Re: Proof that MOST Mountain Bikers Break the Law

Discussion in 'Recumbent bicycles' started by Edward Dolan, May 4, 2006.

  1. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    [...]
    > Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
    > access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions you
    > report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time and
    > universally represented the cycling community, the growth and recognition
    > of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic effects on the
    > losses from other trail users would have been enough for the agencies
    > involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are recognizing the
    > cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the information, definitions
    > and opinions you cling to and insist upon have either been proven false or
    > no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and your opinions have been left
    > behind.


    >> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions and
    >>>old
    >>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.


    So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies that
    manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not offending the
    users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them are nothing but
    slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports which show things
    are not as bad as we all know them to be.

    Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special trails
    constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.
    After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
    hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of what nature
    is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to do is to f***
    nature.

    Trail cyclists think a natural area is there for them to have some fun,
    never dreaming it might have greater import than that. Cyclists who want to
    use natural areas for their fun and games should be rounded up and dumped on
    the shores of Daytona where they could cycle on the beach there with all the
    automobiles and trucks. After all, their mentality is the same. Birds of a
    feather should flock together.

    Cyclists do not belong in natural areas of great beauty since they are
    unable to respond to anything but their freaking fun and games. The kind of
    mentality they bring to the wilderness is all wrong. They would be better
    off to just go to freaking Disney World!

    Ideally, areas of great natural beauty should be reserved strictly for
    walkers (hikers). It is only by walking that you transcend yourself and gain
    some insight into the world of the eternal verities.

    Regards,

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


  2. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > [...]
    >>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions and
    >>>>old
    >>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

    >
    > So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    > trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
    > that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not offending
    > the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them are
    > nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports which
    > show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.



    majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to be...?

    Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as Vandeman.
    Are you cousins?


    >
    > Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
    > trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
    > areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out
    > for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of what
    > nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to do is
    > to f*** nature.

    Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
    attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of others.
    "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
    hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis in comparison
    or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of riding a bicycle
    and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your scope of experience.

    >
    > Trail cyclists think a natural area is there for them to have some fun,
    > never dreaming it might have greater import than that. Cyclists who want
    > to use natural areas for their fun and games should be rounded up and
    > dumped on the shores of Daytona where they could cycle on the beach there
    > with all the automobiles and trucks. After all, their mentality is the
    > same. Birds of a feather should flock together.

    Actually, the intent has never been to take bicycles into every area. The
    intent has always been on allowing bicycles in designated multi-use areas.
    Of course there are places not suitable for the bicycle, the kayak or the
    hunter. Your (and Vandeman's) opinions of cyclists motives are meaningless.

    >
    > Cyclists do not belong in natural areas of great beauty since they are
    > unable to respond to anything but their freaking fun and games. The kind
    > of mentality they bring to the wilderness is all wrong. They would be
    > better off to just go to freaking Disney World!

    Again... You attempt to place yourself into a position of authority as to
    what motivates someone else. Your claim of why someone chooses to ride a
    bicycle off-road is meaningless as it only states your opinion from a point
    of view outside the cyclists' frame of reference
    >
    > Ideally, areas of great natural beauty should be reserved strictly for
    > walkers (hikers). It is only by walking that you transcend yourself and
    > gain some insight into the world of the eternal verities.

    The kind of mentality you bring to the wilderness is all wrong. You would be
    better off to just go to Church! Then you can park your happy ass in a
    Church pew to transcend yourself and gain that insight into eternal veritis
    that you are after.


    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
    > aka
    > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
     
  3. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]
    >
    > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> [...]
    >>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>and old
    >>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

    >>
    >> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    >> trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
    >> that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
    >> offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them
    >> are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports
    >> which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

    >
    >
    > majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
    > be...?
    >
    > Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
    > Vandeman. Are you cousins?


    I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
    and other mountain resorts.

    >> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
    >> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
    >> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out
    >> for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of
    >> what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to
    >> do is to f*** nature.

    >
    > Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
    > attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of others.
    > "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
    > hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis in
    > comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
    > riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
    > scope of experience.


    I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
    when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt. Then
    and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of why he is
    where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he can see is
    what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially appreciating
    nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle course. What
    total and sheer idiocy!

    I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was. I
    end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down the
    damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on anything
    but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say that?
    [...]

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

    Edward Dolan Guest

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

    Newsgroups restored.

    > On Thu, 4 May 2006 03:48:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>[...]
    >>> Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
    >>> access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
    >>> you
    >>> report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time and
    >>> universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
    >>> recognition
    >>> of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic effects on
    >>> the
    >>> losses from other trail users would have been enough for the agencies
    >>> involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are recognizing the
    >>> cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the information,
    >>> definitions
    >>> and opinions you cling to and insist upon have either been proven false
    >>> or
    >>> no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and your opinions have been left
    >>> behind.

