The Mike Vandeman "FAQ"



Scott Burley wrote:
{M&V blathered:}
>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes
>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
>
> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just
> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No
> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I
> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)

Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about 90%" of
the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his considerable
BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people does he
see? 6? 60? 600?

The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers -- enough to
come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail! OF
COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there, but it's a moot point if it's
not a suitable place for bikes anyway. It's -- I have to say -- OBVIOUS!
DUH!

Bill "I think Mikey has a lot more than 50% in common with a head of lettuce
(his claim elsewhere)" S.
 
Scott Burley wrote:
{M&V blathered:}
>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes
>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
>
> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just
> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No
> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I
> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)

Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about 90%" of
the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his considerable
BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people does he
see? 6? 60? 600?

The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers -- enough to
come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail! OF
COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there, but it's a moot point if it's
not a suitable place for bikes anyway. It's -- I have to say -- OBVIOUS!
DUH!

Bill "I think Mikey has a lot more than 50% in common with a head of lettuce
(his claim elsewhere)" S.
 
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 04:02:51 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> If WE have empathy, so do other animals. Our DNA differs from that
..of a
..> .> .> chimpanzee by only 1.4%.
..> .> .
..> .> .Nope, that's old data. It's more like 5%. Even 1.4% would be a huge
..> .> .difference across the 3 billion nucleotides of the human geonome.
..> .> .Furthermore, 97% of human DNA has no known function, so statistically
..> .only
..> .> .2.85% of our DNA is significantly shared with chimps.
..> .>
..> .> Reference? The latest I heard (from a professor of anatomy) is that
..> .bonobos are
..> .> even more than 98.6% identical to us.
..> .
..> .Is National Geographic good enough for you? (http://tinyurl.com/5kuuf)
..>
..> No, of course not!
..
..The National Academy of Sciences then?
..(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/21/13633) In any case, we're
..talking about chimpanzees, which are our closest relatives. I can say now
..that I've never seen a chimp on the trail.

You misread the article. The 5% included noncoding segments, which are
irrelevant. They said that 1% is still accurate. Other species are also close
enough to expect some empathy, which would be necessary for successful hunting.

..> .> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
..> .> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Not really.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
..> .difference.
..> .> .
..> .> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
..> .>
..> .> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain bikers (or
..> .they
..> .> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
..> .
..> .It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to help.
..And
..> .as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word)
..trails. I
..> .only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to
..observe
..> .proper trail etiquette, which is rare.
..>
..> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes on
..the
..> trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the environment. That
..wouldn't
..> surprize me.
..
..Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
..without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
..seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just as
..much a right to be there as I do.

Of course. But we are talking about BICYCLES. BICYCLES have NO rights
whatsoever. And mountain bikers have no right to bring bike onto the trail.

(And don't go off on that "No right to
..mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then neither do
..hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're going to
..anyway. Oh well, I tried.)

Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring their bikes.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:18:07 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

..Scott Burley wrote:
..{M&V blathered:}
..>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes
..>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
..>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
..>
..> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
..> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
..> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just
..> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No
..> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
..> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I
..> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..
..Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about 90%" of
..the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his considerable
..BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people does he
..see? 6? 60? 600?

Over 300. I didn't say it was on a single day, dumdum. It took several weeks to
collect the signatures. On trails where bikes are allowed, the figures would be
skewed, because many of the hikers who don't want to share trails with bikes
would have stopped going there.

..The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers -- enough to
..come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail! OF
..COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,

WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.

but it's a moot point if it's
..not a suitable place for bikes anyway. It's -- I have to say -- OBVIOUS!
..DUH!

BS.

===
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
 
> .> .> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
> .> .> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> Not really.
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
> .> .difference.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
> .> .>
> .> .> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain bikers
(or
> .> .they
> .> .> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
> .> .
> .> .It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to
help.
> .And
> .> .as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word)
> .trails. I
> .> .only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to
> .observe
> .> .proper trail etiquette, which is rare.
> .>
> .> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes on
> .the
> .> trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the environment. That
> .wouldn't
> .> surprize me.
> .
> .Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
> .without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
> .seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just as
> .much a right to be there as I do.
>
> Of course. But we are talking about BICYCLES. BICYCLES have NO rights
> whatsoever. And mountain bikers have no right to bring bike onto the
trail.

