unlike THEIR conclusions, mine ARE supported by
their data.

and you try to refute science that doesn't agree
>with your prejudice by inserting your opinion as fact.
>
>You know why Audrey Taylor, and everyone else, ignored your comment on
>the distance mountain bikers travel? Because it is irrelevant.


No, it isn't, and she didn't ignore me. She inserted an irrelevant
comment about bike "speed" in response to my comment.

>You have been on your crusade against mountain biking for how many
>years now? You aren't accomplishing anything because you are too
>willing to insult and belittle the people you are trying to convince.
>Learn from your mistakes. Change your tactics and maybe you can
>correct some of the real problems created by the slob mountain bikers
>who do damage the environment.


Thanks for demonstrating how mountain bikers COMPLETELY MISS THE
POINT: it isn't just "slob mountain bikers" who damage the
environment. It is ALL mountain bikers. DUH!
--
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:34:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 10, 3:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:46:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> No, and I have never claimed that. What I DO claim is that mountain
>> >> biking is far more harmful than hiking, which is true.

>>
>> >And hiking is more harmful than staying out of the woods. We could
>> >all just sit at home in front of our computers and let nature take its
>> >course outside our door without us, but that is not realistic.

>>
>> Mountain biking isn't the only alternative, just the only that
>> mountain bikers will consider.

>
>It is their choice to make, no matter how much you don't like it.


Why would anyone CHOOSE to destroy the environment?

>> >>Also that
>> >> mountain bikers LIE about why they are there. They claim to care about
>> >> the environment, but speed by it so fast that they don't even see it.
>> >> Look at any mountain bikiing video, if you don't believe me. And look
>> >> at the Subject of this thread! DUH!

>>
>> >In the case of the rider you originally posted about, stopping would
>> >negate his enjoyment of the landscape. It is that interaction with
>> >the landscape that he is looking for, not flowers or birds or other
>> >wildlife.

>>
>> Exactly what I said: he us USING nature for his own thrills, and
>> doesn't really care about itr's needs.

>
>And you are NOT using nature to fulfill your needs when you go for a
>hike?


Not in as harmful a way as a mountain biker.

>> >Not all off-road riders ride the same way or for the same reasons as
>> >the rider in question. Back when I rode a mountain bike one of my
>> >favorite rides was on the Lake Overstreet property here in
>> >Tallahassee. There is an area of about an acre that is full of
>> >wisteria in the Spring. One of my greatest joys was being brought up
>> >short by the fragrance.

>>
>> >The only bobcat I have ever seen was while I was riding along a dike
>> >at the St. Mark's Wildlife Refuge. I would never have seen him had I
>> >not been on my bike. This is the same place where a bald eagle flew
>> >across about fifty feet in front of me with a freshly-caught bass
>> >still wiggling in his talons.

>>
>> >The only pygmy rattlesnake and cottonmouth I have ever seen were
>> >because I was on my mountain bike. The same goes for the first wild
>> >hog.

>>
>> What about all the plants and animals that you ran over and killed?
>> You haven't demonstrated any net BENEFIT for the wildlife.

>
>What net benefit does the wildlife get from your hiking?
>
>> >Mike, every activity has its responsible participants and its jerks.
>> >Mountain biking is no different.

>>
>> You miss the point. There is no such thing as "responsible" mountain
>> biking, any more than there is "responsible" bulldozer racing. No
>> matter HOW you ride, you accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts,
>> squash small animals & plants on & next to the trail, drive other
>> trail users off the trails, & teach kids that the rough treatment of
>> nature is okay. What's good about THAT? Hello!

>
>The point I am trying to make to you is that not all mountain biking
>fits that description.


BS. You can't ride a bike in any natural area without doing those
things. That much is OBVIOUS.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:31:43 -0700, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jun 10, 12:26 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:30:35 -0700, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 8, 12:46 pm, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> >> > No, and I have never claimed that. What I DO claim is that mountain
>> >> > biking is far more harmful than hiking, which is true.

>>
>> >> And hiking is more harmful than staying out of the woods. We could
>> >> all just sit at home in front of our computers and let nature take its
>> >> course outside our door without us, but that is not realistic.

>>
>> >> >Also that
>> >> > mountain bikers LIE about why they are there. They claim to care about
>> >> > the environment, but speed by it so fast that they don't even see it.
>> >> > Look at any mountain bikiing video, if you don't believe me. And look
>> >> > at the Subject of this thread! DUH!

