Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."



"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:32:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>>>>> bicyclists than hikers,
>>>>>> BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
>>>>>> biking has much greater impacts than hiking.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>>>>
>>>>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>>>>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>>>>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>>>>assumptions.
>>>>
>>>>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>>>>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>>>>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.
>>>
>>> That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
>>> This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
>>> hikers:
>>>
>>> Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
>>> K. Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and
>>> B. K. Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on
>>> mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
>>> Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.
>>
>>The results from that study say something slightly different which you
>>ignore:
>>"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV
>>riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17
>>yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15
>>yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk
>>again
>>were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by
>>horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and
>>mountain
>>bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])."
>>
>>Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning"
>>but
>>the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and
>>exaggerate
>>the results out of context.
>
> You conveniently omitted the statistical results, which is the basis
> for science.
You conveniently expect that statement to mean anything? Statistics are only
as relevant as the data and the context of the scope of that data. You can
not extrapolate "statistical" results from this study based only on your own
definitions of what those statistics should include.
>
>>> One study does show
>>>>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>>>>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.
>>>
>>> That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.
>>
>>Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure
>>Vandeman!

No reply here...? So "statistical results" that counter your opinions are
pure BS as opposed to "statistical results" you can create from another
study twisted to favor you opinion...?
>>>
>>>>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>>>>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>>>>primary.
>>>
>>> You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
>>> homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.
>>>
>>> This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>>>>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>>>>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
>>> ===
>>
> ===
> 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
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7jhjg.1756$ZV5.914@dukeread05...
>
> [RBM newsgroup deleted]
>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>>>>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>>>
>>>> Well-stated.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain
>>>> bikers might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>>>
>>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>> bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
>>>> another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians,
>>>> since they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers
>>>> and cyclists.
>>>
>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but
>>> the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes
>>> and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue
>>> with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about
>>> the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different users view
>>> wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with mountain
>>> bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see
>>> too many who are only into wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is
>>> just a mean of recreation for them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it
>>> is for us hikers.
>>
>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
>> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation)
>> does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>
> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
> spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
> wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers of
> our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.

>
> The nationwide cooperative
>> efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the
>> diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the
>> "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies
>> that oversee and enforce the rulings)
>
> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become
> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:7jhjg.1756$ZV5.914@dukeread05...
>>
>> [RBM newsgroup deleted]
>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other
>>>>>> people, regardless of activity, is the priority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well-stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain
>>>>> bikers might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>>>>> bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
>>>>> another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians,
>>>>> since they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than
>>>>> hikers and cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>> but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes
>>>> and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue
>>>> with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about
>>>> the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different users view
>>>> wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with mountain
>>>> bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see
>>>> too many who are only into wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is
>>>> just a mean of recreation for them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like
>>>> it is for us hikers.
>>>
>>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
>>> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation)
>>> does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>
>> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
>> spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
>> wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers
>> of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
>
> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.

The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer bother
with such drivel.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



>> The nationwide cooperative
>>> efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the
>>> diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the
>>> "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies
>>> that oversee and enforce the rulings)
>>
>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become
>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>>
>>>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>>> but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
>>>>> attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
>>>>> impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
>>>>> concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
>>>>> users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with
>>>>> mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect.
>>>>> Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and
>>>>> games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a
>>>>> pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
>>>> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
>>>> recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>>
>>> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
>>> spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
>>> wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers
>>> of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
>>
>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>
> The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
> bother with such drivel.
Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his own
tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel" then
replies with practically the same message the very next day. How much
"drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much, methinks...

>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>>> The nationwide cooperative
>>>> efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the
>>>> diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the
>>>> "science" and research that supports them with support from the
>>>> agencies that oversee and enforce the rulings)
>>>
>>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become
>>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>
>
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fJYjg.16$FR1.7@dukeread05...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>>>
>>>>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>>>> but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
>>>>>> attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
>>>>>> impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
>>>>>> concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
>>>>>> users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue
>>>>>> with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with
>>>>>> respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun
>>>>>> and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a
>>>>>> pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
>>>>> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
>>>>> recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>>>
>>>> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
>>>> spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
>>>> wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers
>>>> of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
>>>
>>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
>>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>>
>> The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
>> bother with such drivel.
>
> Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his
> own tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel"
> then replies with practically the same message the very next day. How much
> "drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much, methinks...

Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just so g.d.
Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a pip-squeak. He
proves that every time he attempts of answer the great Mike Vandeman. Yes,
Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as Me.

