Mountain Bikers STILL Don't Get It!

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:59:59 -0400, reader <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> .
>> .>I am still waiting to hear even ONE good reason why the public should allow
>> .>bikes off-road. 10 years and counting....
>> .
>"Public should allow..."?? What, is it up for a vote? All those who want
>to ban kite flying on weekends raise you hand... jezzz what a
>knuckle-headed statement....

Especially from someone who does not care about public opinion.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> By driving to the trailhead.


Everybody contributes to global warming if that is the standard.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:13:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..At Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:03:20 GMT, message
..<[email protected]> was posted by Mike
..Vandeman <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
..following:
..
..>.>So you can't come up with even ONE good reason to allow bikes on trails? That's
..>.>what I thought....
..>.False. I came up with two.
..>BS. It is nice to see that you can't come up with even ONE good reason.
..
..False: enjoyment,

Not a good reason for the public to allow you to do it.

.. and you can see more in a day.

A lie. You can't see much of anything while riding off-road. You have to pay
attention to not crashing.

Two good reasons.
..The fact that your bigotry leads you to discount these, while allowing
..them for activities which you partake in or with which you take common
..cause, is your problem, not mine.
..
..>.The fact that one of these good reasons also applies to hiking and
..>.both to horse riding, with which you take common cause, is a clear
..>.indication that your position is (as ever) untenable.
..
..>BS. I don't promote either, LIAR.
..
..And I didn't say you did, LIAR. I said you hike (which you
..demonstrably do) and you take common cause with horse riding

Liar. That means nothing.

(which
..has been proven in this newsgroup earlier this year).
..
..Guy

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:44:49 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:28:13 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:11:30 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..> .wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .
..> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> .> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:01:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .The real problem with Mikey's arguement is that the answer is yes,
..but
..> .> .> .pretty much everyone contributes to global warming. So what's Mike
..to
..> .> .> .do now, say he contributes less?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Yes, of course!
..> .> .>
..> .> .> That arguement doesn't work either to
..> .> .> .my thinking.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> But it's true.
..> .> .
..> .> .I can prove otherwise.
..> .>
..> .> BS. You know NOTHING about me.
..> .>
..> .> .I havent driven my car for 3 weeks, I ride to my local trails
..> .(coed-y-brenin
..> .> .for the euro guys, is about a 20 minute ride from my current abode), I
..> .> .admittedly have a refrigerator in my house that puts out pollutants ,
..but
..> .I
..> .> .bet its no more than your refrigerator in your house.
..> .> .
..> .> .I also work from home, do not use any airconditioning of any sort, and
..> .the
..> .> .majority of my diet is locally produced and purchased direct from
..nearby
..> .,
..> .> .organic farms, so i am not supporting the industrial farming methods
..that
..> .> .cause so much damage.
..> .> .
..> .> .I know for a fact, because you have posted here yourself, just last
..week
..> .> .you travelled a few thousand miles to read for 15 minutes.
..> .>
..> .> On public transit.
..> .
..> . Are you suggesting that public transport is more environmentaly friendly
..> .than me walking Mr vanderman, as that , and my bike, is how I get around
..to
..> .do my shopping.
..> .> .You drive to an office every day,
..> .>
..> .> BS. You FABRICATED that.
..> .really? Then , pease point out ther error of that statement Mr vanderman,
..do
..> .you , or do you not travel by a vehicle using an internal combustion
..engine
..> .to travel to work, thus contributing every day to global warming.
..> .I work from home, so do not.
..>
..> So do I. You simply fabricate BS when you can't defend your selfish,
..destructive
..> sport any other way.
..
..And yet your neighbour posted in this very forum that you drive a car to
..work every day......
..
..
..> .> it would be fair to assume that office is
..> .> .air conditioned, if not your home as well.
..> .> .I guarantee you buy food from multinationals, processed, packed and
..> .drenched
..> .> .in preservative chemicals and laced with geneticly modified crops, all
..of
..> .> .which add pollutants to both the atmosphere and the food chain and
..> .> .ecological environment directly.
..> .>
..> .> Liar. You fabricated that.
..> .
..> .I have never seen an office yet of a company the size of the one you
..work
..> .for that DOESNT have airconditioning in the US. I feel you are a little
..to
..> .defensive here, yet refrain from calling me a liar.
..>
..> Neither my office nor my home have air conditioning. They don't need them.
..>
..> .I also know you eat the foods from multinationals,
..>
..> No, you don't. You have no idea what I eat. But it's nice to see that you
..can't
..> defend your selfish, destructive sport any way except to FABRICATE lies.
..
..Hmm, selfish , please explain how my sport is selfish,

