Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"
S Curtiss Wrote: **Your reply here completely ignores the foundation you set above. You say in response to thousands of miles of added roads "This is a defeat for all of humanity, including you." yet state here "Wilderness is sacred because there is so little of it left." Yet you are going to whine like a child because somewhere on a trail there is a guy on a bicycle. It has already been established "Wilderness" designations do not allow bicycles. Why do you and Vandeman insist on arguing on something that is already established? Why do you insist on creating further friction between different user types when cooperation should be the largest concern to protect as much area as possible. The more development there is, the less fringe land there is for recreation which leads to less "wilderness" down the road. If you want to throw some sort religious connotation into the motives or results of purpose for venturing into any natural area, that is fine. However, this country is based on freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. You can visit your "cathedral" your way as I can in my way. You have "wilderness" and many other areas either unsuitable for, or designated by law, to be non-accessible for bicycles. You have the recourse of law to call rangers or other authorities and report tresspass. So why this constant reference to keeping bikes out of "wilderness" when that is already established? If you want to maintain as much "wilderness" as possible, I would suggest allowing access to as much non-wilderness as possible. I would suggest some plain language and consistency in land designation. I would suggest getting as many "recreationists" into non-wilderness as possible to lend numbers to the decreasing voice of preservation. The more people to see land and forests for something beyond a new mall or house or hotel means more people to stand against the development. Either we share what we have, or we lose it all. That is one of the best posts that I have ever seen on here. I find your comparisons between religious groups and pressure groups to be an interesting one because it is so obvious it is easy to miss. MV and ED can be readily compared to religious fanatics who shout long and hard about how their way is the right way but do little to make things better for anyone and simply causes friction and spread mistrust between different factions of society. I dread to think how many cyclists have a negative attitude towards hikers with an "all hikers are fanatical arseholes so f**k you!" attitude that has been developed from the perceptions driven by MV, rather than absed on actual positive experiences. MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. This I agree with, however you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. The solution is surely to ringfence and restrict all human activity within areas that are particularly sensitive (please don;t tell me that all areas are sensitive because this is not correct) to the effects of human activity and promote tolerance and mutual respect elsewhere such that the same space can be used by people with differing interests with minimal conflict. I would hope that MV would read this and think about his methods and his extremism, but deep down I know that it won't happen. I will continue to ride, but as always it will be in a responsible manner defined by my own moral code, the same moral code and responsible manner that I exercise whilst walking down the street, or when I am at work or even when I am hiking, times when you wouldn't even realise that I am a mountainbiking nut unless you started talking to me about bikes. -- davebee |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"
On Mon, 29 May 2006 08:21:29 +1000, davebee
wrote: S Curtiss Wrote: **Your reply here completely ignores the foundation you set above. You say in response to thousands of miles of added roads "This is a defeat for all of humanity, including you." yet state here "Wilderness is sacred because there is so little of it left." Yet you are going to whine like a child because somewhere on a trail there is a guy on a bicycle. It has already been established "Wilderness" designations do not allow bicycles. Why do you and Vandeman insist on arguing on something that is already established? Why do you insist on creating further friction between different user types when cooperation should be the largest concern to protect as much area as possible. The more development there is, the less fringe land there is for recreation which leads to less "wilderness" down the road. If you want to throw some sort religious connotation into the motives or results of purpose for venturing into any natural area, that is fine. However, this country is based on freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. You can visit your "cathedral" your way as I can in my way. You have "wilderness" and many other areas either unsuitable for, or designated by law, to be non-accessible for bicycles. You have the recourse of law to call rangers or other authorities and report tresspass. So why this constant reference to keeping bikes out of "wilderness" when that is already established? If you want to maintain as much "wilderness" as possible, I would suggest allowing access to as much non-wilderness as possible. I would suggest some plain language and consistency in land designation. I would suggest getting as many "recreationists" into non-wilderness as possible to lend numbers to the decreasing voice of preservation. The more people to see land and forests for something beyond a new mall or house or hotel means more people to stand against the development. Either we share what we have, or we lose it all. That is one of the best posts that I have ever seen on here. I find your comparisons between religious groups and pressure groups to be an interesting one because it is so obvious it is easy to miss. MV and ED can be readily compared to religious fanatics who shout long and hard about how their way is the right way but do little to make things better for anyone and simply causes friction and spread mistrust between different factions of society. I dread to think how many cyclists have a negative attitude towards hikers with an "all hikers are fanatical arseholes so f**k you!" attitude that has been developed from the perceptions driven by MV, rather than absed on actual positive experiences. MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. And wildlife. You forgot that part. This I agree with, however you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. But there is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense? The solution is surely to ringfence and restrict all human activity within areas that are particularly sensitive (please don;t tell me that all areas are sensitive because this is not correct) to the effects of human activity and promote tolerance and mutual respect elsewhere such that the same space can be used by people with differing interests with minimal conflict. I would hope that MV would read this and think about his methods and his extremism, but deep down I know that it won't happen. I will continue to ride, That's your bottom line. You will never let consideration of wildlife or the environment interfere with your pet preoccupation. but as always it will be in a responsible manner defined by my own moral code, the same moral code and responsible manner that I exercise whilst walking down the street, or when I am at work or even when I am hiking, times when you wouldn't even realise that I am a mountainbiking nut unless you started talking to me about 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 |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote: first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security. Jeesh. davebee Wrote: MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. MV Wrote: And wildlife. You forgot that part. wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?[/color] I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference. The wilderness implies the area and everything contained therin. Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH! Your obtuseness requires that everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal insults. davebee Wrote: you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. MV Wrote: This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense? There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike, given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your boots do not require recreation. Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!) === 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 |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is whatgets my juices flowing"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee wrote: first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security. Jeesh. davebee Wrote: MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. MV Wrote: And wildlife. You forgot that part. wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence? I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference. The wilderness implies the area and everything contained therin. Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH! Your obtuseness requires that everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal insults. davebee Wrote: you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. MV Wrote: This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense? There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike, given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your boots do not require recreation. Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)[/color] Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road. |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is whatgets my juices flowing"
cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!) Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road. By gosh! You hit on it! I resolve all hikers should go barefoot! Except Mikey, his 11 toes would look funny to the other hikers on the trail... :) |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"
"ChainSmoker" wrote in message ... cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!) Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road. By gosh! You hit on it! I resolve all hikers should go barefoot! Except Mikey, his 11 toes would look funny to the other hikers on the trail... :) 11 toes? Turkeys only have 4 per foot, 3 in the front one behind. |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"
On Mon, 29 May 2006 13:33:32 -0700, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee wrote: first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security. Jeesh. davebee Wrote: MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. MV Wrote: And wildlife. You forgot that part. wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence? I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference. The wilderness implies the area and everything contained therin. Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH! Your obtuseness requires that everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal insults. davebee Wrote: you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. MV Wrote: This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense? There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike, given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your boots do not require recreation. Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!) Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road.[/color] We shouldn't. But effecting that is politically difficult. I have been working on that for a decade. But you knew that already, so why did you ask? === 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 |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee wrote: first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security. Jeesh. davebee Wrote: MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. MV Wrote: And wildlife. You forgot that part. wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence? I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference. The wilderness implies the area and everything contained therin. Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH![/color] I'm glad you admit KNOWING the difference... finally. Now you can stop treating all areas as if they are designated wilderness in your statements. You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop misrepresenting the legal and acceptable use of trail systems by non-hikers. You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop citing your references to wilderness habitat when referring to access for off-road cycling in non-wilderness areas. Your obtuseness requires that everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal insults. davebee Wrote: you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. MV Wrote: This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense? There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike, given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your boots do not require recreation. Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!) We've had this discussion (over and over and over...) "Apparently, your opinion even supercedes reality. Land managers across the country are working with cycling organizations to enhance cooperation among all user groups. The Bureau of Land Management has a national action plan in place just for the purpose. The BLM recognizes the benefits of off-road cycling and your opinions of off-road cycling and the reasons given supporting the benefits of off-road cycling are a non-issue. It is simple. You try to close your eyes and cover your ears by placing your OPINION as a determining factor as what is valid. However, it has been PROVEN to those who make the decisions that off-road cycling offers benefits of health, increased awareness of the importance of preservation, cooperative maintenance, economic benefits and more. Your OPINION as to the validity of these benefits is null. Your OPINION of off-road cycling is null. All you have is your OPINION resting on a carefully selected foundation of chosen information." ----------- |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is whatgets my juices flowing"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 13:33:32 -0700, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee wrote: first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security. Jeesh. davebee Wrote: MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. MV Wrote: And wildlife. You forgot that part. wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence? I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference. The wilderness implies the area and everything contained therin. Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH! Your obtuseness requires that everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal insults. davebee Wrote: you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. MV Wrote: This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense? There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike, given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your boots do not require recreation. Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!) Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road. We shouldn't. But effecting that is politically difficult. I have been working on that for a decade. But you knew that already, so why did you ask?[/color] Because you hike, making you as guilty as you purport us to be. In other words, you're obviously a hypocrite, and simply a psychopathic hater of those who choose to mountain bike. |
Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"
On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:24:43 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee wrote: first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security. Jeesh. davebee Wrote: MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least. Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the extent that wilderness should be protected. MV Wrote: And wildlife. You forgot that part. wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence? I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference. The wilderness implies the area and everything contained therin. Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH! I'm glad you admit KNOWING the difference... finally. Now you can stop treating all areas as if they are designated wilderness in your statements.[/color] I have never done so. I rarely talk about wilderness, because it's subjective. The topic is HABITAT. DUH! You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop misrepresenting the legal and acceptable use of trail systems by non-hikers. You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop citing your references to wilderness habitat when referring to access for off-road cycling in non-wilderness areas. Can anyone decipher what this idiot is trying to say? Your obtuseness requires that everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal insults. davebee Wrote: you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. MV Wrote: This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense? There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike, given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your boots do not require recreation. Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!) We've had this discussion (over and over and over...) So when are you going to answer the question????? "Apparently, your opinion even supercedes reality. Land managers across the country are working with cycling organizations to enhance cooperation among all user groups. The Bureau of Land Management has a national action plan in place just for the purpose. The BLM recognizes the benefits of off-road cycling and your opinions of off-road cycling and the reasons given supporting the benefits of off-road cycling are a non-issue. It is simple. You try to close your eyes and cover your ears by placing your OPINION as a determining factor as what is valid. However, it has been PROVEN to those who make the decisions that off-road cycling offers benefits of health, increased awareness of the importance of preservation, cooperative maintenance, economic benefits and more. Your OPINION as to the validity of these benefits is null. Your OPINION of off-road cycling is null. All you have is your OPINION resting on a carefully selected foundation of chosen information." ----------- Still waiting! ... === 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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com