S
S Curtiss
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:07:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
<clipped>> .>
> .> BS. "I wanna ride my bike there!" is not a convincing reason to stop
> .> development. Protection of wildlife IS. DUH!
> .Again - all you can focus on is the bikes. See below. You REFUSE to
> accept
> .preservation unless it is on your terms.
>
> Mountain biking preserves NOTHING. It has NEVER preserved anything, and
> never
> will.
The people who ride these bikes have an interest in preserving the places
where they ride. We don't want the woods dozed over for development. We
don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested land
as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It is the
loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
confrontation. More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
arguing with each other?
>
> Allowing access to people, however
> .they may choose,
>
> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks for
cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.
>
> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is to
> be
> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except help
> to
> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation of
> .these areas.
>
> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are SICK.
Your phrasing - not mine. The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation become
"bending over"? When does showing a little respect for a different point of
view become "bending over"?
It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling, misquotes,
out of context references and selected information, expected the rest of us
to "bend over" so you can have your way.
> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only
> to
> .> .complain about bikes on your trails.
> .> .>
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:07:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
<clipped>> .>
> .> BS. "I wanna ride my bike there!" is not a convincing reason to stop
> .> development. Protection of wildlife IS. DUH!
> .Again - all you can focus on is the bikes. See below. You REFUSE to
> accept
> .preservation unless it is on your terms.
>
> Mountain biking preserves NOTHING. It has NEVER preserved anything, and
> never
> will.
The people who ride these bikes have an interest in preserving the places
where they ride. We don't want the woods dozed over for development. We
don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested land
as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It is the
loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
confrontation. More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
arguing with each other?
>
> Allowing access to people, however
> .they may choose,
>
> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks for
cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.
>
> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is to
> be
> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except help
> to
> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation of
> .these areas.
>
> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are SICK.
Your phrasing - not mine. The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation become
"bending over"? When does showing a little respect for a different point of
view become "bending over"?
It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling, misquotes,
out of context references and selected information, expected the rest of us
to "bend over" so you can have your way.
> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only
> to
> .> .complain about bikes on your trails.
> .> .>