MV Agrees

Mike Vandeman said:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:40:51 -0500, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.From previous thread:
.Subject:
. Re: "we have been dismissed from permission to access
. these fine lands that belong to us"
. Date:
. Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:11:13 GMT
.MV wrote:
."When they are hiking they are hikers (by current activity) AS WELL AS
.mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
.same time."
.
.So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
.must become hikers. Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
.man can be an idiot. Seems fair.

Only if the bike is surgically attached to them. Idiot.

Is the constant use of the term "idiot" and "liar" a habit? You can throw
literal meaning onto a single phrase out of context and we can't do the same
for your statements? It will be OK Mr. Double Standard... just let the
medication of truth take you away.... relax.... relax....

Quoted message said:

.SC

===
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

Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

From previous thread:
Subject:
Re: "we have been dismissed from permission to access
these fine lands that belong to us"
Date:
Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:11:13 GMT
MV wrote:
"When they are hiking they are hikers (by current activity) AS WELL AS
mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
same time."

So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
must become hikers. Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
man can be an idiot. Seems fair.

SC

As if one moronic thread isn't enough you rename it and start another.

[censored].

g

cheers

g

Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Only if the bike is surgically attached to them. Idiot.

Is the constant use of the term "idiot" and "liar" a habit? You can throw
literal meaning onto a single phrase out of context and we can't do the same
for your statements? It will be OK Mr. Double Standard... just let the
medication of truth take you away.... relax.... relax....

That's mikey's signature.
Socks

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:18:31 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..>
..> "Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> news:[email hidden]...
..> >
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" wrote:
..> >
..> > > "Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> > > news:[email hidden]...
..> > > > From previous thread:
..> > > > Subject:
..> > > > Re: "we have been dismissed from permission to access
..> > > > these fine lands that belong to us"
..> > > > Date:
..> > > > Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:11:13 GMT
..> > > > MV wrote:
..> > > > "When they are hiking they are hikers (by current activity) AS WELL
..AS
..> > > > mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at
..> the
..> > > > same time."
..> > > >
..> > > > So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access
..> they
..> > > > must become hikers.
..> > >
..> > > They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current
..> activity,
..> > > but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is
..not
..> > > barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A
..> mountain
..> > > bike has no rights.
..> > >
..> >
..> > No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..." The
..> activity
..> > is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now
..> hikers.
..> > btw... Are you a "hider"?
..>
..> Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
..remains.
..> They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or not. As
..> people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike is
..> barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
..>
.. >
.."nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on details of
..context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal meaning
..alone.
..The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
..interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about trail
..access.
..In order to be clear on the issue:
..
..People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated as
.."public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of off road
..cycling.

That's not what Paul Nam said. He said they are "denied access". Period. That's
nothing but a LIE.

..Rather than "nit pick" over the semantics of a statement in order to throw
..the term "liar" around, why doesn't MV debate an issue on the merits of
..fairness? Why is exclusion of the activity an absolute? Why are "impact
..studies" that may lean to his opinion OK when others that may disagree
..labeled as "junk science"? Why are all "mt bikers" grouped together as
..reckless, un-caring, wildlife killing, spead freaks because a few people are
..disrespectful to the rights of other trail users? Why are all "hikers" not
..labeled as littering, off-trail wandering, plant-stomping wildlife killers?
..The issue is "access for the purpose of off road cycling" and how can all
..interested in accessing the trails for the purpose of their own enjoyment
..work together. That is all it is.
..Off road cyclists asked these questions for years and are just as disgusted
..with unneeded sprawl of construction and the destruction of green areas as
..any other group of land users. MV has spent 8 years calling "mt bikers"
..liars. Fortunately, many cyclists (most of whom have never heard of MV) have
..been active in their communities and parks working to further his (MV) own
..stated goals. That being the preservation of land and parks for the
..enjoyment of everyone. And, I might add, so that wildlife keep their place
..to live.
..
..
..
..
..> > >
..> > > > Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
..> > > > man can be an idiot. Seems fair.
..> > >
..> > > You can even demonstrate it for us...... again and again and ..
..> >
..> > By pointing out your posts...
..>
..> without understanding even the simplest facts, you demonstrate it again
..and
..> again..
..>
..>
..