We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers
who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their
desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and
general uncouthness.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just
so g.d.
> Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a pip-squeak. He
> proves that every time he attempts of answer the great Mike Vandeman. Yes,
> Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as Me.
>
> We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers
> who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their
> desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and
> general uncouthness.
>


Running out of ideas are you eddie? That was a pretty pathetic response.
Normally you little trolls do a bit better, not much but at least your
responses are amusing.
 
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:39:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>>>
>>>>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>>>> but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
>>>>>> attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
>>>>>> impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
>>>>>> concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
>>>>>> users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with
>>>>>> mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect.
>>>>>> Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and
>>>>>> games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a
>>>>>> pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
>>>>> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
>>>>> recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>>>
>>>> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
>>>> spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
>>>> wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers
>>>> of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
>>>
>>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
>>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>>
>> The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
>> bother with such drivel.
>Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his own
>tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel" then
>replies with practically the same message the very next day. How much
>"drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much, methinks...

Give up and crawl back into your hole. The worst of all sins is lack
of any sense of humor. You are boring all of us to death.
===
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 Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:45:48 GMT, Jason
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
> > Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just
>so g.d.
>> Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a pip-squeak. He
>> proves that every time he attempts of answer the great Mike Vandeman. Yes,
>> Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as Me.
>>
>> We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers
>> who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their
>> desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and
>> general uncouthness.
>>
>
>
>Running out of ideas are you eddie? That was a pretty pathetic response.
>Normally you little trolls do a bit better, not much but at least your
>responses are amusing.

Sour grapes? Everyone without a sense of humor should give up and go
home. Your posts are uniformly less than worthless. They have NEGATIVE
worth.
===
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
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:fJYjg.16$FR1.7@dukeread05...
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>>>>
>>>>>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>>>>> but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>>>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
>>>>>>> attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
>>>>>>> impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
>>>>>>> concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
>>>>>>> users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue
>>>>>>> with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with
>>>>>>> respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for
>>>>>>> fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not
>>>>>>> a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us
>>>>>> a break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
>>>>>> recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is
>>>>> somewhat spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is
>>>>> so little wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to
>>>>> deprive us hikers of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels
>>>>> of the world.
>>>>
>>>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
>>>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>>>
>>> The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
>>> bother with such drivel.
>>
>> Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his
>> own tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel"
>> then replies with practically the same message the very next day. How
>> much "drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much,
>> methinks...
>
> Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just so g.d.
> Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a pip-squeak. He
> proves that every time he attempts of answer the great Mike Vandeman. Yes,
> Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as Me.
>
> We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers
> who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their
> desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and
> general uncouthness.
>
Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you
"eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not so
great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so great",
"faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries"
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:39:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>>>>
>>>>>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>>>>> but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>>>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
>>>>>>> attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
>>>>>>> impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
>>>>>>> concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
>>>>>>> users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect.
>>>>>>> Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and
>>>>>>> games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a
>>>>>>> pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
>>>>>> recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is
>>>>> somewhat
>>>>> spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so
>>>>> little
>>>>> wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us
>>>>> hikers
>>>>> of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
>>>>
>>>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
>>>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>>>
>>> The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
>>> bother with such drivel.
>>Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his
>>own
>>tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel" then
>>replies with practically the same message the very next day. How much
>>"drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much, methinks...
>
> Give up and crawl back into your hole. The worst of all sins is lack
> of any sense of humor. You are boring all of us to death.
> ===
Made you look! ROFLMAO You may be right be right about my sense of humor,
Mikey... After all, the funniest website on the net is:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ You've got "funny" all wrapped up!
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> Sour grapes? Everyone without a sense of humor should give up and go
> home. Your posts are uniformly less than worthless. They have NEGATIVE
> worth.

Funny, that's what we think about you and your posts. How ironic.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:39:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>>>
>>>>>>>There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>>>>>but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>>>>>conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
>>>>>>>attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
>>>>>>>impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
>>>>>>>concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
>>>>>>>users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with
>>>>>>>mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect.
>>>>>>>Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and
>>>>>>>games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a
>>>>>>>pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
>>>>>>break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
>>>>>>recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
>>>>>spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
>>>>>wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers
>>>>>of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
>>>>
>>>>The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
>>>>meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>>>
>>>The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
>>>bother with such drivel.
>>
>>Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his own
>>tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel" then
>>replies with practically the same message the very next day. How much
>>"drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much, methinks...
>
>
> Give up and crawl back into your hole. The worst of all sins is lack
> of any sense of humor. You are boring all of us to death.

Says who? Sorry if your
opinion here doesn't mean a
goddamned thing, Mike, but as
you are quite aware, the
remainder of the NG, wih the
possible exception of Ed,
wishes you would fall off the
planet . ..
 
