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