Your clothes have NO rights whatsoever. You must go naked EVERYWHERE.

> (And don't go off on that "No right to
> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then neither
do
> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're going
to
> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
>
> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring their bikes.

You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in advance.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:18:07 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .Scott Burley wrote:
> .{M&V blathered:}
> .>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes
> .>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
> .>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
> .>
> .> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
> .> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
> .> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just
> .> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No
> .> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
> .> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I
> .> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
> .
> .Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about 90%"
of
> .the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his considerable
> .BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people does
he
> .see? 6? 60? 600?
>
> Over 300. I didn't say it was on a single day, dumdum. It took several
weeks to
> collect the signatures. On trails where bikes are allowed, the figures
would be
> skewed, because many of the hikers who don't want to share trails with
bikes
> would have stopped going there.
>
> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers -- enough to
> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail! OF
> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
>
> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.

So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there? This only
means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced. I should hope it
would be more than that. Of course, this all depends on how you phrased the
questions, but you don't seem to want to tell me that.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:45 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
..> .> .> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> Not really.
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
..> .> .difference.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain bikers
..(or
..> .> .they
..> .> .> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
..> .> .
..> .> .It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to
..help.
..> .And
..> .> .as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word)
..> .trails. I
..> .> .only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to
..> .observe
..> .> .proper trail etiquette, which is rare.
..> .>
..> .> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes on
..> .the
..> .> trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the environment. That
..> .wouldn't
..> .> surprize me.
..> .
..> .Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
..> .without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
..> .seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just as
..> .much a right to be there as I do.
..>
..> Of course. But we are talking about BICYCLES. BICYCLES have NO rights
..> whatsoever. And mountain bikers have no right to bring bike onto the
..trail.
..
..Your clothes have NO rights whatsoever. You must go naked EVERYWHERE.

I would, but it's illegal. Going without your bike is NOT illegal.

..> (And don't go off on that "No right to
..> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then neither
..do
..> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're going
..to
..> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..>
..> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring their bikes.
..
..You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in advance.

It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
===
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, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:46 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:18:07 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .Scott Burley wrote:
..> .{M&V blathered:}
..> .>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes
..> .>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
..> .>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
..> .>
..> .> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
..> .> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
..> .> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just
..> .> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No
..> .> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
..> .> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I
..> .> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..> .
..> .Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about 90%"
..of
..> .the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his considerable
..> .BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people does
..he
..> .see? 6? 60? 600?
..>
..> Over 300. I didn't say it was on a single day, dumdum. It took several
..weeks to
..> collect the signatures. On trails where bikes are allowed, the figures
..would be
..> skewed, because many of the hikers who don't want to share trails with
..bikes
..> would have stopped going there.
..>
..> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers -- enough to
..> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail! OF
..> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
..>
..> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.
..
..So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there? This only
..means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced.

Mountain bikers have no problem asking that the rule be changed. Hilers don't
like sharing trails with bikes. Period.

I should hope it
..would be more than that. Of course, this all depends on how you phrased the
..questions, but you don't seem to want to tell me that.

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:46 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:18:07 GMT, "S o r n i"
<[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .Scott Burley wrote:
> .> .{M&V blathered:}
> .> .>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want
bikes
> .> .>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
> .> .>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
> .> .>
> .> .> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go
hiking
> .> .> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking
without
> .> .> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have
just
> .> .> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No
> .> .> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
> .> .> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow,
I
> .> .> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
> .> .
> .> .Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about
90%"
> .of
> .> .the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his
considerable
> .> .BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people
does
> .he
> .> .see? 6? 60? 600?
> .>
> .> Over 300. I didn't say it was on a single day, dumdum. It took several
> .weeks to
> .> collect the signatures. On trails where bikes are allowed, the figures
> .would be
> .> skewed, because many of the hikers who don't want to share trails with
> .bikes
> .> would have stopped going there.
> .>
> .> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers -- enough
to
> .> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail! OF
> .> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
> .>
> .> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.
> .
> .So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there? This only
> .means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced.
>
> Mountain bikers have no problem asking that the rule be changed. Hilers
don't
> like sharing trails with bikes. Period.