    >>
    >>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>and
    >>>>>old
    >>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.

    >>
    >>So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    >>trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
    >>that
    >>manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not offending the
    >>users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them are nothing
    >>but
    >>slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports which show things
    >>are not as bad as we all know them to be.
    >>
    >>Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.

    >
    > I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
    > everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).


    I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
    bikes which are inanimate objects.

    > They need to have special trails
    >>constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.

    >
    > They already have them: they are called "roads".


    Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
    are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.

    >>After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
    >>hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of what
    >>nature
    >>is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to do is to
    >>f***
    >>nature.
    >>
    >>Trail cyclists think a natural area is there for them to have some fun,
    >>never dreaming it might have greater import than that. Cyclists who want
    >>to
    >>use natural areas for their fun and games should be rounded up and dumped
    >>on
    >>the shores of Daytona where they could cycle on the beach there with all
    >>the
    >>automobiles and trucks. After all, their mentality is the same. Birds of a
    >>feather should flock together.
    >>
    >>Cyclists do not belong in natural areas of great beauty since they are
    >>unable to respond to anything but their freaking fun and games. The kind
    >>of
    >>mentality they bring to the wilderness is all wrong. They would be better
    >>off to just go to freaking Disney World!

    >
    > But they can't tell the difference! They thought they WERE in
    > Disneyland.


    It all goes back to the mentality that you bring with you. You simply cannot
    have the right mentality for nature when you are on a bike.

    >>Ideally, areas of great natural beauty should be reserved strictly for
    >>walkers (hikers). It is only by walking that you transcend yourself and
    >>gain
    >>some insight into the world of the eternal verities.

    >
    > Well said. But there's no need to exclude cyclists (without their
    > bikes), because they are too LAZY to walk. That's why they insist on
    > biking everywhere -- where they don't belong.


    You and I are in solid agreement on this much at least.

    Regards,

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

    Edward Dolan Guest

    "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    Newsgroups restored.

    ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

    > So... you can not respond to direct inquiry. Instead, you correspond with
    > another like-minded nutjob on the phrasing of comments and agreeing on
    > supposition and opinion.


    The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he have
    two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he just in
    love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his first name.

    > I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
    > challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play tag
    > with another opinionated half-wit.


    The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

    > So... again.


    Please, not again!

    > Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
    > access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions you
    > report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time and
    > universally represented the cycling community, the growth and recognition
    > of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic effects on the
    > losses from other trail users would have been enough for the agencies
    > involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are recognizing the
    > cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the information, definitions
    > and opinions you cling to and insist upon have either been proven false or
    > no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and your opinions have been left
    > behind.


    The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The only
    economics they care about is the number of users, because that brings money
    to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry, please?

    Regards,

    Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
    aka
    Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
     
  6. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    Hey Dolan.... Give it a rest! Show me a badge. Show me some authority.
    I'll post where I chose and don't need some nut with a self-written
    proclamation to quote netiquette.
    "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!


    >
    >> So... you can not respond to direct inquiry. Instead, you correspond
    >> with another like-minded nutjob on the phrasing of comments and agreeing
    >> on supposition and opinion.

    >
    > The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he
    > have two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he
    > just in love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his first
    > name.

    Wow - character assasination...? Just like your pal Vandeman... But a
    quick search of Google groups "dolan" comes up with a lot of the same in the
    recumbents ng. Seems anybody who takes the time to challenge Dolan and his
    claims of greatness gets some mud thrown at them. Since I ride a bicycle on
    trails, a little mud should be no problem. WTF...? What has my name have to
    do with the price of suspension forks in West Virginia?
    >
    >> I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
    >> challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play tag
    >> with another opinionated half-wit.

    >
    > The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

    Wow... Your opinion is sharp as a condom.... Perhaps you should start
    wearing them on your head... After all, you might as well dress like you
    act.
    >
    >> So... again.

    >
    > Please, not again!
    >
    >> Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
    >> access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
    >> you report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time
    >> and universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
    >> recognition of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic
    >> effects on the losses from other trail users would have been enough for
    >> the agencies involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are
    >> recognizing the cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the
    >> information, definitions and opinions you cling to and insist upon have
    >> either been proven false or no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and
    >> your opinions have been left behind.

    >
    > The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The
    > only economics they care about is the number of users, because that brings
    > money to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry, please?

    Right... and if the other users were not coming because of the cyclists
    then these agencies would have put more restrictions on cycling access.
    Since the cooperation and access continues, the claim of other users being
    driven away is unfounded. Since the only economics they care about is the
    number of users, and the users of all types continue to come, then off-road
    cyclists have not had the detrimental effects Vandeman has claimed. Case
    proven. The end.
     