===
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

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..>
..> "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> <snip>
..> > > Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
..> > remains.
..> > > They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or
..not.
..> As
..> > > people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike is
..> > > barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
..> > >
..> > >
..> > "nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on details of
..> > context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal meaning
..> > alone.
..>
..> Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting your
..> random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you
..say.
..>
..> > The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
..> > interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about
..trail
..> > access.
..>
..> No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes
..have
..> been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes
..have.
..> This is a clear distinction.
..>
..> > In order to be clear on the issue:
..>
..> That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie in
..> another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,
..>
..> >
..> > People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated as
..> > "public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of off
..> road
..> > cycling.
..>
..> Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.
..>
..Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling. You
..can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt bikers" are up
..against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared access for
..hiking and off road cycling.

Lie all you want, but the reasons for banning bikes are VALID: documented danger
to wildlife and other trail users..

..Now... is there any way at all to get out of this endless loop of semantics
..and literal meaning and get to the issue of shared access on public lands?
..Everyone has access to these lands. Several groups have ideas of how to
..utilize that access for personal enjoyment. Why is it such a big deal to
..discuss the issues, find common ground, and try to develop a solution that
..is acceptable to as many as possible? Isn't that the purpose of multi-use
..plans in parks and forests? I'm tired of this "back and forth" over how
..something was written vs what they meant by it. Access for the purpose of
..off road cycling on public land is the issue. If it hasn't been stated that
..way before, well hells bells, I'm stating it that way now.
..
..<snip>
..>
..>
..

===
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

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:19:28 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..>
..> "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> news:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05...
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> > news:[email hidden]...
..> > >
..> > > "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> > > news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
..> > > >
..> > > > "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> > > <snip>
..> > > > > Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the
..point
..> > > > remains.
..> > > > > They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or
..> > not.
..> > > As
..> > > > > people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike
..> is
..> > > > > barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
..> > > > >
..> > > > >
..> > > > "nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on
..details
..> of
..> > > > context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal
..> meaning
..> > > > alone.
..> > >
..> > > Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting
..> your
..> > > random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you
..> > say.
..> > >
..> > > > The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the
..literal
..> > > > interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about
..> > trail
..> > > > access.
..> > >
..> > > No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes
..> > have
..> > > been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes
..> > have.
..> > > This is a clear distinction.
..> > >
..> > > > In order to be clear on the issue:
..> > >
..> > > That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie
..> in
..> > > another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,
..> > >
..> > > >
..> > > > People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated
..> as
..> > > > "public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of
..off
..> > > road
..> > > > cycling.
..> > >
..> > > Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.
..> > >
..> > Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling.
..>
..> No. The claim is clearly that "we" ( as in the mountain bike riding
..> community ) have been 'dismissed from these fine lands" ( cannot use the
..> trails ) when in fact they can, exactly the same as anyone else.
..>
..> <snip of more and more [censored]>
..>
..> You really ought to see someone about your inabilty to read what is said
..and
..> understand it. English isn't that hard a language and you have
..dictionaries
..> and other resources to help. This would prevent you from making further
..lies
..> based on your failure to grasp semantics.
..>
..Are you stuck in a rut? Go back to the "we have been dismissed..." thread if
..you want to keep picking that apart. I'm done with it.
..The issue is trail access for the purpose of off road cycling.

That's NOT what Paul Nam said. He simply LIED. Fact the facts.

