|
|
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ? My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for - and it sure as hell ain't mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels. But, as you've now admitted, you don't represent normal people at all. You only represent a tiny minority of 'serious' hikers who crave solitude and for whom laughter, companionship and fun are anathema. You can have all those social qualities in any bar (saloon) in the world. I am as normal as John Q. Public ever gets – and as pure as the driven snow into the bargain besides. I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of substance. No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'. I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola. Even if it were true that you represent 'serious' hikers, which you've also done nothing to prove, given that you are a small minority of trail users why should you get to dictate to anyone else ? And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone ... other than myself. You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker as exists on this forum. Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company. Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Democracy is for idiots. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are. Thanks for the elementary lesson in polysci. However, public resources STILL have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Best is usually defined according to a sensible formula including satisfying the most number of people ... in fact, that's precisely what the Park Department has as its objectives. So, it is managed for BEST use ... that's just not what you and a small minority of fanatics want. You have confused the word “best” with the word “most’. In fact, overall you seem confused about “most” everything under the sun. The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels. Wheels belong on roads. Ah, so your MEANS and PURPOSE don't actually matter a damn ... that was just another Dolan diversion to try and argue your untenable position. ??? And, given that you 'serious hikers' are a tiny minority why the hell should anyone care what you will or won't put up with ? If you won't share then you can simply go away. What tiny minority are you talking about? Maybe that is the way it is in England, but serious hikers constitute the vast majority of hikers here in the US. Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote. I am doing what I can to support Mr. Vandeman. He is the true warrior who makes things happen. I am just a bystander who is getting ready to leave this vale of tears and frankly could care less how all this eventually plays out. The only thing I know for sure is that you and your ilk are never going to get the last word with me as long as I am above ground because you and your ilk are not only wrong on the issue, but are criminal scofflaws into the bargain. Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and banned from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to do it. More calumny. And, as you know, whilst I'm happy to joust with you electronically all of this makes not the slightest bit of difference to what I do. I ride twice a week ... on shared trails ... and enjoy the experience without, as far as I can tell, inconveniencing the equestrians, hikers, family groups, ramblers and all the other trail users I encounter. You do not CARE whether you inconvenience other users. That is typical of ALL mountain bikers who are selfish to the core. So, I'm quite happy to let you have the 'last word' here, if it brings you any satisfaction, but know that it doesn't change the real world one iota. I'm sorry for you; that instead of enjoying your old age and viewing the young with wry amusement and a degree of indulgence you are, instead, eaten up with rage and spite. I hope I never end up that way. Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything other than the stupidity of allowing mortmain bikes on trails. I have every confidence that that is going to change in the not so distant future. All the impending conflicts will see to that. The natural environment relatively untouched by man is our primeval connection with the world from time immemorial. Ah, at last, something with which I can agree. Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike. You can bike anywhere except on trails in a natural environment. That is reserved for hikers whether they seek solitude or not. [...] My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose. Your two statements above are incompatible. Either means and purpose creates conflict or it doesn't. Perhaps, what you really want to say, is that it's just your perception of biking that creates a conflict and you've never even considered that, just like the difference between social walkers and 'serious hikers' there are difference between mountainbikers. Some are seeking a physical challenge and others are simply using the bike as a means to travel into the natural environment. You can seek physical challenges away from hikers and equestrians. That is not what we are about. But even civilized bikers have no business being on trails used by hikers and equestrians. The conflicts exist are are never going go away. Mr. Vandeman emphasis the MEANS conflicts and I emphasize the PURPOSE conflicts. Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated. Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere smokescreen. Being on a bike on trails is both a conflict of means and a conflict of purpose all by itself. The only smokescreen I know about are your twists and turns of senseless argument. Accidents will happen because of various kinds of stupidity. Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable. [...] As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still be around 0.5%. You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself, but serious injuries are as common as mud. This is not true of hiking. Serious injuries are rare – mostly just stubbed toes and turned ankles. Why not educate yourself instead of remaining stupid all of your life. Read on: From: "Monica Craver" Subject: Whistler, BC: The highs and lows of bike park season Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:47:18 -0700 "One stop at the ER room at Whistler Medical Clinic and you'll see how many bikes are chained up outside, the owners seen walking around the Village later in the day in casts and slings." - See more at: http://www.whistlerquestion.com/opin....3gI23P8y.dpuf Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Blackblade wrote: My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ? Edward Dolan wrote: My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for - and it sure as hell ain't mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels. But, as you've now admitted, you don't represent normal people at all. You only represent a tiny minority of 'serious' hikers who crave solitude and for whom laughter, companionship and fun are anathema. Are they "serious" I tend to view serious walkers as those who are required to walk as part of their daily life. I would classify Dolan and his ilk as "frivolous walkers", those who toddle about because it is "fun". Sort of like the mountain bike enthusiast but without wheels :-) I do believe that walking is the best exercise in the world, but not always so easy to do under all circumstances. I walk quite a bit in the winter when cycling is impossible (snow, ice and extreme cold), but I much prefer to ride my bicycles the rest of the year. I consider all recreational hikers to be serious hikers provided they want to experience nature and wilderness values in as direct and simple a way as possible. Just walking around town has naught to do with that. They are walkers, not hikers. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
You missed the 5% ... I said even if only 5% of mountainbikers ride on trails ... and I would suggest it's much higher than that ... you still end up with nearly 5 million rides/day worldwide ... ON TRAILS ! Edward Dolan wrote: Your common sense, if you had any, would tell you that that number is impossible. They are clearly riding on roads and streets. No Ed. My common sense tells me that more than 5% of the world's mountainbikers ride on trails. I'm cutting the number down so as to err on the side of caution. The funny thing with common perception is that, bereft actually thinking about things clearly, it is frequently wrong. I would estimate that there are somewhere between 300million to 500million mountainbikers world wide so even if only 5% of them ride on trails that is still 2.3million rides per day (assuming that they ride once per week). Or half that if they ride once every two weeks. The likelihood, of course, is that since we have drastically reduced the figures at every step the reality is much much higher. All of the above is crazy. There are only a few nations in the world which are even into mountain biking. And it is not done year around. The numbers actually riding on hiking trails are simply not that great (although numerous enough to ruin the trails for hikers) and never will be because of the extreme dangers of doing it. [...] You need to spend some time in this country where those numbers would not apply at all to those who ride mountainous trails in the Rockies. But, of course, as ever you have no evidence whatsoever for that do you ? No facts or figures that would, you know, actually allow you to be informed as opposed to prejudiced. All I need are the many reports that are crossing my computer monitor as presented by the mass media (mainly newspapers). Unfortunately for you, bikes on trails are being attacked by those who are like me, serious hikers and not once a year family groups. Two things need to happen: land mangers need to grow a spine and bikers need to leave the gene pool. Then all will return to normalcy and God's grace will rain down on only hikers on trails. Oh, I don't think it's unfortunate at all. As Baltasar Gracian said "A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." If I am being opposed by a tiny, histrionic, selfish and diminishing minority who think they are better than everyone else then that's a position I'm more than happy to occupy. Not necessarily better, but sufficiently different. In the end that difference will be what matters. The more extreme you get, the easier it is to position you as the lunatic fringe and the less attention and consideration you will get from the land managers. It is obvious to everyone, except you and your fellow travellers, that the fundamental remit of public parks is to provide recreation for the public. It is not to provide recreation for one tiny group only to the detriment of everyone else. The only extremist here is you. Wilderness Areas in the US are set aside for a truly tiny group of users. Most trails outside of designated Wilderness Areas were always being used by large numbers of people just hiking from nearby recreation resorts. Mountain bikers are still a minority on trails, but they must be eliminated altogether. Land managers who can not or will not see the light will have to be gotten rid of. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of
all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola. Even if it were true that you represent 'serious' hikers, which you've also done nothing to prove, given that you are a small minority of trail users why should you get to dictate to anyone else ? And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone ... other than myself. You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker as exists on this forum. Ah, more ad hominem to try and distract from the substance. Best is usually defined according to a sensible formula including satisfying the most number of people ... in fact, that's precisely what the Park Department has as its objectives. So, it is managed for BEST use ... that's just not what you and a small minority of fanatics want. You have confused the word "best" with the word "most'. In fact, overall you seem confused about "most" everything under the sun. No, I've simply taken the actual objectives of most of the Parks and Recreation Departments. Best is subjective .. you think it's one thing and I think it's another .. so let's refer back to what the core objectives really are. The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels. Wheels belong on roads. Ah, so your MEANS and PURPOSE don't actually matter a damn ... that was just another Dolan diversion to try and argue your untenable position. ??? You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've effectively refuted your own position. And, given that you 'serious hikers' are a tiny minority why the hell should anyone care what you will or won't put up with ? If you won't share then you can simply go away. What tiny minority are you talking about? Maybe that is the way it is in England, but serious hikers constitute the vast majority of hikers here in the US. As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ... so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group. Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and banned from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to do it. More calumny. No, publicly documented fact. Look it up. And, as you know, whilst I'm happy to joust with you electronically all of this makes not the slightest bit of difference to what I do. I ride twice a week ... on shared trails ... and enjoy the experience without, as far as I can tell, inconveniencing the equestrians, hikers, family groups, ramblers and all the other trail users I encounter. You do not CARE whether you inconvenience other users. That is typical of ALL mountain bikers who are selfish to the core. No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable ... so, sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine. As I said before, I will interact reasonably with reasonable people. You are clearly unreasonable and impermeable to reason ... so since I can't reach any kind of compromise with you I am left with no choice but to just ignore you. As I said, it's your problem not mine and you reap what you sow. So, I'm quite happy to let you have the 'last word' here, if it brings you any satisfaction, but know that it doesn't change the real world one iota. I'm sorry for you; that instead of enjoying your old age and viewing the young with wry amusement and a degree of indulgence you are, instead, eaten up with rage and spite. I hope I never end up that way. Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly disproportionate. other than the stupidity of allowing mortmain bikes on trails. I have every confidence that that is going to change in the not so distant future. All the impending conflicts will see to that. So you keep saying. However, it's not happened in decades and mountainbiking is now mainstream and continuing to grow. Your two statements above are incompatible. Either means and purpose creates conflict or it doesn't. Perhaps, what you really want to say, is that it's just your perception of biking that creates a conflict and you've never even considered that, just like the difference between social walkers and 'serious hikers' there are difference between mountainbikers. Some are seeking a physical challenge and others are simply using the bike as a means to travel into the natural environment. You can seek physical challenges away from hikers and equestrians. That is not what we are about. But even civilized bikers have no business being on trails used by hikers and equestrians. The conflicts exist are are never going go away. Mr. Vandeman emphasis the MEANS conflicts and I emphasize the PURPOSE conflicts. Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated. .... by you. Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere smokescreen. Being on a bike on trails is both a conflict of means and a conflict of purpose all by itself. The only smokescreen I know about are your twists and turns of senseless argument. Ed, you've conceded that groups who don't share your means and purpose CAN be permitted on the trails .. provided they're not on bikes. So, you've thereby invalidated your own argument ... it's nothing to do with purpose ... it's just bikes. As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still be around 0.5%. You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself That's funny Ed ... you wrote that death was a near inevitability about three posts ago. Changed your mind again or just forgotten what you said last ? , but serious injuries are as common as mud. This is not true of hiking. Serious injuries are rare - mostly just stubbed toes and turned ankles. 1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other sports. Not risk free. Why not educate yourself instead of remaining stupid all of your life. Read on: Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian trail riding with steeplechasing. So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there are many different forms with very different risk profiles. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola. Even if it were true that you represent 'serious' hikers, which you've also done nothing to prove, given that you are a small minority of trail users why should you get to dictate to anyone else And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone ... other than myself. You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker as exists on this forum. Ah, more ad hominem to try and distract from the substance. I am telling you what you represent as far as this group goes. [...] Ah, so your MEANS and PURPOSE don't actually matter a damn ... that was just another Dolan diversion to try and argue your untenable position. ??? You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've effectively refuted your own position. Those others are not doing what a trail is best suited for as far as purpose is concerned, but at least they are moving on their own two legs without any mechanical contrivance. They are in fact partially fulfilling the purpose of what a trail is for. Bikers are violating BOTH means and purpose which is why they have no business being on a trail at all. And, given that you 'serious hikers' are a tiny minority why the hell should anyone care what you will or won't put up with ? If you won't share then you can simply go away. What tiny minority are you talking about? Maybe that is the way it is in England, but serious hikers constitute the vast majority of hikers here in the US. As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ... so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group. Nonsense! Why would anyone go for a walk in the woods or the mountains or the desert if he did not want to connect with nature. There has got to be something wrong with the way your brain functions. Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and banned from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to do it. More calumny. No, publicly documented fact. Look it up. Only Assholes bring up irrelevancies. Mr. Vandeman is a scholar and a gentleman. Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails. I am not an expert on anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours. And, as you know, whilst I'm happy to joust with you electronically all of this makes not the slightest bit of difference to what I do. I ride twice a week ... on shared trails ... and enjoy the experience without, as far as I can tell, inconveniencing the equestrians, hikers, family groups, ramblers and all the other trail users I encounter. You do not CARE whether you inconvenience other users. That is typical of ALL mountain bikers who are selfish to the core. No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable ... so, sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine. I have already told you that I am typical of most hikers, serious or otherwise. We simply do not want you on our trails – unless you are willing to walk them like everybody else. You have to play by our rules; we do not have to play by your rules. As I said before, I will interact reasonably with reasonable people. You are clearly unreasonable and impermeable to reason ... so since I can't reach any kind of compromise with you I am left with no choice but to just ignore you. As I said, it's your problem not mine and you reap what you sow. I have stated my position and the reasons for it clearly enough for even a moron like you to follow. Further, my position is that of all hikers. You have indeed stated your position which reeks of nothing but the swinishness of a usurper and interloper. Hikers and equestrians do not want to put up with the intrusion of bikers on their trails. It is rife with conflicts, both real and potential ... and is at its base level a conflict of both means and purpose. So, I'm quite happy to let you have the 'last word' here, if it brings you any satisfaction, but know that it doesn't change the real world one iota. I'm sorry for you; that instead of enjoying your old age and viewing the young with wry amusement and a degree of indulgence you are, instead, eaten up with rage and spite. I hope I never end up that way. Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly disproportionate. It is entirely appropriate. You and your ilk have ruined the hiking experience, something that many generations have enjoyed in peace for well over a hundred years. other than the stupidity of allowing mortmain bikes on trails. I have every confidence that that is going to change in the not so distant future. All the impending conflicts will see to that. [...] You can seek physical challenges away from hikers and equestrians. That is not what we are about. But even civilized bikers have no business being on trails used by hikers and equestrians. The conflicts exist and are never going to go away. Mr. Vandeman emphasizes the MEANS conflicts and I emphasize the PURPOSE conflicts. Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated. ... by you. Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere smokescreen. Being on a bike on trails is both a conflict of means and a conflict of purpose all by itself. The only smokescreen I know about are your twists and turns of senseless argument. Ed, you've conceded that groups who don't share your means and purpose CAN be permitted on the trails .. provided they're not on bikes. So, you've thereby invalidated your own argument ... it's nothing to do with purpose ... it's just bikes. Others who are walking a trail are partially fulfilling the purpose of a trail even if they are not on my high level. When you are walking a trail you are moving slowly enough so that you can’t but help notice your surroundings. Very many causal hikers eventually turn into serious hikers. What destroys the experience for all hikers are those on bikes who do not have a clue about what trails are for and that is why they can violate the ethic of the trail by their means also – a contraption on wheels. My argument is all about purpose and only secondarily about means. As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still be around 0.5%. You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself That's funny Ed ... you wrote that death was a near inevitability about three posts ago. Changed your mind again or just forgotten what you said last ? It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough – like 100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking. , but serious injuries are as common as mud. This is not true of hiking. Serious injuries are rare - mostly just stubbed toes and turned ankles. 1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other sports. Not risk free. Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a sport – which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a pastime. Why not educate yourself instead of remaining stupid all of your life. Read on: Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian trail riding with steeplechasing. No, it is what bikers like to do here in the US. They may go up the hill slowly, but they like to go down the hill as fast as possible. I suspect this is true everywhere, even in dowdy old England. All the accidents are happening on just ordinary hiking trails. So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there are many different forms with very different risk profiles. Mountain biking here in the US has been taken over by professional organizations and associations. They are hell bent on just one thing - more access to trails. They simply don't give a damn about anything else. They rule the roost, not more quiet types like yourself. Former President Bush likes to ride his bike off-road on trails. He is no more a yahoo than you are, but he sets a bad example just the same, just like you do. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone
... other than myself. You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker as exists on this forum. Ah, more ad hominem to try and distract from the substance. I am telling you what you represent as far as this group goes. You do have a penchant for assuming that everyone agrees with you. You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've effectively refuted your own position. Those others are not doing what a trail is best suited for as far as purpose is concerned, but at least they are moving on their own two legs without any mechanical contrivance. They are in fact partially fulfilling the purpose of what a trail is for. Bikers are violating BOTH means and purpose which is why they have no business being on a trail at all. That's not what you said Ed ... never mind, I'm used to you dancing around now, I'll just make a mental note that it's just the bikes, not the activity as far as you're concerned. As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ... so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group. Nonsense! Why would anyone go for a walk in the woods or the mountains or the desert if he did not want to connect with nature. There has got to be something wrong with the way your brain functions. Your definition was someone seeking solitude, so all groups are out, and looking to commune with nature in a suitably reverential manner. So, I think you'll find you have quite effectively disenfranchised the vast majority of the hiking population most of whom, I've notice, seem to prefer to hike in groups. Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and banned from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to do it. More calumny. No, publicly documented fact. Look it up. Only Assholes bring up irrelevancies. Mr. Vandeman is a scholar and a gentleman. It's germane to the point if you then use him for Appeal to Authority logic ... which you do. He has zero authority since he has no qualifications in the topic to which he pretends competence and is a proven criminal. Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails. He's gone and done research on it has he ? I think not. He does shoddy reviews on real researchers papers ... but no original research himself. He's a lobbyist ... not an impartial expert. I am not an expert on anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours. If that's what you claim as your standard for expertise I would hate to see how you perform in any other field of endeavour. No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable .... so, sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine. I have already told you that I am typical of most hikers, serious or otherwise. We simply do not want you on our trails - unless you are willing to walk them like everybody else. You have to play by our rules; we do not have to play by your rules. Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my experience .... and I am also a hiker. There is no earthly reason why one group, such as you, should get to dictate access to all others. That's what I mean about being selfish ... you want it all, just for you and you're not prepared to share. As I said before, I will interact reasonably with reasonable people. You are clearly unreasonable and impermeable to reason ... so since I can't reach any kind of compromise with you I am left with no choice but to just ignore you. As I said, it's your problem not mine and you reap what you sow. I have stated my position and the reasons for it clearly enough for even a moron like you to follow. Further, my position is that of all hikers. You have stated your position and your reasons ... certainly ... you've done precisely nothing to prove that it is the position of all hikers and, since I am a hiker, I can immediately disprove your statement anyway. You have indeed stated your position which reeks of nothing but the swinishness of a usurper and interloper. Hikers and equestrians do not want to put up with the intrusion of bikers on their trails. It is rife with conflicts, both real and potential ... and is at its base level a conflict of both means and purpose. Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it ? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you ... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple fairness. Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly disproportionate. It is entirely appropriate. You and your ilk have ruined the hiking experience, something that many generations have enjoyed in peace for well over a hundred years. How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2 bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ... presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded. Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on trails. Others who are walking a trail are partially fulfilling the purpose of a trail even if they are not on my high level. When you are walking a trail you are moving slowly enough so that you can't but help notice your surroundings. Very many causal hikers eventually turn into serious hikers.. What destroys the experience for all hikers are those on bikes who do not have a clue about what trails are for and that is why they can violate the ethic of the trail by their means also - a contraption on wheels. My argument is all about purpose and only secondarily about means. Your argument is all over the place ... As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still be around 0.5%. You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself That's funny Ed ... you wrote that death was a near inevitability about three posts ago. Changed your mind again or just forgotten what you said last ? It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like 100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking. Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years ! 1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other sports. Not risk free. Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a pastime. Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get out in the mountains aspects too. Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian trail riding with steeplechasing. No, it is what bikers like to do here in the US. They may go up the hill slowly, but they like to go down the hill as fast as possible.. I suspect this is true everywhere, even in dowdy old England. All the accidents are happening on just ordinary hiking trails. Yet the article you were quoting had nothing to do with hiking trails ... it was all about riding in a bike park. So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there are many different forms with very different risk profiles. Mountain biking here in the US has been taken over by professional organizations and associations. They are hell bent on just one thing - more access to trails. They simply don't give a damn about anything else. They rule the roost, not more quiet types like yourself. Former President Bush likes to ride his bike off-road on trails. He is no more a yahoo than you are, but he sets a bad example just the same, just like you do. If you think about this some more then you might, just maybe, have suddenly seen the light. I completely understand that no-one wants to go hiking on a trail that has bikers appearing at over 20mph dressed in full armour. That's an accident waiting to happen and not enjoyable for either party. But, just like other activities, there are many different types. If what you're saying is that you object to public trails being used for downhill racing then I agree with you completely. Whilst I confess to occasionally enjoying such riding for a day or two I only ever do it in bike parks. However, my contention is that neither Mr Bush nor I am doing anything wrong in wanting to share a trail for the sheer enjoyment of being out and about with friends in the natural world. I just don't see the conflict there. My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: I am telling you what you represent as far as this group goes. You do have a penchant for assuming that everyone agrees with you. I do KNOW that all serious hikers agree with me. You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've effectively refuted your own position. Those others are not doing what a trail is best suited for as far as purpose is concerned, but at least they are moving on their own two legs without any mechanical contrivance. They are in fact partially fulfilling the purpose of what a trail is for. Bikers are violating BOTH means and purpose which is why they have no business being on a trail at all. That's not what you said Ed ... never mind, I'm used to you dancing around now, I'll just make a mental note that it's just the bikes, not the activity as far as you're concerned. No, it is indeed the activity. All others are walking except bikers. As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ... so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group. Nonsense! Why would anyone go for a walk in the woods or the mountains or the desert if he did not want to connect with nature. There has got to be something wrong with the way your brain functions. Your definition was someone seeking solitude, so all groups are out, and looking to commune with nature in a suitably reverential manner. So, I think you'll find you have quite effectively disenfranchised the vast majority of the hiking population most of whom, I've notice, seem to prefer to hike in groups. Nope – just anyone who wants to connect with nature by moving slowly on their own two legs. Small groups are OK, but large groups are almost as bad as bikers. The reverential manner will happen automatically with anyone walking either solitarily or in a small group. It never happens with bikers. After all, they are there for thrills and spills, not for connecting with nature. [...] Only Assholes bring up irrelevancies. Mr. Vandeman is a scholar and a gentleman. It's germane to the point if you then use him for Appeal to Authority logic ... which you do. He has zero authority since he has no qualifications in the topic to which he pretends competence and is a proven criminal. I use Mr. Vandeman as an appeal to common sense, something that all mountain bikers completely lack. Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails. He's gone and done research on it has he ? I think not. He does shoddy reviews on real researchers papers ... but no original research himself. He's a lobbyist ... not an impartial expert. Nope, he is the expert by sheer dint of interest in the topic. Furthermore, he perseveres. Folks like you and me come and go, but Mr. Vandeman remains. I am not an expert on anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours. If that's what you claim as your standard for expertise I would hate to see how you perform in any other field of endeavour. I have never yet been bested by anyone in an argument on a newsgroup. Hells Bells, if I’m wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent. When it comes time to resort to invective, we shall indeed see who is the expert. I have an excellent track record in that regard. No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable ... so, sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine. I have already told you that I am typical of most hikers, serious or otherwise. We simply do not want you on our trails - unless you are willing to walk them like everybody else. You have to play by our rules; we do not have to play by your rules. Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my experience ... and I am also a hiker. But you are a hiker in dowdy old England. You have to come to California to see what is happening on the trails there and which no doubt will soon be happening on trails everywhere. I have hiked with other hikers and they all agree with my sentiments – exactly. We do not want bicycles on our trails. [...] You have indeed stated your position which reeks of nothing but the swinishness of a usurper and interloper. Hikers and equestrians do not want to put up with the intrusion of bikers on their trails. It is rife with conflicts, both real and potential ... and is at its base level a conflict of both means and purpose. Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it ? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you ... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple fairness. It is not a matter of fairness, but of what is the best use. Trails were clearly developed for people walking (and horses walking), not for bicycles with wheels. Roads are for that. Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly disproportionate. It is entirely appropriate. You and your ilk have ruined the hiking experience, something that many generations have enjoyed in peace for well over a hundred years. How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2 bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ... presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded. All any of us can ever know are the local trails. California trails are being totally ruined because of mountain biking. Admittedly, Minnesota trails are not yet in such bad shape. Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on trails. But that is precisely what mountain bikers like to do at every opportunity. Others who are walking a trail are partially fulfilling the purpose of a trail even if they are not on my high level. When you are walking a trail you are moving slowly enough so that you can't but help notice your surroundings. Very many causal hikers eventually turn into serious hikers. What destroys the experience for all hikers are those on bikes who do not have a clue about what trails are for and that is why they can violate the ethic of the trail by their means also - a contraption on wheels. My argument is all about purpose and only secondarily about means. [...] It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like 100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking. Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years ! But let’s say you have eternal life. It would be cut short if any amount of mountain biking were to take place. ... whether it be a 100 years or 1000 years. Hikers would live forever – because hiking is not dangerous like biking is. 1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other sports. Not risk free. Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a pastime. Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get out in the mountains aspects too. It is more a sport the way it is being done. All sports could be considered recreations, but that says nothing about how dangerous some of them are compared to others. I have never heard of hiking having a sporting/racing side? Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian trail riding with steeplechasing. No, it is what bikers like to do here in the US. They may go up the hill slowly, but they like to go down the hill as fast as possible. I suspect this is true everywhere, even in dowdy old England. All the accidents are happening on just ordinary hiking trails. Yet the article you were quoting had nothing to do with hiking trails .... it was all about riding in a bike park. So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there are many different forms with very different risk profiles. Mountain biking here in the US has been taken over by professional organizations and associations. They are hell bent on just one thing - more access to trails. They simply don't give a damn about anything else. They rule the roost, not more quiet types like yourself. Former President Bush likes to ride his bike off-road on trails. He is no more a yahoo than you are, but he sets a bad example just the same, just like you do. If you think about this some more then you might, just maybe, have suddenly seen the light. I completely understand that no-one wants to go hiking on a trail that has bikers appearing at over 20mph dressed in full armour. That's an accident waiting to happen and not enjoyable for either party. But, just like other activities, there are many different types. If what you're saying is that you object to public trails being used for downhill racing then I agree with you completely. Whilst I confess to occasionally enjoying such riding for a day or two I only ever do it in bike parks. However, my contention is that neither Mr Bush nor I am doing anything wrong in wanting to share a trail for the sheer enjoyment of being out and about with friends in the natural world. I just don't see the conflict there. My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone. Just because you do not see any conflicts doesn’t mean they aren’t there. On a single track trail hikers will have to get out of your way. They will also resent your speed. Hikers like me will resent WHY you are there in the first place. Many of the conflicts are not immediately obvious, but they are there just the same. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
you.
I do KNOW that all serious hikers agree with me. No, Ed, you DON'T. You've never conducted, as you confessed, any kind of survey or research to confirm this and that's the only way you would know. Supportive emails from fellow travellers are not sufficient evidence. Nope - just anyone who wants to connect with nature by moving slowly on their own two legs. Small groups are OK, but large groups are almost as bad as bikers. My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to enjoy nature. That's none of your business. It's germane to the point if you then use him for Appeal to Authority logic ... which you do. He has zero authority since he has no qualifications in the topic to which he pretends competence and is a proven criminal. I use Mr. Vandeman as an appeal to common sense, something that all mountain bikers completely lack. Vandeman and common sense don't apply in the same sentence. Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails. He's gone and done research on it has he ? I think not. He does shoddy reviews on real researchers papers ... but no original research himself. He's a lobbyist ... not an impartial expert. Nope, he is the expert by sheer dint of interest in the topic. Furthermore, he perseveres. Folks like you and me come and go, but Mr. Vandeman remains. News Flash; you DON'T get to be an expert in anything just by being interested and keeping at it. If that were the case then many demagogues would be rather happy. I am not an expert on anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours. If that's what you claim as your standard for expertise I would hate to see how you perform in any other field of endeavour. I have never yet been bested by anyone in an argument on a newsgroup. I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your premises and axioms. You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence to do so.. Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent. Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself but you still won't concede. When it comes time to resort to invective, we shall indeed see who is the expert. I have an excellent track record in that regard. And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum. Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my experience ... and I am also a hiker. But you are a hiker in dowdy old England. You have to come to California to see what is happening on the trails there and which no doubt will soon be happening on trails everywhere. I have hiked with other hikers and they all agree with my sentiments - exactly. We do not want bicycles on our trails. If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ? And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument. Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it ? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you ... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple fairness. It is not a matter of fairness, but of what is the best use. Trails were clearly developed for people walking (and horses walking), not for bicycles with wheels. Roads are for that. Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring.. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else. How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2 bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ... presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded. All any of us can ever know are the local trails. If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to read. However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel. Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on trails. But that is precisely what mountain bikers like to do at every opportunity. No, it's not ... and even if it were physics and motion also mean that it takes about 5 times as long to go up as to go down. That's why many mountainbikers prefer to travel across. It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like 100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking. Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years ! But let's say you have eternal life. No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because this is getting silly. Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a pastime. Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get out in the mountains aspects too. It is more a sport the way it is being done. All sports could be considered recreations, but that says nothing about how dangerous some of them are compared to others. I have never heard of hiking having a sporting/racing side? Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells ?? My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone. Just because you do not see any conflicts doesn't mean they aren't there. On a single track trail hikers will have to get out of your way. They will also resent your speed. Hikers like me will resent WHY you are there in the first place. Many of the conflicts are not immediately obvious, but they are there just the same. Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because others resent them. There's a nasty word for that. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: I do KNOW that all serious hikers agree with me. No, Ed, you DON'T. You've never conducted, as you confessed, any kind of survey or research to confirm this and that's the only way you would know. Supportive emails from fellow travellers are not sufficient evidence. The emails are based on media reports. Duh! Nope - just anyone who wants to connect with nature by moving slowly on their own two legs. Small groups are OK, but large groups are almost as bad as bikers. My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to enjoy nature. That's none of your business. Hikers and equestrians are the only groups that count as far as how trails are to be used. We do indeed want to police any and all others. Bikers belong on roads and they can have their say there. Trails are none of their business. [...] News Flash; you DON'T get to be an expert in anything just by being interested and keeping at it. If that were the case then many demagogues would be rather happy. Actually though it does. Mr. Vandeman simply knows more than any other living person about the subject. That makes him the expert. It certainly is not you or me. In comparison we are virtual idiots. [...] I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your premises and axioms. You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence to do so. I too trust to others’ intelligence to discern the difference between a self-serving argument that makes no sense and my very modest desire to want to restore the status quo ante. Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent. Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself but you still won't concede. You have persuaded me of nothing. How could you when your argument stinks of mountain biker propaganda. You are not only an idiot, but immoral besides. When it comes time to resort to invective, we shall indeed see who is the expert. I have an excellent track record in that regard. And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum. Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and will damn well say anything I please. But you are quite right to be cautious when around someone like me. I have argued with the scum of the earth on these newsgroups on every conceivable topic, and when they get dirty I get twice as dirty. Words do not scare me. I will get lower and more vulgar than anyone since I am by far smarter and better than anyone I have ever encountered on these ****ed-up forums. Am I smarter and better than you? Of course I am. You are arguing from an untenable position (because selfish) and from one that is also immoral (because it harms hikers and equestrians). Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my experience ... and I am also a hiker. But you are a hiker in dowdy old England. You have to come to California to see what is happening on the trails there and which no doubt will soon be happening on trails everywhere. I have hiked with other hikers and they all agree with my sentiments - exactly. We do not want bicycles on our trails. If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean .... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ? Everything happens in California first and is then exported to the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails – everywhere. And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument. Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What’s the matter? Can’t stand you own company? Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it ? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you ... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple fairness. It is not a matter of fairness, but of what is the best use. Trails were clearly developed for people walking (and horses walking), not for bicycles with wheels. Roads are for that. Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else. It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to the status quo ante. How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2 bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill .... presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded. All any of us can ever know are the local trails. If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to read. However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel. Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of common experience. I can assume that everyone everywhere is the same in that regard. I also see how mountain bikers behave everywhere in the world based on reports. I do not have to go to China to know that it exists. I rely on the reports of others. All you are relying on are some incredibly stupid numbers which you call data. The only one here who does not have a clue about anything is you. Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on trails. But that is precisely what mountain bikers like to do at every opportunity. No, it's not ... and even if it were physics and motion also mean that it takes about 5 times as long to go up as to go down. That's why many mountainbikers prefer to travel across. Everything bad happens going downhill. It doesn't matter how long it takes. It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like 100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking. Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years ! But let's say you have eternal life. No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because this is getting silly. My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal, but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first place. You do not know how to read me, whereas I can read you perfectly, but choose not to get bogged down in moronic details like you do. Anyone who will argue about details has already lost the reader. Details belong in footnotes. How scholarly do you want to get?. Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a pastime. Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get out in the mountains aspects too. It is more a sport the way it is being done. All sports could be considered recreations, but that says nothing about how dangerous some of them are compared to others. I have never heard of hiking having a sporting/racing side? Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells ?? I have never seen any of that kind of foolishness except on TV. All I have ever seen are hikers and a few horse riders on trails until very recently when bikes began appearing. Many trails are now unusable by hikers and equestrians because of the bikers. My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone. Just because you do not see any conflicts doesn't mean they aren't there. On a single track trail hikers will have to get out of your way. They will also resent your speed. Hikers like me will resent WHY you are there in the first place. Many of the conflicts are not immediately obvious, but they are there just the same. Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because others resent them. There's a nasty word for that. Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it for the same reason – to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all hikers experience this connection with nature like I do. I have given you many good reasons why bikers do not belong on trails with hikers. It is indeed resentment bordering on anger. It will increasingly be your problem whether you want it or not. Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails. This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want. You need to study something called “the tragedy of the commons”. Cycling on trails is destroying that commons. Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage. The conflicts are a permanent fixture and are never going to go away. That is what has to be recognized by one and all before any changes can take place on how trails are managed. The bikes have got to go! Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to
enjoy nature. That's none of your business. Hikers and equestrians are the only groups that count as far as how trails are to be used. More circular logic. Or, to be more blunt, lack of logic. There is no backup for this statement ... it's just what you would like to be ... not what is. We do indeed want to police any and all others. Well, fortunately, you can't. They are not your trails to police. Actually though it does. Mr. Vandeman simply knows more than any other living person about the subject. That makes him the expert. Utter and total rubbish. The guy's even more illogical than you. I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your premises and axioms. You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence to do so. I too trust to others' intelligence to discern the difference between a self-serving argument that makes no sense and my very modest desire to want to restore the status quo ante. No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for which everyone pays, for your sole use ... Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent. Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself but you still won't concede. You have persuaded me of nothing. I'm not talking about persuading you of anything. I am talking about the direct contradictions you commit .. stating one thing when it suits one purpose and the contrary when it doesn't. And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum.. Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and will damn well say anything I please. That's your right ... which I would support. But, in a free country, I am also perfectly free to consider that descending to profanity is a clear signal that you've lost the argument. But you are quite right to be cautious when around someone like me. I have argued with the scum of the earth on these newsgroups on every conceivable topic, and when they get dirty I get twice as dirty. I don't need profanity to beat you ... just logic and a coherent position. Am I smarter and better than you? Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I used to have it .... therefore it's right". If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ? Everything happens in California first and is then exported to the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails - everywhere. Contrary to what you might believe, California is not the world. And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument. Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the matter? Can't stand you own company? What's the matter Ed, can't interact normally with other people ? Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else. It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to the status quo ante. Define 'best' ... to a standard that everyone is going to agree. You can't.. Your best is not mine. You have to look at the fundamental premise of what national parks are intended to do ... which is to provide recreation for people and preserve wildlife and the resource for future generations. So they are absolutely doing what they should ... trying to balance occasionally conflicting requirements so that, overall, the most number of people are satisfied. That is made very difficult if you have a small number of selfish and stubborn individuals, such as yourself, who seem to believe that they are, without the slightest logical justification, deserving of some special treatment. All any of us can ever know are the local trails. If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to read. However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel. Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of common experience. What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ? I can assume that everyone everywhere is the same in that regard. Feel free to assume what you wish ... yet again, you're wrong but since you won't ever bother to check your assumptions you can continue in your ignorance. It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like 100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking. Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years ! But let's say you have eternal life. No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because this is getting silly. My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal, but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first place. Because Ed, your memory is becoming somewhat 'convenient'. Let me refresh it for you, you wrote ... " Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable." Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life. So, the reason I focus on these, as you call them 'details, is that they prove you wrong. That you then start talking nonsense about eternal life shows how desperate, or illogical, you are since, as you should know, any risk, however small, will become a near inevitability in infinite time. You do not know how to read me, whereas I can read you perfectly, but choose not to get bogged down in moronic details like you do. I can read you perfectly; old, bigoted, lazy, profane and selfish Anyone who will argue about details has already lost the reader. Details belong in footnotes. How scholarly do you want to get?. You're missing the difference between a detail and a key fact. Key facts, such as the facts that mountainbiking is actually pretty safe, that there are NOT many collisions and that most concede the need to share, demolish your arguments. I have never heard of hiking having a sporting/racing side? Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells ?? I have never seen any of that kind of foolishness except on TV. Ah, right, and in your world unless you see it personally it doesn't happen ? Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because others resent them. There's a nasty word for that. Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it for the same reason - to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all hikers experience this connection with nature like I do. No, you can't assume that at all. Particularly since, as you admit, you are largely solitary and enjoy your own company. How the hell would that permit you to empathise with anyone else ? I have given you many good reasons why bikers do not belong on trails with hikers. No, you've given me your opinions .. unsupported by anything else. It is indeed resentment bordering on anger. It will increasingly be your problem whether you want it or not. I'm not going to worry about bitter, selfish and unpleasant people resenting perfectly reasonable activities. Give me a logical reason; risk of injury, insufficient space, too crowded etc etc then I'll agree a fair resolution is required but your mental health isn't my concern. Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails. I didn't say that did I Ed ? I said they SHOULD get SOME access ... but much less because of environmental impact and risk to other trail users. This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want. No, of course it doesn't, it means that everyone gets some of what they want ... it's essentially the art of compromise. Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage.. Thank you for clarifying your essentially selfish position; I was there first, I liked being by myself, you lot can clear off. The reality is that each new generation will have different preferences as to type of recreation. You don't, Canute like, get to stop the clock at a point in time that happens to suit you. The conflicts are a permanent fixture and are never going to go away. That is what has to be recognized by one and all before any changes can take place on how trails are managed. The bikes have got to go! No, Ed, what needs to go are dogmatic people like you who won't compromise reasonably and actually prevent solutions being agreed and engender more extremism. Research shows that real conflict is very rare ... the perception thereof is higher. What needs to be recognised is that there is no alternative to sharing; there is only one natural environment and we need to agree to share it and to protect it. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: We do indeed want to police any and all others. Well, fortunately, you can't. They are not your trails to police. I am counting on bikers to be their own worst enemies. They will lose access to trails because of their swinishness and boorishness. People, like water, will always find its own level. [...] I too trust to others' intelligence to discern the difference between a self-serving argument that makes no sense and my very modest desire to want to restore the status quo ante. No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for which everyone pays, for your sole use .. It doesn’t matter that it is a public resource or that everyone pays. Irrelevant and immaterial – which I have explained to you many times before. [...] And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum. Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and will damn well say anything I please. That's your right ... which I would support. But, in a free country, I am also perfectly free to consider that descending to profanity is a clear signal that you've lost the argument. Be too much of a dunderhead and you will get your sorry ass kicked. It has nothing to do with argument, but it does have to do with brainless repetition and attention to meaningless details. We both have our ways of being disrespectful and profanity is not as bad as your pretended obtuseness. But you are quite right to be cautious when around someone like me. I have argued with the scum of the earth on these newsgroups on every conceivable topic, and when they get dirty I get twice as dirty. I don't need profanity to beat you ... just logic and a coherent position. I am still waiting for some logic and a coherent position from you that I can connect with, but I am not holding my breath. Am I smarter and better than you? Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I used to have it ... therefore it's right". Since you did not include my entire paragraph to which you were responding above, allow me tell you to go **** yourself. You did not even indicate that you had deleted some of what I had said. Only a scoundrel picks a sentence out of a paragraph to respond to. Keep doing this and you will get some profanity that will not stop. If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ? Everything happens in California first and is then exported to the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails - everywhere. [...] Contrary to what you might believe, California is not the world. Jesus Christ! I did not know that! And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument. Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the matter? Can't stand you own company? What's the matter Ed, can't interact normally with other people ? All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers (not tourists), you would know this. Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else. It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to the status quo ante. Define 'best' ... to a standard that everyone is going to agree. You can't. Your best is not mine. You have to look at the fundamental premise of what national parks are intended to do ... which is to provide recreation for people and preserve wildlife and the resource for future generations. So they are absolutely doing what they should ... trying to balance occasionally conflicting requirements so that, overall, the most number of people are satisfied. That is made very difficult if you have a small number of selfish and stubborn individuals, such as yourself, who seem to believe that they are, without the slightest logical justification, deserving of some special treatment. The “best” of anything is left to the experts to tell us what it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating “best” with “most”. If you thought about it more, even you would not want that. All any of us can ever know are the local trails. If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to read. However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel. Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of common experience. What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ? I think only trail runners don’t know why they are doing what they are doing. Everyone else is wanting to connect with nature the same as me. The experience may be qualitatively different for everyone of course, but they are all wanting to do the same thing – to connect with nature. It is only bikers who do not fit this profile. I can assume that everyone everywhere is the same in that regard. Feel free to assume what you wish ... yet again, you're wrong but since you won't ever bother to check your assumptions you can continue in your ignorance. Is it OK if I assume you are an Asshole? [...] My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal, but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first place. Because Ed, your memory is becoming somewhat 'convenient'. Let me refresh it for you, you wrote ... " Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable." Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life. I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from? So, the reason I focus on these, as you call them 'details, is that they prove you wrong. That you then start talking nonsense about eternal life shows how desperate, or illogical, you are since, as you should know, any risk, however small, will become a near inevitability in infinite time. Is it OK if I call you a Moron? I clearly stated that if you mountain bike long enough an accident was inevitable. The key words there are “long enough” and “inevitable”. What is there about that you do not understand. There is nothing safe about mountain biking. I have hundreds of report on my computer showing just how dangerous it is. The fact that you think it is safe is nuts. Of course the risk of death is low even on the battleground in time of war. But mountain biking accidents are everyday and everywhere and as common as mud. I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at all. You do not know how to read me, whereas I can read you perfectly, but choose not to get bogged down in moronic details like you do. I can read you perfectly; old, bigoted, lazy, profane and selfish You have just described yourself perfectly, Keep up the good work! Anyone who will argue about details has already lost the reader. Details belong in footnotes. How scholarly do you want to get?. You're missing the difference between a detail and a key fact. Key facts, such as the facts that mountainbiking is actually pretty safe, that there are NOT many collisions and that most concede the need to share, demolish your arguments. All your key facts are wrong. Maybe you should just go for the details after all so you won’t look like a complete idiot. [...] Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it for the same reason - to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all hikers experience this connection with nature like I do. No, you can't assume that at all. Particularly since, as you admit, you are largely solitary and enjoy your own company. How the hell would that permit you to empathise with anyone else ? Is it OK if I call you a Jackass? What does being solitary have to do with not being able to assume what is common to all mankind. Of course I do admit I have nothing much in common with mountain bikers who ride their bikes on hiking trails. That level of jackassery I leave to assholes like you. [...] Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails. I didn't say that did I Ed ? I said they SHOULD get SOME access ... but much less because of environmental impact and risk to other trail users. It is OK if I call you a Numskull? It is hard to contest such stupidity as yours. I want to know why you are excluding motorcycles from trails. Everything I have against bikes on trails is equally applicable to motorcycles on trails. What a god damn ****ing selfish lout you are! This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want. No, of course it doesn't, it means that everyone gets some of what they want ... it's essentially the art of compromise. Good, now compromise and permit motorcycles on your trails .... you ****ing hypocrite! Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage. Thank you for clarifying your essentially selfish position; I was there first, I liked being by myself, you lot can clear off. The reality is that each new generation will have different preferences as to type of recreation. You don't, Canute like, get to stop the clock at a point in time that happens to suit you. We do indeed get to do precisely that since it is a matter of not only best use, but of only use. The conflicts are a permanent fixture and are never going to go away. That is what has to be recognized by one and all before any changes can take place on how trails are managed. The bikes have got to go! No, Ed, what needs to go are dogmatic people like you who won't compromise reasonably and actually prevent solutions being agreed and engender more extremism. The only extremists I know about are louts and slobs like you who want to wreck everything. Research shows that real conflict is very rare ... the perception thereof is higher. What needs to be recognised is that there is no alternative to sharing; there is only one natural environment and we need to agree to share it and to protect it. Yep, there is indeed only one natural environment and those of us who care about it do not what it destroyed by the likes of you and your ilk. You can ride your bikes on streets and roads of which this world has an infinite number. Nature is precious and must be preserved above all else. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for
which everyone pays, for your sole use .. It doesn't matter that it is a public resource or that everyone pays. Irrelevant and immaterial - which I have explained to you many times before. No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ... you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks service which doesn't cater to their needs. And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum. Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and will damn well say anything I please. That's your right ... which I would support. But, in a free country, I am also perfectly free to consider that descending to profanity is a clear signal that you've lost the argument. Be too much of a dunderhead and you will get your sorry ass kicked. Indeed ... so I suggest you stop being a dunderhead and try and find some objective backup for your opinions or, if you can't, realise that you are quite simply wrong. I don't need profanity to beat you ... just logic and a coherent position. I am still waiting for some logic and a coherent position from you that I can connect with, but I am not holding my breath. Then, clearly, you haven't the faintest idea what logic looks like. Facts, premises and logic. You seem to think that opinion, anecdote and appeal to authority will suffice instead ... which is not the case. Am I smarter and better than you? Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I used to have it ... therefore it's right". Since you did not include my entire paragraph to which you were responding above, allow me tell you to go **** yourself. You did not even indicate that you had deleted some of what I had said. Only a scoundrel picks a sentence out of a paragraph to respond to. Keep doing this and you will get some profanity that will not stop. Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for foul-mouthed bigots. If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ? Everything happens in California first and is then exported to the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails - everywhere. [...] Contrary to what you might believe, California is not the world. Jesus Christ! I did not know that! Oh you did did you ? So why did you write "first California then the world" (paraphrased for brevity) ? What's the matter? Can't stand you own company? What's the matter Ed, can't interact normally with other people ? All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers (not tourists), you would know this. If that's how you like to enjoy your hiking and travel then fine. I prefer, usually, to enjoy experiences with friends and family. It is simply a preference, not axiomatically better or worse. Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else. It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to the status quo ante. Define 'best' ... to a standard that everyone is going to agree. You can't. Your best is not mine. You have to look at the fundamental premise of what national parks are intended to do ... which is to provide recreation for people and preserve wildlife and the resource for future generations. So they are absolutely doing what they should ... trying to balance occasionally conflicting requirements so that, overall, the most number of people are satisfied. That is made very difficult if you have a small number of selfish and stubborn individuals, such as yourself, who seem to believe that they are, without the slightest logical justification, deserving of some special treatment. The "best" of anything is left to the experts to tell us what it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating "best" with "most". If you thought about it more, even you would not want that. Sometimes, this is correct. And the professional land managers (experts) have made their determination and come up with compromises which don't entirely suit you, or me. However, that's probably the best that can be done in the circumstances. Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of common experience. What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ? I think only trail runners don't know why they are doing what they are doing. Everyone else is wanting to connect with nature the same as me. The experience may be qualitatively different for everyone of course, but they are all wanting to do the same thing - to connect with nature. It is only bikers who do not fit this profile. You're not even consistent within one post. A few sentences above you stated that hiking and travel was best done alone. Now, you claim that social groups are actually seeking exactly the same experience as lone hikers ? Some bikers are seeking to enjoy the natural environment, others are looking more for 'thrills' ... but to assume you know what everyone wants is errant nonsense. Feel free to assume what you wish ... yet again, you're wrong but since you won't ever bother to check your assumptions you can continue in your ignorance. Is it OK if I assume you are an Asshole? I had already made a similar determination about you ... and, as I've said repeatedly, I really don't care what you think anymore so go right ahead. My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal, but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first place. Because Ed, your memory is becoming somewhat 'convenient'. Let me refresh it for you, you wrote ... " Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable." Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life. I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from? "You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself" - Ed Dolan Written shortly after you claimed that death was a near inevitability. QED. So, the reason I focus on these, as you call them 'details, is that they prove you wrong. That you then start talking nonsense about eternal life shows how desperate, or illogical, you are since, as you should know, any risk, however small, will become a near inevitability in infinite time. Is it OK if I call you a Moron? It's a free country. However, rather than call you one, I prefer to show the rest of the world what you really are by pointing out your errors. I clearly stated that if you mountain bike long enough an accident was inevitable. The key words there are "long enough" and "inevitable". Yes, but your 'long enough' would be orders of magnitude longer than the human lifetime ... moron ! As such, you CAN'T live long enough for it to become a (near) inevitability so your point is refuted. What is there about that you do not understand. There is nothing safe about mountain biking. 1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures is not 'safe' ... but it's safer than skiing, rugby, driving and american football. So, yes, it's relatively safe. I have hundreds of report on my computer showing just how dangerous it is. The fact that you think it is safe is nuts. And, should I choose to do so, I could provide millions of reports on car accidents. Is driving safe or not Ed ? I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at all. Suggestion rejected. You make so many detail errors and outright contradictory posts that someone has to highlight your nonsense. I can read you perfectly; old, bigoted, lazy, profane and selfish You have just described yourself perfectly, Keep up the good work! Ah, we've descended to the language of the playground. Nice work Ed ! You're missing the difference between a detail and a key fact. Key facts, such as the facts that mountainbiking is actually pretty safe, that there are NOT many collisions and that most concede the need to share, demolish your arguments. All your key facts are wrong. Maybe you should just go for the details after all so you won't look like a complete idiot. Well then, if you think they're wrong, why don't you prove it instead of simply saying it again and again. If you think mountainbiking is more dangerous than 1.54/1,000 exposures ... prove it ! If you think there are more than 0.00123 fatalities per million miles ... prove it ! You're never going to win a logical argument when you have no facts to support your arguments. Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it for the same reason - to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all hikers experience this connection with nature like I do. No, you can't assume that at all. Particularly since, as you admit, you are largely solitary and enjoy your own company. How the hell would that permit you to empathise with anyone else ? Is it OK if I call you a Jackass? What does being solitary have to do with not being able to assume what is common to all mankind. Of course I do admit I have nothing much in common with mountain bikers who ride their bikes on hiking trails. That level of jackassery I leave to assholes like you. Let's make this really simple so you understand it. What evidence do you have that, universally, hikers walk on trails for the same reasons as you ? Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails. I didn't say that did I Ed ? I said they SHOULD get SOME access ... but much less because of environmental impact and risk to other trail users. It is OK if I call you a Numskull? It is hard to contest such stupidity as yours. I want to know why you are excluding motorcycles from trails. Everything I have against bikes on trails is equally applicable to motorcycles on trails. What a god damn ****ing selfish lout you are! I didn't say I was excluding motorcycles from trails totally ... stop misrepresenting me. I said that their access had to be much more controlled because of their environmental impact. There need to be some resources where people CAN ride motorcycles. This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want. No, of course it doesn't, it means that everyone gets some of what they want ... it's essentially the art of compromise. Good, now compromise and permit motorcycles on your trails .... you ****ing hypocrite! I agree that some trails motorcycles should be allowed on ... that's always been my position. Care to apologise for misrepresentation ? Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage. Thank you for clarifying your essentially selfish position; I was there first, I liked being by myself, you lot can clear off. The reality is that each new generation will have different preferences as to type of recreation. You don't, Canute like, get to stop the clock at a point in time that happens to suit you. We do indeed get to do precisely that since it is a matter of not only best use, but of only use. I think the real world evidence is that you don't Ed. That's why you castigate the land managers for not policing the trails as you would wish to do. No, Ed, what needs to go are dogmatic people like you who won't compromise reasonably and actually prevent solutions being agreed and engender more extremism. The only extremists I know about are louts and slobs like you who want to wreck everything. Do you actually have a point or is this just name calling ? Research shows that real conflict is very rare ... the perception thereof is higher. What needs to be recognised is that there is no alternative to sharing; there is only one natural environment and we need to agree to share it and to protect it. Yep, there is indeed only one natural environment and those of us who care about it do not what it destroyed by the likes of you and your ilk. You can ride your bikes on streets and roads of which this world has an infinite number. Nature is precious and must be preserved above all else. Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ? Mountainbiking is similarly impacting on nature as hiking so we are 'destroying' it to the same degree. In actual fact, of course, both hiking and biking are the tiniest pinpricks in terms of natural degradation in comparison with all the other indignities inflicted on nature by the human species. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for which everyone pays, for your sole use .. Edward Dolan wrote: It doesn't matter that it is a public resource or that everyone pays. Irrelevant and immaterial - which I have explained to you many times before. No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ... you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks service which doesn't cater to their needs. Nonsense, the public pays for all sorts of things which they either don’t use or can’t use because dedicated to special purposes – such as trails for hiking. [...] Am I smarter and better than you? Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I used to have it ... therefore it's right". Since you did not include my entire paragraph to which you were responding above, allow me tell you to go **** yourself. You did not even indicate that you had deleted some of what I had said. Only a scoundrel picks a sentence out of a paragraph to respond to. Keep doing this and you will get some profanity that will not stop. Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for foul-mouthed bigots. You will either post correctly or you will reap my whirlwind. Learn how to delete and don't pick out single sentences from my paragraphs to respond to. You have been warned. I have no time for scoundrels! [...] All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers (not tourists), you would know this. If that's how you like to enjoy your hiking and travel then fine. I prefer, usually, to enjoy experiences with friends and family. It is simply a preference, not axiomatically better or worse. All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers (Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells Bells, you can’t even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful! [...] The "best" of anything is left to the experts to tell us what it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating "best" with "most". If you thought about it more, even you would not want that. Sometimes, this is correct. And the professional land managers (experts) have made their determination and come up with compromises which don't entirely suit you, or me. However, that's probably the best that can be done in the circumstances. The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole list of names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the natural environment is for, but it would go right over your head. Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of common experience. What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ? I think only trail runners don't know why they are doing what they are doing. Everyone else is wanting to connect with nature the same as me. The experience may be qualitatively different for everyone of course, but they are all wanting to do the same thing - to connect with nature. It is only bikers who do not fit this profile. You're not even consistent within one post. A few sentences above you stated that hiking and travel was best done alone. Now, you claim that social groups are actually seeking exactly the same experience as lone hikers ? They are, but they are not achieving it as effectively as lone hikers. Some bikers are seeking to enjoy the natural environment, others are looking more for 'thrills' ... but to assume you know what everyone wants is errant nonsense. Bikers are interfering with what everyone else is doing. Bikers can enjoy the natural environment by getting off their bikes and walking like everyone else. But they are seeking thrills, a gross and base conflict of purpose with what hikers are doing. [...] " Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable." Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life. I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from? "You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself" - Ed Dolan Written shortly after you claimed that death was a near inevitability. QED. I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that mountain bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill themselves whereas if they weren’t so god damn ****ing dumb they would have to work at it. But you do not know how to read. A paragraph will have a central thought. If you knew how to read, you would know that you must respond to that central thought. Instead you get lost on peripheral details and waste everyone’s time, including your own, because I can’t be taken in by that kind of stupidity. Most of the points you like to make are on details and not worth a response. I will simply delete your nonsensical details in the future since I value my time even if you don’t value your time. [...] I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at all. Suggestion rejected. You make so many detail errors and outright contradictory posts that someone has to highlight your nonsense. I will no longer bother with what you consider “detail errors” or “contradictions”. Go for my main thought every time or else go **** yourself. I have wasted enough time on an idiot like you who does not know how to read anything. [...] It is OK if I call you a Numskull? It is hard to contest such stupidity as yours. I want to know why you are excluding motorcycles from trails. Everything I have against bikes on trails is equally applicable to motorcycles on trails. What a god damn ****ing selfish lout you are! I didn't say I was excluding motorcycles from trails totally ... stop misrepresenting me. I said that their access had to be much more controlled because of their environmental impact. There need to be some resources where people CAN ride motorcycles. Motorcycles need to be excluded from all trails totally – you dumb jackass – just like bikes need to be excluded from all trails totally - you dumb jackass! There are plenty of roads for bikes and motorcycles. That fact that you don’t think so marks you as the dumbest jackass I have ever encountered on any newsgroup. Ask your fellow mountain bikers if they want to share trails with motorcyclists? Your jackassery passes all understanding! [...] Yep, there is indeed only one natural environment and those of us who care about it do not what it destroyed by the likes of you and your ilk. You can ride your bikes on streets and roads of which this world has an infinite number. Nature is precious and must be preserved above all else. Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ? We hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints. Mountainbiking is similarly impacting on nature as hiking so we are 'destroying' it to the same degree. In actual fact, of course, both hiking and biking are the tiniest pinpricks in terms of natural degradation in comparison with all the other indignities inflicted on nature by the human species. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on the physical impact of bikes on trails. I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers – period! We don’t want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict with what we are doing. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ...
