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



On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:F5Ykg.6583$FR1.4103@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have
>> cyclists. Choose your environment.
>
>My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
>do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
>do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
>kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.

True, but without wildlife (living things), there would be nowhere
worth hiking. That is the long view.

>I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and
>games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
>hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp
>of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I
>called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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 wrote:
>>
>>My qualifications are just as good as yours are.
>
>
> Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know
> what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh
> Shifty One.

In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in
plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are.

I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any
damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc.

We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree
and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods
differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you
to talk on the environment.

If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your
degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you
can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you
and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it from.
 
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:10 GMT, jason <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>My qualifications are just as good as yours are.
>>
>>
>> Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know
>> what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh
>> Shifty One.
>
>In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in
>plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are.
>
>I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any
>damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc.
>
>We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree

There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
are willing to talk about)!

> and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods
>differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you
>to talk on the environment.

I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.

>If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your
>degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you
>can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you
>and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it from.

===
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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
> results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
> be asked to give such a paper.

Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
>
>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>be asked to give such a paper.
>
>
> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>

Can you two please take your
stroking offline? It's making
me sick. And yes, there are
many qualified to do research
in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are
WRONG. So stop with your
fascist, bigoted polemic and
do something USEFUL!!
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
> are willing to talk about)!
>

Just as you aren't qualified to talk about this subject.


> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.

I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
university you went to that gave you a phd as well.

I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
phds in real science.



It
> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
> results.

Yet you still think you're the only one in the world who can speak on
the damage caused even though you aren't qualified to speak on it.


Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
> be asked to give such a paper.
>


So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
speak and see the reaction of the others attending.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>


More broke back hiking I see, this time on usenet. Go get a room you two.
 
"cc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>
>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>> of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>> was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>> too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>> about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>> conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>
>
> Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
> yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
> consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
> polemic and do something USEFUL!!

I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:19:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>[...]
>> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>> results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>> be asked to give such a paper.
>
>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.

I know. They are probably thinking right now that you are talking
about a different -- more base -- kind of rigor. I just hope that
there are some people like you out there that WILL understand. It took
10 years, but the wait was worth it.

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:00 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>
>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>
>
>Can you two please take your
>stroking offline? It's making
>me sick. And yes, there are
>many qualified to do research
>in this audience,

How would YOU know?????

and the
>consensus is that you are
>WRONG. So stop with your
>fascist, bigoted polemic and
>do something USEFUL!!
===
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, 19 Jun 2006 01:14:32 GMT, jason <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>> who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of
>> us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
>> college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much
>> breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They
>> will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
>> rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>
>
>
>More broke back hiking I see, this time on usenet. Go get a room you two.

Lost? I think your home is alt.****. You must have stumbled into this
newsgroup by accident.
===
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, 19 Jun 2006 01:13:52 GMT, jason <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you
>> are willing to talk about)!
>>
>
>Just as you aren't qualified to talk about this subject.

That's not what the SCIENTISTS think. In fact, I have studied ALL of
the research on mountain biking impacts, which makes me the world
expert on that.

>> I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>> missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>> research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.
>
>I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
>how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
>university you went to that gave you a phd as well.

UCLA is alive and well, and certainly doesn't need YOUR help.

>I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
>phds in real science.

They aren't immune to bias. Especially when they are themselves
mountain bikers.

>It
>> also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>> subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>> Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>> on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>> credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>> judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>> disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>> results.
>
>Yet you still think you're the only one in the world who can speak on
>the damage caused even though you aren't qualified to speak on it.

I'm the most qualified person in the world to discuss this subject.
YOU certainly aren't the least bit qualified.

> Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>> SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>> indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>> me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>> other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>> be asked to give such a paper.
>>
>
>
>So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
>and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
>speak and see the reaction of the others attending.