People are
..using misinformation and perpetuating false perceptions to hinder the
..activity of off road cycling on public lands.
..If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling should not be
..allowed in these areas, then do so. If you want to give information that
..counters the myths and misinformation about off road cycling so that the
..activity can be allowed, then do so.
..The only purpose of carrying the other statement over in the first place was
..to note the thread. Somehow it is not surprising that the "we are
..dismissed..." line can be picked apart for what it literally stated, but
..MV's statement "when they are hiking, they are hikers" can not be put to the
..same scrutiny.

They don't stop being mountain bikers when they hike, any more than a mother
stops being a mother, when she isn't suckling her infant.
===
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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 02:40:26 GMT, Brett Jaffee <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.."S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in
..news:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05:
..
..
..> Now... is there any way at all to get out of this endless loop of
..> semantics and literal meaning and get to the issue of shared access on
..> public lands?
..
..No. It's MV's pride and joy.

Yes, there is: tell the truth.
===
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

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 19:27:35 -0500, "di" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
..
..> So when you put on your dress and bra, do you become a woman? Idiot.
..>
..
..
..If anyone would know, it would be you

So you DO? That's what I thought.
===
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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:46:55 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..>
..> .> "Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .> news:[email hidden]...
..> .> > From previous thread:
..> .> > Subject:
..> .> > Re: "we have been dismissed from permission to access
..> .> > these fine lands that belong to us"
..> .> > Date:
..> .> > Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:11:13 GMT
..> .> > MV wrote:
..> .> > "When they are hiking they are hikers (by current activity) AS WELL AS
..> .> > mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot at the
..> .> > same time."
..> .> >
..> .> > So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to access they
..> .> > must become hikers.
..> .>
..> .> They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current activity,
..> .> but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is not
..> .> barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A mountain
..> .> bike has no rights.
..> .>
..> .
..> .No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..." The activity
..> .is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now hikers.
..>
..> So when you put on your dress and bra, do you become a woman? Idiot.
..
..Quoting MV's response to being called a "kook": "Just like a mountain biker: you
..realize you can't defend your illogical position, so you turn to attacking PEOPLE.
..You guys are transparent."
..
..There you go again, Mr. Double Standard. "Attacking people"? Calling me an "idiot"
..and claiming I wear a dress...? Since when is calling someone a "liar" and a
..cross-dresser a defense of any of your positions. Is it not an attack just because it
..came from you? What a hypocrite!

Look up "analogy" in the dictionary.

..> 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

===
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 Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:df4cc.53638$_U.2294@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

<Snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip of more and more [censored]>

You really ought to see someone about your inabilty to read what is said

and

Quoted message said:

understand it. English isn't that hard a language and you have

dictionaries

Quoted message said:

and other resources to help. This would prevent you from making further

lies

Quoted message said:

based on your failure to grasp semantics.

Are you stuck in a rut?

No. I am just repeating the simple facts about which you are in denial.

Quoted message said:

Go back to the "we have been dismissed..." thread if
you want to keep picking that apart. I'm done with it.

Admitting defeat ? Good for you? Not as good as learning from your mistakes
but at least you aren't digging your hole deeper.

Quoted message said:

The issue is trail access for the purpose of off road cycling.

"We have been dismissed" is talking about people. Mountain bikes are not
people. Only mountian bikes are barred from the trail.

Quoted message said:

People are
using misinformation and perpetuating false perceptions to hinder the
activity of off road cycling on public lands.

Whatever... Apparently you consider your rights are greater than others. A
little humility might be useful but I suppose mountain bikers are all gung
ho testosterone filled teenagers, immune to reason.

Quoted message said:

If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling should not be
allowed in these areas, then do so.

Trail damage. Long term habitat preservation. Reducing stress on wildlife
that is penned in too small nature reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc.

Quoted message said:

If you want to give information that
counters the myths and misinformation about off road cycling so that the
activity can be allowed, then do so.

Why not develop private lands where you can maintain the trails at your OWN
expense, like the environmental groups do when buyiing land to prevent
logging or to preserve habitat? Why keep asking for a public subsidy to your
activities?

