M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:19:28 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..
.."Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..>
..> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> news:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05...
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> > news:[email protected]...
..> > >
..> > > "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> > > news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
..> > > >
..> > > > "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> 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 **** 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 ********>
..>
..> 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
..
.."Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..>
..> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> news:WU_bc.52429$_U.28977@lakeread05...
..> >
..> > "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> > news:[email protected]...
..> > >
..> > > "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> > > news:MrXbc.52015$_U.10853@lakeread05...
..> > > >
..> > > > "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> 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 **** 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 ********>
..>
..> 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