It harms wildlife & other trail users.

showe the data that
..shows being a mountain biker makes one more selfish than the human group as
..a whole, the subset of recreational activity participants, or even the
..microset of wilderness users.
..Please show any coroborated data that proves itis more destructive than any
..other sport, something you still have yet to do.

BS. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

..> and every bite of every
..> .one of them contains the things I mention, it takes great effort to eat
..food
..> .without such contaminates here in the UK, because of the monopoly of
..> .provision of those same multinationals, which is why I have to find
..people
..> .who sell direct.
..> .
..> .In the US, I know from experience, it is next to impossible, the
..> .hypermarkets of course stock food labelled 'healthy' , but it is mere
..> .marketing hype, they all use factory farming, preservatives, the genetic
..> .crops are grown in the US without isolation from the environment, and
..have
..> .been for years, it is unlikely and wheat or other such crop anywhere in
..the
..> .continent are now pure, having been cross bred unintentionally.
..>
..> I eat organic food. DUH!
..read below Mr Vanderman, as I explain in very smple terms so as to not
..confuse you, the track record of the US farming and industrial movement
..means that, in the true sense or organics, there is no such thing in the US,
..Organic means grown completely naturally , without either pesticides, growth
..enhancers or genetic modifications, nothing in any supermarket complies with
..that, packaging for resale sees to that .

It isn't packaged, dumdum.

..I know from first hand experience, what you buy in US supermarkets may well
..be labelled organic, but the actual product is very, very far from that.
..I did say you have little understanding of the real environmental issues,
..something that you make clearer with each post.

Who said I buy in a supermarket? You FABRICATED that. You have long since
destroyed any credibility you might have had, by LYING.

..> .You see Mr vanderman, I see from your posts, the actual ecological issues
..> .that are the most dangerous to this world we live in are over your level
..of
..> .understanding, its painfully obvious that any environemntal concerns you
..> .show are a sham, merely a vehicle to promote your hatred of mountain
..biking.
..> .
..> .When it comes to real , world changing issues as global warming, genetic
..> .crops and multinational conglomerates ruling our well being , and our
..> .habitat for the sake of the almighty dollar, you have absolutely no clue.
..>
..> Thanks for demonstrating that you don't have a clue, and hence need to
..fabricate
..> data to make your points, LIAR.
..>
..
..Nope, telling it like it is.
..
..You travelled a few thousand miles to read for 15 minutes, ironically about
..the environment, you contributed more to global warming during that journey
..then every bike on the planet(which once manufactured contribute zero)
..during that same time.
..
..Hypocrite.
..

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 04:53:27 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>.>.>So you can't come up with even ONE good reason to allow bikes on trails? That's
>.>.>what I thought....
>.>.False. I came up with two.
>.>BS. It is nice to see that you can't come up with even ONE good reason.

>.False: enjoyment,
>Not a good reason for the public to allow you to do it.

Not a "good" reason for the public to allow you to hike or your
friends to ride horses, either, but when viewed in context clearly
good enough. As usual your inability to demonstrate relevant
difference lets you down.

>. and you can see more in a day.

>A lie. You can't see much of anything while riding off-road. You have to pay
>attention to not crashing.

So you say, but you admit that you have *very* little experience of
trail riding, so your assertions from ignorance have to be weighed
against the experience of those who have actually ridden offroad.

Also, the word more is not transitive in this case; its meaning can be
qualitative as well as quantitative.