you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks service which doesn't cater to their needs. Nonsense, the public pays for all sorts of things which they either don't use or can't use because dedicated to special purposes - such as trails for hiking. Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be permitted reasonable access. Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for foul-mouthed bigots. You will either post correctly or you will reap my whirlwind. Learn how to delete and don't pick out single sentences from my paragraphs to respond to. You have been warned. I have no time for scoundrels! I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply. All travel and hiking is best done alone. Otherwise one is too busy interacting with others to give proper attention to what it is you are there for in the first place. If you had ever read any travel books by travelers (not tourists), you would know this. If that's how you like to enjoy your hiking and travel then fine. I prefer, usually, to enjoy experiences with friends and family. It is simply a preference, not axiomatically better or worse. All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers (Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells Bells, you can't even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful! What the hell does authoring books have to do with it !?? Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and land. The "best" of anything is left to the experts to tell us what it is. As always, you are confusing and conflating "best" with "most". If you thought about it more, even you would not want that. Sometimes, this is correct. And the professional land managers (experts) have made their determination and come up with compromises which don't entirely suit you, or me. However, that's probably the best that can be done in the circumstances. The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole list of names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the natural environment is for, but it would go right over your head. Ed, you said let the experts decide and most of the land managers have professional training and in some cases degrees pertinent to their positions. So, clearly, they meet your requirements to have more expertise than you or I. You suggested an approach but, as ever, you simply can't countenance others having differing views to you so now you want to pick the experts. Laughable. You're not even consistent within one post. A few sentences above you stated that hiking and travel was best done alone. Now, you claim that social groups are actually seeking exactly the same experience as lone hikers ? They are, but they are not achieving it as effectively as lone hikers. Rolling on floor laughing. Is that really the best you can do ? Bikers are interfering with what everyone else is doing. No, Ed, they're interfering with your peace of mind ... which is your problem. Normal hikers get to enjoy their experience without worrying. Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life. I conceded no such thing. Where did that come from? "You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself" - Ed Dolan Written shortly after you claimed that death was a near inevitability. QED. I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that mountain bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill themselves whereas if they weren't so god damn ****ing dumb they would have to work at it. But you do not know how to read. I read what you actually write ... it appears you can't transcribe what is in your head efficiently to text. You wrote "The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous." - Ed Dolan Memory going again Ed ? A paragraph will have a central thought. If you knew how to read, you would know that you must respond to that central thought. Instead you get lost on peripheral details and waste everyone's time, including your own, because I can't be taken in by that kind of stupidity. Most of the points you like to make are on details and not worth a response. I will simply delete your nonsensical details in the future since I value my time even if you don't value your time. I am here purely for amusement. As I said, I shall choose to respond to you in any way I deem appropriate consistent with the rules of the forum. If you write nonsense then I will call you on it. Clear ? I suggest you not argue derails with me since you do not know how to do it. You have never refuted a single thing I have ever said. All you do is just disagree with a **** poor argument that makes no sense at all. Suggestion rejected. You make so many detail errors and outright contradictory posts that someone has to highlight your nonsense. I will no longer bother with what you consider "detail errors" or "contradictions". Go for my main thought every time or else go **** yourself. I have wasted enough time on an idiot like you who does not know how to read anything. And I've probably wasted way too much time with someone who simply cannot see that their views and opinions are not supported by any facts and are, quite simply, bigotry. There is a big wide world out there ... go out and enjoy it and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing. If you see a bike, take a deep breath, and simply ignore it ... it's not going to hurt you. I didn't say I was excluding motorcycles from trails totally ... stop misrepresenting me. I said that their access had to be much more controlled because of their environmental impact. There need to be some resources where people CAN ride motorcycles. Motorcycles need to be excluded from all trails totally - you dumb jackass - just like bikes need to be excluded from all trails totally - you dumb jackass! There are plenty of roads for bikes and motorcycles. That fact that you don't think so marks you as the dumbest jackass I have ever encountered on any newsgroup. Ask your fellow mountain bikers if they want to share trails with motorcyclists? Your jackassery passes all understanding! If you care to rephrase as a coherent point then I'll respond ... if you descend to playground name-calling I'm going to ignore you until you can be civil. Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ? We hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints. "A 1975 survey of land managers reported substantial erosion on mountain trails during the previous decade that was attributed to dramatic increases in horse and foot travel on trails not designed to accomodate higher volumes of traffic" - Godin and Leonard, 1979 So, no, you're wrong ... you cause erosion and also, as your idiotic pal vandeman is fond of pointing out, you disturb wildlife that doesn't like human presence. All activities have some deleterious effect on nature. I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers - period! We don't want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict with what we are doing. Yawn ! So you've said a million times. Don't you get tired of it ? And, as I've said many times now too, I don't care what you and vandeman want. You're not reasonable people so there is no compromise that will satisfy you ... hence, I'm simply going to ignore you. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
No, you've not done a single thing to validate such a position ... you've simply stated it, again and again, because it is what you would like to be the case. The general population is not going to pay for a parks service which doesn't cater to their needs. Edward Dolan wrote: Nonsense, the public pays for all sorts of things which they either don't use or can't use because dedicated to special purposes - such as trails for hiking. Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be permitted reasonable access. Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public parks. Then I will simply ignore you. I have no time for foul-mouthed bigots. You will either post correctly or you will reap my whirlwind. Learn how to delete and don't pick out single sentences from my paragraphs to respond to. You have been warned. I have no time for scoundrels! I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply. I will compare what you have posted in response to my preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my paragraphs. [...] All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers (Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells Bells, you can't even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful! What the hell does authoring books have to do with it !?? When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social intercourse, there are other venues for that. Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and land. Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to it. [...] The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole list of names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the natural environment is for, but it would go right over your head. Ed, you said let the experts decide and most of the land managers have professional training and in some cases degrees pertinent to their positions. So, clearly, they meet your requirements to have more expertise than you or I. You suggested an approach but, as ever, you simply can't countenance others having differing views to you so now you want to pick the experts. Laughable. There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places. They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails. [...] I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that mountain bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill themselves whereas if they weren't so god damn ****ing dumb they would have to work at it. But you do not know how to read. I read what you actually write ... it appears you can't transcribe what is in your head efficiently to text. You wrote "The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous." - Ed Dolan Memory going again Ed ? Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get lost! A paragraph will have a central thought. If you knew how to read, you would know that you must respond to that central thought. Instead you get lost on peripheral details and waste everyone's time, including your own, because I can't be taken in by that kind of stupidity. Most of the points you like to make are on details and not worth a response. I will simply delete your nonsensical details in the future since I value my time even if you don't value your time. Argumentative nonsensical blather deleted here to keep others who might be following any of this from going nuts. [...] Motorcycles need to be excluded from all trails totally - you dumb jackass - just like bikes need to be excluded from all trails totally - you dumb jackass! There are plenty of roads for bikes and motorcycles. That fact that you don't think so marks you as the dumbest jackass I have ever encountered on any newsgroup. Ask your fellow mountain bikers if they want to share trails with motorcyclists? Your jackassery passes all understanding! [...] If you care to rephrase as a coherent point then I'll respond ... if you descend to playground name-calling I'm going to ignore you until you can be civil. Coherence is lost on someone like you who does not know how to read. Anyone who would permit motorcycles on hiking trails is too god damn stupid to even be acknowledged. Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ? We hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints. "A 1975 survey of land managers reported substantial erosion on mountain trails during the previous decade that was attributed to dramatic increases in horse and foot travel on trails not designed to accomodate higher volumes of traffic" - Godin and Leonard, 1979 So, no, you're wrong ... you cause erosion and also, as your idiotic pal vandeman is fond of pointing out, you disturb wildlife that doesn't like human presence. The erosion cause by walkers is minimal and does not interfere with future walkers. The erosion caused by bikers can make trails unworkable for walkers. All activities have some deleterious effect on nature. But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid does. I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers - period! We don't want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict with what we are doing. Yawn ! So you've said a million times. Don't you get tired of it ? And, as I've said many times now too, I don't care what you and vandeman want. You're not reasonable people so there is no compromise that will satisfy you ... hence, I'm simply going to ignore you. That is what everyone says who has lost to a superior argument and a superior intelligence. I am very pleased to be associated with someone like Mr.Vandeman (a scholar and a gentleman) and I would be ashamed to be associated with someone like you who would even permit motorcycles on some hiking trails. You are truly beyond the pale ... just like all your ilk – louts, scoundrels and thugs! Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their
purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be permitted reasonable access. Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public parks. Indeed. And the rules and regulations, quite correctly, permit mountainbiking in most locations. I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply. I will compare what you have posted in response to my preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my paragraphs. I reiterate, I reserve the right to respond in any way I deem fit. All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers (Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells Bells, you can't even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful! What the hell does authoring books have to do with it !?? When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social intercourse, there are other venues for that. What is your point ? The fact that you like solitude is entirely immaterial as regards to what other people want to do ! Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and land. Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to it. You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ? The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole list of names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the natural environment is for, but it would go right over your head. Ed, you said let the experts decide and most of the land managers have professional training and in some cases degrees pertinent to their positions. So, clearly, they meet your requirements to have more expertise than you or I. You suggested an approach but, as ever, you simply can't countenance others having differing views to you so now you want to pick the experts. Laughable. There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places. They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails. Ed, again you are not addressing the point. The impartial managers who ARE managing the resources are simply not giving you exactly what you want. On that basis, and that basis alone, you think they should be replaced with others who you believe would agree with your position. The reality is that the reasonably objective managers currently in place are doing their best to share a limited resource fairly. I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that mountain bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill themselves whereas if they weren't so god damn ****ing dumb they would have to work at it. But you do not know how to read. I read what you actually write ... it appears you can't transcribe what is in your head efficiently to text. You wrote "The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous." - Ed Dolan Memory going again Ed ? Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get lost! No, Ed, you DON'T get to redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you write something, I suggest you ensure that it's consistent with your position - it frequently isn't ! You're more than happy to throw out ridiculous assertions and, only when challenged, do you then say that wasn't what you meant. You wrote that mountainbikers would inevitably come to a bad end ... you then conceded that this wasn't the case and it was unlikely that they would die. Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth. If you care to rephrase as a coherent point then I'll respond ... if you descend to playground name-calling I'm going to ignore you until you can be civil. Coherence is lost on someone like you who does not know how to read. Anyone who would permit motorcycles on hiking trails is too god damn stupid to even be acknowledged. I reiterate .. make a coherent point, without profanity, and I'll respond .... Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since that would preserve nature far better ? We hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints. "A 1975 survey of land managers reported substantial erosion on mountain trails during the previous decade that was attributed to dramatic increases in horse and foot travel on trails not designed to accomodate higher volumes of traffic" - Godin and Leonard, 1979 So, no, you're wrong ... you cause erosion and also, as your idiotic pal vandeman is fond of pointing out, you disturb wildlife that doesn't like human presence. The erosion cause by walkers is minimal and does not interfere with future walkers. The erosion caused by bikers can make trails unworkable for walkers. Not true. There are major erosion problems at many sites where there are a large number of hikers. See this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/890579.stm An individual mountainbiker or hiker has minimal, roughly equivalent impact on the environment. Large numbers of either will cause erosion. All activities have some deleterious effect on nature. But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid does. Hikers and bikers are roughly equivalent in terms of trail erosion impact .... happy to refer you to all the research and literature if you wish. Motorbikes have a much higher impact of course. However, I do not believe that a blanket ban on motorbikes will work ... there must be some place for them too ... albeit more restricted than others. I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers - period! We don't want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict with what we are doing. Yawn ! So you've said a million times. Don't you get tired of it ? And, as I've said many times now too, I don't care what you and vandeman want. You're not reasonable people so there is no compromise that will satisfy you ... hence, I'm simply going to ignore you. That is what everyone says who has lost to a superior argument and a superior intelligence. Lost, to you ? Now you really are being funny. You can't even put together a coherent, rational argument that doesn't rely, fundamentally, on your own personal preferences. I am very pleased to be associated with someone like Mr.Vandeman (a scholar and a gentleman) and I would be ashamed to be associated with someone like you who would even permit motorcycles on some hiking trails. You are truly beyond the pale ... just like all your ilk - louts, scoundrels and thugs! My group, this Saturday, included two CEOs, one IT Project Manager, one CFO, two doctors and an army Major. You're asserting that we're the louts, scoundrels and thugs ? None of us have criminal convictions,none of us have sought conflict and we simply enjoy our weekly rides together without inconveniencing anyone else. You, on the other hand, prefer to associate with a borderline sociopath and convicted criminal such as vandeman. Good luck with that. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be permitted reasonable access. Edward Dolan wrote: Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public parks. Indeed. And the rules and regulations, quite correctly, permit mountainbiking in most locations. This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly permitting. I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply. I will compare what you have posted in response to my preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my paragraphs. I reiterate, I reserve the right to respond in any way I deem fit. If you pull single sentences out of my paragraphs to respond to, then we will be off on a tangential issue which you will lose because such posting is universally recognized as the behavior of a scoundrel and a cad. Your deviltry will be pitted against My Saintliness. Think you can win an argument when it is going to be all about the correct manner of posting on a newsgroup? [...] When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social intercourse, there are other venues for that. What is your point ? The fact that you like solitude is entirely immaterial as regards to what other people want to do ! Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that since I hike alone I possibly can’t get along with others – so I am telling you why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can‘t follow anything! Go back a few posts and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that myself. Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and land. Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to it. You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ? The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the resource is and you can’t. [...] There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places. They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails. Ed, again you are not addressing the point. The impartial managers who ARE managing the resources are simply not giving you exactly what you want. On that basis, and that basis alone, you think they should be replaced with others who you believe would agree with your position. The reality is that the reasonably objective managers currently in place are doing their best to share a limited resource fairly. The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of their dereliction of duty. [...] Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get lost! No, Ed, you DON'T get to redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you write something, I suggest you ensure that it's consistent with your position - it frequently isn't ! You're more than happy to throw out ridiculous assertions and, only when challenged, do you then say that wasn't what you meant. You wrote that mountainbikers would inevitably come to a bad end ... you then conceded that this wasn't the case and it was unlikely that they would die. You want to take every world literally and then give them all equal importance, and that can never be the case when you are reading anything that borders on being literature. You simply don’t know how to read me and I suspect not anyone else either. You pounce on words which are not even germane to what I am saying. Less statistics and more poetry would teach you how to read. Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of. Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put “death and injuries” together because they go together, but not because they are equal in numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it without making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot! Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous .... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth. Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not what trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a sport, is extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It is not the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing, another outdoor sport that is dangerous. [...] All activities have some deleterious effect on nature. But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid does. Hikers and bikers are roughly equivalent in terms of trail erosion impact ... happy to refer you to all the research and literature if you wish. Motorbikes have a much higher impact of course. However, I do not believe that a blanket ban on motorbikes will work ... there must be some place for them too ... albeit more restricted than others. Bikers need to be restricted from trails for the same reason that motorcyclists need to be restricted from trails. No difference whatsoever. I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different (highly doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are different from one another. [...] I am very pleased to be associated with someone like Mr.Vandeman (a scholar and a gentleman) and I would be ashamed to be associated with someone like you who would even permit motorcycles on some hiking trails. You are truly beyond the pale ... just like all your ilk - louts, scoundrels and thugs! My group, this Saturday, included two CEOs, one IT Project Manager, one CFO, two doctors and an army Major. You're asserting that we're the louts, scoundrels and thugs ? None of us have criminal convictions,none of us have sought conflict and we simply enjoy our weekly rides together without inconveniencing anyone else. You, on the other hand, prefer to associate with a borderline sociopath and convicted criminal such as vandeman. Good luck with that. It is your associations that matter, not who or what you are personally. Mountain bikers are what they are and nothing you say can disguise that truth. They have a universally bad reputation because of how they are impact hikers and equestrians. Mr. Vandeman’s morality is so far ahead of yours that it lies in a different universe. I am a Great Saint and just love to discuss moral issues. Bottom line, you and your ilk ride your bikes on trails used by hikers. This is a mortal sin for which you and your ilk will burn in Hell for all eternity (of course, only if there is a life after death). Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under