  7. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>>and old
    >>>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
    >>>
    >>> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    >>> trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
    >>> that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
    >>> offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of
    >>> them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue
    >>> reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

    >>
    >>
    >> majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
    >> be...?
    >>
    >> Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
    >> Vandeman. Are you cousins?

    >
    > I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
    > and other mountain resorts.

    And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too... What
    is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
    across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants in
    each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike" like
    a girl finding a spider means nothing.
    >
    >>> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
    >>> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
    >>> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >>> out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
    >>> of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
    >>> like to do is to f*** nature.

    >>
    >> Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
    >> attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
    >> others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >> out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
    >> in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
    >> riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
    >> scope of experience.

    >
    > I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
    > when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
    > Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
    > why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
    > can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
    > appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle
    > course. What total and sheer idiocy!

    Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
    instrument? Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
    chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
    of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
    Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the natural
    surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
    fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.
    >
    > I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was.
    > I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down
    > the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
    > anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say
    > that?

    Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?
     
  8. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:MFT6g.50835$k%[email protected]
    > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>>>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>>>and old
    >>>>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical
    >>>> slob trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The
    >>>> agencies that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of
    >>>> not offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority
    >>>> of them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to
    >>>> issue reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to
    >>>> be.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
    >>> be...?
    >>>
    >>> Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
    >>> Vandeman. Are you cousins?

    >>
    >> I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
    >> and other mountain resorts.

    >
    > And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too... What
    > is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
    > across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
    > in each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
    > like a girl finding a spider means nothing.


    Perceptions are everything in this world of woe. Facts are elusive to say
    the least and, as everyone knows, statistics lie all the time. You probably
    believe in polls too!

    >>>> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
    >>>> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
    >>>> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >>>> out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
    >>>> of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
    >>>> like to do is to f*** nature.
    >>>
    >>> Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
    >>> attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
    >>> others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >>> out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
    >>> in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
    >>> riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
    >>> scope of experience.

    >>
    >> I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
    >> when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
    >> Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
    >> why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
    >> can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
    >> appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some
    >> obstacle course. What total and sheer idiocy!

    >
    > Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
    > instrument? Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
    > chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
    > of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
    > Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
    > natural surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking.
    > The mere fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.


    Yes, just as I thought. Mountain biking is nothing but running an obstacle
    course. Such shenanigans have no place in the wilderness. Another very
    disgusting sight I have seen around Aspen are runners out running on the
    mountain trails. Again, an inappropriate use of a natural resource.

    What make you think a musician has much interaction with the audience? He is
    only aware of the audience when the music stops and he is getting some
    applause.

    By the way, I am a cyclist and have been one for the past 30 years.

    >> I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that
    >> was. I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and
    >> down the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
    >> anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already
    >> say that?

    >
    > Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?


    I am Joe Average when it comes to cycling. If I can't do it, then no one
    should do it. You are behaving like a teenage clown. I can assure you that
    all true walkers in the wilderness hate the sight of you when they encounter
    you on your bike on their sacred footpaths. You are committing sacrilege and
    not even aware of what you are doing.

    Regards,

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

    Edward Dolan Guest

    "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:ApT6g.50833$k%[email protected]

    ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

    > Hey Dolan.... Give it a rest! Show me a badge. Show me some authority.
    > I'll post where I chose and don't need some nut with a self-written
    > proclamation to quote netiquette.
    > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

    >
    >>
    >>> So... you can not respond to direct inquiry. Instead, you correspond
    >>> with another like-minded nutjob on the phrasing of comments and agreeing
    >>> on supposition and opinion.

    >>
    >> The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he
    >> have two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he
    >> just in love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his
    >> first name.

    >
    > Wow - character assasination...? Just like your pal Vandeman...


    I have noticed most of the name calling coming from you, not him.

    But a
    > quick search of Google groups "dolan" comes up with a lot of the same in
    > the recumbents ng. Seems anybody who takes the time to challenge Dolan and
    > his claims of greatness gets some mud thrown at them. Since I ride a
    > bicycle on trails, a little mud should be no problem. WTF...? What has my
    > name have to do with the price of suspension forks in West Virginia?


    I don't much like folks who fool around with their real names. They seem
    like fools to me. However, if your name is really spelled with two s', then
    you need to explain how that came to be. However, let me tell you what I
    really don't like at all and that is folks who only have a user name, never
    ever revealing their real name. You don't seem to fall into that category,
    so you have passed a very critical test with the Great One.

    >>> I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
    >>> challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play tag
    >>> with another opinionated half-wit.

    >>
    >> The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

    > Wow... Your opinion is sharp as a condom.... Perhaps you should start
    > wearing them on your head... After all, you might as well dress like you
    > act.