So now you're asking for the rule to be changed, instead of enforced? Mike,
for the third time, what question(s) did you ask? You mentioned signatures
earlier. Was this a petition? If so, did you count the people who refused to
sign, or did you just pull the 90% number out of your ****?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:45 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .> .> .> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
> .> .> .> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .> Not really.
> .> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
> .> .> .difference.
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain
bikers
> .(or
> .> .> .they
> .> .> .> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
> .> .> .
> .> .> .It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to
> .help.
> .> .And
> .> .> .as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word)
> .> .trails. I
> .> .> .only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to
> .> .observe
> .> .> .proper trail etiquette, which is rare.
> .> .>
> .> .> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes
on
> .> .the
> .> .> trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the environment.
That
> .> .wouldn't
> .> .> surprize me.
> .> .
> .> .Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
> .> .without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
> .> .seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just
as
> .> .much a right to be there as I do.
> .>
> .> Of course. But we are talking about BICYCLES. BICYCLES have NO rights
> .> whatsoever. And mountain bikers have no right to bring bike onto the
> .trail.
> .
> .Your clothes have NO rights whatsoever. You must go naked EVERYWHERE.
>
> I would, but it's illegal.

More often than not it's legal. (http://home.att.net/~saran/list.htm)

> Going without your bike is NOT illegal.

Theory decides practical application (in this case, law), not the other way
around.

> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then
neither
> .do
> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're
going
> .to
> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
> .>
> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring their
bikes.
> .
> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in
advance.
>
> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm

Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:17:24 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:46 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:18:07 GMT, "S o r n i"
..<[email protected]>
..> .wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .Scott Burley wrote:
..> .> .{M&V blathered:}
..> .> .>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want
..bikes
..> .> .>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
..> .> .>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go
..hiking
..> .> .> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking
..without
..> .> .> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have
..just
..> .> .> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that "No
..> .> .> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there
..> .> .> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow,
..I
..> .> .> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..> .> .
..> .> .Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about
..90%"
..> .of
..> .> .the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his
..considerable
..> .> .BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people
..does
..> .he
..> .> .see? 6? 60? 600?
..> .>
..> .> Over 300. I didn't say it was on a single day, dumdum. It took several
..> .weeks to
..> .> collect the signatures. On trails where bikes are allowed, the figures
..> .would be
..> .> skewed, because many of the hikers who don't want to share trails with
..> .bikes
..> .> would have stopped going there.
..> .>
..> .> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers -- enough
..to
..> .> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail! OF
..> .> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
..> .>
..> .> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.
..> .
..> .So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there? This only
..> .means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced.
..>
..> Mountain bikers have no problem asking that the rule be changed. Hilers
..don't
..> like sharing trails with bikes. Period.
..
..So now you're asking for the rule to be changed, instead of enforced? Mike,
..for the third time, what question(s) did you ask? You mentioned signatures
..earlier. Was this a petition?

Yes.

If so, did you count the people who refused to
..sign,

Not formally. It's approximate.

.. or did you just pull the 90% number out of your ****?

===
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, 07 Sep 2004 23:17:25 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:45 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .> .> .> .> .> Also, you seem to be confusing
..> .> .> .> .> .> .empathy for telepathy.
..> .> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> .> Not really.
..> .> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .> .Yeah, actually you are.
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> You obviously lack empathy, or you would know that I know the
..> .> .> .difference.
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .No, that's telepathy. And a circular argument to boot.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> You obviousle know NOTHING about empathy, like most mountain
..bikers
..> .(or
..> .> .> .they
..> .> .> .> would know why hikers hate seeing bikes on their trails).
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .It's still a circular argument, simply restating it isn't going to
..> .help.
..> .> .And
..> .> .> .as a hiker, I don't "hate" seeing bikes on "my" (to use your word)
..> .> .trails. I
..> .> .> .only hate it when bikers (or other hikers, or equestrians) fail to
..> .> .observe
..> .> .> .proper trail etiquette, which is rare.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want bikes
..on
..> .> .the
..> .> .> trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the environment.
..That
..> .> .wouldn't
..> .> .> surprize me.
..> .> .
..> .> .Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go hiking
..> .> .without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking without
..> .> .seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have just
..as
..> .> .much a right to be there as I do.
..> .>
..> .> Of course. But we are talking about BICYCLES. BICYCLES have NO rights
..> .> whatsoever. And mountain bikers have no right to bring bike onto the
..> .trail.
..> .
..> .Your clothes have NO rights whatsoever. You must go naked EVERYWHERE.
..>
..> I would, but it's illegal.
..
..More often than not it's legal. (http://home.att.net/~saran/list.htm)
..
..> Going without your bike is NOT illegal.
..
..Theory decides practical application (in this case, law), not the other way
..around.
..
..> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
..> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then
..neither
..> .do
..> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're
..going
..> .to
..> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..> .>
..> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring their
..bikes.
..> .
..> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in
..advance.
..>
..> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
..
..Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?

