Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking



On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:11:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:47:16 GMT, Gawnsoft
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>.On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:02:31 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
>.wrote (more or less):
>....
>.>Was I ever surprised! I discovered that many
>.>bicyclists (e.g. many mountain bikers) aren't environmentalists at all, but are
>.>simply people who like to bicycle
>....
>.
>.Why on earth did this surprise you?
>
>Because I expect people to be more intelligent.

And yet you yourself atre not intelligent enough to realise that
environmentalism and enjoyment of cycling are orthogonal?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:57:19 +0100, "Tetsuo Shima"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .> That's what were here for: to discuss mountain biking.
> .
> .Wrong: It's for you to enforce your beliefs on others. You can't change
> .the world by forcing others to your way of thinking.
>
> And how do I "force" you to my way of thinking? I thought that you all had
free
> will.... Are you now admitting that you are all robots, unable to think
for
> yourself?
> ===
> 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

Oi'm a ****ry buuumpkin, and oi churn urp tracks in moi traktuur.

Urp wiv faarmers and darn with poncy paaansiees. Ooi durnt loike yoo, get
orf mi laarnd or oil blaast yer neekapps orf with mee shortgun.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> So what? They are still the most destructive activity actually
> allowed in our parks.

Well at least I'm finally seeing some definition to your arguments. It is
the national parks, mostly, which concern you, and not so much the private,
timber company owned Maine woods I live with. Believe me, mountain bikes
would be a breath of fresh air in these woods.

But I do spend a lot of time in nearby Acadia National Park, which has a
remarkable tradition of public carriage roads; most, but not all, open to
biking. There is little or no single tracking in the region in or
surrounding Acadia NP. Aside from occasional aggressive, (too fast) biking
in the park, I see none of the deleterious effects you seem to see
elsewhere. Hiking trails are strictly off limits to bikes, and as far as I
know, this restriction is obeyed.

You seem to have a valuable message to convey to all of us users of what's
left of the wilderness, as do I, but we both need a more diplomatic approach
to dealing with our respective grievances: malappropriate mtn biking for
you, motorizing the Maine woods for me. The motors enrage me. But if I let
my type of rage govern my action or reaction to them, I'm going to lose, big
time.

Scott
 
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:46:14 -0400, "Scott L. Hadley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..>> So what? They are still the most destructive activity actually
..> allowed in our parks.
..
..Well at least I'm finally seeing some definition to your arguments. It is
..the national parks, mostly, which concern you, and not so much the private,
..timber company owned Maine woods I live with. Believe me, mountain bikes
..would be a breath of fresh air in these woods.
..
..But I do spend a lot of time in nearby Acadia National Park, which has a
..remarkable tradition of public carriage roads; most, but not all, open to
..biking. There is little or no single tracking in the region in or
..surrounding Acadia NP. Aside from occasional aggressive, (too fast) biking
..in the park, I see none of the deleterious effects you seem to see
..elsewhere.

The laws of physics & biology are different there? Unlikely.

Hiking trails are strictly off limits to bikes, and as far as I
..know, this restriction is obeyed.

..You seem to have a valuable message to convey to all of us users of what's
..left of the wilderness, as do I, but we both need a more diplomatic approach
..to dealing with our respective grievances: malappropriate mtn biking for
..you, motorizing the Maine woods for me. The motors enrage me. But if I let
..my type of rage govern my action or reaction to them, I'm going to lose, big
..time.

Rage is the most appropriate reaction. But it has nothing to do with my
opposition to the destruction of nature. It's just as much a rational argument.

..Scott
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:22:20 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[email protected]> wrote:

..On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:11:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote (more or less):
..
..>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:47:16 GMT, Gawnsoft
..><[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..>.On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:02:31 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..>.wrote (more or less):
..>....
..>.>Was I ever surprised! I discovered that many
..>.>bicyclists (e.g. many mountain bikers) aren't environmentalists at all, but are
..>.>simply people who like to bicycle
..>....
..>.
..>.Why on earth did this surprise you?
..>
..>Because I expect people to be more intelligent.
..
..And yet you yourself atre not intelligent enough to realise that
..environmentalism and enjoyment of cycling are orthogonal?

I'm not talking about enjoyment of cycling, but mountain biking.
===
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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:11:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
>wrote (more or less):
>>Because I expect people to be more intelligent.
>
>And yet you yourself are not intelligent enough to realise that
>environmentalism and enjoyment of cycling are orthogonal?

Did you apply Gramm-Schmidt orthogonalization?
And you can prove the dot product is zero?

--
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Rage is the most appropriate reaction. But it has nothing to do with
> my opposition to the destruction of nature. It's just as much a
> rational argument.

