On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:19:26 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
.
news:[email protected]... .> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:41:08 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <
[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in
message .> .
news:[email protected]... .> .> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:17:36
-0800, "Jeff Strickland" .<
[email protected]> .> .wrote: .> .> .> .> .Dear Mr. Vandeman, .> .>
.Could you PLEASE at least try to make it possible to discern which .> .comments .> .> .are yours
and which are someone else's? .> .> .> .> That should be obvious to any moron. .> .> .> .No, moron,
it is not that obvious. I had to read several times to tell .that .> .you had actually attempted to
ride a bike. The problem I had was that you .> .left the > symbols in such a manner that made it
difficult to tell who .was .> .relating the experience. .> .> You can tell my statements from the
content, which you should know by .heart by .> now. .> .When you cross-post from the middle of a
conversation, it is very difficult .to tell who is speaking. You should take more care to be
considerate of your .audience.
I didn't do that. That was someone else.
After all, your main claim to the problems presented by bikers is .that they lack consideration. If
you are going to get on people for lack of .consideratioin, you should take particular care that you
are not .inconsiderate yourself. . . . . . .> .You are so friggin' rude that you can't even make it
clear which thoughts .> .are yours and which are somebody else's. .> .> That wasn't me. It was the
guy quoting me. .> .My point exactly. We can not tell which thoughts are yours.
That's because you are STUPID. Or you are LYING. Or BOTH.
You so seldom .have a thought that you need to take care to point them out when they occur. . . . .>
Combine that with the belief that .> .most people have that you have no original thoughts at all,
and the .rudeness .> .should be apparent. Of course, since you have no thought process, the .>
.rudeness will go right over your head. .> . .> . .> . .> .> .In the following exchange, it appears
that YOU went for a bike ride in .a .> .> .Park a few days after an event was held there. It also
appears that .YOU .> .do .> .> .not actually enjoy riding a bike, .> .> .> .> Learn to READ: "riding
a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all!" .> .> .> . .> .Maybe it is no fun to you, bu *** is
apparently loads of fun to everybody .> .else. .> .> Can't you follow a conversation???? You just
lied. .> . .You made a statement that is based upon your own experience, "riding a bike .off of the
paved road is no fun at all!" It is clearly not much fun to you, .but is apparently loads of fun to
everybody else. I think I followed just .fine. You are the one that can not follow along.
Try again. That's what I said, and this is what you CLAIMED I said -- quite different: "YOU do not
actually enjoy riding a bike". See the difference? Liar. . . .> .> and that the most significant
thing you .> .> .bring up is just how uncomfortable mountain bike riding really is. I .have .> .>
.news for you, just because YOU don't like to ride a bike is no reason .for .> .> .everybody else to
not enjoy riding a bike. It appears by your own .> .comments .> .> .(as I said, it is difficult to
tell if it was you riding the bike or .> .> .somebody else), that you are a wuss because you can not
tolerate .> .precisely .> .> .the part of the sport that most people are attracted to the sport for.
.> .> .> .> The pain? BS. .> .> .> . .> .Just because you are a crybaby doesn't justify taking
everybody else's .fun .> .away. .> .> So we should manage for pain, since some people enjoy it? BS.
.> . .No, we shouldn't give a single moment's consideration of the pain. Just .because you are a
crybaby doesn't justify taking everybody else's fun away. . . . .> .> .Many, if not all, mountain
bike riders will stop at the most remote .spots .> .to .> .> .have a dirnk of water and eat a
sandwich. It is in these remote .locations .> .> .that they get the full enjoyment of the trip. .>
.> .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I SAID. .> .> .> .YOU might miss 99% of it when you ride,
but everybody else manages to see .> .what they go outside to look for. .> .> Which must be nothing,
because it's impossible to pay attention to 2 .things at .> once. .> . .Why should YOU care what
anybody else sees? Let them decide for themselves .that they see enough or need to stop and enjoy
the view. Most of us can .manage several things all at one time, you are suggesting that walking and
.chewing gum can be a challenge.
For YOU they are.
.> .> While the actual riding part .> .> .is being undertaken, they simply enjoy the fresh air and
the view of .the .> .> .distant hills, forests, and mesas. .> .> .> .> BS. You can't enjoy "distant
views" without crashing. .> .> .> .Sure you can. Well, maybe you can't but I can. .> .> Then you are
just LYING. .> .Not at all. You said, "You can't enjoy "distant views" without crashing.". I .said,
"Sure you can," using "you" in the general sense, meaning that it most .certainly possible ride and
enjoy distant views at the same time. Then, it .occurred to me that perhaps you personally are not
capable of doing two .things at the same time, but I can. . .You are the liar because it is most
certainly possible to ride and enjoy the .distant view without crashing. Of course, it is also
possible to crash while .enjoying the distant view, but it hardly ever happens. It has never happend
.to me, or anybody that I was with on any given day. . . . . .> .> They may or may not observe
things that .> .> .are just a few feet away, but what concern is it of yours that they .look .> .at
.> .> .the immediate vicinity of the trail, or look miles across the valley .> .floor .> .> .to the
beauty on the other side? Just because your personal choice is .to .> .> .look directly at your feet
as you walk, other's personal choice is to .> .look .> .> .at the magnificant views that stretch for
miles and miles. Since the .view .> .of .> .> .miles and miles away does not change quickly, then it
does not take .> .constant .> .> .attention to enjoy. .> .> .> .> So they miss 99% of it, JUST AS I
SAID. .> .> .> .Why is it important that everybody else have the exact same experience as .> .you?
.> .> I am describing THEIR experience. DUH! .> . .No you're not. You are describing your own
experience. . . . . . .> .> .There is no truth whatsoever to your claim that bikers are not in tune
.> .with .> .> .their surroundings, or are less aware of them than a hiker. Indeed, it .> .isn't .>
.> .even important if the level of awareness is the same or different. .Hikers .> .> .themselves
have different levels of awareness among themselves, and it .is .> .> .entirely likely that a hiker
can have less awareness of his .surroundings .> .> .than a bike rider. .> .> .> .> BS. Impossible,
for the reasons I stated. .> .> .> .You have only stated reasons why YOU are not aware to your
surroundings, .you .> .have presented no proof whatsoever that I am not aware of mine, or .everybody
.> .(or anybody, for that matter) is not aware of theirs. .> .> 55 years of riding bicycles. I am an
expert. .> . .I too am an expert with 35 years esperience. None of my experience matches .the
experiences you claim to be the benchmark. . . . .
===
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