>>
>> >> In the case of the rider you originally posted about, stopping would
>> >> negate his enjoyment of the landscape. It is that interaction with
>> >> the landscape that he is looking for, not flowers or birds or other
>> >> wildlife.

>>
>> >> Not all off-road riders ride the same way or for the same reasons as
>> >> the rider in question. Back when I rode a mountain bike one of my
>> >> favorite rides was on the Lake Overstreet property here in
>> >> Tallahassee. There is an area of about an acre that is full of
>> >> wisteria in the Spring. One of my greatest joys was being brought up
>> >> short by the fragrance.

>>
>> >> The only bobcat I have ever seen was while I was riding along a dike
>> >> at the St. Mark's Wildlife Refuge. I would never have seen him had I
>> >> not been on my bike. This is the same place where a bald eagle flew
>> >> across about fifty feet in front of me with a freshly-caught bass
>> >> still wiggling in his talons.

>>
>> >> The only pygmy rattlesnake and cottonmouth I have ever seen were
>> >> because I was on my mountain bike. The same goes for the first wild
>> >> hog.

>>
>> >> Mike, every activity has its responsible participants and its jerks.
>> >> Mountain biking is no different. Some guys are jerks who terrorize
>> >> other trail users, ride when the ground is wet, skid through turns,
>> >> and cut illegal trails. On the other hand, there are riders who take
>> >> the time to design and maintain trails that minimize the impact of
>> >> mountain biking on the environment. These are the same guys who
>> >> repair the damage done by the jerks.

>>
>> >> If you are ever in Tallahassee, I can show you the effects of both the
>> >> jerks and the responsible riders.

>>
>> >> **** Durbin

>>
>> >One thing you will find is that Mike refuses to be shown anything that
>> >could imply that he is in error. I offered to show him a place on
>> >this group, and he went into hysterics about how poor my example would
>> >be and how groundtruth isn't science. He is extremely insecure about
>> >his positions and will do everything not to introduce any imbalance
>> >onto his precarious assertions. It is the curse of the ivory tower
>> >disconnect.

>>
>> You are full of it. I have first-hand experience of everything I
>> claim, as well as having read all of the research on the subject.
>> That's more than either of you can say.

>
>That is a patent lie. I offered to take you out to the Hayward
>Shoreline, not once but several times, and in so many words you
>refused. You have no idea what is going on out there, and you refused
>to come and find out. That is a fact.


No, you are LYING, as you well know: I already told you that I have
already been there and seen it.

>It is also a big part of the reason why about 99% of the people on
>this group, even those who might otherwise *agree* with you on various
>issues, think you're a worthless lying jerk and so tell you to ^%$&
>off. It isn't the message - it's the messenger.


Hmmm. It is apparent that YOU are the liar. QED

>Bruce Jensen

--
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:28:32 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:03:00 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So if I troll you with the 50 MPH tricycle story you will say you have
>>> done that, but did 55???

>>
>> No wonder you are so belligerent! You are mentally challenged, and
>> have to compensate for it.
>>
>>> Bill Baka

>
>I'm hardly challenged by anything, except figuring out how an abortion
>candidate like you (and G.W. Bush) came to be.


Huh? Thanks for proving my point. You can't even write a coherent
sentence.

>Bill Baka

--
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:30:08 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:05:56 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:17:24 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Olebiker wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 9, 1:29 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> SOUNDS good, but the TRUTH is that there is no such thing as
>>>>>>> "responsible" mountain biking, any more than there is "responsible"
>>>>>>> killing of wildlife, "responsible" erosion-creation, or "responsible"
>>>>>>> driving of hikers off of the trails.
>>>>>> That's your opinion, Mike, not the truth. You are entitled to your
>>>>>> opinion, but the rest of us don't have to accept it as truth when we
>>>>>> know better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **** Durbin
>>>>>>
>>>>> Amen, again.
>>>>> He makes it sound like riding in the wilderness is like shooting baby
>>>>> ducks walking behind their mother.
>>>> Not yet, but I HAVE seen animals killed by mountain bikers.
>>> Oh ****, throw me in jail because I ran over a line of ants once.

>>
>> Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant of basic biology mountain
>> bikers are. Those ants that you are dismissing are just as important
>> as you are -- in fact, MORE important to the ecosystem. Humans don't
>> contribute to the ecosystem. On balance, they only destroy. The fact
>> that you don't understand and don't care makes no difference.