Quoted message said:

The only purpose of carrying the other statement over in the first place

was

Quoted message said:

to note the thread. Somehow it is not surprising that the "we are
dismissed..." line can be picked apart for what it literally stated, but
MV's statement "when they are hiking, they are hikers" can not be put to

the

Quoted message said:

same scrutiny.

The fact is that mountain bikers are not barred from the trail as claime. It
is only mountain bikes that are barred. Mountain bikes have no rights. This
is simple semantics. Making a claim that does not make sense when analysed
is just wrong. You cannot use words as a club, ignoring their meanings. You
have to say what you mean or you risk getting called on the falsity of what
you DID say, no matter what you say you meant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Come on Mike, you can do better than that.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 19:27:35 -0500, "di" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.
.
.> So when you put on your dress and bra, do you become a woman? Idiot.
.>
.
.
.If anyone would know, it would be you

So you DO? That's what I thought.
===
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

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:df4cc.53638$_U.2294@lakeread05...

Quoted message said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

<Snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip of more and more [censored]>

You really ought to see someone about your inabilty to read what is

said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and

Quoted message said:

understand it. English isn't that hard a language and you have

dictionaries

Quoted message said:

and other resources to help. This would prevent you from making

further

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lies

Quoted message said:

based on your failure to grasp semantics.

Are you stuck in a rut?

No. I am just repeating the simple facts about which you are in denial.

Quoted message said:

Go back to the "we have been dismissed..." thread if
you want to keep picking that apart. I'm done with it.

Admitting defeat ? Good for you? Not as good as learning from your

mistakes

Quoted message said:

but at least you aren't digging your hole deeper.

Quoted message said:

The issue is trail access for the purpose of off road cycling.

"We have been dismissed" is talking about people. Mountain bikes are not
people. Only mountian bikes are barred from the trail.

Quoted message said:

People are
using misinformation and perpetuating false perceptions to hinder the
activity of off road cycling on public lands.

Whatever... Apparently you consider your rights are greater than others. A
little humility might be useful but I suppose mountain bikers are all gung
ho testosterone filled teenagers, immune to reason.

Quoted message said:

If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling should not be
allowed in these areas, then do so.

Trail damage. Long term habitat preservation. Reducing stress on wildlife
that is penned in too small nature reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc.

Quoted message said:

If you want to give information that
counters the myths and misinformation about off road cycling so that the
activity can be allowed, then do so.

Why not develop private lands where you can maintain the trails at your

OWN

Quoted message said:

expense, like the environmental groups do when buyiing land to prevent
logging or to preserve habitat? Why keep asking for a public subsidy to

your

Quoted message said:

activities?

Quoted message said:

The only purpose of carrying the other statement over in the first place

was

Quoted message said:

to note the thread. Somehow it is not surprising that the "we are
dismissed..." line can be picked apart for what it literally stated, but
MV's statement "when they are hiking, they are hikers" can not be put to

the

Quoted message said:

same scrutiny.

The fact is that mountain bikers are not barred from the trail as claime.

It

Quoted message said:

is only mountain bikes that are barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.

This

Quoted message said:

is simple semantics. Making a claim that does not make sense when analysed
is just wrong. You cannot use words as a club, ignoring their meanings.

You

Quoted message said:

have to say what you mean or you risk getting called on the falsity of

what

Quoted message said:

you DID say, no matter what you say you meant.