Read the decision.
===
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 Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:51:43 GMT, "Pete" <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
..> .>
..> .The modern hose evolved in EUROPE not north america. It is a different
..> .species and therefore IS NOT NATIVE to north america.
..>
..> I didn't say it is. I said "horses are native to North America".
..
..So are dinosaurs. They have as much relevance as the 'native' horses you
..speak of.

Mountain bikes aren't alive, so have NO rights.

..Pete
..

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:17:24 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:46 GMT, "Scott Burley"
> .<[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:18:07 GMT, "S o r n i"
> .<[email protected]>
> .> .wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .Scott Burley wrote:
> .> .> .{M&V blathered:}
> .> .> .>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want
> .bikes
> .> .> .>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
> .> .> .>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go
> .hiking
> .> .> .> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking
> .without
> .> .> .> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have
> .just
> .> .> .> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that
"No
> .> .> .> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be
there
> .> .> .> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true.
Somehow,
> .I
> .> .> .> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about
> .90%"
> .> .of
> .> .> .the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his
> .considerable
> .> .> .BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people
> .does
> .> .he
> .> .> .see? 6? 60? 600?
> .> .>
> .> .> Over 300. I didn't say it was on a single day, dumdum. It took
several
> .> .weeks to
> .> .> collect the signatures. On trails where bikes are allowed, the
figures
> .> .would be
> .> .> skewed, because many of the hikers who don't want to share trails
with
> .> .bikes
> .> .> would have stopped going there.
> .> .>
> .> .> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers --
enough
> .to
> .> .> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail!
OF
> .> .> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
> .> .>
> .> .> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.
> .> .
> .> .So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there? This
only
> .> .means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced.
> .>
> .> Mountain bikers have no problem asking that the rule be changed. Hilers
> .don't
> .> like sharing trails with bikes. Period.
> .
> .So now you're asking for the rule to be changed, instead of enforced?
Mike,
> .for the third time, what question(s) did you ask? You mentioned
signatures
> .earlier. Was this a petition?
>
> Yes.
>
> If so, did you count the people who refused to
> .sign,
>
> Not formally. It's approximate.

Then it's not statistically valid. And you still haven't said what the
petition was for.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
> .> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
> .> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then
> .neither
> .> .do
> .> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're
> .going
> .> .to
> .> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
> .> .>
> .> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring their
> .bikes.
> .> .
> .> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in
> .advance.
> .>
> .> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
> .
> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
>
> Read the decision.

Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain bike.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:56:33 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:17:24 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:00:46 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..> .<[email protected]>
..> .> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> .> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:18:07 GMT, "S o r n i"
..> .<[email protected]>
..> .> .wrote:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .Scott Burley wrote:
..> .> .> .{M&V blathered:}
..> .> .> .>> I took a poll on my trail. About 90% of the hikers didn't want
..> .bikes
..> .> .> .>> on the trail. Maybe you have no concern for wildlife or the
..> .> .> .>> environment. That wouldn't surprize me.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Really? How did you phrase the question? I mean, I'd like to go
..> .hiking
..> .> .> .> without seeing any mountain bikers. I'd also like to go hiking
..> .without
..> .> .> .> seeing any other hikers, too. It's a public trail, and they have
..> .just
..> .> .> .> as much a right to be there as I do. (And don't go off on that
.."No
..> .> .> .> right to mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be
..there
..> .> .> .> then neither do hikers, and my statement still holds true.
..Somehow,
..> .I
..> .> .> .> sense you're going to anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Does it occur to anyone to question the mad do(r)c's stat of "about
..> .90%"
..> .> .of
..> .> .> .the hikers on "his trail"? Either he pulled that put of his
..> .considerable
..> .> .> .BS-DUH hole, or it's freaking rush hour out there! How many people
..> .does
..> .> .he
..> .> .> .see? 6? 60? 600?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Over 300. I didn't say it was on a single day, dumdum. It took
..several
..> .> .weeks to
..> .> .> collect the signatures. On trails where bikes are allowed, the
..figures
..> .> .would be
..> .> .> skewed, because many of the hikers who don't want to share trails
..with
..> .> .bikes
..> .> .> would have stopped going there.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers --
..enough
..> .to
..> .> .> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only trail!
..OF
..> .> .> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
..> .> .>
..> .> .> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.
..> .> .
..> .> .So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there? This
..only
..> .> .means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced.
..> .>
..> .> Mountain bikers have no problem asking that the rule be changed. Hilers
..> .don't
..> .> like sharing trails with bikes. Period.
..> .
..> .So now you're asking for the rule to be changed, instead of enforced?
..Mike,
..> .for the third time, what question(s) did you ask? You mentioned
..signatures
..> .earlier. Was this a petition?
..>
..> Yes.
..>
..> If so, did you count the people who refused to
..> .sign,
..>
..> Not formally. It's approximate.
..
..Then it's not statistically valid. And you still haven't said what the
..petition was for.

