Re: The TRUTH about Mountain Biking

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed,
> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker.
> I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no
> bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain
> biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini
> malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is
> not a threat.

Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind. That
is reason enough to ban it.

But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to
the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing over
how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.

Regards,

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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ed,
>> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker.
>> I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no
>> bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain
>> biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini
>> malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is
>> not a threat.
>
> Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind.
> That is reason enough to ban it.
You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci Code is
a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it."
or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of mind.
That is reason enough to ban it."
Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any
more than any other's sense of peace and space.
Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most of
the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is more
beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and decrease
access where it is not.
I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately means
more interest in preservation.
>
> But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to
> the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing
> over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.

Ta da. Now... go tell Vandeman.
>

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ed,
>> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker.
>> I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no
>> bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain
>> biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini
>> malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is
>> not a threat.
>
> Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind.
> That is reason enough to ban it.
>
> But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats to
> the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially arguing
> over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
>

Yes, and since the topic is the environment and not your personal space,
then we should stick to the facts and avoid emotional explosions.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lUleg.14989$B42.14803@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ed,
>>> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker.
>>> I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no
>>> bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain
>>> biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini
>>> malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is
>>> not a threat.
>>
>> Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind.
>> That is reason enough to ban it.
>
> You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci Code
> is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it."
> or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of
> mind. That is reason enough to ban it."
> Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any
> more than any other's sense of peace and space.

My activity as a hiker does not threaten your peace of mind, but your
activity as a mountain biker does threaten my peace of mind. You are
equating that which cannot be equated.

> Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most of
> the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is more
> beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and decrease
> access where it is not.
> I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately means
> more interest in preservation.
>>
>> But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats
>> to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially
>> arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
>
> Ta da. Now... go tell Vandeman.

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ed,
>>> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain biker.
>>> I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have no
>>> bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment. Mountain
>>> biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways, homes, mini
>>> malls, development. These are threats to the environment. Recreation is
>>> not a threat.
>>
>> Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind.
>> That is reason enough to ban it.
>>
>> But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats
>> to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially
>> arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
>>
>
> Yes, and since the topic is the environment and not your personal space,
> then we should stick to the facts and avoid emotional explosions.

I think that is the main reason for newsgroups, so that we can all bring our
personal experiences to bear on an issue. Also, a bit of emotional
expression never hurt anyone.

It is no good pretending that everything is objective when we know that
subjectivity is of the essence. You are learning what a particular hiker
thinks of mountain bikes on hiking trails thanks to me.

Regards,

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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:lUleg.14989$B42.14803@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Ed,
>>>> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain
>>>> biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should have
>>>> no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment.
>>>> Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways,
>>>> homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment.
>>>> Recreation is not a threat.
>>>
>>> Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind.
>>> That is reason enough to ban it.
>>
>> You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci Code
>> is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it."
>> or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of
>> mind. That is reason enough to ban it."
>> Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any
>> more than any other's sense of peace and space.
>
> My activity as a hiker does not threaten your peace of mind, but your
> activity as a mountain biker does threaten my peace of mind. You are
> equating that which cannot be equated.
My activity threatens you not at all. You have already stated you prefer to
hike in Wilderness. By law, designated Wilderness areas are off limits to
bikes. You have a legal recourse if you spot one. My activity as a cyclist
is on the other end of the country from you. My activity as a cyclist
conforms to the "rules" of the trail anyway so any encounter would be
minimal, if at all. It is you and Vandeman trying to equate off-road cycling
to all that is wrong with the environment, preservation and any possiblity
of cooperation to save any of it. It is you two who continue to throw the
debate of cycling into "everywhere or nowhere".
>
>> Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most of
>> the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is more
>> beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and decrease
>> access where it is not.
>> I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately
>> means more interest in preservation.
>>>
>>> But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats
>>> to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially
>>> arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
>>
>> Ta da. Now... go tell Vandeman.
>

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vYogg.16628$B42.2799@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:lUleg.14989$B42.14803@dukeread05...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Ed,
>>>>> You weren't paying attention. I told you that I am not a mountain
>>>>> biker. I'm all over the part about being a sinner, but that should
>>>>> have no bearing on the discussion. The environment is the environment.
>>>>> Mountain biking is not a threat to the environment. Superhighways,
>>>>> homes, mini malls, development. These are threats to the environment.
>>>>> Recreation is not a threat.
>>>>
>>>> Mountain biking on my sacred footpaths is a threat to my peace of mind.
>>>> That is reason enough to ban it.
>>>
>>> You might as well speak from a Christian point of view "The Da Vinci
>>> Code is a threat to my peace of mind. That is reason enough to ban it."
>>> or from a musical point of view "Rap music is a threat to my peace of
>>> mind. That is reason enough to ban it."
>>> Of course your sense of peace and space should be respected. But not any
>>> more than any other's sense of peace and space.
>>
>> My activity as a hiker does not threaten your peace of mind, but your
>> activity as a mountain biker does threaten my peace of mind. You are
>> equating that which cannot be equated.
>
> My activity threatens you not at all. You have already stated you prefer
> to hike in Wilderness. By law, designated Wilderness areas are off limits
> to bikes. You have a legal recourse if you spot one. My activity as a
> cyclist is on the other end of the country from you. My activity as a
> cyclist conforms to the "rules" of the trail anyway so any encounter would
> be minimal, if at all. It is you and Vandeman trying to equate off-road
> cycling to all that is wrong with the environment, preservation and any
> possiblity of cooperation to save any of it. It is you two who continue to
> throw the debate of cycling into "everywhere or nowhere".

I have already stated repeatedly that I am not a purist like Vandeman. As
long as you stay out of my sacred wilderness I will not bother with you at
all. Of course, if you want to hike in my sacred wilderness, then I shall
greet you as a fellow human being.

>>> Off-road cycling is already either severely limited or illegal in most
>>> of the areas you admit you go. So why use the verbage "ban it"? It is
>>> more beneficial to regulate it to increase access where viable and
>>> decrease access where it is not.
>>> I fail to see the insistence of argument when cooperation ultimately
>>> means more interest in preservation.
>>>>
>>>> But I certainly do agree with you that there are many more dire threats
>>>> to the environment than any kind of recreation. We are essentially
>>>> arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a needle.
>>>
>>> Ta da. Now... go tell Vandeman.

Regards,

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