Finally... I will at least applaud you on saying something of relevance.
While you still took the opportunity to take a few
jabs, you at least addressed the issue with your points. (Trail damage. Long
term habitat preservation. Reducing stress on wildlife that is penned in too
small nature reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc)
Yes... P Nam (was that his name) made a statement that was literallly
incorrect for the meaning he intended. I only wanted
to clarify the statement from the point of view of cycling enthusiasts. I
never wanted a tennis match of semantics. I would hope this thread has at
least clarified the importance of being clear when making statements to open
a discussion. Your last statement seems to sum up this entire dialogue.
Almost as an agreement to disagree...
MV, on the other hand, has yet to make that step.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:18:31 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.
."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.>
.> "Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> news:[email hidden]...
.> >
.> >
.> > "Ian St. John" wrote:
.> >
.> > > "Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> > > news:[email hidden]...
.> > > > From previous thread:
.> > > > Subject:
.> > > > Re: "we have been dismissed from permission to

access

Quoted message said:

.> > > > these fine lands that belong to us"
.> > > > Date:
.> > > > Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:11:13 GMT
.> > > > MV wrote:
.> > > > "When they are hiking they are hikers (by current activity) AS

WELL

Quoted message said:

.AS
.> > > > mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot

at

Quoted message said:

.> the
.> > > > same time."
.> > > >
.> > > > So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to

access

Quoted message said:

.> they
.> > > > must become hikers.
.> > >
.> > > They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current
.> activity,
.> > > but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is
.not
.> > > barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A
.> mountain
.> > > bike has no rights.
.> > >
.> >
.> > No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..."

The

Quoted message said:

.> activity
.> > is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now
.> hikers.
.> > btw... Are you a "hider"?
.>
.> Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
.remains.
.> They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or not.

As

Quoted message said:

.> people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike is
.> barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
.>
. >
."nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on details of
.context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal meaning
.alone.
.The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
.interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about

trail

Quoted message said:

.access.
.In order to be clear on the issue:
.
.People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated as
."public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of off

road

Quoted message said:

.cycling.

That's not what Paul Nam said. He said they are "denied access". Period.

That's

Quoted message said:

nothing but a LIE.

Typical... keep beating that horse but totally ignore anything of
substance. (ex: the next block of text, which asks direct questions but are
left unanswered by the double-standard king)

Quoted message said:

.Rather than "nit pick" over the semantics of a statement in order to

throw

Quoted message said:

.the term "liar" around, why doesn't MV debate an issue on the merits of
.fairness? Why is exclusion of the activity an absolute? Why are "impact
.studies" that may lean to his opinion OK when others that may disagree
.labeled as "junk science"? Why are all "mt bikers" grouped together as
.reckless, un-caring, wildlife killing, spead freaks because a few people

are

Quoted message said:

.disrespectful to the rights of other trail users? Why are all "hikers"

not

Quoted message said:

.labeled as littering, off-trail wandering, plant-stomping wildlife

killers?

Quoted message said:

.The issue is "access for the purpose of off road cycling" and how can all
.interested in accessing the trails for the purpose of their own enjoyment
.work together. That is all it is.
.Off road cyclists asked these questions for years and are just as

disgusted

Quoted message said:

.with unneeded sprawl of construction and the destruction of green areas

as

Quoted message said:

.any other group of land users. MV has spent 8 years calling "mt bikers"
.liars. Fortunately, many cyclists (most of whom have never heard of MV)

have

Quoted message said:

.been active in their communities and parks working to further his (MV)

own

Quoted message said:

.stated goals. That being the preservation of land and parks for the
.enjoyment of everyone. And, I might add, so that wildlife keep their

place

Quoted message said:

.to live.
.
.
.
.
.> > >
.> > > > Since he agreed with something, I'll agree that a
.> > > > man can be an idiot. Seems fair.
.> > >
.> > > You can even demonstrate it for us...... again and again and ..
.> >
.> > By pointing out your posts...
.>
.> without understanding even the simplest facts, you demonstrate it again
.and
.> again..
.>
.>
.