>
>Since you continue to repeat how bad humans are, do the world a favor,
>kill yourself.
>Now try to tell us how important YOU are to the scheme of things.


I'm here to compensate for the damage done by people like you.
--
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
 
B

Bill

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:28:32 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Bill Baka

>> I'm hardly challenged by anything, except figuring out how an abortion
>> candidate like you (and G.W. Bush) came to be.

>
> Huh? Thanks for proving my point. You can't even write a coherent
> sentence.

That was coherent, but maybe you can't handle the truth.
>
>> Bill Baka
 
B

Bill

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:30:08 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:05:56 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:17:24 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Olebiker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 1:29 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> SOUNDS good, but the TRUTH is that there is no such thing as
>>>>>>>> "responsible" mountain biking, any more than there is "responsible"
>>>>>>>> killing of wildlife, "responsible" erosion-creation, or "responsible"
>>>>>>>> driving of hikers off of the trails.
>>>>>>> That's your opinion, Mike, not the truth. You are entitled to your
>>>>>>> opinion, but the rest of us don't have to accept it as truth when we
>>>>>>> know better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **** Durbin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amen, again.
>>>>>> He makes it sound like riding in the wilderness is like shooting baby
>>>>>> ducks walking behind their mother.
>>>>> Not yet, but I HAVE seen animals killed by mountain bikers.
>>>> Oh ****, throw me in jail because I ran over a line of ants once.
>>> Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant of basic biology mountain
>>> bikers are. Those ants that you are dismissing are just as important
>>> as you are -- in fact, MORE important to the ecosystem. Humans don't
>>> contribute to the ecosystem. On balance, they only destroy. The fact
>>> that you don't understand and don't care makes no difference.

>> Since you continue to repeat how bad humans are, do the world a favor,
>> kill yourself.
>> Now try to tell us how important YOU are to the scheme of things.

>
> I'm here to compensate for the damage done by people like you.


I don't damage. You are proving to be the big fool here. Anything I take
with me comes back out with me and sometimes other people's garbage, so
I am actually improving the trails I ride on.
Bill Baka
 
O

Olebiker

Guest
On Jun 11, 7:57 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:34:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 3:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:46:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> No, and I have never claimed that. What I DO claim is that mountain
> >> >> biking is far more harmful than hiking, which is true.

>
> >> >And hiking is more harmful than staying out of the woods. We could
> >> >all just sit at home in front of our computers and let nature take its
> >> >course outside our door without us, but that is not realistic.

>
> >> Mountain biking isn't the only alternative, just the only that
> >> mountain bikers will consider.

>
> >It is their choice to make, no matter how much you don't like it.

>
> Why would anyone CHOOSE to destroy the environment?


Everything we do in our daily lives has some effect on the
environment. The mere fact that you use a computer causes some
detriment to the environment. We have to make a decision as to
whether our activity's impact on the environment is so negative as to
make it unconscionable.

You believe that off-road bicycling does too much damage to the
environment to justify it. You have attempted to justify your point
of view in the articles you have printed on your web site. They are
not convincing because they are full of your world view rather than
scientific fact. When sincere people have tried to engage you in
reasonable, civil, scientific discussion you have resorted to
insulting ad hominem attacks.

Take a marketing or public relations class and learn how to sell your
point of view.

> >> >>Also that
> >> >> mountain bikers LIE about why they are there. They claim to care about
> >> >> the environment, but speed by it so fast that they don't even see it.
> >> >> Look at any mountain bikiing video, if you don't believe me. And look
> >> >> at the Subject of this thread! DUH!

>
> >> >In the case of the rider you originally posted about, stopping would
> >> >negate his enjoyment of the landscape. It is that interaction with
> >> >the landscape that he is looking for, not flowers or birds or other
> >> >wildlife.

>
> >> Exactly what I said: he us USING nature for his own thrills, and
> >> doesn't really care about itr's needs.

>
> >And you are NOT using nature to fulfill your needs when you go for a
> >hike?

>
> Not in as harmful a way as a mountain biker.


So who made you the arbiter of where to draw that line?

> >> >Not all off-road riders ride the same way or for the same reasons as
> >> >the rider in question. Back when I rode a mountain bike one of my
> >> >favorite rides was on the Lake Overstreet property here in
> >> >Tallahassee. There is an area of about an acre that is full of
> >> >wisteria in the Spring. One of my greatest joys was being brought up
> >> >short by the fragrance.