An example: a rare bird has a nest 20 miles from the nearest trail
access point. You wish to observe this rare bird for scientific
reasons. A mountain bike will allow you to reach the bird, spend a
reasonable time observing its behaviour and habitat, and get back out,
in a single day. To achieve this on foot would probably involve
wilderness camping, an activity which carries a high risk of fire so
is, unlike mountain biking, considered a particular problem by
wilderness management authorities.

But all this is beside the point: you, as a known bigot, are the very
last person fit to judge what is a good reason for engaging in the
activity you have singled out for your arbitrary hate campaign.

>.>.The fact that one of these good reasons also applies to hiking and
>.>.both to horse riding, with which you take common cause, is a clear
>.>.indication that your position is (as ever) untenable.
>.>BS. I don't promote either, LIAR.
>.And I didn't say you did, LIAR. I said you hike (which you
>.demonstrably do) and you take common cause with horse riding

>Liar. That means nothing.

False. You hike, as you have admitted, and you take common cause with
horse riders, as has been proven. Therefore you either have to
demonstrate significant relevant difference or accept that you are a
hypocrite as well as a bigot.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mark]

> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .The real problem with Mikey's arguement is that the answer is
yes,
> .but
> .> .> .> .pretty much everyone contributes to global warming. So what's
Mike
> .to
> .> .> .> .do now, say he contributes less?
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Yes, of course!
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> That arguement doesn't work either to
> .> .> .> .my thinking.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> But it's true.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I can prove otherwise.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. You know NOTHING about me.
> .> .>
> .> .> .I havent driven my car for 3 weeks, I ride to my local trails
> .> .(coed-y-brenin
> .> .> .for the euro guys, is about a 20 minute ride from my current
abode), I
> .> .> .admittedly have a refrigerator in my house that puts out pollutants
,
> .but
> .> .I
> .> .> .bet its no more than your refrigerator in your house.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I also work from home, do not use any airconditioning of any sort,
and
> .> .the
> .> .> .majority of my diet is locally produced and purchased direct from
> .nearby
> .> .,
> .> .> .organic farms, so i am not supporting the industrial farming
methods
> .that
> .> .> .cause so much damage.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I know for a fact, because you have posted here yourself, just
last
> .week
> .> .> .you travelled a few thousand miles to read for 15 minutes.
> .> .>
> .> .> On public transit.
> .> .
> .> . Are you suggesting that public transport is more environmentaly
friendly
> .> .than me walking Mr vanderman, as that , and my bike, is how I get
around
> .to
> .> .do my shopping.
> .> .> .You drive to an office every day,
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. You FABRICATED that.
> .> .really? Then , pease point out ther error of that statement Mr
vanderman,
> .do
> .> .you , or do you not travel by a vehicle using an internal combustion
> .engine
> .> .to travel to work, thus contributing every day to global warming.
> .> .I work from home, so do not.
> .>
> .> So do I. You simply fabricate BS when you can't defend your selfish,
> .destructive
> .> sport any other way.
> .
> .And yet your neighbour posted in this very forum that you drive a car to
> .work every day......

I see no retort Mr vanderman, caught out in a lie again perhaps?

> .> .> it would be fair to assume that office is
> .> .> .air conditioned, if not your home as well.
> .> .> .I guarantee you buy food from multinationals, processed, packed and
> .> .drenched
> .> .> .in preservative chemicals and laced with geneticly modified crops,
all
> .of
> .> .> .which add pollutants to both the atmosphere and the food chain and
> .> .> .ecological environment directly.
> .> .>
> .> .> Liar. You fabricated that.
> .> .
> .> .I have never seen an office yet of a company the size of the one you
> .work
> .> .for that DOESNT have airconditioning in the US. I feel you are a
little
> .to
> .> .defensive here, yet refrain from calling me a liar.
> .>
> .> Neither my office nor my home have air conditioning. They don't need
them.
> .>
> .> .I also know you eat the foods from multinationals,
> .>
> .> No, you don't. You have no idea what I eat. But it's nice to see that
you
> .can't
> .> defend your selfish, destructive sport any way except to FABRICATE
lies.
> .
> .Hmm, selfish , please explain how my sport is selfish,
>
> It harms wildlife & other trail users.