    Careful! You are now getting into the arena of sexual allusions and this is
    likely to arouse Saint Edward the Great. Trust me on this, you do not want
    to make HIS acquaintance. Ed Dolan the Great is a mouse compared to HIM!

    >>> So... again.

    >>
    >> Please, not again!
    >>
    >>> Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
    >>> access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
    >>> you report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time
    >>> and universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
    >>> recognition of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic
    >>> effects on the losses from other trail users would have been enough for
    >>> the agencies involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are
    >>> recognizing the cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the
    >>> information, definitions and opinions you cling to and insist upon have
    >>> either been proven false or no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and
    >>> your opinions have been left behind.

    >>
    >> The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The
    >> only economics they care about is the number of users, because that
    >> brings money to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry, please?

    >
    > Right... and if the other users were not coming because of the cyclists
    > then these agencies would have put more restrictions on cycling access.
    > Since the cooperation and access continues, the claim of other users being
    > driven away is unfounded. Since the only economics they care about is the
    > number of users, and the users of all types continue to come, then
    > off-road cyclists have not had the detrimental effects Vandeman has
    > claimed. Case proven. The end.


    There are all kinds of conflicts going on between users under the surface.
    The agencies are only concerned with the bottom line. As long as they are
    not being deserted by one and all, they will continue to do business as
    usual.

    Bikers do not mind hikers, but hikers do mind bikers. So what? Exactly so!

    Regards,

    Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
    aka
    Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
     
  10. On Fri, 5 May 2006 15:59:58 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    >"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:p[email protected]
    >>
    >> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]
    >>> [...]
    >>>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>>and old
    >>>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
    >>>
    >>> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    >>> trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
    >>> that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
    >>> offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them
    >>> are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports
    >>> which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.

    >>
    >>
    >> majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
    >> be...?
    >>
    >> Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
    >> Vandeman. Are you cousins?

    >
    >I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
    >and other mountain resorts.
    >
    >>> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
    >>> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
    >>> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out
    >>> for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of
    >>> what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to
    >>> do is to f*** nature.

    >>
    >> Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
    >> attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of others.
    >> "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
    >> hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis in
    >> comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
    >> riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
    >> scope of experience.

    >
    >I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
    >when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt. Then
    >and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of why he is
    >where he is in the first place.


    That's easy to prove: just watch any mountain biking video. They
    hardly ever stop, and they move so fast that it's impossible for them
    to appreciate ANYTHING. Just go to
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/links and search for "video".

    While riding his bike, all he can see is
    >what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially appreciating
    >nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle course. What
    >total and sheer idiocy!
    >
    >I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was. I
    >end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down the
    >damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on anything
    >but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say that?


    Me, too. I felt rattled to death. It was impossible to pay attention
    to anything but controlling the bike.

    >[...]
    >
    >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
     
  11. On Fri, 5 May 2006 22:16:09 -0400, "S Curtiss"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>>>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>>>and old
    >>>>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    >>>> trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
    >>>> that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not
    >>>> offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority of
    >>>> them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue
    >>>> reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to be.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
    >>> be...?
    >>>
    >>> Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
    >>> Vandeman. Are you cousins?

    >>
    >> I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
    >> and other mountain resorts.

    >And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.


    All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
    which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
    science.

    ... What
    >is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
    >across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants in
    >each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike" like
    >a girl finding a spider means nothing.
    >>
    >>>> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
    >>>> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
    >>>> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >>>> out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
    >>>> of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
    >>>> like to do is to f*** nature.
    >>>
    >>> Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
    >>> attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
    >>> others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >>> out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
    >>> in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
    >>> riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
    >>> scope of experience.

    >>
    >> I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
    >> when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
    >> Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
    >> why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
    >> can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
    >> appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some obstacle
    >> course. What total and sheer idiocy!

    >Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
    >instrument?


    Try it while riding a bike, then talk. A musician isn't going to crash
    if he misses a note.

    Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
    >chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
    >of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
    >Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the natural
    >surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
    >fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.


    Your primary skill is LYING.

    >> I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that was.
    >> I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and down
    >> the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
    >> anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already say
    >> that?

    >Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?
    >

    ===
    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
     
  12. On Fri, 5 May 2006 22:38:53 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    >"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:MFT6g.50835$k%[email protected]
    >> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>>>>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>>>>and old
    >>>>>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical
    >>>>> slob trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The
    >>>>> agencies that manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of
    >>>>> not offending the users of those resources, even if the vast majority
    >>>>> of them are nothing but slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to
    >>>>> issue reports which show things are not as bad as we all know them to
    >>>>> be.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> majority are slobs and cretins...? not as bad as we all know them to
    >>>> be...?
    >>>>
    >>>> Wow - you speak in generalities and supposition almost as good as
    >>>> Vandeman. Are you cousins?
    >>>
    >>> I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around Aspen
    >>> and other mountain resorts.