what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public parks. Indeed. And the rules and regulations, quite correctly, permit mountainbiking in most locations. This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly permitting. Indeed you did. And in all that blather you've done precisely nothing to explain WHY the managers were doing so incorrectly. You complain that you don't like bikes on trails and then assert that all serious hikers feel the same way. However, you've done nothing to prove that and, as I am a hiker too and know a fair few hikers, I am not going to believe your blank assertion without backup. I think it's just you and a few extremists who have a bee in your bonnets about bikes. You conveniently forget that Parks' core objectives are to provide recreation, preserve wildlife and protect the resource. Against those objectives, of course they're going to allow mountainbiking if that's what a significant percentage of the population, who pay for the parks, want to do. They are not going to pander to extremists like you who won't share one iota. You then come up with the most laughable concept of all ... "Best Use" ... but your best use is simply what you want to do. I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply. I will compare what you have posted in response to my preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my paragraphs. I reiterate, I reserve the right to respond in any way I deem fit. If you pull single sentences out of my paragraphs to respond to, then we will be off on a tangential issue which you will lose because such posting is universally recognized as the behavior of a scoundrel and a cad. Your deviltry will be pitted against My Saintliness. Think you can win an argument when it is going to be all about the correct manner of posting on a newsgroup? Ed, the standard for newsgroups is that, when challenged to support a position, you are able to justify it with facts and logic. When challenged you simply assert 'I KNOW it's true'. So don't start whinging when I point out the massive fallacies you commit. When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social intercourse, there are other venues for that. What is your point ? The fact that you like solitude is entirely immaterial as regards to what other people want to do ! Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that since I hike alone I possibly can't get along with others - so I am telling you why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can't follow anything! Go back a few posts and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that myself. Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said. And the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report. So, yet again, you have attempted to obfuscate and deviate from the topic to avoid the obvious conclusion that you can't justify what you asserted. What you like to do, or avoid, is ENTIRELY IMMATERIAL to the question of what the majority of trail users wish to do. You're dancing around the question because you can't answer it ... as usual. Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and land. Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to it. You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ? The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the resource is and you can't. The resource dictates nothing ... clearly I CAN ride on trails shared with hikers since I do so every week. I reiterate ... WHY do you think you are entitled to dictate to others as to how they use a public resource. And don't say it's 'Best Use' because, as we both know, that's just what you want to do ... and is in no way a justification. I could just as easily state that "Trails must be managed to optimise user satisfaction" ... with every bit as much validity if it's just opinion. There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places. They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails. Ed, again you are not addressing the point. The impartial managers who ARE managing the resources are simply not giving you exactly what you want. On that basis, and that basis alone, you think they should be replaced with others who you believe would agree with your position. The reality is that the reasonably objective managers currently in place are doing their best to share a limited resource fairly. The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of their dereliction of duty. WHY are they not doing their jobs correctly Ed ? If their remit is as I stated above, which is it, then they're doing what they should ... trying to fairly apportion a scarce resource to satisfy as many as possible. For your world to make any sense one would have to accept that your pronouncements on what is the 'best' and 'right' use of a trail have the status of fact. It doesn't, it's simply your opinion and you've not even shown that a significant percentage of the hiking population share it. Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get lost! No, Ed, you DON'T get to redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you write something, I suggest you ensure that it's consistent with your position - it frequently isn't ! You're more than happy to throw out ridiculous assertions and, only when challenged, do you then say that wasn't what you meant. You wrote that mountainbikers would inevitably come to a bad end ... you then conceded that this wasn't the case and it was unlikely that they would die. You want to take every world literally and then give them all equal importance, and that can never be the case when you are reading anything that borders on being literature. You simply don't know how to read me and I suspect not anyone else either. You pounce on words which are not even germane to what I am saying. Less statistics and more poetry would teach you how to read. Good grief. Maybe you should try the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Defence ... get a qualified poet to certify that beauty = truth and then assert that life is guilty for failing to be either ! You are not writing literature Ed ... you're debating in a forum. You intentionally want to generalise simply because, deep down, you know that everything you're saying just comes down to 'because that's what I want'. And, lastly, if you are trying to write poetry I suggest you desist ... it's awful ! Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of. Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put "death and injuries" together because they go together, but not because they are equal in numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it without making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot! Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth. Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not what trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a sport, is extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It is not the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing, another outdoor sport that is dangerous. Racing a bike is a sport, simply riding it is not. Just as running to win a race is a sport whilst going for a walk is not. However, they are all recreations and there is no objective rationale to ban them. Your 'best use' is nonsense. And, no, mountainbiking is much safer than alpine skiing ... it's much more akin to cross country skiing. All activities have some deleterious effect on nature. But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid does. Hikers and bikers are roughly equivalent in terms of trail erosion impact ... happy to refer you to all the research and literature if you wish. Motorbikes have a much higher impact of course. However, I do not believe that a blanket ban on motorbikes will work ... there must be some place for them too ... albeit more restricted than others. Bikers need to be restricted from trails for the same reason that motorcyclists need to be restricted from trails. No difference whatsoever. I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different (highly doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are different from one another. If you're never seen hiker trails ruined by erosion I take it that Snowdon wasted their 1.5million on reinforcing the trails to repair them after hiker damage ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly permitting. Indeed you did. And in all that blather you've done precisely nothing to explain WHY the managers were doing so incorrectly. Conflict of both means and purpose - with plenty of details provided for dunderheads like you who can't figure out anything on your own. You complain that you don't like bikes on trails and then assert that all serious hikers feel the same way. However, you've done nothing to prove that and, as I am a hiker too and know a fair few hikers, I am not going to believe your blank assertion without backup. I think it's just you and a few extremists who have a bee in your bonnets about bikes. It is very convenient to believe what you want to believe even though others are telling you that what you believe is nuts. You conveniently forget that Parks' core objectives are to provide recreation, preserve wildlife and protect the resource. Against those objectives, of course they're going to allow mountainbiking if that's what a significant percentage of the population, who pay for the parks, want to do. They are not going to pander to extremists like you who won't share one iota. The only extremists I know about are mountain bikers who are interlopers and usurpers. That is the beauty of anything public paid for by taxes – there is seldom any relationship between who is paying and what you are getting. I could give you thousands of examples of that truism. You then come up with the most laughable concept of all ... "Best Use" ... but your best use is simply what you want to do. Best use is what any person with an iota of common sense would acknowledge it to be. This lets you out. [...] If you pull single sentences out of my paragraphs to respond to, then we will be off on a tangential issue which you will lose because such posting is universally recognized as the behavior of a scoundrel and a cad. Your deviltry will be pitted against My Saintliness. Think you can win an argument when it is going to be all about the correct manner of posting on a newsgroup? Ed, the standard for newsgroups is that, when challenged to support a position, you are able to justify it with facts and logic. When challenged you simply assert 'I KNOW it's true'. So don't start whinging when I point out the massive fallacies you commit. Always post the complete paragraph that you are responding to and I will take it from there. I do not chop your paragraphs and I do not expect my paragraphs to be chopped either. You also need to learn to delete material you are not responding to. Why burden the reader unnecessarily? [...] Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that since I hike alone I possibly can't get along with others - so I am telling you why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can't follow anything! Go back a few posts and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that myself. Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said. And the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report. Nope, you have to go back a few steps further to arrive at the point I was making in response to your remark ... something about why I prefer to hike alone is because I can’t get along with others? I told you why I like to hike alone and enlarged on it ... but of course it was just another case of casting pearls before swine because you can’t keep track of whatever moronic points you are trying to make. [...] You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ? The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the resource is and you can't. The resource dictates nothing ... clearly I CAN ride on trails shared with hikers since I do so every week. I reiterate ... WHY do you think you are entitled to dictate to others as to how they use a public resource. And don't say it's 'Best Use' because, as we both know, that's just what you want to do ... and is in no way a justification. I could just as easily state that "Trails must be managed to optimise user satisfaction" ... with every bit as much validity if it's just opinion. The resource itself dictates what is best use to all except idiots like you. [...] The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of their dereliction of duty. WHY are they not doing their jobs correctly Ed ? If their remit is as I stated above, which is it, then they're doing what they should ... trying to fairly apportion a scarce resource to satisfy as many as possible. For your world to make any sense one would have to accept that your pronouncements on what is the 'best' and 'right' use of a trail have the status of fact. It doesn't, it's simply your opinion and you've not even shown that a significant percentage of the hiking population share it. All serious hikers and equestrians hate to have bikes on trails. It is just that simple. Why? It is conflict of means and purpose. Trails cannot be all things to all people. Trails not only have a best use, but in some cases an only use. Designated Wilderness Areas in the US exemplify this to perfection. [...] You want to take every world literally and then give them all equal importance, and that can never be the case when you are reading anything that borders on being literature. You simply don't know how to read me and I suspect not anyone else either. You pounce on words which are not even germane to what I am saying. Less statistics and more poetry would teach you how to read. Good grief. Maybe you should try the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Defence ... get a qualified poet to certify that beauty = truth and then assert that life is guilty for failing to be either ! You are not writing literature Ed ... you're debating in a forum. You intentionally want to generalise simply because, deep down, you know that everything you're saying just comes down to 'because that's what I want'. And, lastly, if you are trying to write poetry I suggest you desist .... it's awful ! See – you pounced on the words ‘literature’ and ‘poetry’, as though that was my central thought. God, you are such a sucker and so easily lead. Even so I grade my prose superior to yours. I do generalize because I have enough intellect to be able to do that. Too bad it is beyond you! Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of. Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put "death and injuries" together because they go together, but not because they are equal in numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it without making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot! Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth. Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not what trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a sport, is extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It is not the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing, another outdoor sport that is dangerous. Racing a bike is a sport, simply riding it is not. Just as running to win a race is a sport whilst going for a walk is not. However, they are all recreations and there is no objective rationale to ban them. Your 'best use' is nonsense. I have already told you that not all recreations are equal. Riding a bike on a trail in the mountains is a sport and is akin to alpine skiing. Trails were designed specifically for walking humans and walking horses. That is the best use and the only use to all but idiots like you. And, no, mountainbiking is much safer than alpine skiing ... it's much more akin to cross country skiing. Not in the mountains it ain’t! [...] Bikers need to be restricted from trails for the same reason that motorcyclists need to be restricted from trails. No difference whatsoever. I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different (highly doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are different from one another. If you're never seen hiker trails ruined by erosion I take it that Snowdon wasted their £1.5million on reinforcing the trails to repair them after hiker damage ? I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable. Trails that suffer the most damage from hikers will lie close to resorts or trail heads and are due to hikers taking shortcuts from the trail. There is also a certain amount of natural water erosion which takes place hikers or no hikers. On the other hand, a trail destroyed by bikers is often not passable by hikers except by scrambling. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
This is where I came in a hundred posts ago with my complaint
against the stupidity of what the managers were incorrectly permitting. Indeed you did. And in all that blather you've done precisely nothing to explain WHY the managers were doing so incorrectly. Conflict of both means and purpose - with plenty of details provided for dunderheads like you who can't figure out anything on your own. No dice Ed. It may conflict with YOUR means and purpose ... but those are NOT the objectives of the parks service. You complain that you don't like bikes on trails and then assert that all serious hikers feel the same way. However, you've done nothing to prove that and, as I am a hiker too and know a fair few hikers, I am not going to believe your blank assertion without backup. I think it's just you and a few extremists who have a bee in your bonnets about bikes. It is very convenient to believe what you want to believe even though others are telling you that what you believe is nuts. Indeed ... and I AM telling you that what you believe is nuts. Does anyone on this forum agree with you ? Not noticeably (aside from vandeman perhaps but let's not go there). Do the land managers agree with you ? Clearly not or they would act differently. Do the vast majority of hikers agree with you. Based on my experience of hikers, also clearly not but were you to provide proof of this I would consider it. So, yes, perhaps yet again you should try applying your own axioms to yourself and considering your position. You conveniently forget that Parks' core objectives are to provide recreation, preserve wildlife and protect the resource. Against those objectives, of course they're going to allow mountainbiking if that's what a significant percentage of the population, who pay for the parks, want to do. They are not going to pander to extremists like you who won't share one iota. The only extremists I know about are mountain bikers who are interlopers and usurpers. That is the beauty of anything public paid for by taxes - there is seldom any relationship between who is paying and what you are getting. I could give you thousands of examples of that truism. I am calling you an extremist because you ally yourself with the vandemans and cravers of this world and, more importantly, because you persist in holding your views as being representative of the moderate norm despite no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. You are calling me an extremist simply as an epithet. You then come up with the most laughable concept of all ... "Best Use" ... but your best use is simply what you want to do. Best use is what any person with an iota of common sense would acknowledge it to be. This lets you out. Whose common sense Ed ? Yours ?? It is, I would assert, axiomatically true that a resource designated for public recreation should be shared, on some rational and sensible basis - not everything of course, with as many of the public as possible. That's common sense ... but apparently not to you. Listen up you confounded jackass! You remarked previously that since I hike alone I possibly can't get along with others - so I am telling you why I prefer to hike alone. Jeez, you can't follow anything! Go back a few posts and look it up! I am way too lazy to ever do anything like that myself. Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said. And the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report. Nope, you have to go back a few steps further to arrive at the point I was making in response to your remark ... something about why I prefer to hike alone is because I can't get along with others? I told you why I like to hike alone and enlarged on it ... but of course it was just another case of casting pearls before swine because you can't keep track of whatever moronic points you are trying to make. Ed, read the bloody posts ... in order. I wrote, on May 22, the following .... "And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument.." To which you responded ... "Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups.. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the matter? Can't stand you own company?" So, yet again, the facts contradict you. The core thrust of the argument is against your claim to represent all hikers and, given that you admit you prefer to hike alone or in small groups, you have admitted that your interaction with a huge global community of hikers is therefore minimal. The comment about your inability to get along socially with others was an anecdotal aside only. You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ? The resource itself dictates that. I can clearly see what the resource is and you can't. The resource dictates nothing ... clearly I CAN ride on trails shared with hikers since I do so every week. I reiterate ... WHY do you think you are entitled to dictate to others as to how they use a public resource. And don't say it's 'Best Use' because, as we both know, that's just what you want to do ... and is in no way a justification. I could just as easily state that "Trails must be managed to optimise user satisfaction" ... with every bit as much validity if it's just opinion. The resource itself dictates what is best use to all except idiots like you. So, you have no logical argument whatsoever to justify WHY you should get to determine who uses the trails. The park mangers are not doing their jobs correctly. I blame them more than I do those who like you are simply taking advantage of their dereliction of duty. WHY are they not doing their jobs correctly Ed ? If their remit is as I stated above, which is it, then they're doing what they should ... trying to fairly apportion a scarce resource to satisfy as many as possible. For your world to make any sense one would have to accept that your pronouncements on what is the 'best' and 'right' use of a trail have the status of fact. It doesn't, it's simply your opinion and you've not even shown that a significant percentage of the hiking population share it. All serious hikers and equestrians hate to have bikes on trails. It is just that simple. Why? It is conflict of means and purpose. Trails cannot be all things to all people. Trails not only have a best use, but in some cases an only use. Designated Wilderness Areas in the US exemplify this to perfection. Ed, don't keep making the same inane statements and avoiding the question. I'm not anti-wilderness ... I'm not advocating bike access everywhere. I'm simply advocating sensible and proportionate sharing of a public resource. Deaths from mountain biking are rare but not unheard of. Serious injuries from mountain biking are common as mud. I put "death and injuries" together because they go together, but not because they are equal in numbers. If you knew how to read, that is how you would have read it without making an issue of deaths. You sir are an idiot! Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth. Riding a bike on a trail is indeed a sport, but such an activity has no business being on a trail used by hikers. That is not what trails are for. Mountain biking compared to hiking, which is not a sport, is extremely dangerous. It is even dangerous compared to other sports. It is not the same thing as driving a car, but it is similar to alpine skiing, another outdoor sport that is dangerous. No, Ed, real data suggests that alpine skiing is 3-4 times more dangerous in terms of injuries per exposure than mountainbiking (source British Medical Journal, referenced earlier in this thread). Racing a bike is a sport, simply riding it is not. Just as running to win a race is a sport whilst going for a walk is not. However, they are all recreations and there is no objective rationale to ban them. Your 'best use' is nonsense. I have already told you that not all recreations are equal. Riding a bike on a trail in the mountains is a sport and is akin to alpine skiing. Trails were designed specifically for walking humans and walking horses. That is the best use and the only use to all but idiots like you. You are going around in circles Ed. Justify why it's 'best use' without reference to your own statements ... find somewhere reputable that provides data to backup this position. I think you'll find it tricky when compared to the Parks' publicly stated objectives. And, no, mountainbiking is much safer than alpine skiing ... it's much more akin to cross country skiing. Not in the mountains it ain't! Why do you think they're called 'mountain' bikes ? I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic. The erosion, even if not quantitatively different (highly doubtful), is qualitatively different because feet and wheels are different from one another. If you're never seen hiker trails ruined by erosion I take it that Snowdon wasted their 1.5million on reinforcing the trails to repair them after hiker damage ? I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable. Trails that suffer the most damage from hikers will lie close to resorts or trail heads and are due to hikers taking shortcuts from the trail. There is also a certain amount of natural water erosion which takes place hikers or no hikers. On the other hand, a trail destroyed by bikers is often not passable by hikers except by scrambling. Ed, you are really losing it ... "I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic." - Ed Dolan "I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable." - Ed Dolan Which is it Ed ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] You complain that you don't like bikes on trails and then assert that all serious hikers feel the same way. However, you've done nothing to prove that and, as I am a hiker too and know a fair few hikers, I am not going to believe your blank assertion without backup. I think it's just you and a few extremists who have a bee in your bonnets about bikes. Edward Dolan wrote: It is very convenient to believe what you want to believe even though others are telling you that what you believe is nuts. Indeed ... and I AM telling you that what you believe is nuts. Does anyone on this forum agree with you ? Not noticeably (aside from vandeman perhaps but let's not go there). Do the land managers agree with you ? Clearly not or they would act differently. Do the vast majority of hikers agree with you. Based on my experience of hikers, also clearly not but were you to provide proof of this I would consider it. One Vandeman is worth a thousand like you. I have already told you that the land managers are idiots and cowards and will do whatever they can to avoid conflict from pressure groups. All serious hikers agree with me. Most importantly of all, the kind of serious scholars who write books on the subject of how mankind should be treating nature agree with me and Mr. Vandeman. None of them have ever expressed a view that nature and wilderness should be used as a playground for idiots on vehicles. You are not only nuts but a desecrator of everything right and good. You are truly evil! [...] Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said. And the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report. Nope, you have to go back a few steps further to arrive at the point I was making in response to your remark ... something about why I prefer to hike alone is because I can't get along with others? I told you why I like to hike alone and enlarged on it ... but of course it was just another case of casting pearls before swine because you can't keep track of whatever moronic points you are trying to make. Ed, read the bloody posts ... in order. I wrote, on May 22, the following ... "And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument." To which you responded ... "Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the matter? Can't stand you own company?" So, yet again, the facts contradict you. The core thrust of the argument is against your claim to represent all hikers and, given that you admit you prefer to hike alone or in small groups, you have admitted that your interaction with a huge global community of hikers is therefore minimal. The comment about your inability to get along socially with others was an anecdotal aside only. And then I told you WHY I prefer to hike alone ... to which you had no response. You are a genius at always missing my explanations of why I do what I do and why I think like I think. In any event I do not see what social hiking has to do with what trails are about. [...] I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable. Trails that suffer the most damage from hikers will lie close to resorts or trail heads and are due to hikers taking shortcuts from the trail. There is also a certain amount of natural water erosion which takes place hikers or no hikers. On the other hand, a trail destroyed by bikers is often not passable by hikers except by scrambling. Ed, you are really losing it ... "I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic." - Ed Dolan "I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable." - Ed Dolan Which is it Ed ? If a trail is still passable by hikers, then it has not been ruined. Please learn how to read. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
It is very convenient to believe what you want to believe even
though others are telling you that what you believe is nuts. Indeed ... and I AM telling you that what you believe is nuts.* Does anyone on this forum agree with you ?* Not noticeably (aside from vandeman perhaps but let's not go there).* Do the land managers agree with you ?* Clearly not or they would act differently.* Do the vast majority of hikers agree with you.* Based on my experience of hikers, also clearly not but were you to provide proof of this I would consider it. One Vandeman is worth a thousand like you. I have already told you that the land managers are idiots and cowards and will do whatever they can to avoid conflict from pressure groups. All serious hikers agree with me. Ed, you've never provided one iota of proof for this supposition. All serious hikers DON'T agree with you ... because I know several that don't and that therefore invalidates your statement. Unlike you, I DO refer back to what was previously said.* And the original question was WHY you think you are able to represent what other hikers think, particularly when you tend to hike alone as you report. Nope, you have to go back a few steps further to arrive at the point I was making in response to your remark ... something about why I prefer to hike alone is because I can't get along with others? I told you why I like to hike alone and enlarged on it ... but of course it was just another case of casting pearls before swine because you can't keep track of whatever moronic points you are trying to make. * Ed, read the bloody posts ... in order.* I wrote, on May 22, the following ... * "And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument." * To which you responded ... * "Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the matter? Can't stand you own company?" * So, yet again, the facts contradict you.* The core thrust of the argument is against your claim to represent all hikers and, given that you admit you prefer to hike alone or in small groups, you have admitted that your interaction with a huge global community of hikers is therefore minimal. * The comment about your inability to get along socially with others was an anecdotal aside only. * And then I told you WHY I prefer to hike alone ... to which you had no response. You are a genius at always missing my explanations of why I do what I do and why I think like I think. In any event I do not see what social hiking has to do with what trails are about. Ed, I don't care a jot why you prefer to hike alone ... which is why I have not responded on it. The core issue was your proposition that you represent a large group of hikers ... which I nullified by providing evidence, from your own testimony, that you don't interact with large numbers of other hikers and therefore cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, know what the majority of other hikers think. I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable. Trails that suffer the most damage from hikers will lie close to resorts or trail heads and are due to hikers taking shortcuts from the trail. There is also a certain amount of natural water erosion which takes place hikers or no hikers. On the other hand, a trail destroyed by bikers is often not passable by hikers except by scrambling. Ed, you are really losing it ... "I have seen trails ruined by biker traffic and have never seen the same from hiker traffic." - Ed Dolan "I have seen plenty of trails damaged by hikers, but they are still passable." - Ed Dolan Which is it Ed ? If a trail is still passable by hikers, then it has not been ruined. Please learn how to read. Please learn some semantics ... your proposition was that hikers do no damage ... which you then refuted with your own statement. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: One Vandeman is worth a thousand like you. I have already told you that the land managers are idiots and cowards and will do whatever they can to avoid conflict from pressure groups. All serious hikers agree with me. Ed, you've never provided one iota of proof for this supposition. All serious hikers DON'T agree with you ... because I know several that don't and that therefore invalidates your statement. I have never known a serious hiker who thinks it is a good idea to share trails with bikers. What casual hikers think doesn't matter of course. [...] And then I told you WHY I prefer to hike alone ... to which you had no response. You are a genius at always missing my explanations of why I do what I do and why I think like I think. In any event I do not see what social hiking has to do with what trails are about. Ed, I don't care a jot why you prefer to hike alone ... which is why I have not responded on it. The core issue was your proposition that you represent a large group of hikers ... which I nullified by providing evidence, from your own testimony, that you don't interact with large numbers of other hikers and therefore cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, know what the majority of other hikers think. I do not have to interact with large numbers of hikers because I see them hiking alone on trails just like me. They are doing exactly the same thing I am doing. I then told you why I prefer to hike alone by relating it to the writers of travel books. It was you who thought it strange that I should like to hike alone. You will remain ignorant all of your life if you don’t take seriously the explanations of why others do things the way they do. I am not a social butterfly like you and I would never want to be either. I do most things alone because I can best experience them that way. Otherwise, it is nothing but social interaction. If that is what I want, I can go to a bar ... or join a club. But, like Somerset Maugham, I am not a clubbable man. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Ed, you've never provided one iota of proof for this
supposition. All serious hikers DON'T agree with you ... because I know several that don't and that therefore invalidates your statement. I have never known a serious hiker who thinks it is a good idea to share trails with bikers. What casual hikers think doesn't matter of course. But, Ed, as you admit yourself, you don't know many other hikers because you are by nature solitary. I do know serious hikers who also mountain bike and I also do know hikers who are entirely sanguine about bikers on trails provided that they are polite and considerate. As such, I can refute your statement that 'All serious hikers ..' simply because there are, as I've just related, some that don't conform to your premise. And then I told you WHY I prefer to hike alone ... to which you had no response. You are a genius at always missing my explanations of why I do what I do and why I think like I think. In any event I do not see what social hiking has to do with what trails are about. Ed, I don't care a jot why you prefer to hike alone ... which is why I have not responded on it. The core issue was your proposition that you represent a large group of hikers ... which I nullified by providing evidence, from your own testimony, that you don't interact with large numbers of other hikers and therefore cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, know what the majority of other hikers think. I do not have to interact with large numbers of hikers because I see them hiking alone on trails just like me. They are doing exactly the same thing I am doing. I then told you why I prefer to hike alone by relating it to the writers of travel books. It was you who thought it strange that I should like to hike alone. You will remain ignorant all of your life if you don't take seriously the explanations of why others do things the way they do. Firstly, just because they are doing the same thing you're doing ... hiking alone ... does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that they are thinking or experiencing the world in the same way as you. Secondly, I don't think it's strange to want solitude. I do too occasionally. Where did I ever say I thought it was strange ? What I did say is that it's not for you to dictate to anyone else how they enjoy themselves; whether they are solitary or social, whether they hike or ride, it's not for you to dictate. You bridle at the thought that I might castigate your mode of recreation, when in fact I didn't, and state that I should take your explanations for your behaviour seriously. Well, if you want that I suggest that you extend others the same courtesy; some of us want to enjoy riding. It does not make us barbarians and thugs .. simply people who wish to enjoy ourselves in a different way. Perhaps, again, you should heed your own advice and try to understand others. I am not a social butterfly like you and I would never want to be either. I do most things alone because I can best experience them that way. Otherwise, it is nothing but social interaction. If that is what I want, I can go to a bar ... or join a club. But, like Somerset Maugham, I am not a clubbable man. Secondly, I am not impugning your desire to hike alone. What I am doing is simply pointing out that your motivation for doing so is entirely immaterial to the point of the argument. And, further, your desires do not automatically trump others. I might want to go to my favourite restaurant and enjoy it quietly. That doesn't mean I try and ban others just because it happens to get crowded and busy sometimes. Sometimes, you have to accept that your wishes are constrained because there is only so much resource to be shared. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Ed, you've never provided one iota of proof for this supposition. All serious hikers DON'T agree with you ... because I know several that don't and that therefore invalidates your statement. Edward Dolan wrote: I have never known a serious hiker who thinks it is a good idea to share trails with bikers. What casual hikers think doesn't matter of course. But, Ed, as you admit yourself, you don't know many other hikers because you are by nature solitary. I do know serious hikers who also mountain bike and I also do know hikers who are entirely sanguine about bikers on trails provided that they are polite and considerate. As such, I can refute your statement that 'All serious hikers ..' simply because there are, as I've just related, some that don't conform to your premise. Nope, they are NOT serious if they will put up with bikers on trails. The fact that I am solitary has nothing to do with what I can determine about others. Hell Bells, the ONLY people who know anything about women and marriage are Roman Catholic priests and hermits like myself. We have not been corrupted by contact with them. [...] I do not have to interact with large numbers of hikers because I see them hiking alone on trails just like me. They are doing exactly the same thing I am doing. I then told you why I prefer to hike alone by relating it to the writers of travel books. It was you who thought it strange that I should like to hike alone. You will remain ignorant all of your life if you don't take seriously the explanations of why others do things the way they do. Firstly, just because they are doing the same thing you're doing ... hiking alone ... does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that they are thinking or experiencing the world in the same way as you. What else could they possibly be doing except communing with nature? Secondly, I don't think it's strange to want solitude. I do too occasionally. Where did I ever say I thought it was strange ? You questioned me about it as though that was a reason why I would not know anything about social types like yourself. You are still doing it oddly enough. I am like a fox who knows many things based on extrapolation You are like a hedgehog who only knows one thing based on personal experiences. What I did say is that it's not for you to dictate to anyone else how they enjoy themselves; whether they are solitary or social, whether they hike or ride, it's not for you to dictate. You bridle at the thought that I might castigate your mode of recreation, when in fact I didn't, and state that I should take your explanations for your behaviour seriously. Well, if you want that I suggest that you extend others the same courtesy; some of us want to enjoy riding. It does not make us barbarians and thugs .. simply people who wish to enjoy ourselves in a different way. Perhaps, again, you should heed your own advice and try to understand others. If I didn’t take you seriously I would no longer bother responding to your posts. It is easy to dictate to others when they are in grievous error. ... and I KNOW I am in the right. My problem is that I understand you perfectly. You are in fact a barbarian - a regular Genghis Khan. You want to do what you do regardless of how it effects others. What is so difficult to understand about that? I am not a social butterfly like you and I would never want to be either. I do most things alone because I can best experience them that way. Otherwise, it is nothing but social interaction. If that is what I want, I can go to a bar ... or join a club. But, like Somerset Maugham, I am not a clubbable man. Secondly, I am not impugning your desire to hike alone. What I am doing is simply pointing out that your motivation for doing so is entirely immaterial to the point of the argument. You brought it up to begin with, not me. Serious hikers hike alone – just like serious writers of travel books travel alone. Bikers on trails generally are in groups because it is a sport, not a pastime. Do not bring up immaterial subjects if you do not want an argument about it. And, further, your desires do not automatically trump others. I might want to go to my favourite restaurant and enjoy it quietly. That doesn't mean I try and ban others just because it happens to get crowded and busy sometimes. Sometimes, you have to accept that your wishes are constrained because there is only so much resource to be shared. Your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Your biking on trails interferes with hikers. It destroys the hiking experience. You need to be constrained in what you can do. It is what rules and regulations are all about. You can share the trail resource by walking like everyone else. There are zillions of miles of roads for cycling available to you. Your restaurant analogy doesn’t work because I won’t go to restaurants that are noisy and busy ... just like I won’t hike a trail that is overrun with bikers. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Ed, you've never provided one iota of proof for this
