S
S Curtiss
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:56:14 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
>>>>> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
>>>>> nature.
>>>>Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>>>
>>> I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.
>>
>>Then you will have to call the ranger and report it. The lack of
>>enforcement
>>is a seperate issue.
>
> Which is why mountain biking should be banned. It's too expensive to
> enforce.
No more expensive to enfore than a completely "human free habitat". Is it
too expensive to enfore any rule...? Enforcement is easier with consistency
and cooperation. But you don't want that, do you?
>
>>>>Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open
>>>>some
>>>>areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable
>>>>and
>>>>wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from
>>>>any
>>>>given area.
>>>
>>> ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
>>> all ridable trails should be open to them.
>>
>>
>>Just as you say all trails should be closed to them. Two extremes clashing
>>while reality exists in the middle.
>
> I have NEVER said that, LIAR. I have said that trails should be closed
> to BIKES. I know, that's over your head, because it contains words of
> more than one syl-la-ble.
Need I remind you of this conversation... again?
February, 2006 "Sudden Oak Death and Wet-Weather Mountain Biking"
MV.> .> I have NEVER recommended "the removal of the cyclists", liar, only
removal of BIKES. DUH! You guys are AMAZINGLY dense!
SC> .Again - because you don't get it. A cyclist, when walking, is a
pedestrian (or hiker). Banning bikes also bans mountain biking because the
activity of offroad cycling is what defines the action as mountain biking.
..>
MV.> Right, but banning bikes doesn't ban mountain bikers. They can WALK.
DUHHHHH!
SC .So explain what defines a "mountain biker" if (A) they can not ride the
bikes in such a manner as to be a "mountain biker" and (B) if bikes are
banned from all trails and everybody must "WALK DUHHHHH!", then what would
be defined as "mountain biking" and (C) what would ultimately define someone
as a "mountain biker" when walking side by side with other "hikers"?
MV There wouldn't be any. That would make most of the world happier.
SC ."There wouldn't be any." Your words, not mine. Proving the point that
banning "bikes" in essence bans "mountain bikers".
MV Nope, you CAN walk, you know.
SC Too late... you have already made it clear. "There wouldn't be any". Your
double-speak and wordplay on this issue is over.
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:56:14 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
>>>>> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
>>>>> nature.
>>>>Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>>>
>>> I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.
>>
>>Then you will have to call the ranger and report it. The lack of
>>enforcement
>>is a seperate issue.
>
> Which is why mountain biking should be banned. It's too expensive to
> enforce.
No more expensive to enfore than a completely "human free habitat". Is it
too expensive to enfore any rule...? Enforcement is easier with consistency
and cooperation. But you don't want that, do you?
>
>>>>Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open
>>>>some
>>>>areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable
>>>>and
>>>>wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from
>>>>any
>>>>given area.
>>>
>>> ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
>>> all ridable trails should be open to them.
>>
>>
>>Just as you say all trails should be closed to them. Two extremes clashing
>>while reality exists in the middle.
>
> I have NEVER said that, LIAR. I have said that trails should be closed
> to BIKES. I know, that's over your head, because it contains words of
> more than one syl-la-ble.
Need I remind you of this conversation... again?
February, 2006 "Sudden Oak Death and Wet-Weather Mountain Biking"
MV.> .> I have NEVER recommended "the removal of the cyclists", liar, only
removal of BIKES. DUH! You guys are AMAZINGLY dense!
SC> .Again - because you don't get it. A cyclist, when walking, is a
pedestrian (or hiker). Banning bikes also bans mountain biking because the
activity of offroad cycling is what defines the action as mountain biking.
..>
MV.> Right, but banning bikes doesn't ban mountain bikers. They can WALK.
DUHHHHH!
SC .So explain what defines a "mountain biker" if (A) they can not ride the
bikes in such a manner as to be a "mountain biker" and (B) if bikes are
banned from all trails and everybody must "WALK DUHHHHH!", then what would
be defined as "mountain biking" and (C) what would ultimately define someone
as a "mountain biker" when walking side by side with other "hikers"?
MV There wouldn't be any. That would make most of the world happier.
SC ."There wouldn't be any." Your words, not mine. Proving the point that
banning "bikes" in essence bans "mountain bikers".
MV Nope, you CAN walk, you know.
SC Too late... you have already made it clear. "There wouldn't be any". Your
double-speak and wordplay on this issue is over.