Appropriate reaction, yes, perhaps most natural. It is for me, for certain.
But if we're to make the progress we long for, win converts, etc, etc, I
wish for another approach than my rage. All it does is turn people off. Or
backfire. I seek a way to make my point and improve things------------
 
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:30:40 -0400, "Scott L. Hadley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> Rage is the most appropriate reaction. But it has nothing to do with
..> my opposition to the destruction of nature. It's just as much a
..> rational argument.
..
..Appropriate reaction, yes, perhaps most natural. It is for me, for certain.
..But if we're to make the progress we long for, win converts, etc, etc, I
..wish for another approach than my rage. All it does is turn people off. Or
..backfire. I seek a way to make my point and improve things------------

Nice ideal, but you have no more of an idea how to do that than anyone else.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:30:40 -0400, "Scott L. Hadley"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nice ideal, but you have no more of an idea how to do that than
> anyone else. ===
That's absolutely right, I DON'T have any more idea how than anyone else.
But it's worth trying. Has to be some way beyond just antagonizing those
we'd like to educate. It isn't working. People in my grandparents'
generation, including my grandfather in the Acadia area, were able to
convince an even less willing populace that the parks might not be such a
bad idea---working against longer odds than we are. A combative approach
isn't winning points here, or in any other ng. Or out in the real world
either.

At 52 I'm way past the nice ideals, but I would still like to see you make
your point on destructive biking some other way. All you earn is disdain,
yet what you're trying to accomplish is deserves much better than that.
 
> Wrong. Be honest! Mountain biking is FASR more destructive than walking.

You're wrong, ya kook. Why don't you do something useful with that phd?
Find a cause that has some use or spend the rest of your life as a loser,
having accomplished squat, unless your ambition is only that of a newsgroup
troll, then I'd say you're doing well.

You'll never win. Our community is stronger than yours.

Mountain Biking is not destructive, closed minds like yours are
destructive.


--
____________________________
TOMMY HOMICIDE
http://www.tommyhomicide.com
 
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:58:18 -0400, "Scott L. Hadley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:30:40 -0400, "Scott L. Hadley"
..> <[email protected]> wrote:
..
..> Nice ideal, but you have no more of an idea how to do that than
..> anyone else. ===
..That's absolutely right, I DON'T have any more idea how than anyone else.
..But it's worth trying. Has to be some way beyond just antagonizing those
..we'd like to educate. It isn't working.

How do you know?

People in my grandparents'
..generation, including my grandfather in the Acadia area, were able to
..convince an even less willing populace that the parks might not be such a
..bad idea---working against longer odds than we are. A combative approach
..isn't winning points here, or in any other ng. Or out in the real world
..either.
..
..At 52 I'm way past the nice ideals, but I would still like to see you make
..your point on destructive biking some other way. All you earn is disdain,
..yet what you're trying to accomplish is deserves much better than that.

DEMONSTRATE what you are advocating. 100% of the people I have heard make that
speech are (STILL) doing NOTHING to help. You are nothing but a sidewalk
superintendent. You IMAGINE that you (or someone) can do better, but we see no
evidence. Meanwhile, I am going to keep telling the truth -- something I learned
before kindergarten....

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:34:23 GMT, Tommy Homicide <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> Wrong. Be honest! Mountain biking is FASR more destructive than walking.
..
..You're wrong, ya kook. Why don't you do something useful with that phd?
..Find a cause that has some use or spend the rest of your life as a loser,
..having accomplished squat, unless your ambition is only that of a newsgroup
..troll, then I'd say you're doing well.
..
..You'll never win. Our community is stronger than yours.
..
..Mountain Biking is not destructive, closed minds like yours are
..destructive.

Aha! The Mountain Biker Mantra!:

1. Mountain biking does no damage.
2. Well, it does damage, but it's not SIGNIFICANT damage.
3. Well, it IS significant damage, but it's not as much as a bulldozer (or
atomic bomb, oe whatever).

Right.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> DEMONSTRATE what you are advocating. 100% of the people I have heard
> make that speech are (STILL) doing NOTHING to help. You are nothing
> but a sidewalk superintendent. You IMAGINE that you (or someone) can
> do better, but we see no evidence. Meanwhile, I am going to keep
> telling the truth -- something I learned before kindergarten....
>
FINE, Mike. Whatever
 
On 13 Jul 2004 23:00:17 -0700, [email protected] (Eugene Miya) wrote
(more or less):

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:11:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
>>wrote (more or less):
>>>Because I expect people to be more intelligent.
>>
>>And yet you yourself are not intelligent enough to realise that
>>environmentalism and enjoyment of cycling are orthogonal?
>
>Did you apply Gramm-Schmidt orthogonalization?

No - I used a plumb-bob and a spirit level.

>And you can prove the dot product is zero?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:11:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):
>>>>Because I expect people to be more intelligent.

In article <[email protected]>,
Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>And yet you yourself are not intelligent enough to realise that
>>>environmentalism and enjoyment of cycling are orthogonal?
>>
>>Did you apply Gramm-Schmidt orthogonalization?
>
>No - I used a plumb-bob and a spirit level.

Ah! An empiricist.

>>And you can prove the dot product is zero?

--
 

>"Every recreationist -- whether hiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey sniffer --
>should not begin by asking, 'What's best for ME?' but rather 'What's best for
>the bears?'" Tom Butler


I see....

Bears prefer SLOW food. Is that it?

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
 
Nice one, ******** the people who agree with you as well.

Scott L. Hadley wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>DEMONSTRATE what you are advocating. 100% of the people I have heard
>>make that speech are (STILL) doing NOTHING to help. You are nothing
>>but a sidewalk superintendent. You IMAGINE that you (or someone) can
>>do better, but we see no evidence. Meanwhile, I am going to keep
>>telling the truth -- something I learned before kindergarten....
>>
>
> FINE, Mike. Whatever
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back