supposition. All serious hikers DON'T agree with you ... because I know several that don't and that therefore invalidates your statement. I have never known a serious hiker who thinks it is a good idea to share trails with bikers. What casual hikers think doesn't matter of course. But, Ed, as you admit yourself, you don't know many other hikers because you are by nature solitary. I do know serious hikers who also mountain bike and I also do know hikers who are entirely sanguine about bikers on trails provided that they are polite and considerate. As such, I can refute your statement that 'All serious hikers ..' simply because there are, as I've just related, some that don't conform to your premise. Nope, they are NOT serious if they will put up with bikers on trails. Logical fail. Circular logic. The fact that I am solitary has nothing to do with what I can determine about others. Hell Bells, the ONLY people who know anything about women and marriage are Roman Catholic priests and hermits like myself. We have not been corrupted by contact with them. So precisely HOW do you intend to acquire any knowledge ? You admitted you're too lazy to read anything and you have no first hand experience either. I do not have to interact with large numbers of hikers because I see them hiking alone on trails just like me. They are doing exactly the same thing I am doing. I then told you why I prefer to hike alone by relating it to the writers of travel books. It was you who thought it strange that I should like to hike alone. You will remain ignorant all of your life if you don't take seriously the explanations of why others do things the way they do. Firstly, just because they are doing the same thing you're doing ... hiking alone ... does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that they are thinking or experiencing the world in the same way as you. What else could they possibly be doing except communing with nature? Resolving personal issues ? Thinking about relationships ? Listening to music ? Getting some exercise ? Who knows ? Not me and not you either. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - William Shakespeare It is extreme hubris to assume that you know what other people are thinking and feeling without even bothering to ask them. Secondly, I don't think it's strange to want solitude. I do too occasionally. Where did I ever say I thought it was strange ? You questioned me about it as though that was a reason why I would not know anything about social types like yourself. You are still doing it oddly enough. I am like a fox who knows many things based on extrapolation You are like a hedgehog who only knows one thing based on personal experiences. No, Ed, I did NOT question you about it. I simply pointed out that, being solitary, you have no access to any primary evidence that could be validly representative of a huge audience. It's like trying to envisage what the Statue of Liberty looks like based on examining one brick. What I did say is that it's not for you to dictate to anyone else how they enjoy themselves; whether they are solitary or social, whether they hike or ride, it's not for you to dictate. You bridle at the thought that I might castigate your mode of recreation, when in fact I didn't, and state that I should take your explanations for your behaviour seriously. Well, if you want that I suggest that you extend others the same courtesy; some of us want to enjoy riding. It does not make us barbarians and thugs .. simply people who wish to enjoy ourselves in a different way. Perhaps, again, you should heed your own advice and try to understand others. If I didn't take you seriously I would no longer bother responding to your posts. It is easy to dictate to others when they are in grievous error. ... and I KNOW I am in the right. And I KNOW that you're not. So, how to resolve ? My problem is that I understand you perfectly. You are in fact a barbarian - a regular Genghis Khan. You want to do what you do regardless of how it effects others. What is so difficult to understand about that? I think it's very clear from the discourse who is prepared to compromise and who is not. You are adamant that no bikers can be permitted to sully your trails; none, ever. It's a perfect example of extreme selfishness. Even if those bikers don't cause you any physical discomfort nor inconvenience you in any way you are still adamant that you don't want them there. I am not a social butterfly like you and I would never want to be either. I do most things alone because I can best experience them that way. Otherwise, it is nothing but social interaction. If that is what I want, I can go to a bar ... or join a club. But, like Somerset Maugham, I am not a clubbable man. Secondly, I am not impugning your desire to hike alone. What I am doing is simply pointing out that your motivation for doing so is entirely immaterial to the point of the argument. You brought it up to begin with, not me. Serious hikers hike alone - just like serious writers of travel books travel alone. Bikers on trails generally are in groups because it is a sport, not a pastime. Do not bring up immaterial subjects if you do not want an argument about it. I did not bring up the motivation for why you hike alone ... you did. I merely observed that you did so and that this precluded you interacting with many other hikers thereby rendering your experiential evidence not credible.. And, further, your desires do not automatically trump others. I might want to go to my favourite restaurant and enjoy it quietly. That doesn't mean I try and ban others just because it happens to get crowded and busy sometimes. Sometimes, you have to accept that your wishes are constrained because there is only so much resource to be shared. Your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Exactly. And, as I have stated again and again, I am not impacting your nose ... or any other part of your anatomy when riding my bike on a trail. So stop trying to impinge on my freedoms simply because you don't like what I do. Your biking on trails interferes with hikers. It destroys the hiking experience. No, Ed, it doesn't. It simply annoys people like you who don't want bikes on trails. You're hypersensitised to bikes ... you need to perhaps reflect on what you just wrote about freedom. You need to be constrained in what you can do. It is what rules and regulations are all about. And, clearly, so do you so that you're not permitted to monopolise a public resource. You can share the trail resource by walking like everyone else. There are zillions of miles of roads for cycling available to you. Your restaurant analogy doesn't work because I won't go to restaurants that are noisy and busy ... just like I won't hike a trail that is overrun with bikers. The analogy works very well. You have the right to decide not to frequent a public place, in this case a restaurant, because it is busy and full of other people. You do not have the right to ban those other people because you happen to prefer solitude. Exactly the same situation pertains on the trails. Your logical position is indefensible. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Nope, they are NOT serious if they will put up with bikers on trails. Logical fail. Circular logic. It is a tautology rather. In either case, it's a logical fail. You can't define Serious Hikers as being ones who don't like bikes on trails and then have, as your conclusion, that Serious Hikers don't like bikes. So, your premise is invalidated. The only thing that is invalidated is your thinking about the point. You obviously do understand the nature of a tautology. [...] It is important to hold yourself aloof from any objects or people you are going to examine in detail. You must learn to think a priori. Science and any infection with facts will lead you astray and into the marshes. It is enough to merely reflect on things in a general way and thereby come to a definitive knowledge about whatever it is you are reflecting upon. It is HOW Aristocrats like Myself approach phenomena. Hmmm. I had wondered whence some of your more preposterous propositions originated. Now I know. You make it up without any reference to the real world. The way I think is only for superior types like Myself. If you try it you will end up in the marshes, bogged down in the mud. By the way, why you feel it necessary to respond to my every sentence indicates that you are unable to get to the essence of an argument. Note how I delete your feeble objections to My Greatness. [...] That is an easy question to resolve. Who has the superior culture? The cultures we need to look at are the aristocratic, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I think you are either bourgeois or a prol whereas I am an aristocrat. Therefore it follows that I am right and you are wrong. It is simply a question of who has the superior culture. We must always defer to our betters. Christ ... that is something that every Englishman ought to know as his birthright. After all, England once had a caste/class system almost as rigid as India. Well, you are occasionally good for a laugh if nothing else. Actually there is a universal truth stated in my above paragraph. How indeed do you decide what is superior to what is inferior? Appeal to science and some miscellaneous facts? Don’t make me laugh! [...] All bikers have to do is get off their bikes and walk the trails like everyone else. That is the only compromise possible because of inherent conflicts. No, Ed, it is clearly not the only compromise possible. We could agree, as is the case in Snowdonia, to split access by time. We could agree to have some shared and some activity specific trails. There are myriad potential solutions. The fact that you're an extremist who won't accept any of them shouldn't dissuade the reasonable majority from reaching accomodation. The conflicts are irreconcilable. Even if those bikers don't cause you any physical discomfort nor inconvenience you in any way you are still adamant that you don't want them there. Yes, because they are interfering with what I and all serious hikers are DOING! We are contemplating nature and we are NOT engaging in a sport of thrills and spills like bikers are DOING! Trails cannot be all things to all activities. Selfishness has nothing to do with it from the hiking perspective. No Ed, they're doing nothing to prevent you contemplating nature. You're doing that to yourself with your ridiculous hypersensitivity to bikes. Not hypersensitivity ... just common sense. [...] By riding your bike on trails used by hikers you are more than just impacting my nose. You are impacting my freedom to enjoy what trails were designed for. They certainly were not designed for bikes. You have confused bike paths with trails. Bike paths have variously smooth surfaces to accommodate wheels. The are safe for bikes whereas trails are not safe for bikes. Hence, all the accidents resulting in serious injuries and deaths. How am I impacting your freedom Ed ? Am I stopping you going anywhere you wish to go ? Am I stopping you contemplating nature and the eternal verities ? No, I'm doing none of those things. You're doing it to yourself. As I've already said, your mental health and inability to ignore distractions is not my problem. A cyclist riding a contraption on a trail is a major distraction. Your presence on trails on a bike will shortly be your major problem when hikers decide to take you on face to face. It will become a question of how much unpleasantness do you want to put up with. Since bikers are such thugs, I recommend that hikers go armed with a concealed firearm on their person just in case the thugery comes to the fore. Your biking on trails interferes with hikers. It destroys the hiking experience. No, Ed, it doesn't. It simply annoys people like you who don't want bikes on trails. You're hypersensitised to bikes ... you need to perhaps reflect on what you just wrote about freedom. One person's freedom is another person's prison. Bikers scare off hikers from trails and have an even more deleterious effect on equestrians. So what happened about your definition of Freedom Ed ? You hypocrite. You want your freedoms to trump everyone elses. Bikers have no right to be on hiking trails - period! They are transgressors and usurpers. If the god damn ****ing land and park managers weren’t such idiots, they would KNOW that! [...] A worst use will always drive out a best use. The same situation does not prevail on a trail as in a restaurant because of inherent conflicts. I can sit in a noisy restaurant even if I don't like it and no one cares much one way or the other. But I cannot hike a trail that is being overrun with bikers because it conflicts with my purpose and my means. Purpose - contemplation of nature; Means - walking one step at a time. Elementary my dear Watson! Ed, you CAN hike a trail with bikers there just as you CAN sit in a crowded restaurant. I don't care about your purpose or means. To make the point, redefine your purpose and means for the restaurant ... purpose - enjoying a quiet meal, means - table in a quiet restaurant. You've just created the same, spurious, rationale as you do for the trails. The above example is not an irreconcilable conflict whereas trail use is. I cannot hike a trail if it is being overrun with bikers. Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
In either case, it's a logical fail. You can't define
Serious Hikers as being ones who don't like bikes on trails and then have, as your conclusion, that Serious Hikers don't like bikes. So, your premise is invalidated. The only thing that is invalidated is your thinking about the point. You obviously do understand the nature of a tautology. Why Ed ? Your logical fallacy is clear. You lose ... again. It is HOW Aristocrats like Myself approach phenomena. Hmmm. I had wondered whence some of your more preposterous propositions originated. Now I know. You make it up without any reference to the real world. The way I think is only for superior types like Myself. If you try it you will end up in the marshes, bogged down in the mud. Oh, I don't know. You seem to be managing to tie yourself in logical knots quite effectively. We must always defer to our betters. Christ ... that is something that every Englishman ought to know as his birthright. After all, England once had a caste/class system almost as rigid as India. Well, you are occasionally good for a laugh if nothing else. Actually there is a universal truth stated in my above paragraph. How indeed do you decide what is superior to what is inferior? Appeal to science and some miscellaneous facts? Don't make me laugh! Your preferred method, rather than facts and science, is your judgement ??? Now I'm laughing. I wouldn't trust you to judge a pie eating contest. All bikers have to do is get off their bikes and walk the trails like everyone else. That is the only compromise possible because of inherent conflicts. No, Ed, it is clearly not the only compromise possible. We could agree, as is the case in Snowdonia, to split access by time. We could agree to have some shared and some activity specific trails. There are myriad potential solutions. The fact that you're an extremist who won't accept any of them shouldn't dissuade the reasonable majority from reaching accomodation. The conflicts are irreconcilable. So how come others are able to reach agreement ? You're just too extreme and unwilling to compromise. No Ed, they're doing nothing to prevent you contemplating nature. You're doing that to yourself with your ridiculous hypersensitivity to bikes. Not hypersensitivity ... just common sense. Rubbish. How am I impacting your freedom Ed ? Am I stopping you going anywhere you wish to go ? Am I stopping you contemplating nature and the eternal verities ? No, I'm doing none of those things. You're doing it to yourself. As I've already said, your mental health and inability to ignore distractions is not my problem. A cyclist riding a contraption on a trail is a major distraction. To you perhaps. Most don't care that much. Your presence on trails on a bike will shortly be your major problem when hikers decide to take you on face to face. It will become a question of how much unpleasantness do you want to put up with. Since bikers are such thugs, I recommend that hikers go armed with a concealed firearm on their person just in case the thugery comes to the fore. The thug is the one wishing to initiate violence .. in this case ... YOU. I think we're seeing your true colours now. You can't win your argument since it's so incoherent and now, having lost the debate, you want to resort to violence to achieve your ends by other means. So what happened about your definition of Freedom Ed ? You hypocrite. You want your freedoms to trump everyone elses. Bikers have no right to be on hiking trails - period! They are transgressors and usurpers. If the god damn ****ing land and park managers weren't such idiots, they would KNOW that! I have EXACTLY THE SAME right as you to a public resource Ed. It's my land just as much as it's yours. And, to that end, the Park Managers do know .... that it's public land and that the public has a right to enjoy it responsibly. Ed, you CAN hike a trail with bikers there just as you CAN sit in a crowded restaurant. I don't care about your purpose or means. To make the point, redefine your purpose and means for the restaurant ... purpose - enjoying a quiet meal, means - table in a quiet restaurant. You've just created the same, spurious, rationale as you do for the trails. The above example is not an irreconcilable conflict whereas trail use is. I cannot hike a trail if it is being overrun with bikers. Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about. Ed, unless someone has removed your legs or is physically preventing you from doing so you CAN hike a trail whether bikers are there or not. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: The only thing that is invalidated is your thinking about the point. You obviously do understand the nature of a tautology. It should have read ... you obviously do NOT understand the nature of a tautology. [...] Actually there is a universal truth stated in my above paragraph. How indeed do you decide what is superior to what is inferior? Appeal to science and some miscellaneous facts? Don't make me laugh! Your preferred method, rather than facts and science, is your judgement ??? Now I'm laughing. I wouldn't trust you to judge a pie eating contest. I am appealing to what superior persons (as a class) in general think about phenomena. That is always how you decide what is superior to what is inferior. [...] Your presence on trails on a bike will shortly be your major problem when hikers decide to take you on face to face. It will become a question of how much unpleasantness do you want to put up with. Since bikers are such thugs, I recommend that hikers go armed with a concealed firearm on their person just in case the thugery comes to the fore. The thug is the one wishing to initiate violence .. in this case ... YOU. I think we're seeing your true colours now. You can't win your argument since it's so incoherent and now, having lost the debate, you want to resort to violence to achieve your ends by other means. Violence must be met with violence, at least in the moment, since there are unlikely to be any cops on the trails policing things. Your days of doing what you want with your bike on trails are clearly numbered. A few murders here and there will cause everyone to rethink what trails are for and who they are for. So what happened about your definition of Freedom Ed ? You hypocrite. You want your freedoms to trump everyone elses. Bikers have no right to be on hiking trails - period! They are transgressors and usurpers. If the god damn ****ing land and park managers weren't such idiots, they would KNOW that! I have EXACTLY THE SAME right as you to a public resource Ed. It's my land just as much as it's yours. And, to that end, the Park Managers do know ... that it's public land and that the public has a right to enjoy it responsibly. Trails must be managed for best use, not most use. Elementary my dear Watson! Ed, you CAN hike a trail with bikers there just as you CAN sit in a crowded restaurant. I don't care about your purpose or means. To make the point, redefine your purpose and means for the restaurant .... purpose - enjoying a quiet meal, means - table in a quiet restaurant. You've just created the same, spurious, rationale as you do for the trails. The above example is not an irreconcilable conflict whereas trail use is. I cannot hike a trail if it is being overrun with bikers. Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about. Ed, unless someone has removed your legs or is physically preventing you from doing so you CAN hike a trail whether bikers are there or not. “Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about.” – Ed Dolan Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Actually there is a universal truth stated in my above
paragraph. How indeed do you decide what is superior to what is inferior? Appeal to science and some miscellaneous facts? Don't make me laugh! Your preferred method, rather than facts and science, is your judgement ??? Now I'm laughing. I wouldn't trust you to judge a pie eating contest. I am appealing to what superior persons (as a class) in general think about phenomena. That is always how you decide what is superior to what is inferior. Well, I am trying to tell you what superior persons do think but you, erroneously believing yourself to belong to that class, aren't listening. You aren't great, you aren't particularly smart and you exhibit mildly sociopathic qualities. Your presence on trails on a bike will shortly be your major problem when hikers decide to take you on face to face. It will become a question of how much unpleasantness do you want to put up with. Since bikers are such thugs, I recommend that hikers go armed with a concealed firearm on their person just in case the thugery comes to the fore. The thug is the one wishing to initiate violence .. in this case ... YOU. I think we're seeing your true colours now. You can't win your argument since it's so incoherent and now, having lost the debate, you want to resort to violence to achieve your ends by other means. Violence must be met with violence, at least in the moment, since there are unlikely to be any cops on the trails policing things. Your days of doing what you want with your bike on trails are clearly numbered. A few murders here and there will cause everyone to rethink what trails are for and who they are for. There is no violence Ed ... other than what you're proposing. You are promoting violence because you don't like someone else doing something ... not because they are threatening you. As such, your position is now entirely clear; you're the thug. I have EXACTLY THE SAME right as you to a public resource Ed. It's my land just as much as it's yours. And, to that end, the Park Managers do know ... that it's public land and that the public has a right to enjoy it responsibly. Trails must be managed for best use, not most use. Elementary my dear Watson! Indeed, it is. And best use is as per the Parks and Recreation objectives .... which happens to include promoting widespread use of the resources. Your personal view of what is best is entirely immaterial and, given your extremism, I have long given up pandering to it. Ed, you CAN hike a trail with bikers there just as you CAN sit in a crowded restaurant. I don't care about your purpose or means. To make the point, redefine your purpose and means for the restaurant ... purpose - enjoying a quiet meal, means - table in a quiet restaurant. You've just created the same, spurious, rationale as you do for the trails. The above example is not an irreconcilable conflict whereas trail use is. I cannot hike a trail if it is being overrun with bikers. Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about. Ed, unless someone has removed your legs or is physically preventing you from doing so you CAN hike a trail whether bikers are there or not. "Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about." - Ed Dolan Guess what Ed, a flawed aphorism from you is not a clinching argument. Your means and purpose are immaterial ... they're not mine. You are physically capable of using the trail, what goes on in your febrile mind is none of my concern. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: I am appealing to what superior persons (as a class) in general think about phenomena. That is always how you decide what is superior to what is inferior. Well, I am trying to tell you what superior persons do think but you, erroneously believing yourself to belong to that class, aren't listening. It is immaterial whether or not I am a superior person. The point is that I know a superior class of people when I see it – and you don’t. All you know is what the masses want (democratic rubbish), but the masses are never superior to anything except in their sheer numbers. They are easily the lowest common denominator qualitatively and are never to be catered to. Elementary my dear Watson! You aren't great, you aren't particularly smart and you exhibit mildly sociopathic qualities. I am Great ...and I am Smart ... and I am severely sociopathic when it comes to scoundrels like you! Unlike the honorable and civilized Mr. Vandeman, I am an expert at ad hominem attacks. You have now entered MY territory! Mountain bikers as a class of people are the scum of the earth, and that is what you are too. You encourage biking on trails designed and meant for hikers, thereby causing many injuries and deaths. You are so far beneath contempt that it is infra dignitatem for me to even be acknowledging a scoundrel like you., I regard you as little better than a criminal. As for knowing anything about what is superior, surely you jest! Anyone who rides his bike on hiking trails is inferior sui generis. You are indeed fortunate to have someone here like me who knows how to kick your dumb ass! [...] Violence must be met with violence, at least in the moment, since there are unlikely to be any cops on the trails policing things. Your days of doing what you want with your bike on trails are clearly numbered. A few murders here and there will cause everyone to rethink what trails are for and who they are for. There is no violence Ed ... other than what you're proposing. You are promoting violence because you don't like someone else doing something ... not because they are threatening you. As such, your position is now entirely clear; you're the thug. There is violence whenever a biker is seen or heard on a trail. It is mainly just mental for now, but it is going to turn physical sooner or later. You obviously do not know much about the nature of conflict. Read your own mountain biker propaganda to know what your ilk are like and what they think. Nothing they like to do better than build illegal trails. Thugs are what thugs do. [...] "Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about." - Ed Dolan Guess what Ed, a flawed aphorism from you is not a clinching argument. Your means and purpose are immaterial ... they're not mine. You are physically capable of using the trail, what goes on in your febrile mind is none of my concern. “You obviously do not know much about the nature of conflict.” – Ed Dolan Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Well, I am trying to tell you what superior persons do think but