>
> >> >The only bobcat I have ever seen was while I was riding along a dike
> >> >at the St. Mark's Wildlife Refuge. I would never have seen him had I
> >> >not been on my bike. This is the same place where a bald eagle flew
> >> >across about fifty feet in front of me with a freshly-caught bass
> >> >still wiggling in his talons.

>
> >> >The only pygmy rattlesnake and cottonmouth I have ever seen were
> >> >because I was on my mountain bike. The same goes for the first wild
> >> >hog.

>
> >> What about all the plants and animals that you ran over and killed?
> >> You haven't demonstrated any net BENEFIT for the wildlife.

>
> >What net benefit does the wildlife get from your hiking?


No answer, Mike?

> >> >Mike, every activity has its responsible participants and its jerks.
> >> >Mountain biking is no different.

>
> >> You miss the point. There is no such thing as "responsible" mountain
> >> biking, any more than there is "responsible" bulldozer racing. No
> >> matter HOW you ride, you accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts,
> >> squash small animals & plants on & next to the trail, drive other
> >> trail users off the trails, & teach kids that the rough treatment of
> >> nature is okay. What's good about THAT? Hello!

>
> >The point I am trying to make to you is that not all mountain biking
> >fits that description.

>
> BS. You can't ride a bike in any natural area without doing those
> things. That much is OBVIOUS.


No, Mike, that is not obvious to anyone but you. That is where your
argument fails.
 
C

Chris

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

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:34:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 10, 3:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:46:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> No, and I have never claimed that. What I DO claim is that
>>> >> mountain biking is far more harmful than hiking, which is true.
>>>
>>> >And hiking is more harmful than staying out of the woods. We could
>>> >all just sit at home in front of our computers and let nature take
>>> >its course outside our door without us, but that is not realistic.
>>>
>>> Mountain biking isn't the only alternative, just the only that
>>> mountain bikers will consider.

>>
>>It is their choice to make, no matter how much you don't like it.

>
> Why would anyone CHOOSE to destroy the environment?
>
>>> >>Also that
>>> >> mountain bikers LIE about why they are there. They claim to care
>>> >> about the environment, but speed by it so fast that they don't
>>> >> even see it. Look at any mountain bikiing video, if you don't
>>> >> believe me. And look at the Subject of this thread! DUH!
>>>
>>> >In the case of the rider you originally posted about, stopping
>>> >would negate his enjoyment of the landscape. It is that
>>> >interaction with the landscape that he is looking for, not flowers
>>> >or birds or other wildlife.
>>>
>>> Exactly what I said: he us USING nature for his own thrills, and
>>> doesn't really care about itr's needs.

>>
>>And you are NOT using nature to fulfill your needs when you go for a
>>hike?

>
> Not in as harmful a way as a mountain biker.


So, what you are suggesting is that it is ok to be harmful to the
environment by hiking, but just at lesser quantity.

Come on Mike, even you dont buy that one.

>
>>> >Not all off-road riders ride the same way or for the same reasons
>>> >as the rider in question. Back when I rode a mountain bike one of
>>> >my favorite rides was on the Lake Overstreet property here in
>>> >Tallahassee. There is an area of about an acre that is full of
>>> >wisteria in the Spring. One of my greatest joys was being brought
>>> >up short by the fragrance.
>>>
>>> >The only bobcat I have ever seen was while I was riding along a
>>> >dike at the St. Mark's Wildlife Refuge. I would never have seen
>>> >him had I not been on my bike. This is the same place where a bald
>>> >eagle flew across about fifty feet in front of me with a
>>> >freshly-caught bass still wiggling in his talons.
>>>
>>> >The only pygmy rattlesnake and cottonmouth I have ever seen were
>>> >because I was on my mountain bike. The same goes for the first
>>> >wild hog.
>>>
>>> What about all the plants and animals that you ran over and killed?
>>> You haven't demonstrated any net BENEFIT for the wildlife.

>>
>>What net benefit does the wildlife get from your hiking?
>>
>>> >Mike, every activity has its responsible participants and its
>>> >jerks. Mountain biking is no different.
>>>
>>> You miss the point. There is no such thing as "responsible" mountain
>>> biking, any more than there is "responsible" bulldozer racing. No
>>> matter HOW you ride, you accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts,
>>> squash small animals & plants on & next to the trail, drive other
>>> trail users off the trails, & teach kids that the rough treatment of
>>> nature is okay. What's good about THAT? Hello!

