Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> [newsgroups restored]
> >
> > Obviously, netiquette is not your forte.
>
> You were impolite, so I was impolite back.
Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition
of "impolite".
So strange, in fact, that I think you are just being a weasel.
> Surely that is fair.
Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating
the massive x-post is impolite.)
That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should
be making politeness determinations.
> >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only.
> >
> > Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In
> > the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat.
>
> That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first
> built - over a hundred years ago in many instances.
"Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways
we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were
co-opted by human hikers.
> Unless those original
> trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes.
How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is
that possible?
In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So
your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is
questionable, at best.
> > Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to
> > get used to them.
>
> It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since
> totally different mental attitudes are involved.
This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real
knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on
the trail.
> Mountain bikers are into
> fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God.
Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the
majority of the persons in the groups you mention.
You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other
people "liars".
> > Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for
> > segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment
> > into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature...
>
> I am advocating that bike trails be built only in already developed
> recreational areas. This can include much of the National Forest and BLM
> lands.
And that's where the hugely vast majority of those trails are. The
multi-use ones, that is.
> I trust the National Parks and State Parks to severely restrict
> mountain biking.
The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure
there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't
imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever
hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails
over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a
fragile ecosystem.
State parks? I know of a few in WA that *encourage* MTBing. Like
Deception Pass State Park. The trails near Cranberry Lake are great.
> Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be
> thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.
Yeah, you're a real tough guy. LOL.
> >> The wilderness is not
> >> for the likes of you.
> >
> > Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it.
>
> There are plenty of recreational lands for you to ride your bike on.
And in those areas where there are multi-use trails, you'll just have
to get used to MTBers. That and other places where MTBs were
incorrectly classified with motorized vehicles, which is now being
corrected.
> That
> you would want to invade the sacred wilderness on a bike marks you as a
> savage. Try to get some culture, why don't you.
Your opinion is amusing, but luckily completely fanicful.
> > The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes
> > were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field
> > scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit.
> >
> > And they weren't at very high altitudes.
> >
> > The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in
> > CO and UT.
> >
> > So much for your blanket statement, eh?
>
> Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth!
Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect.
It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your
mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at
odds with what is actually a superior biking trail.
> >> Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from
> >> wilderness areas.
> >
> > Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you
> > want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so
> > your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent.
>
> All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to
> bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that.
No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that.
He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how
politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll
keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas.
> >> You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker
> >> slob.
> >
> > Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say
> > that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter!
> >
> > Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on
> > trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass.
>
> When you are riding your bike, you are into fun and games.
False.
> It is nothing but
> a g.d. sport to you.
False.
> You are not fit to ever place a single foot in my
> sacred wilderness.
Actually, I'm quite fit. And since the land doesn't belong to you,
personally, I may visit it in any legal manner I choose. Tough luck
for the internet tough guy.
> You are a savage - nothing but a despoiler of culture and
> all the finer things in life.
I'm sure that this is merely projection on your part.
> May you perish for your blasphemy against the
> Wilderness.
LOL. Your threat is duly noted.
> >> Most trails ... are easily
> >> destroyed by bikes.
> >
> > Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about
> > LOGIC?
>
> Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads.
Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When
you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent!
> >> The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of
> >> conflicts
> >> among users.
> >
> > Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you
> > personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth
> > grade. What's your excuse?
>
> We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and
> mental.
There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it
were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental"
conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only
invalid, but hilarious.
> > Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting
> > even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down
> > while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal.
>
> "We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and
> mental." - Ed Dolan
"Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero
Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid.
> > Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my
> > computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND
> > good-looking.
>
> You are not worthy of wilderness.
More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular
opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence,
I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your
commentary.
Have fun pretending your efforts matter,
E.P.