See my web site. It's all there. But you have to be able to READ.
===
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 wrote:
> "cc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>
>>
>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>
>
> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
> numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
> mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>
> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
> you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
> research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter. I don't
have to defend myself to you,
who are clueless and mentally
incapacitated. Should I dig up
your post about needing your
medications?



>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>>>trails.
>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things
>>>>up for hikers.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>>>trails
>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing
>>>>too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first
>>>>place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see
>>>>bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have
>>>>always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I
>>>>leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>and wilderness.
>>>
>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get
>>> along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their
>>> bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are
>>> at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>"experience" that is his determining factor.
>
> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>
> You have to sidestep that and
>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you
>>use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more
>>concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than
>>whining about a few bikes.
>
> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
> issue?


He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
complaining about each other in a newsgroup.

Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that you
actually do is ***** in this NG. That accomplishes nothing.



>
>>> That is
>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife
>>>>is of secondary importance.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>aka
>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>
>>> ===
>>> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were
>>>>>>hiking trails.
>>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing
>>>>>>things up for hikers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be
>>>>>>some trails
>>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without
>>>>>>causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in
>>>>>>the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not
>>>>>>like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the
>>>>>>West which have always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue.
>>>>>>I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO
>>>>> get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without
>>>>> their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but
>>>>> they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to
>>>>his "experience" that is his determining factor.
>>>
>>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>>
>>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool
>>>>you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be
>>>>more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building
>>>>than whining about a few bikes.
>>>
>>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>>> issue?
>>
>>
>>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>>
>>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that
>>you actually do is ***** in this NG.
>
> BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
> biking -- something you are incapable of doing.
>
> That accomplishes nothing.


You have done what? Educated the whole world? Oh my god, you have
quite a high opinion of your self. Other than a few people on the NG
who you ***** with, nobody has even heard of you. And sadly, the very
few people who have heard of you, don't agree with you. Get a grip
Mikey. Just admit it, you're a complete failure.





>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> That is
>>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and
>>>>>>wildlife is of secondary importance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>>aka
>>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
>>>>>>Minnesota
>>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>> 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
>>>
> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "cc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
>>>>>also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
>>>>>subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
>>>>>Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
>>>>>on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
>>>>>credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
>>>>>judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
>>>>>disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
>>>>>results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
>>>>who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
>>>>of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
>>>>was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
>>>>too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
>>>>about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
>>>>conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
>>>yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
>>>consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
>>>polemic and do something USEFUL!!
>>
>>
>> I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
>> numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
>> mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.
>>
>> Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
>> you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
>> research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.
>
>You haven't a degree, which
>you already admitted. And no,
>working as a librarian does
>NOT count.
>
>I do have a research degree,
>but it doesn't matter.

Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.

I don't
>have to defend myself to you,
>who are clueless and mentally
>incapacitated. Should I dig up
>your post about needing your
>medications?
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>
===
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 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
>>>>>trails.
>>>>>Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things
>>>>>up for hikers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
>>>>>trails
>>>>>for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
>>>>>Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing
>>>>>too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first
>>>>>place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see
>>>>>bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have
>>>>>always been thought of as wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I
>>>>>leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
>>>>>irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
>>>>>and wilderness.
>>>>
>>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
>>>> that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
>>>> saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get
>>>> along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their
>>>> bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are
>>>> at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>>"experience" that is his determining factor.
>>
>> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
>>
>> You have to sidestep that and
>>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>>information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
>>>measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
>>>like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you
>>>use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more
>>>concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than
>>>whining about a few bikes.
>>
>> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
>> issue?
>
>
>He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
>complaining about each other in a newsgroup.
>
>Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that you
>actually do is ***** in this NG.

BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
biking -- something you are incapable of doing.

That accomplishes nothing.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> That is
>>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife
>>>>>is of secondary importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>aka
>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> 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
>>
===
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 wrote:
> That's not what the SCIENTISTS think. In fact, I have studied ALL of
> the research on mountain biking impacts, which makes me the world
> expert on that.

No ego there. Too bad there's a closed mind to the truth as well.