    >>
    >> And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too... What
    >> is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
    >> across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
    >> in each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
    >> like a girl finding a spider means nothing.

    >
    >Perceptions are everything in this world of woe. Facts are elusive to say
    >the least and, as everyone knows, statistics lie all the time. You probably
    >believe in polls too!
    >
    >>>>> Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths. They need to have special
    >>>>> trails constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural
    >>>>> areas. After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >>>>> out for a hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer
    >>>>> of what nature is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they
    >>>>> like to do is to f*** nature.
    >>>>
    >>>> Aren't we fluent with the colorful language? You, like any other moron,
    >>>> attempt to place yourself in a position to speak on the motives of
    >>>> others. "After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just
    >>>> out for a hoot anyway" is simply a statement of an opinion with no basis
    >>>> in comparison or reality. The FACT that off-road cyclists are capable of
    >>>> riding a bicycle and see natural beauty at the same may be beyond your
    >>>> scope of experience.
    >>>
    >>> I am convinced that the only time a cyclist sees any beauty in nature is
    >>> when he stops riding his bike and gets off of it to rest his sore butt.
    >>> Then and only then does he look around and maybe get a small glimmer of
    >>> why he is where he is in the first place. While riding his bike, all he
    >>> can see is what is at the base of his front wheel and he is essentially
    >>> appreciating nothing. He might as well be riding his bike on some
    >>> obstacle course. What total and sheer idiocy!

    >>
    >> Then explain how a musician interacts with the audience while playing the
    >> instrument? Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
    >> chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
    >> of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
    >> Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
    >> natural surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking.
    >> The mere fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

    >
    >Yes, just as I thought. Mountain biking is nothing but running an obstacle
    >course. Such shenanigans have no place in the wilderness. Another very
    >disgusting sight I have seen around Aspen are runners out running on the
    >mountain trails. Again, an inappropriate use of a natural resource.
    >
    >What make you think a musician has much interaction with the audience? He is
    >only aware of the audience when the music stops and he is getting some
    >applause.
    >
    >By the way, I am a cyclist and have been one for the past 30 years.
    >
    >>> I once tried mountain biking myself many years ago. What a farce that
    >>> was. I end up walking my bike almost every inch of the way, both up and
    >>> down the damn mountain. I resolved then and there never to ride a bike on
    >>> anything but a road. What total and sheer stupidity - or did I already
    >>> say that?

    >>
    >> Did I already mention your lack of ability is meaningless...?

    >
    >I am Joe Average when it comes to cycling. If I can't do it, then no one
    >should do it. You are behaving like a teenage clown. I can assure you that
    >all true walkers in the wilderness hate the sight of you when they encounter
    >you on your bike on their sacred footpaths. You are committing sacrilege and
    >not even aware of what you are doing.


    Careful, you are way over his head. Try to stick to words of one
    syl-la-ble. :)

    >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
     
  13. On Fri, 5 May 2006 18:36:53 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >
    >Newsgroups restored.
    >
    >> On Thu, 4 May 2006 03:48:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]
    >>>[...]
    >>>> Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
    >>>> access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
    >>>> you
    >>>> report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over time and
    >>>> universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
    >>>> recognition
    >>>> of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic effects on
    >>>> the
    >>>> losses from other trail users would have been enough for the agencies
    >>>> involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are recognizing the
    >>>> cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the information,
    >>>> definitions
    >>>> and opinions you cling to and insist upon have either been proven false
    >>>> or
    >>>> no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and your opinions have been left
    >>>> behind.
    >>>
    >>>>> Off-road cycling has been established, continues to grow and
    >>>>>>continues to evolve with technology and participation. Your opinions
    >>>>>>and
    >>>>>>old
    >>>>>>reports no longer apply as reality has left you behind.
    >>>
    >>>So, has human nature, in particular the human nature of the typical slob
    >>>trail cyclist, changed in the last few years? I think not! The agencies
    >>>that
    >>>manage the outdoor resources have to be ever careful of not offending the
    >>>users of those resources, even if the vast majority of them are nothing
    >>>but
    >>>slobs and cretins. It is extremely easy to issue reports which show things
    >>>are not as bad as we all know them to be.
    >>>
    >>>Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.

    >>
    >> I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
    >> everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).

    >
    >I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
    >bikes which are inanimate objects.


    Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
    about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
    indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
    basis of personality.

    >> They need to have special trails
    >>>constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.

    >>
    >> They already have them: they are called "roads".

    >
    >Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
    >are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.


    You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
    It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
    further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
    order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
    habitat impacts go.