Please, show your coroborated data that proves mountain biking, as a
microset of the subset of wilderness users, is more ndestructive than any
other microset of that group, or indeed, the leisure activities as a whole.


> showe the data that
> .shows being a mountain biker makes one more selfish than the human group
as
> .a whole, the subset of recreational activity participants, or even the
> .microset of wilderness users.
> .Please show any coroborated data that proves itis more destructive than
any
> .other sport, something you still have yet to do.
>
> BS. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Ive read that, nothing there but cherry picked data and half truths to back
up a pre meditated conclusion, where is the coroborated, independant data
and papers that , as a full, final conclusion say this is so.
> .> and every bite of every
> .> .one of them contains the things I mention, it takes great effort to
eat
> .food
> .> .without such contaminates here in the UK, because of the monopoly of
> .> .provision of those same multinationals, which is why I have to find
> .people
> .> .who sell direct.
> .> .
> .> .In the US, I know from experience, it is next to impossible, the
> .> .hypermarkets of course stock food labelled 'healthy' , but it is mere
> .> .marketing hype, they all use factory farming, preservatives, the
genetic
> .> .crops are grown in the US without isolation from the environment, and
> .have
> .> .been for years, it is unlikely and wheat or other such crop anywhere
in
> .the
> .> .continent are now pure, having been cross bred unintentionally.
> .>
> .> I eat organic food. DUH!
> .read below Mr Vanderman, as I explain in very smple terms so as to not
> .confuse you, the track record of the US farming and industrial movement
> .means that, in the true sense or organics, there is no such thing in the
US,
> .Organic means grown completely naturally , without either pesticides,
growth
> .enhancers or genetic modifications, nothing in any supermarket complies
with
> .that, packaging for resale sees to that .
>
> It isn't packaged, dumdum.

Name caling when pushed into a coner again Mr vanderman?
call em a lair all you wish, tell me Im commenting on your life that I know
nothing about, and as such am a fraud. But think on this, you said you
personally contribute less to global warming than any mountain biker(without
knowing a thing about each individual mountain biker), so, using that logic
I turned it around on you.

It seems when on the recieving end you call someone a fraud and liar, for
merley repeatingthe argument yoou have personally put forward.

Now Mr Vandrman, as you say, it is perposterous to comment on the lifestyle
of someone you have never met, every time you make an 'all mountain bikers'
post, I shall refer you back here, to the point where you denounce that same
logic as idiocy.

Given you know that logic is incorrect, may I ask why you have filled this
forum with it for so many years?
Are you mentally ill, or just a troll?

> .I know from first hand experience, what you buy in US supermarkets may
well
> .be labelled organic, but the actual product is very, very far from that.
> .I did say you have little understanding of the real environmental issues,
> .something that you make clearer with each post.
>
> Who said I buy in a supermarket? You FABRICATED that. You have long since
> destroyed any credibility you might have had, by LYING.
>
> .> .You see Mr vanderman, I see from your posts, the actual ecological
issues
> .> .that are the most dangerous to this world we live in are over your
level
> .of
> .> .understanding, its painfully obvious that any environemntal concerns
you
> .> .show are a sham, merely a vehicle to promote your hatred of mountain
> .biking.
> .> .
> .> .When it comes to real , world changing issues as global warming,
genetic
> .> .crops and multinational conglomerates ruling our well being , and our
> .> .habitat for the sake of the almighty dollar, you have absolutely no
clue.
> .>
> .> Thanks for demonstrating that you don't have a clue, and hence need to
> .fabricate
> .> data to make your points, LIAR.
> .>
> .
> .Nope, telling it like it is.
> .
> .You travelled a few thousand miles to read for 15 minutes, ironically
about
> .the environment, you contributed more to global warming during that
journey
> .then every bike on the planet(which once manufactured contribute zero)
> .during that same time.
> .
> .Hypocrite.
> .