===
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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:46:55 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.>
.> .> "Steve Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> .> news:[email hidden]...
.> .> > From previous thread:
.> .> > Subject:
.> .> > Re: "we have been dismissed from permission to access
.> .> > these fine lands that belong to us"
.> .> > Date:
.> .> > Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:11:13 GMT
.> .> > MV wrote:
.> .> > "When they are hiking they are hikers (by current activity) AS

WELL AS

Quoted message said:

.> .> > mountain bikers (by habit). Just as you can be a man and an idiot

at the

Quoted message said:

.> .> > same time."
.> .> >
.> .> > So he agrees. Banning mt bikes excludes mt bikers because to

access they

Quoted message said:

.> .> > must become hikers.
.> .>
.> .> They do not 'become' anything. They are hiders by their current

activity,

Quoted message said:

.> .> but remain mountain bikers by their other activities. The person is

not

Quoted message said:

.> .> barred from the land. The mountain bike is barred from the trail. A

mountain

Quoted message said:

.> .> bike has no rights.
.> .>
.> .
.> .No... not what he said. "When they are hiking, they are hikers..."

The activity

Quoted message said:

.> .is excluded, then the mt bikers lose that title because they are now

hikers.

Quoted message said:

.>
.> So when you put on your dress and bra, do you become a woman? Idiot.
.
.Quoting MV's response to being called a "kook": "Just like a mountain

biker: you

Quoted message said:

.realize you can't defend your illogical position, so you turn to

attacking PEOPLE.

Quoted message said:

.You guys are transparent."
.
.There you go again, Mr. Double Standard. "Attacking people"? Calling me

an "idiot"

Quoted message said:

.and claiming I wear a dress...? Since when is calling someone a "liar"

and a

Quoted message said:

.cross-dresser a defense of any of your positions. Is it not an attack

just because it

Quoted message said:

.came from you? What a hypocrite!

Look up "analogy" in the dictionary.

Fine.. you can look up "opinion".

Quoted message said:

.> 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

===
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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.
."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.>
.> "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
.> >
.> > "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.> <snip>
.> > > Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
.> > remains.
.> > > They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or
.not.
.> As
.> > > people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike

is

Quoted message said:

.> > > barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
.> > >
.> > >
.> > "nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on details

of

Quoted message said:

.> > context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal

meaning

Quoted message said:

.> > alone.
.>
.> Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting

your

Quoted message said:

.> random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you
.say.
.>
.> > The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
.> > interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about
.trail
.> > access.
.>
.> No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes
.have
.> been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes
.have.
.> This is a clear distinction.
.>
.> > In order to be clear on the issue:
.>
.> That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie

in

Quoted message said:

.> another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,
.>
.> >
.> > People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated

as

Quoted message said:

.> > "public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of

off

Quoted message said:

.> road
.> > cycling.
.>
.> Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.
.>
.Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling.

You

Quoted message said:

.can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt bikers" are up
.against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared access for
.hiking and off road cycling.

Lie all you want, but the reasons for banning bikes are VALID: documented

danger

Quoted message said:

to wildlife and other trail users..

Lie all YOU want. Studies show your "reasons" are based on false perceptions
and myths being put forth by a small majority who claim to speak for
wildlife. Moutain bikes are not killing wildlife. Urban sprawl, new
construction (especially when existing structures are vacant and plentiful)
and excess limber clearing is destroying habitat which IS stressing wildlife
to death. Why is it so difficult to actually cooperate with everyone
interested in keeping these areas from destruction instead of continually
splintering groups against each other which ultimately solves nothing.

Quoted message said:

.Now... is there any way at all to get out of this endless loop of

semantics

Quoted message said:

.and literal meaning and get to the issue of shared access on public

lands?

Quoted message said:

.Everyone has access to these lands. Several groups have ideas of how to
.utilize that access for personal enjoyment. Why is it such a big deal to
.discuss the issues, find common ground, and try to develop a solution

that

Quoted message said:

.is acceptable to as many as possible? Isn't that the purpose of multi-use
.plans in parks and forests? I'm tired of this "back and forth" over how
.something was written vs what they meant by it. Access for the purpose of
.off road cycling on public land is the issue. If it hasn't been stated

that

Quoted message said:

.way before, well hells bells, I'm stating it that way now.
.
.<snip>
.>
.>
.