    >>>After all, cyclists do not need natural areas as they are just out for a
    >>>hoot anyway. There is not one of them who has even a glimmer of what
    >>>nature
    >>>is for. They are like slob hunters that way. All they like to do is to
    >>>f***
    >>>nature.
    >>>
    >>>Trail cyclists think a natural area is there for them to have some fun,
    >>>never dreaming it might have greater import than that. Cyclists who want
    >>>to
    >>>use natural areas for their fun and games should be rounded up and dumped
    >>>on
    >>>the shores of Daytona where they could cycle on the beach there with all
    >>>the
    >>>automobiles and trucks. After all, their mentality is the same. Birds of a
    >>>feather should flock together.
    >>>
    >>>Cyclists do not belong in natural areas of great beauty since they are
    >>>unable to respond to anything but their freaking fun and games. The kind
    >>>of
    >>>mentality they bring to the wilderness is all wrong. They would be better
    >>>off to just go to freaking Disney World!

    >>
    >> But they can't tell the difference! They thought they WERE in
    >> Disneyland.

    >
    >It all goes back to the mentality that you bring with you. You simply cannot
    >have the right mentality for nature when you are on a bike.
    >
    >>>Ideally, areas of great natural beauty should be reserved strictly for
    >>>walkers (hikers). It is only by walking that you transcend yourself and
    >>>gain
    >>>some insight into the world of the eternal verities.

    >>
    >> Well said. But there's no need to exclude cyclists (without their
    >> bikes), because they are too LAZY to walk. That's why they insist on
    >> biking everywhere -- where they don't belong.

    >
    >You and I are in solid agreement on this much at least.
    >
    >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
     
  14. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    Hey! Look! I'm posting on TOP of E Dolan! Woo-Hoo!
    "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:ApT6g.50833$k%[email protected]
    >
    > ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
    >
    >> Hey Dolan.... Give it a rest! Show me a badge. Show me some authority.
    >> I'll post where I chose and don't need some nut with a self-written
    >> proclamation to quote netiquette.
    >>> The only nutjob I have encountered so far here is Curtiss. Why does he
    >>> have two s' in his last name. Surely Curtiss should be Curtis. Or is he
    >>> just in love with the letter s since I note he also has an S for his
    >>> first name.

    >>
    >> Wow - character assasination...? Just like your pal Vandeman...

    >
    > I have noticed most of the name calling coming from you, not him.

    Apparently, you have not taken the time to research Vandeman or his posting
    methods. I suggest Google group search "vandeman".
    >
    > But a
    >> quick search of Google groups "dolan" comes up with a lot of the same in
    >> the recumbents ng. Seems anybody who takes the time to challenge Dolan
    >> and his claims of greatness gets some mud thrown at them. Since I ride a
    >> bicycle on trails, a little mud should be no problem. WTF...? What has my
    >> name have to do with the price of suspension forks in West Virginia?

    >
    > I don't much like folks who fool around with their real names. They seem
    > like fools to me. However, if your name is really spelled with two s',
    > then you need to explain how that came to be. However, let me tell you
    > what I really don't like at all and that is folks who only have a user
    > name, never ever revealing their real name. You don't seem to fall into
    > that category, so you have passed a very critical test with the Great One.

    I have to explain nothing. My name is what it is.
    >
    >>>> I asked you directly what makes your 6 year old study so relevant. I
    >>>> challenged you on context and substance and you side-step it to play
    >>>> tag with another opinionated half-wit.
    >>>
    >>> The only half-wit I have encountered so far here is Curtiss.

    >> Wow... Your opinion is sharp as a condom.... Perhaps you should start
    >> wearing them on your head... After all, you might as well dress like you
    >> act.

    >
    > Careful! You are now getting into the arena of sexual allusions and this
    > is likely to arouse Saint Edward the Great. Trust me on this, you do not
    > want to make HIS acquaintance. Ed Dolan the Great is a mouse compared to
    > HIM!

    Wow... a schizophrenic threat! That's a new one!
    >
    >>>> So... again.
    >>>
    >>> Please, not again!
    >>>
    >>>> Please, by all means, explain the increase in cooperation, popularity,
    >>>> access and recognition of off-road cycling if the numbers and opinions
    >>>> you report are true and valid. If your numbers were consistent over
    >>>> time and universally represented the cycling community, the growth and
    >>>> recognition of off-road cycling could not be happening. Simple economic
    >>>> effects on the losses from other trail users would have been enough for
    >>>> the agencies involved to close the gates. Since these agencies are
    >>>> recognizing the cooperation and benefits of off-road cycling, the
    >>>> information, definitions and opinions you cling to and insist upon have
    >>>> either been proven false or no longer valid. Whatever the case, you and
    >>>> your opinions have been left behind.
    >>>
    >>> The agencies are catering to whomever wants to use their resources. The
    >>> only economics they care about is the number of users, because that
    >>> brings money to the local communities. Case solved! Next inquiry,
    >>> please?