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:46:23 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

..On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 04:53:27 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>.>.>So you can't come up with even ONE good reason to allow bikes on trails? That's
..>.>.>what I thought....
..>.>.False. I came up with two.
..>.>BS. It is nice to see that you can't come up with even ONE good reason.
..
..>.False: enjoyment,
..>Not a good reason for the public to allow you to do it.
..
..Not a "good" reason for the public to allow you to hike or your
..friends to ride horses, either,

I don't promote recreation. YOU do.

but when viewed in context clearly
..good enough. As usual your inability to demonstrate relevant
..difference lets you down.
..
..>. and you can see more in a day.
..
..>A lie. You can't see much of anything while riding off-road. You have to pay
..>attention to not crashing.
..
..So you say, but you admit that you have *very* little experience of
..trail riding, so your assertions from ignorance have to be weighed
..against the experience of those who have actually ridden offroad.

BS. I have watched the helmet-cam videos. They ride too fast to "see" ANYTHING.

..Also, the word more is not transitive in this case; its meaning can be
..qualitative as well as quantitative.
..
..An example: a rare bird has a nest 20 miles from the nearest trail
..access point. You wish to observe this rare bird for scientific
..reasons. A mountain bike will allow you to reach the bird, spend a
..reasonable time observing its behaviour and habitat, and get back out,
..in a single day.

BS. It would scare it off, long before you got anywhere near.

To achieve this on foot would probably involve
..wilderness camping, an activity which carries a high risk of fire so
..is, unlike mountain biking, considered a particular problem by
..wilderness management authorities.
..
..But all this is beside the point: you, as a known bigot, are the very
..last person fit to judge what is a good reason for engaging in the
..activity you have singled out for your arbitrary hate campaign.
..
..>.>.The fact that one of these good reasons also applies to hiking and
..>.>.both to horse riding, with which you take common cause, is a clear
..>.>.indication that your position is (as ever) untenable.
..>.>BS. I don't promote either, LIAR.
..>.And I didn't say you did, LIAR. I said you hike (which you
..>.demonstrably do) and you take common cause with horse riding
..
..>Liar. That means nothing.
..
..False. You hike, as you have admitted, and you take common cause with
..horse riders, as has been proven.

What does that even MEAN?

Therefore you either have to
..demonstrate significant relevant difference or accept that you are a
..hypocrite as well as a bigot.
..
..Guy

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:28:26 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>.>.>.>So you can't come up with even ONE good reason to allow bikes on trails? That's
>.>.>.>what I thought....
>.>.>.False. I came up with two.
>.>.>BS. It is nice to see that you can't come up with even ONE good reason.
>.>.False: enjoyment,
>.>Not a good reason for the public to allow you to do it.

>.Not a "good" reason for the public to allow you to hike or your
>.friends to ride horses, either,

>I don't promote recreation. YOU do.

False. I do not promote recreational use of wilderness either. This
is in any case irrelevant: the reason for mountain biking is the same
as the reason for hiking (which you admit you do) and for horse
riding: enjoyment.

>.>. and you can see more in a day.
>.>A lie. You can't see much of anything while riding off-road. You have to pay
>.>attention to not crashing.
>.So you say, but you admit that you have *very* little experience of
>.trail riding, so your assertions from ignorance have to be weighed
>.against the experience of those who have actually ridden offroad.

>BS. I have watched the helmet-cam videos. They ride too fast to "see" ANYTHING.

False. You are making false generalisations again. This criticism is
no more valid than to say that hiking doesn't allow you to see
anything because fell-runners move too fast to take in the scenery.

Of course, your inability to distinguish the general form the specific
is a recurrent theme of your arbitrary hate campaign.

>.An example: a rare bird has a nest 20 miles from the nearest trail
>.access point. You wish to observe this rare bird for scientific
>.reasons. A mountain bike will allow you to reach the bird, spend a
>.reasonable time observing its behaviour and habitat, and get back out,
>.in a single day.