To keep bikes off of the trails.
===
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 Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:56:34 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..> .> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
..> .> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then
..> .neither
..> .> .do
..> .> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense you're
..> .going
..> .> .to
..> .> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring their
..> .bikes.
..> .> .
..> .> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in
..> .advance.
..> .>
..> .> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
..> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
..> .
..> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
..>
..> Read the decision.
..
..Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain bike.

That shows how ignorant you are. It is THE court decision determining that there
is no right to mountain bike.
===
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
 
> .> .> .> .The only place I can think of where you see a LOT of hikers --
> .enough
> .> .to
> .> .> .> .come up with a 90% poll estimate -- is indeed a hiking-only
trail!
> .OF
> .> .> .> .COURSE they'd say they don't want bikes there,
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> WHY? It is a no-bikes trail.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .So you ask people on a no-bikes trail if they want bikes there?
This
> .only
> .> .> .means that 90% of hikers want the rules to be enforced.
> .> .>
> .> .> Mountain bikers have no problem asking that the rule be changed.
Hilers
> .> .don't
> .> .> like sharing trails with bikes. Period.
> .> .
> .> .So now you're asking for the rule to be changed, instead of enforced?
> .Mike,
> .> .for the third time, what question(s) did you ask? You mentioned
> .signatures
> .> .earlier. Was this a petition?
> .>
> .> Yes.
> .>
> .> If so, did you count the people who refused to
> .> .sign,
> .>
> .> Not formally. It's approximate.
> .
> .Then it's not statistically valid. And you still haven't said what the
> .petition was for.
>
> To keep bikes off of the trails.

But it was already a hiking-only trail. That tends to skew things somewhat.


--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:56:34 GMT, "Scott Burley"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .> .> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
> .> .> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then
> .> .neither
> .> .> .do
> .> .> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense
you're
> .> .going
> .> .> .to
> .> .> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring
their
> .> .bikes.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in
> .> .advance.
> .> .>
> .> .> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
> .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
> .> .
> .> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
> .>
> .> Read the decision.
> .
> .Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain bike.
>
> That shows how ignorant you are. It is THE court decision determining that
there
> is no right to mountain bike.

As I said before, since when do courts grant and deny rights?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:52:29 GMT, "Scott Burley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:56:34 GMT, "Scott Burley"
..<[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .> .> .> (And don't go off on that "No right to
..> .> .> .> .mountain bike" ****. If MBs don't have a right to be there then
..> .> .neither
..> .> .> .do
..> .> .> .> .hikers, and my statement still holds true. Somehow, I sense
..you're
..> .> .going
..> .> .> .to
..> .> .> .> .anyway. Oh well, I tried.)
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Mountain bikers DO have a right to be there, but not to bring
..their
..> .> .bikes.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .You have to be pretty slow to make an argument that was refuted in
..> .> .advance.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> It hasn't been refuted yet. You'd have to go to federel court:
..> .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm
..> .> .
..> .> .Since when do "federel" courts grant and deny rights?
..> .>
..> .> Read the decision.
..> .
..> .Why? It's irrelevant to the question of a right to mountain bike.
..>
..> That shows how ignorant you are. It is THE court decision determining that
..there
..> is no right to mountain bike.
..
..As I said before, since when do courts grant and deny rights?

They didn't "deny" any right. They just pointed out that there IS no right to
mountain bike. DUH!
===
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back