    >>
    >> Right... and if the other users were not coming because of the cyclists
    >> then these agencies would have put more restrictions on cycling access.
    >> Since the cooperation and access continues, the claim of other users
    >> being driven away is unfounded. Since the only economics they care about
    >> is the number of users, and the users of all types continue to come, then
    >> off-road cyclists have not had the detrimental effects Vandeman has
    >> claimed. Case proven. The end.

    >
    > There are all kinds of conflicts going on between users under the surface.
    > The agencies are only concerned with the bottom line. As long as they are
    > not being deserted by one and all, they will continue to do business as
    > usual.

    Perhaps that explains why it is more important for the user groups to keep
    communication open and cooperation a priority.
    >
    > Bikers do not mind hikers, but hikers do mind bikers. So what? Exactly so!


    Generalizations and opinions.
     
  15. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    ">>>>Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.
    >>>
    >>> I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
    >>> everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).

    >>
    >>I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
    >>bikes which are inanimate objects.

    >
    > Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
    > about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
    > indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
    > basis of personality.

    Google group search "vandeman" has years of this discussion.
    >
    >>> They need to have special trails
    >>>>constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.
    >>>
    >>> They already have them: they are called "roads".

    >>
    >>Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
    >>are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.

    >
    > You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
    > It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
    > further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
    > order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
    > habitat impacts go.

    Google group search "vandeman" has this discussion repeated over years also.
    >
     
  16. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>> I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around
    >>> Aspen
    >>> and other mountain resorts.

    >>And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.

    >
    > All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
    > which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
    > science.

    Actually - You have it backwards. Observation leads to facts. A fact is
    determined by repeated process and observation. An observation is not a
    FACT. It is merely part of the process of determining a fact.
    But someone who insists on their own definitions and opinions as the only
    ones applicable can hardly claim scientific support.
    >
    > .. What
    >>is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
    >>across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
    >>in
    >>each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
    >>like
    >>a girl finding a spider means nothing.
    >>>

    >
    > Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
    >>chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
    >>of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
    >>Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
    >>natural
    >>surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
    >>fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

    >
    > Your primary skill is LYING.

    Opinion. Expressing it may be your primary skill.
    >
     
  17. On Sun, 7 May 2006 08:52:17 -0400, "S Curtiss"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!68.1.17.232.MISMATCH!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!p01!dukeread12.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
    >From: "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
    >Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
    >References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <QYSdnX[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <MFT6g.50835$k%[email protected]> <[email protected]>
    >Subject: Re: Proof that MOST Mountain Bikers Break the Law
    >Lines: 39
    >X-Priority: 3
    >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
    >X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
    >X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    >Message-ID: <d4m7g.50906$k%[email protected]>
    >Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 08:52:17 -0400
    >NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.252.132.219
    >X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
    >X-Trace: dukeread12 1147006345 24.252.132.219 (Sun, 07 May 2006 08:52:25 EDT)
    >NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 08:52:25 EDT
    >Organization: Cox Communications
    >Xref: prodigy.net alt.mountain-bike:503401 rec.bicycles.soc:163742 rec.backcountry:444056 ca.environment:50809 sci.environment:556588 alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent:225063
    >
    >
    >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>>> I am only relating to you what I have personally seen in and around
    >>>> Aspen
    >>>> and other mountain resorts.
    >>>And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.

    >>
    >> All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
    >> which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
    >> science.

    >Actually - You have it backwards. Observation leads to facts. A fact is
    >determined by repeated process and observation. An observation is not a
    >FACT.


    So if I observe a mountain biker speeding, running over an animal,
    creating a rut, skidding, or running into a hiker, it didn't really
    happen? You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper in your morass
    of lies. I've observed you lie so often, it must be a FACT, right?

    It is merely part of the process of determining a fact.
    >But someone who insists on their own definitions and opinions as the only
    >ones applicable can hardly claim scientific support.
    >>
    >> .. What
    >>>is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
    >>>across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many participants
    >>>in
    >>>each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
    >>>like
    >>>a girl finding a spider means nothing.
    >>>>

    >>
    >> Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
    >>>chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the degree
    >>>of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
    >>>Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
    >>>natural
    >>>surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The mere
    >>>fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.

    >>
    >> Your primary skill is LYING.

    >Opinion. Expressing it may be your primary skill.


    BS. When I OBSERVE you lying, that's all the evidence I need. Like the
    lie above: "An observation is not a FACT". You are a LIAR. And when
    it's repeated, you are an incorrigible liar.
    ===
    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
     
  18. On Sun, 7 May 2006 08:08:59 -0400, "S Curtiss"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >">>>>Cyclists simply do not belong on footpaths.
    >>>>
    >>>> I think you mean "bicycles". Cyclists are indistinguishable from
    >>>> everyone else (well, aside from their day-glo clothing).
    >>>
    >>>I am talking about off-road cyclists and their confounded mentality, not
    >>>bikes which are inanimate objects.