===
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

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:09:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email hidden]...
..> .>
..> .> "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .> news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
..> .> >
..> .> > "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> .> <snip>
..> .> > > Let us not devolve into nit picking on typing skills. And the point
..> .> > remains.
..> .> > > They are still mountain bikers whether they are mountain biking or
..> .not.
..> .> As
..> .> > > people, they are not barred from the trail. Only the mountian bike
..is
..> .> > > barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
..> .> > >
..> .> > >
..> .> > "nit picking on typing skills" is as useless as nitpicking on details
..of
..> .> > context, proper sentence structure or taking a phrase on literal
..meaning
..> .> > alone.
..> .>
..> .> Well if English is too hard for you, I suggest that you stop posting
..your
..> .> random [censored] and wait until you can say what you mean and mean what you
..> .say.
..> .>
..> .> > The debate isn't about sentence structure. It is, despite the literal
..> .> > interpretations of MV or the defense of those interpretations, about
..> .trail
..> .> > access.
..> .>
..> .> No. It is about the false claim that the people who ride moutain bikes
..> .have
..> .> been barred from hiking trails. They have not. Only the mountain bikes
..> .have.
..> .> This is a clear distinction.
..> .>
..> .> > In order to be clear on the issue:
..> .>
..> .> That is the last think you will do. You keep trying to rewrite the lie
..in
..> .> another form that might 'get by' the semantic scrutiny.,
..> .>
..> .> >
..> .> > People who may choose to ride a bicycle off road in areas designated
..as
..> .> > "public" are being denied access to those areas for the purpose of
..off
..> .> road
..> .> > cycling.
..> .>
..> .> Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.
..> .>
..> .Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling.
..You
..> .can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt bikers" are up
..> .against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared access for
..> .hiking and off road cycling.
..>
..> Lie all you want, but the reasons for banning bikes are VALID: documented
..danger
..> to wildlife and other trail users..
..
..Lie all YOU want. Studies show your "reasons" are based on false perceptions
..and myths being put forth by a small majority who claim to speak for
..wildlife. Moutain bikes are not killing wildlife.

That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other animals every tme
they ride. That 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:36:45 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

..
.."Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..news:[email hidden]...
..>
..> "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> news:df4cc.53638$_U.2294@lakeread05...
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
..> <Snip>
..> > > <snip of more and more [censored]>
..> > >
..> > > You really ought to see someone about your inabilty to read what is
..said
..> > and
..> > > understand it. English isn't that hard a language and you have
..> > dictionaries
..> > > and other resources to help. This would prevent you from making
..further
..> > lies
..> > > based on your failure to grasp semantics.
..> > >
..> > Are you stuck in a rut?
..>
..> No. I am just repeating the simple facts about which you are in denial.
..>
..> > Go back to the "we have been dismissed..." thread if
..> > you want to keep picking that apart. I'm done with it.
..>
..> Admitting defeat ? Good for you? Not as good as learning from your
..mistakes
..> but at least you aren't digging your hole deeper.
..>
..> > The issue is trail access for the purpose of off road cycling.
..>
..> "We have been dismissed" is talking about people. Mountain bikes are not
..> people. Only mountian bikes are barred from the trail.
..>
..> > People are
..> > using misinformation and perpetuating false perceptions to hinder the
..> > activity of off road cycling on public lands.
..>
..> Whatever... Apparently you consider your rights are greater than others. A
..> little humility might be useful but I suppose mountain bikers are all gung
..> ho testosterone filled teenagers, immune to reason.
..>
..> > If you want to give specific reasons why offroad cycling should not be
..> > allowed in these areas, then do so.
..>
..> Trail damage. Long term habitat preservation. Reducing stress on wildlife
..> that is penned in too small nature reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc.
..>
..> > If you want to give information that
..> > counters the myths and misinformation about off road cycling so that the
..> > activity can be allowed, then do so.
..>
..> Why not develop private lands where you can maintain the trails at your
..OWN
..> expense, like the environmental groups do when buyiing land to prevent
..> logging or to preserve habitat? Why keep asking for a public subsidy to
..your
..> activities?
..>
..> > The only purpose of carrying the other statement over in the first place
..> was
..> > to note the thread. Somehow it is not surprising that the "we are
..> > dismissed..." line can be picked apart for what it literally stated, but
..> > MV's statement "when they are hiking, they are hikers" can not be put to
..> the
..> > same scrutiny.
..>
..> The fact is that mountain bikers are not barred from the trail as claime.
..It
..> is only mountain bikes that are barred. Mountain bikes have no rights.
..This
..> is simple semantics. Making a claim that does not make sense when analysed
..> is just wrong. You cannot use words as a club, ignoring their meanings.
..You
..> have to say what you mean or you risk getting called on the falsity of
..what
..> you DID say, no matter what you say you meant.
..>
..Finally... I will at least applaud you on saying something of relevance.
..While you still took the opportunity to take a few
..jabs, you at least addressed the issue with your points. (Trail damage. Long
..term habitat preservation. Reducing stress on wildlife that is penned in too
..small nature reserves as it is. etc. etc. etc)
..Yes... P Nam (was that his name) made a statement that was literallly
..incorrect for the meaning he intended. I only wanted
..to clarify the statement from the point of view of cycling enthusiasts. I
..never wanted a tennis match of semantics. I would hope this thread has at
..least clarified the importance of being clear when making statements to open
..a discussion. Your last statement seems to sum up this entire dialogue.
..Almost as an agreement to disagree...
..MV, on the other hand, has yet to make that step.
..