>>>I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
>>>missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
>>>research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.
>>
>>I hope this isn't an example of how you got that paper Phd of yours or
>>how you do your research. If it is I am seriously concerned about the
>>university you went to that gave you a phd as well.
>
>
> UCLA is alive and well, and certainly doesn't need YOUR help.

They do if they let you have a phd, I trust you didnt do such shoddy
research on your phd that you use to troll here. I used to think UCLA
was a pretty good school, I'll have to rethink that now.

>
>
>>I love how you think everyone is wrong even the scientists who have real
>>phds in real science.
>
>
> They aren't immune to bias. Especially when they are themselves
> mountain bikers.
>
>

No you're certainly not immune to bias aren't you mike. In fact you are
more biased then any scientist I have ever heard speak or read works by.


> I'm the most qualified person in the world to discuss this subject.
> YOU certainly aren't the least bit qualified.
>

No more or less qualified then you are.


>
>> Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
>>
>>>SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
>>>indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
>>>me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
>>>other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
>>>be asked to give such a paper.
>>>
>>
>>
>>So once again I ask let see some proof of these conferences you spoke at
>>and will be speaking at. I know we'd love to be at one just to hear you
>>speak and see the reaction of the others attending.
>
>
> See my web site. It's all there. But you have to be able to READ.


Why did I know you were going to hide behind that "see my web site" when
I asked you to put up or shut up regarding these mystery conferences you
spoke at and will speak at. Typical coward.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
>>> it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
>>> "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
>>> it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
>>> mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
>>> TOLERABLE idiots and liars. :)
>>At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
>>"experience" that is his determining factor.
>
> It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.
Convenient... You pick a "sounds good - feels good" group and proclaim
yourself a spokesman for them allowing you say whatever you wish as long as
it fits the "for the wildlife" parameter which is also defined by you. You
have set yourself up in a little bubble world where anyone who disagrees
must either be against wildlife, a liar or too stupid to understand.
>
> You have to sidestep that and
>>try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
>>information
>>and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is
>>OBVIOUS
>>your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife
>>is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you
>>desire.
>>If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction
>>caused by building than whining about a few bikes.
>
> People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
> issue?
I use the platform available to me to highlight issues about land use.
Specifically, the destruction of land for new buildings when there are
suitable buildings already in place and empty, or that can be removed and
rebuilt to fit specific needs. There has also been focus lately on the sale
of public forest land.
Not everyone has to pad their ego or resume by answering a "call for
papers".
>
>>> That is
>>>>the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is
>>>>of
>>>>secondary importance.
>>>>
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism
>> and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places
>> without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have
>> cyclists. Choose your environment.
>
> My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers
> do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to
> do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the
> kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness.
"We" bring...? Don't you mean "you" bring. I've seen many trails... Not one
has a voting booth to select you as a spokesman.
>
> I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
> and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
> hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
> grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
> you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.
>
You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to
elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray
all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you.
Nonsense.
Besides, I have a grasp on your motives and mentality, I just do not accept
that is the same for everyone who hikes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
One More Dishonest Attempt to Justify Mountain Biking
Replies
3
Views
494
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
More Illegal Mountain Biking and Trail Construction -- When Does It Ever End?????
Replies
0
Views
715
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park
Replies
6
Views
420
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
More Serious Mountain Biking Crashes
Replies
2
Views
537
Mountain Bikes
Beej
B
E
Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Replies
352
Views
8K
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
E
Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Replies
156
Views
3K
Road Cycling
Chris Foster
C
articlebot
"You stand more of a chance with mountain biking of getting into the worlds" - B
Replies
0
Views
298
Cycling News Headlines
articlebot
articlebot
S
Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking
Replies
0
Views
463
Mountain Bikes
S Curtiss
S
G
Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking
Replies
11
Views
506
Mountain Bikes
GaryG
G
J
Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking
Replies
171
Views
7K
Mountain Bikes
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
Top Bottom Back