    >>
    >> Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
    >> about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
    >> indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
    >> basis of personality.

    >Google group search "vandeman" has years of this discussion.


    And still right on the money.

    >>>> They need to have special trails
    >>>>>constructed for them, preferably far away from any truly natural areas.
    >>>>
    >>>> They already have them: they are called "roads".
    >>>
    >>>Yes, and specially constructed bike trails are just fine too. Rail-trails
    >>>are ideal. The main thing is not to have them on our footpaths.

    >>
    >> You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
    >> It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
    >> further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
    >> order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
    >> habitat impacts go.

    >Google group search "vandeman" has this discussion repeated over years also.


    And still right on the money.
    ===
    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
     
  19. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]
    >>>>And you place importance on anecdotal and unproven "evidence" too.
    >>>
    >>> All science derives from observation. Observations are the FACTS upon
    >>> which it rests. You would know that, if you knew anything about
    >>> science.

    >>Actually - You have it backwards. Observation leads to facts. A fact is
    >>determined by repeated process and observation. An observation is not a
    >>FACT.

    >
    > So if I observe a mountain biker speeding, running over an animal,
    > creating a rut, skidding, or running into a hiker, it didn't really
    > happen? You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper in your morass
    > of lies. I've observed you lie so often, it must be a FACT, right?


    I have observed hikers leave garbage, go off trail, remove plants, and
    create deep footprints in soft terrain....
    Are these observations factual? Of course. Can I extrapolate that all
    persons engaging in the activity of hiking will behave this way? No.
    You make assumptions based on your "observations" which are already tainted
    because you expect to find adverse evidence and you expect it to be caused
    by cyclists. Your witness of poor behavior is not an indicator of behavior
    by everyone. In your eyes, every mountain biker is doing harm. Therefore,
    the mere presence represents poor behavior. Your observation is tainted to
    begin with.

    >
    > It is merely part of the process of determining a fact.
    >>But someone who insists on their own definitions and opinions as the only
    >>ones applicable can hardly claim scientific support.
    >>>
    >>> .. What
    >>>>is your criteria? What are the controls and statistics to maintain data
    >>>>across several user groups? What is the time frame? How many
    >>>>participants
    >>>>in
    >>>>each user group? Just because you see a rut and squeel "mountain bike"
    >>>>like
    >>>>a girl finding a spider means nothing.
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>> Explain how a guitarist can sing and maintain the rhythm and
    >>>>chord structure? How can you begin to assume, as a non-cyclist, the
    >>>>degree
    >>>>of attention required to control the bike? It is like anything else...
    >>>>Practice creates reflex and muscle memory. Riding and observing the
    >>>>natural
    >>>>surroundings is as easy, (and emotionally fulfilling) as walking. The
    >>>>mere
    >>>>fact you can't do it is no reason to detract from my abillitiy.
    >>>
    >>> Your primary skill is LYING.

    >>Opinion. Expressing it may be your primary skill.

    >
    > BS. When I OBSERVE you lying, that's all the evidence I need. Like the
    > lie above: "An observation is not a FACT". You are a LIAR. And when
    > it's repeated, you are an incorrigible liar.

    You have yet to prove a lie on my part. Go for it. Google Group search and
    find an instance of a lie on my part.
    I disagree with your opinion. (disagreement is not a lie) I challenge your
    status as an authority (challenge is not a lie) I make statements based on
    my point of view and assimilated information (my expression of an opinion is
    not a lie).
    So... please.... Find a lie on my part. An actual, real presentation of
    false information. Not merely a statement that goes against your opinion.
    > ===
    > 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
     
  20. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sun, 7 May 2006 08:08:59 -0400, "S Curtiss"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Bikes should be banned, off of pavement. There's nothing we can do
    >>> about mountain BIKERS, since without their bikes, they are
    >>> indistinguishable from everyone else. You can't discriminate on the
    >>> basis of personality.

    >>Google group search "vandeman" has years of this discussion.

    >
    > And still right on the money.


    Monopoly money.
    >
    >>>
    >>> You forgot about the wildlife. Constructing trails destroys habitat.
    >>> It should be kept to a minimum. Trails also give access to humans,
    >>> further driving out the wildlife. Bikes multiply human access by an
    >>> order of magnitude, which is their worst characteristic, as far as
    >>> habitat impacts go.

    >>Google group search "vandeman" has this discussion repeated over years
    >>also.

    >
    > And still right on the money.


    Monopoly money
    > ===
     
Loading...
Loading...