Because it's not true. Paul Nam's statement wasn't a mistake. He DELIBERATELY
lied, in order to try to get sympathy for mountain bikers. Period.
===
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 said:

That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
animals every tme they ride. That is obvious.

You forgot the "Duh!"

Anyone notice how the mad doc is posting on weekday mornings lately? Whassa
matta, off on crazy leave?!?

Bill "mental instability grounds for disability" S.

Mike Vandeman said:

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:09:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
.news:[email hidden]...
.> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>
.wrote:
.>
.> .
.> .> Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as claimed.
.> .>
.> .Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off road cycling.
.You
.> .can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt bikers" are up
.> .against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared access for
.> .hiking and off road cycling.
.>
.> Lie all you want, but the reasons for banning bikes are VALID: documented
.danger
.> to wildlife and other trail users..
.
.Lie all YOU want. Studies show your "reasons" are based on false perceptions
.and myths being put forth by a small majority who claim to speak for
.wildlife. Moutain bikes are not killing wildlife.

That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other animals every tme
they ride. That is obvious.

How convenient! You snipped the content that specifically addresses your stated
concerns (8 years - auto dependence - road construction...) so you could take
another shot with your exaggerated claim of ultimate destruction by mt bikes. Why
didn't you address the rest of the content:
"Urban sprawl, new construction (especially when existing structures are vacant and
plentiful) and excess limber clearing is destroying habitat which IS stressing
wildlife to death. Why is it so difficult to actually cooperate with everyone
interested in keeping these areas from destruction instead of continually
splintering groups against each other which ultimately solves nothing."
As far as your statement: "They kill plants, insects, and other animals every time
they ride. That is obvious"
Hikers step on insects and plants and disturb wildlife every time they walk. That is
obvious. So don't play "holier than thou" because you hike, Mr. Double Standard.
Address the real concerns that ALL OF US are worried about.

Quoted message said:

===
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.)

So he says... but all he seems to do is avoid direct communication with groups that
are interested in possibly cooperating to save some of these areas.

Quoted message said:

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

S o r n i said:

Mike Vandeman said:

That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
animals every tme they ride. That is obvious.

You forgot the "Duh!"

And lets face it, the backcountry is SO lacking in insects...

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)