>>
>>The point I am trying to make to you is that not all mountain biking
>>fits that description.

>
> BS. You can't ride a bike in any natural area without doing those
> things. That much is OBVIOUS.



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

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:31:13 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:30:08 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:05:56 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:17:24 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Olebiker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 1:29 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> SOUNDS good, but the TRUTH is that there is no such thing as
>>>>>>>>> "responsible" mountain biking, any more than there is "responsible"
>>>>>>>>> killing of wildlife, "responsible" erosion-creation, or "responsible"
>>>>>>>>> driving of hikers off of the trails.
>>>>>>>> That's your opinion, Mike, not the truth. You are entitled to your
>>>>>>>> opinion, but the rest of us don't have to accept it as truth when we
>>>>>>>> know better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **** Durbin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amen, again.
>>>>>>> He makes it sound like riding in the wilderness is like shooting baby
>>>>>>> ducks walking behind their mother.
>>>>>> Not yet, but I HAVE seen animals killed by mountain bikers.
>>>>> Oh ****, throw me in jail because I ran over a line of ants once.
>>>> Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant of basic biology mountain
>>>> bikers are. Those ants that you are dismissing are just as important
>>>> as you are -- in fact, MORE important to the ecosystem. Humans don't
>>>> contribute to the ecosystem. On balance, they only destroy. The fact
>>>> that you don't understand and don't care makes no difference.
>>> Since you continue to repeat how bad humans are, do the world a favor,
>>> kill yourself.
>>> Now try to tell us how important YOU are to the scheme of things.

>>
>> I'm here to compensate for the damage done by people like you.

>
>I don't damage. You are proving to be the big fool here. Anything I take
>with me comes back out with me and sometimes other people's garbage, so
>I am actually improving the trails I ride on.


What about all the plants and animals you've crushed? I suspect that
they would disagree.

>Bill Baka

--
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:10:17 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 11, 7:57 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:34:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jun 10, 3:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:46:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> No, and I have never claimed that. What I DO claim is that mountain
>> >> >> biking is far more harmful than hiking, which is true.

>>
>> >> >And hiking is more harmful than staying out of the woods. We could
>> >> >all just sit at home in front of our computers and let nature take its
>> >> >course outside our door without us, but that is not realistic.

>>
>> >> Mountain biking isn't the only alternative, just the only that
>> >> mountain bikers will consider.

>>
>> >It is their choice to make, no matter how much you don't like it.

>>
>> Why would anyone CHOOSE to destroy the environment?

>
>Everything we do in our daily lives has some effect on the
>environment. The mere fact that you use a computer causes some
>detriment to the environment. We have to make a decision as to
>whether our activity's impact on the environment is so negative as to
>make it unconscionable.
>
>You believe that off-road bicycling does too much damage to the
>environment to justify it. You have attempted to justify your point
>of view in the articles you have printed on your web site. They are
>not convincing because they are full of your world view rather than
>scientific fact.


Tell me a "scientific fact" I missed? I can't wait to hear about it.
And why haven't you ever mentioned it before?

When sincere people have tried to engage you in
>reasonable, civil, scientific discussion you have resorted to
>insulting ad hominem attacks.
>
>Take a marketing or public relations class and learn how to sell your
>point of view.
>
>> >> >>Also that
>> >> >> mountain bikers LIE about why they are there. They claim to care about
>> >> >> the environment, but speed by it so fast that they don't even see it.
>> >> >> Look at any mountain bikiing video, if you don't believe me. And look
>> >> >> at the Subject of this thread! DUH!

>>
>> >> >In the case of the rider you originally posted about, stopping would
>> >> >negate his enjoyment of the landscape. It is that interaction with
>> >> >the landscape that he is looking for, not flowers or birds or other
>> >> >wildlife.

>>
>> >> Exactly what I said: he us USING nature for his own thrills, and
>> >> doesn't really care about itr's needs.

>>
>> >And you are NOT using nature to fulfill your needs when you go for a
>> >hike?

>>
>> Not in as harmful a way as a mountain biker.

>
>So who made you the arbiter of where to draw that line?


Science has done that. It's also obvious.