>BS. It would scare it off, long before you got anywhere near.

False. I know people who have done exactly this and brought back
photographs to prove it. I have also been paced while riding by owls
and bats who would not come close to me on foot.

>.False. You hike, as you have admitted, and you take common cause with
>.horse riders, as has been proven.

>What does that even MEAN?

As previously shown, you are happy to take common cause with horse
riders against your chosen hate group. This is normal behaviour for a
bigot.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:41:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

..On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:28:26 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>.>.>.>So you can't come up with even ONE good reason to allow bikes on trails? That's
..>.>.>.>what I thought....
..>.>.>.False. I came up with two.
..>.>.>BS. It is nice to see that you can't come up with even ONE good reason.
..>.>.False: enjoyment,
..>.>Not a good reason for the public to allow you to do it.
..
..>.Not a "good" reason for the public to allow you to hike or your
..>.friends to ride horses, either,
..
..>I don't promote recreation. YOU do.
..
..False. I do not promote recreational use of wilderness either.

Yes, you do: you argue for mountain biking. You have long since lost any
possible credibility, by continually LYING.

This
..is in any case irrelevant: the reason for mountain biking is the same
..as the reason for hiking (which you admit you do) and for horse
..riding: enjoyment.

But given the destructiveness of mountain biking, there's no excuse for allowing
it in wildlife habitat.

..>.>. and you can see more in a day.
..>.>A lie. You can't see much of anything while riding off-road. You have to pay
..>.>attention to not crashing.
..>.So you say, but you admit that you have *very* little experience of
..>.trail riding, so your assertions from ignorance have to be weighed
..>.against the experience of those who have actually ridden offroad.
..
..>BS. I have watched the helmet-cam videos. They ride too fast to "see" ANYTHING.
..
..False. You are making false generalisations again. This criticism is
..no more valid than to say that hiking doesn't allow you to see
..anything because fell-runners move too fast to take in the scenery.

Running is not hiking. True, runners can't see anywhere near as much as a hiker.

..Of course, your inability to distinguish the general form the specific
..is a recurrent theme of your arbitrary hate campaign.
..
..>.An example: a rare bird has a nest 20 miles from the nearest trail
..>.access point. You wish to observe this rare bird for scientific
..>.reasons. A mountain bike will allow you to reach the bird, spend a
..>.reasonable time observing its behaviour and habitat, and get back out,
..>.in a single day.
..
..>BS. It would scare it off, long before you got anywhere near.
..
..False. I know people who have done exactly this and brought back
..photographs to prove it. I have also been paced while riding by owls
..and bats who would not come close to me on foot.
..
..>.False. You hike, as you have admitted, and you take common cause with
..>.horse riders, as has been proven.
..
..>What does that even MEAN?
..
..As previously shown, you are happy to take common cause with horse
..riders

You have failed to demonstrate this, which is BS. We just happen to agree that
mountain biking is destructive, like all normal people.

against your chosen hate group. This is normal behaviour for a
..bigot.
..
..Guy

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:36:48 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Mike
Vandeman <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>.>I don't promote recreation. YOU do.
>.False. I do not promote recreational use of wilderness either.

>Yes, you do: you argue for mountain biking. You have long since lost any
>possible credibility, by continually LYING.

So you say. Here is the space for you to insert the posting IDs in
which I have promoted mountain biking:



The irony of you claiming that anyone else lacks credibility will not
be lost on this group!

>. This
>.is in any case irrelevant: the reason for mountain biking is the same
>.as the reason for hiking (which you admit you do) and for horse
>.riding: enjoyment.

>But given the destructiveness of mountain biking, there's no excuse for allowing
>it in wildlife habitat.

And given that your "given" is an arbitrary distinction of your own,
clearly not shared by the wilderness protection agencies, your
point(less) is of course moot. As ever, you fail to demonstrate
relevant difference. That is because your opposition to mountain
biking is entirely due to bigotry, rather than having any credible
evidential basis.

>.>BS. I have watched the helmet-cam videos. They ride too fast to "see" ANYTHING.