S Curtiss wrote:

> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
> corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
> and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
> mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
> of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
> over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
> at all for those of us who live in reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
never produced any citations or references for his position, because
none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:WNfkg.3242$FR1.994@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[...]
>>>> The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
>>>> bother with such drivel.
>>>
>>> Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his
>>> own tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such
>>> drivel" then replies with practically the same message the very next
>>> day. How much "drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so
>>> much, methinks...
>>
>> Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just so
>> g.d. Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a
>> pip-squeak. He proves that every time he attempts of answer the great
>> Mike Vandeman. Yes, Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as
>> Me.
>>
>> We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain
>> bikers who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers
>> for their desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all
>> slobbiness and general uncouthness.
>>
> Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you
> "eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not
> so great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so
> great", "faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries"

As long as Curtiss does not come up with anything new, all he will get from
me is my drivel. Since my drivel is better than his drivel, he will lose.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
>> no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
>> persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal
>> agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to
>> present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even
>> reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and
>> generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in
>> reality!
>
> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking
> is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the
> type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never
> produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits.
>
> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back
> country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the
> reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED.
> No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it
> annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a
> breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

And the room erupts with applause... Standing ovation!
Curtain... Scene... Someone say "wrap" and hit the lights...
 
"cc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]
>> Give up and crawl back into your hole. The worst of all sins is lack
>> of any sense of humor. You are boring all of us to death.
>
> Says who? Sorry if your opinion here doesn't mean a goddamned thing, Mike,
> but as you are quite aware, the remainder of the NG, wih the possible
> exception of Ed, wishes you would fall off the planet . ..

"As long as [CC] does not come up with anything new, all he will get from me
is my drivel. Since my drivel is better than his drivel, he will lose." - Ed
Dolan

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer
>> no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited
>> persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal
>> agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to
>> present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even
>> reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and
>> generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in
>> reality!
>
> That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking
> is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the
> type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never
> produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits.
>
> At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
> are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
> still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back
> country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the
> reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED.
> No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it
> annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a
> breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
believe I can say it any clearer than that.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
> trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
> attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
> attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
> That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
> believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn
to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the
trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.
 
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS wrote:

> You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
> not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
> Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
> trails.

Thats what a designated hiking trail is - a trail where biking (typically
everything except hiking) is banned. As a mountain biker, I agree that
bikers should stay off of them.

Ed has stated that his issue is that he thinks we "want" to ride them.
Well sometimes I do, but I'm not sure what the pennance for wanting to
ride a hiking trail is. Say thirty "hail Ed"s and sacrifice a granola bar?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
 
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:21:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:fJYjg.16$FR1.7@dukeread05...
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife,
>>>>>>>> but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to
>>>>>>>> conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental
>>>>>>>> attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the
>>>>>>>> impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly
>>>>>>>> concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different
>>>>>>>> users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue
>>>>>>>> with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with
>>>>>>>> respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for
>>>>>>>> fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not
>>>>>>>> a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us
>>>>>>> a break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is
>>>>>>> recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is
>>>>>> somewhat spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is
>>>>>> so little wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to
>>>>>> deprive us hikers of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels
>>>>>> of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
>>>>> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>>>>
>>>> The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer
>>>> bother with such drivel.
>>>
>>> Is Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota, aka Conan the Librarian, chasing his
>>> own tail...? He states he will have nothing more to do with "such drivel"
>>> then replies with practically the same message the very next day. How
>>> much "drivel" is "such drivel"? How "great" is that? Not so much,
>>> methinks...
>>
>> Curtiss will never win this kind of game with me because I am just so g.d.
>> Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is nothing but a pip-squeak. He
>> proves that every time he attempts of answer the great Mike Vandeman. Yes,
>> Vandeman is also great, but of course not so Great as Me.
>>
>> We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers
>> who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their
>> desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and
>> general uncouthness.
>>
>Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you
>"eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not so
>great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so great",
>"faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries"

Your cheap imitation of Ed The Great is just that: a cheap,
ineffective imitation.
===
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
One More Dishonest Attempt to Justify Mountain Biking
Replies
3
Views
509
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
More Illegal Mountain Biking and Trail Construction -- When Does It Ever End?????
Replies
0
Views
724
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park
Replies
6
Views
428
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
More Serious Mountain Biking Crashes
Replies
2
Views
543
Mountain Bikes
Beej
B
S
Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking
Replies
0
Views
471
Mountain Bikes
S Curtiss
S
Top Bottom Back