>> >> >Not all off-road riders ride the same way or for the same reasons as
>> >> >the rider in question. Back when I rode a mountain bike one of my
>> >> >favorite rides was on the Lake Overstreet property here in
>> >> >Tallahassee. There is an area of about an acre that is full of
>> >> >wisteria in the Spring. One of my greatest joys was being brought up
>> >> >short by the fragrance.

>>
>> >> >The only bobcat I have ever seen was while I was riding along a dike
>> >> >at the St. Mark's Wildlife Refuge. I would never have seen him had I
>> >> >not been on my bike. This is the same place where a bald eagle flew
>> >> >across about fifty feet in front of me with a freshly-caught bass
>> >> >still wiggling in his talons.

>>
>> >> >The only pygmy rattlesnake and cottonmouth I have ever seen were
>> >> >because I was on my mountain bike. The same goes for the first wild
>> >> >hog.

>>
>> >> What about all the plants and animals that you ran over and killed?
>> >> You haven't demonstrated any net BENEFIT for the wildlife.

>>
>> >What net benefit does the wildlife get from your hiking?

>
>No answer, Mike?
>
>> >> >Mike, every activity has its responsible participants and its jerks.
>> >> >Mountain biking is no different.

>>
>> >> You miss the point. There is no such thing as "responsible" mountain
>> >> biking, any more than there is "responsible" bulldozer racing. No
>> >> matter HOW you ride, you accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts,
>> >> squash small animals & plants on & next to the trail, drive other
>> >> trail users off the trails, & teach kids that the rough treatment of
>> >> nature is okay. What's good about THAT? Hello!

>>
>> >The point I am trying to make to you is that not all mountain biking
>> >fits that description.

>>
>> BS. You can't ride a bike in any natural area without doing those
>> things. That much is OBVIOUS.

>
>No, Mike, that is not obvious to anyone but you. That is where your
>argument fails.


As usual, your message is devoid of science or data. It's 100%
unsupported opinion.
--
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On 12 Jun 2007 13:36:45 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:34:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 10, 3:24 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:46:02 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >> No, and I have never claimed that. What I DO claim is that
>>>> >> mountain biking is far more harmful than hiking, which is true.
>>>>
>>>> >And hiking is more harmful than staying out of the woods. We could
>>>> >all just sit at home in front of our computers and let nature take
>>>> >its course outside our door without us, but that is not realistic.
>>>>
>>>> Mountain biking isn't the only alternative, just the only that
>>>> mountain bikers will consider.
>>>
>>>It is their choice to make, no matter how much you don't like it.

>>
>> Why would anyone CHOOSE to destroy the environment?
>>
>>>> >>Also that
>>>> >> mountain bikers LIE about why they are there. They claim to care
>>>> >> about the environment, but speed by it so fast that they don't
>>>> >> even see it. Look at any mountain bikiing video, if you don't
>>>> >> believe me. And look at the Subject of this thread! DUH!
>>>>
>>>> >In the case of the rider you originally posted about, stopping
>>>> >would negate his enjoyment of the landscape. It is that
>>>> >interaction with the landscape that he is looking for, not flowers
>>>> >or birds or other wildlife.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what I said: he us USING nature for his own thrills, and
>>>> doesn't really care about itr's needs.
>>>
>>>And you are NOT using nature to fulfill your needs when you go for a
>>>hike?

>>
>> Not in as harmful a way as a mountain biker.

>
>So, what you are suggesting is that it is ok to be harmful to the
>environment by hiking, but just at lesser quantity.


I never said that. You are fabricating, as usual. I just said that
hiking is LESS harmful than mountain biking. Anyone with any sense
knows what to do about it: don't mountain bike.