>.False. You are making false generalisations again. This criticism is
>.no more valid than to say that hiking doesn't allow you to see
>.anything because fell-runners move too fast to take in the scenery.

>Running is not hiking. True, runners can't see anywhere near as much as a hiker.

Foot recreation, bike recreation. Both continua, both encompassing
both the leisurely and the sporting. I know some fell runners and
orienteers, they are also hikers. I know some mountain bike racers,
they also enjoy a leisurely ride along a trail watching wildlife. In
VandemanWorld all is black and white (or rather: whiter than white and
mountain biking), but the real world is not like that.

>.As previously shown, you are happy to take common cause with horse
>.riders

>You have failed to demonstrate this, which is BS.

Really? So who was the "Mike" to whom the original email was
addressed in the earlier thread? You excised the headers,
uncharacteristically for you. You were asked this question numerous
times and refused to answer it: we are entitled to draw inferences
from that.

>We just happen to agree that
>mountain biking is destructive, like all normal people.

For once you are absolutely right: all normal people are destructive.
And mountain bikers are no more or less destructive than any other
normal people.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Sohn]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:41:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:28:26 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .
> .>.>.>.>So you can't come up with even ONE good reason to allow bikes on
> trails? That's
> .>.>.>.>what I thought....
> .>.>.>.False. I came up with two.
> .>.>.>BS. It is nice to see that you can't come up with even ONE good
> reason.
> .>.>.False: enjoyment,
> .>.>Not a good reason for the public to allow you to do it.
> .
> .>.Not a "good" reason for the public to allow you to hike or your
> .>.friends to ride horses, either,
> .
> .>I don't promote recreation. YOU do.
> .
> .False. I do not promote recreational use of wilderness either.
>
> Yes, you do: you argue for mountain biking. You have long since lost any
> possible credibility, by continually LYING.
>
> This
> .is in any case irrelevant: the reason for mountain biking is the same
> .as the reason for hiking (which you admit you do) and for horse
> .riding: enjoyment.
>
> But given the destructiveness of mountain biking, there's no excuse for
> allowing
> it in wildlife habitat.
>
> .>.>. and you can see more in a day.
> .>.>A lie. You can't see much of anything while riding off-road. You have
> to pay
> .>.>attention to not crashing.
> .>.So you say, but you admit that you have *very* little experience of
> .>.trail riding, so your assertions from ignorance have to be weighed
> .>.against the experience of those who have actually ridden offroad.
> .
> .>BS. I have watched the helmet-cam videos. They ride too fast to "see"
> ANYTHING.
> .
> .False. You are making false generalisations again. This criticism is
> .no more valid than to say that hiking doesn't allow you to see
> .anything because fell-runners move too fast to take in the scenery.
>
> Running is not hiking. True, runners can't see anywhere near as much as a
> hiker.
>
> .Of course, your inability to distinguish the general form the specific
> .is a recurrent theme of your arbitrary hate campaign.
> .
> .>.An example: a rare bird has a nest 20 miles from the nearest trail
> .>.access point. You wish to observe this rare bird for scientific
> .>.reasons. A mountain bike will allow you to reach the bird, spend a
> .>.reasonable time observing its behaviour and habitat, and get back out,
> .>.in a single day.
> .
> .>BS. It would scare it off, long before you got anywhere near.
> .
> .False. I know people who have done exactly this and brought back
> .photographs to prove it. I have also been paced while riding by owls
> .and bats who would not come close to me on foot.
> .
> .>.False. You hike, as you have admitted, and you take common cause with
> .>.horse riders, as has been proven.
> .
> .>What does that even MEAN?
> .
> .As previously shown, you are happy to take common cause with horse
> .riders
>
> You have failed to demonstrate this, which is BS. We just happen to agree
> that
> mountain biking is destructive, like all normal people.


Mike thinks he's normal, http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/clinical/chronic.htm


>
> against your chosen hate group. This is normal behaviour for a
> .bigot.
> .
> .Guy
>
> ===
> 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