>Come on Mike, even you dont buy that one.
>
>>
>>>> >Not all off-road riders ride the same way or for the same reasons
>>>> >as the rider in question. Back when I rode a mountain bike one of
>>>> >my favorite rides was on the Lake Overstreet property here in
>>>> >Tallahassee. There is an area of about an acre that is full of
>>>> >wisteria in the Spring. One of my greatest joys was being brought
>>>> >up short by the fragrance.
>>>>
>>>> >The only bobcat I have ever seen was while I was riding along a
>>>> >dike at the St. Mark's Wildlife Refuge. I would never have seen
>>>> >him had I not been on my bike. This is the same place where a bald
>>>> >eagle flew across about fifty feet in front of me with a
>>>> >freshly-caught bass still wiggling in his talons.
>>>>
>>>> >The only pygmy rattlesnake and cottonmouth I have ever seen were
>>>> >because I was on my mountain bike. The same goes for the first
>>>> >wild hog.
>>>>
>>>> What about all the plants and animals that you ran over and killed?
>>>> You haven't demonstrated any net BENEFIT for the wildlife.
>>>
>>>What net benefit does the wildlife get from your hiking?
>>>
>>>> >Mike, every activity has its responsible participants and its
>>>> >jerks. Mountain biking is no different.
>>>>
>>>> You miss the point. There is no such thing as "responsible" mountain
>>>> biking, any more than there is "responsible" bulldozer racing. No
>>>> matter HOW you ride, you accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts,
>>>> squash small animals & plants on & next to the trail, drive other
>>>> trail users off the trails, & teach kids that the rough treatment of
>>>> nature is okay. What's good about THAT? Hello!
>>>
>>>The point I am trying to make to you is that not all mountain biking
>>>fits that description.

>>
>> BS. You can't ride a bike in any natural area without doing those
>> things. That much is OBVIOUS.

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
B

Bill

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:31:13 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:30:08 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:05:56 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:17:24 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Olebiker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 1:29 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> SOUNDS good, but the TRUTH is that there is no such thing as
>>>>>>>>>> "responsible" mountain biking, any more than there is "responsible"
>>>>>>>>>> killing of wildlife, "responsible" erosion-creation, or "responsible"
>>>>>>>>>> driving of hikers off of the trails.
>>>>>>>>> That's your opinion, Mike, not the truth. You are entitled to your
>>>>>>>>> opinion, but the rest of us don't have to accept it as truth when we
>>>>>>>>> know better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **** Durbin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amen, again.
>>>>>>>> He makes it sound like riding in the wilderness is like shooting baby
>>>>>>>> ducks walking behind their mother.
>>>>>>> Not yet, but I HAVE seen animals killed by mountain bikers.
>>>>>> Oh ****, throw me in jail because I ran over a line of ants once.
>>>>> Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant of basic biology mountain
>>>>> bikers are. Those ants that you are dismissing are just as important
>>>>> as you are -- in fact, MORE important to the ecosystem. Humans don't
>>>>> contribute to the ecosystem. On balance, they only destroy. The fact
>>>>> that you don't understand and don't care makes no difference.
>>>> Since you continue to repeat how bad humans are, do the world a favor,
>>>> kill yourself.
>>>> Now try to tell us how important YOU are to the scheme of things.
>>> I'm here to compensate for the damage done by people like you.

>> I don't damage. You are proving to be the big fool here. Anything I take
>> with me comes back out with me and sometimes other people's garbage, so
>> I am actually improving the trails I ride on.

>
> What about all the plants and animals you've crushed? I suspect that
> they would disagree.
>
>> Bill Baka


Did you not understand the part about them being deer trails on on
rarely another human? No weeds on the trial.
Bill Baka
 
O

Olebiker

Guest
On Jun 12, 9:58 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> >You believe that off-road bicycling does too much damage to the
> >environment to justify it. You have attempted to justify your point
> >of view in the articles you have printed on your web site. They are
> >not convincing because they are full of your world view rather than
> >scientific fact.

>
> Tell me a "scientific fact" I missed? I can't wait to hear about it.
> And why haven't you ever mentioned it before?


It's not facts I disagree with. It's your opinions. For the last ten
years, at least, I have been trying to get you to understand that all
logical arguments depend on certain premises being accepted for their
conclusions to follow. Noone accepts your basic premise that man is
an intruder in the wild and has no place there. That's merely your
point of view, not a quantifiable fact.

> >> Not in as harmful a way as a mountain biker.

>
> >So who made you the arbiter of where to draw that line?

>
> Science has done that. It's also obvious.


And some might say that science thinks that you should not be damaging
the environment by hiking in it or flying around the world to
participate in amateur hour at scientific conferences. Clean up your
own act.

> >> >What net benefit does the wildlife get from your hiking?

>
> >No answer, Mike?


Why won't you answer, Mike?

> >> >The point I am trying to make to you is that not all mountain biking
> >> >fits that description.

>
> >> BS. You can't ride a bike in any natural area without doing those
> >> things. That much is OBVIOUS.

>
> >No, Mike, that is not obvious to anyone but you. That is where your
> >argument fails.

>
> As usual, your message is devoid of science or data. It's 100%
> unsupported opinion.


The burden of proof, as always, is with the affirmative. You are the
one claiming that off-road riding is unreasonably destructive. It is
up to you to prove it. After all these years, you haven't done so.

**** Durbin
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:45:56 -0700, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 12, 9:58 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >You believe that off-road bicycling does too much damage to the
>> >environment to justify it. You have attempted to justify your point
>> >of view in the articles you have printed on your web site. They are
>> >not convincing because they are full of your world view rather than
>> >scientific fact.

>>
>> Tell me a "scientific fact" I missed? I can't wait to hear about it.
>> And why haven't you ever mentioned it before?

>
>It's not facts I disagree with.


So my facts are correct? That's good to know, since that's the most
important part.

It's your opinions. For the last ten
>years, at least, I have been trying to get you to understand that all
>logical arguments depend on certain premises being accepted for their
>conclusions to follow. Noone accepts your basic premise that man is
>an intruder in the wild and has no place there. That's merely your
>point of view, not a quantifiable fact.


Ask the wildlife. they would disagree with you.

>> >> Not in as harmful a way as a mountain biker.

>>
>> >So who made you the arbiter of where to draw that line?

>>
>> Science has done that. It's also obvious.

>
>And some might say that science thinks that you should not be damaging
>the environment by hiking in it or flying around the world to
>participate in amateur hour at scientific conferences. Clean up your
>own act.


Hypocrite. You have no intention of changing.

>> >> >What net benefit does the wildlife get from your hiking?

>>
>> >No answer, Mike?

>
>Why won't you answer, Mike?


Silly question. None.

>> >> >The point I am trying to make to you is that not all mountain biking
>> >> >fits that description.

>>
>> >> BS. You can't ride a bike in any natural area without doing those
>> >> things. That much is OBVIOUS.

>>
>> >No, Mike, that is not obvious to anyone but you. That is where your
>> >argument fails.

>>
>> As usual, your message is devoid of science or data. It's 100%
>> unsupported opinion.

>
>The burden of proof, as always, is with the affirmative. You are the
>one claiming that off-road riding is unreasonably destructive. It is
>up to you to prove it. After all these years, you haven't done so.


BS. It's all spelled out in http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 in
detail. Can't you READ?

>**** Durbin

--
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:24:02 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:31:13 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:30:08 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:05:56 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:17:24 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Olebiker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 1:29 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> SOUNDS good, but the TRUTH is that there is no such thing as
>>>>>>>>>>> "responsible" mountain biking, any more than there is "responsible"
>>>>>>>>>>> killing of wildlife, "responsible" erosion-creation, or "responsible"
>>>>>>>>>>> driving of hikers off of the trails.
>>>>>>>>>> That's your opinion, Mike, not the truth. You are entitled to your
>>>>>>>>>> opinion, but the rest of us don't have to accept it as truth when we
>>>>>>>>>> know better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **** Durbin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amen, again.
>>>>>>>>> He makes it sound like riding in the wilderness is like shooting baby
>>>>>>>>> ducks walking behind their mother.
>>>>>>>> Not yet, but I HAVE seen animals killed by mountain bikers.
>>>>>>> Oh ****, throw me in jail because I ran over a line of ants once.
>>>>>> Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant of basic biology mountain
>>>>>> bikers are. Those ants that you are dismissing are just as important
>>>>>> as you are -- in fact, MORE important to the ecosystem. Humans don't
>>>>>> contribute to the ecosystem. On balance, they only destroy. The fact
>>>>>> that you don't understand and don't care makes no difference.
>>>>> Since you continue to repeat how bad humans are, do the world a favor,
>>>>> kill yourself.
>>>>> Now try to tell us how important YOU are to the scheme of things.
>>>> I'm here to compensate for the damage done by people like you.
>>> I don't damage. You are proving to be the big fool here. Anything I take
>>> with me comes back out with me and sometimes other people's garbage, so
>>> I am actually improving the trails I ride on.

>>
>> What about all the plants and animals you've crushed? I suspect that
>> they would disagree.
>>
>>> Bill Baka

>
>Did you not understand the part about them being deer trails on on
>rarely another human? No weeds on the trial.


BS. Even more than on frequently used trails. Besides, it is illegal
to ride off-trail.

>Bill Baka

--
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