you, erroneously believing yourself to belong to that class, aren't listening. It is immaterial whether or not I am a superior person. The point is that I know a superior class of people when I see it - and you don't. All you know is what the masses want (democratic rubbish), but the masses are never superior to anything except in their sheer numbers. They are easily the lowest common denominator qualitatively and are never to be catered to. Elementary my dear Watson! What an unpleasant person you're showing yourself to be Ed. Is that really your aim. So, now, what you're saying is because you regard yourself as above everyone else you should get what you want at everyone else's expense. Superior people, whilst they may not be of the people, are definitely for the good of the people. You're aligning yourself with tyrants and dictators who care nothing for others ... or, to put it another way, you're not even of the common herd as you so perjoratively put it, you're an inferior; morally and intellectually. You aren't great, you aren't particularly smart and you exhibit mildly sociopathic qualities. I am Great ...and I am Smart ... and I am severely sociopathic when it comes to scoundrels like you! You sound like a small child having a tantrum. You're neither great nor smart and you prove it with pretty much every post. Unlike the honorable and civilized Mr. Vandeman, I am an expert at ad hominem attacks. You have now entered MY territory! A perfect example of your inferiority ... superior people don't need profanity and ad hominem to win arguments. Perhaps that's why you keep losing .... you simply don't have the right skills. Mountain bikers as a class of people are the scum of the earth, and that is what you are too. There is no class of mountain bikers ... mountain bikers come from all walks and classes ... it's a wonderfully egalitarian activity. You encourage biking on trails designed and meant for hikers, thereby causing many injuries and deaths. Deaths from inactivity far outweigh the tiny numbers suffering death from mountainbiking accicents. 0.00123 per million miles travelled. If everyone rode a mountainbike then, yes, more would die from it but there would be a massively greater number who would not die prematurely from coronary diseases. You are so far beneath contempt that it is infra dignitatem for me to even be acknowledging a scoundrel like you., I regard you as little better than a criminal. So, we're equal. I feel exactly the same way about you ... I just don't usually bother to mention it because I prefer to point out the massive flaws in your arguments rather than resort to ad hominem. As for knowing anything about what is superior, surely you jest! Anyone who rides his bike on hiking trails is inferior sui generis. You are indeed fortunate to have someone here like me who knows how to kick your dumb ass! So, you consider yourself superior to an ex US President ? As for kicking ass, all you're doing is writing rubbish ... and the world rolls along ignoring you. Violence must be met with violence, at least in the moment, since there are unlikely to be any cops on the trails policing things. Your days of doing what you want with your bike on trails are clearly numbered. A few murders here and there will cause everyone to rethink what trails are for and who they are for. There is no violence Ed ... other than what you're proposing. You are promoting violence because you don't like someone else doing something ... not because they are threatening you. As such, your position is now entirely clear; you're the thug. There is violence whenever a biker is seen or heard on a trail. It is mainly just mental for now Ah, good, so you finally admit that it is only in your fevered mind. , but it is going to turn physical sooner or later. Only if there are a bunch of sociopaths like you around ... which is unlikely. "Means and purpose determine everything. It is what trails are all about." - Ed Dolan Guess what Ed, a flawed aphorism from you is not a clinching argument. Your means and purpose are immaterial ... they're not mine. You are physically capable of using the trail, what goes on in your febrile mind is none of my concern. "You obviously do not know much about the nature of conflict." - Ed Dolan You might be surprised ... |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Well, I am trying to tell you what superior persons do think but you, erroneously believing yourself to belong to that class, aren't listening. It is immaterial whether or not I am a superior person. The point is that I know a superior class of people when I see it - and you don't. All you know is what the masses want (democratic rubbish), but the masses are never superior to anything except in their sheer numbers. They are easily the lowest common denominator qualitatively and are never to be catered to. Elementary my dear Watson! What an unpleasant person you're showing yourself to be Ed. Is that really your aim. So, now, what you're saying is because you regard yourself as above everyone else you should get what you want at everyone else's expense. I have already told you twice now that I know a superior class of people when I see it. You don’t. That is why you can associate yourself with thuggish mountain bikers. Superior people, whilst they may not be of the people, are definitely for the good of the people. You're aligning yourself with tyrants and dictators who care nothing for others ... or, to put it another way, you're not even of the common herd as you so perjoratively put it, you're an inferior; morally and intellectually. Superior types, like Mr. Vandeman and Myself, know what trails are good for – and you don’t. You are indeed of the masses – inferior, immoral and stupid. You aren't great, you aren't particularly smart and you exhibit mildly sociopathic qualities. I am Great ...and I am Smart ... and I am severely sociopathic when it comes to scoundrels like you! You sound like a small child having a tantrum. You're neither great nor smart and you prove it with pretty much every post. You prove with your every post that you are unable to carry the conversation forward. All you do is cover old ground. That is because you are stuck in your ways and unable to appreciate an opposite point of view. Unlike the honorable and civilized Mr. Vandeman, I am an expert at ad hominem attacks. You have now entered MY territory! A perfect example of your inferiority ... superior people don't need profanity and ad hominem to win arguments. Perhaps that's why you keep losing ... you simply don't have the right skills. You can call names and I will figure out how to call even better (worse) names. You can’t win because I have decades of bile stored up to use on the likes of you. Mountain bikers as a class of people are the scum of the earth, and that is what you are too. There is no class of mountain bikers ... mountain bikers come from all walks and classes ... it's a wonderfully egalitarian activity. It is a sporting life style that they all have in common. None of them have a clue what trails are for. As a class, they are all woefully ignorant, risk takers, and dumb jackasses - just like you. You encourage biking on trails designed and meant for hikers, thereby causing many injuries and deaths. Deaths from inactivity far outweigh the tiny numbers suffering death from mountainbiking accicents. 0.00123 per million miles travelled. If everyone rode a mountainbike then, yes, more would die from it but there would be a massively greater number who would not die prematurely from coronary diseases. Reports from the field in the media say otherwise. Biking on trails is dangerous. You are so far beneath contempt that it is infra dignitatem for me to even be acknowledging a scoundrel like you., I regard you as little better than a criminal. So, we're equal. I feel exactly the same way about you ... I just don't usually bother to mention it because I prefer to point out the massive flaws in your arguments rather than resort to ad hominem. A hiker is so far superior to a biker doing trails that there is nothing to discuss – except the wisdom of the one and the idiocy of the other. As for knowing anything about what is superior, surely you jest! Anyone who rides his bike on hiking trails is inferior sui generis. You are indeed fortunate to have someone here like me who knows how to kick your dumb ass! So, you consider yourself superior to an ex US President ? As for kicking ass, all you're doing is writing rubbish ... and the world rolls along ignoring you. Without getting into politics, I think Bush II just did his biking on scrubby desert trails, the kind that nobody ever walks. Even so, it sets a bad example. Bush I is dumb enough to want to jump out of airplanes (skydive). It must run in the family. [...] Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
What an unpleasant person you're showing yourself to be Ed.
Is that really your aim. So, now, what you're saying is because you regard yourself as above everyone else you should get what you want at everyone else's expense. I have already told you twice now that I know a superior class of people when I see it. You don't. That is why you can associate yourself with thuggish mountain bikers. Ah, ducking the key point again I see. You DO think that your wishes trump those of others as you are 'superior'. I certainly know to whom I would ascribe the moniker 'superior' and it assuredly wouldn't be you who, despite your poor understanding of physics, statistics and logic, consider yourself a cut above others. Superior people, whilst they may not be of the people, are definitely for the good of the people. You're aligning yourself with tyrants and dictators who care nothing for others ... or, to put it another way, you're not even of the common herd as you so perjoratively put it, you're an inferior; morally and intellectually. Superior types, like Mr. Vandeman and Myself, know what trails are good for - and you don't. You are indeed of the masses - inferior, immoral and stupid. No, Ed, you know very little because you are completely closed to any external input, erroneously believing that what you think is somehow, axiomatically, true. Vandeman is quite simply scum; a convicted criminal and sociopath who should have been locked up for longer. You aren't great, you aren't particularly smart and you exhibit mildly sociopathic qualities. I am Great ...and I am Smart ... and I am severely sociopathic when it comes to scoundrels like you! You sound like a small child having a tantrum. You're neither great nor smart and you prove it with pretty much every post. You prove with your every post that you are unable to carry the conversation forward. All you do is cover old ground. That is because you are stuck in your ways and unable to appreciate an opposite point of view. Ed, I understand your position but, since you cannot, despite multiple requests to do so, back it up objectively or logically it's hard to make progress and I am reduced to simply pointing out the flaws in your logic or data. We might move forward if we could agree that 0.00123 fatalities per million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures make mountainbiking, when compared with other activities, relatively safe. But, since you don't want to rely on facts and instead prefer anecdote and prejudice I am just going to keep metaphorically kicking you into touch. Unlike the honorable and civilized Mr. Vandeman, I am an expert at ad hominem attacks. You have now entered MY territory! A perfect example of your inferiority ... superior people don't need profanity and ad hominem to win arguments. Perhaps that's why you keep losing ... you simply don't have the right skills. You can call names and I will figure out how to call even better (worse) names. You can't win because I have decades of bile stored up to use on the likes of you. No, Ed, you can't win because your facts and logic are incorrect. You can call me what you like, water off a duck's back, but it won't change that so you will still lose. Mountain bikers as a class of people are the scum of the earth, and that is what you are too. There is no class of mountain bikers ... mountain bikers come from all walks and classes ... it's a wonderfully egalitarian activity. It is a sporting life style that they all have in common. None of them have a clue what trails are for. As a class, they are all woefully ignorant, risk takers, and dumb jackasses - just like you. They may, indeed, have a predisposition towards a sporting lifestyle .. which most would say is a very good thing indeed in this age of sedentary lifestyles resulting in premature death. However, to try and characterise 50 million people as all being alike is clear and obvious prejudice and stupidity. You encourage biking on trails designed and meant for hikers, thereby causing many injuries and deaths. Deaths from inactivity far outweigh the tiny numbers suffering death from mountainbiking accicents. 0.00123 per million miles travelled. If everyone rode a mountainbike then, yes, more would die from it but there would be a massively greater number who would not die prematurely from coronary diseases. Reports from the field in the media say otherwise. Biking on trails is dangerous. No, Ed, they don't. If you don't believe my figures then come up with data and logic to produce your own figure and we can discuss it. Simply reposting media reports of occasional incidents proves absolutely nothing. In fact, the paucity of the reports actually suggests that mountainbiking is quite safe. It's certainly safer than road cycling ... an activity in which you participate. So, who's the risk taker now ? You are so far beneath contempt that it is infra dignitatem for me to even be acknowledging a scoundrel like you., I regard you as little better than a criminal. So, we're equal. I feel exactly the same way about you ... I just don't usually bother to mention it because I prefer to point out the massive flaws in your arguments rather than resort to ad hominem. A hiker is so far superior to a biker doing trails that there is nothing to discuss - except the wisdom of the one and the idiocy of the other. Your prejudice, illogicality and hubris are such that I think you've shown who are the superior people around this newsgroup and who the barbarians. As for knowing anything about what is superior, surely you jest! Anyone who rides his bike on hiking trails is inferior sui generis. You are indeed fortunate to have someone here like me who knows how to kick your dumb ass! So, you consider yourself superior to an ex US President ? As for kicking ass, all you're doing is writing rubbish ... and the world rolls along ignoring you. Without getting into politics, I think Bush II just did his biking on scrubby desert trails, the kind that nobody ever walks. Even so, it sets a bad example. Bush I is dumb enough to want to jump out of airplanes (skydive). It must run in the family. Ah, avoiding the point again. Bush rides a mountainbike ... so you consider yourself superior to him. I suspect that most would not ... what have you done Ed to suggest that your opinions are worth more than others ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
What an unpleasant person you're showing yourself to be Ed. Is that really your aim. So, now, what you're saying is because you regard yourself as above everyone else you should get what you want at everyone else's expense. I have already told you twice now that I know a superior class of people when I see it. You don't. That is why you can associate yourself with thuggish mountain bikers. Ah, ducking the key point again I see. You DO think that your wishes trump those of others as you are 'superior'. I certainly know to whom I would ascribe the moniker 'superior' and it assuredly wouldn't be you who, despite your poor understanding of physics, statistics and logic, consider yourself a cut above others. The English know all about superior classes and inferior classes. Hell Bells, they even speak different languages. See “My Fair Lady”. You don’t have to know any physics, statistics or logic to know what is what. You are the proof of that! Superior people, whilst they may not be of the people, are definitely for the good of the people. You're aligning yourself with tyrants and dictators who care nothing for others ... or, to put it another way, you're not even of the common herd as you so perjoratively put it, you're an inferior; morally and intellectually. Superior types, like Mr. Vandeman and Myself, know what trails are good for - and you don't. You are indeed of the masses - inferior, immoral and stupid. No, Ed, you know very little because you are completely closed to any external input, erroneously believing that what you think is somehow, axiomatically, true. Nope, I once thought biking on trails was a good idea – until I learned otherwise. [...] You prove with your every post that you are unable to carry the conversation forward. All you do is cover old ground. That is because you are stuck in your ways and unable to appreciate an opposite point of view. Ed, I understand your position but, since you cannot, despite multiple requests to do so, back it up objectively or logically it's hard to make progress and I am reduced to simply pointing out the flaws in your logic or data. We might move forward if we could agree that 0.00123 fatalities per million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures make mountainbiking, when compared with other activities, relatively safe. But, since you don't want to rely on facts and instead prefer anecdote and prejudice I am just going to keep metaphorically kicking you into touch. Your statistic has nothing to do with the dangers of biking on alpine trails in the US. But even if it did, I would be against mountain biking for multiple other reasons - mainly those having to do with the irreconcilable conflicts of means and purpose. Mr. Vandeman is opposed to biking on trails for his own very excellent reasons. There is nothing to be said for what you advocate since the world is full of zillions of miles of roads of all descriptions which are ideal for cycling. Unlike the honorable and civilized Mr. Vandeman, I am an expert at ad hominem attacks. You have now entered MY territory! A perfect example of your inferiority ... superior people don't need profanity and ad hominem to win arguments. Perhaps that's why you keep losing ... you simply don't have the right skills. You can call names and I will figure out how to call even better (worse) names. You can't win because I have decades of bile stored up to use on the likes of you. No, Ed, you can't win because your facts and logic are incorrect. You can call me what you like, water off a duck's back, but it won't change that so you will still lose. Your facts and logic are easily disposed of. But bile goes on forever. I will make sure I win any name calling contest. Mountain bikers as a class of people are the scum of the earth, and that is what you are too. There is no class of mountain bikers ... mountain bikers come from all walks and classes ... it's a wonderfully egalitarian activity. It is a sporting life style that they all have in common. None of them have a clue what trails are for. As a class, they are all woefully ignorant, risk takers, and dumb jackasses - just like you. They may, indeed, have a predisposition towards a sporting lifestyle ... which most would say is a very good thing indeed in this age of sedentary lifestyles resulting in premature death. However, to try and characterise 50 million people as all being alike is clear and obvious prejudice and stupidity. A sporting life style is not for the trails. Find some kind of arena for that! You encourage biking on trails designed and meant for hikers, thereby causing many injuries and deaths. Deaths from inactivity far outweigh the tiny numbers suffering death from mountainbiking accicents. 0.00123 per million miles travelled. If everyone rode a mountainbike then, yes, more would die from it but there would be a massively greater number who would not die prematurely from coronary diseases. Reports from the field in the media say otherwise. Biking on trails is dangerous. No, Ed, they don't. If you don't believe my figures then come up with data and logic to produce your own figure and we can discuss it. Simply reposting media reports of occasional incidents proves absolutely nothing. In fact, the paucity of the reports actually suggests that mountainbiking is quite safe. What paucity is that? It is your figures that prove absolutely nothing. It's certainly safer than road cycling ... an activity in which you participate. So, who's the risk taker now ? Road cycling is indeed not entirely safe due to motorists. It is why I never like to see kids riding their bikes on highways. But at least road cycling is not interfering with what anyone else is doing, except maybe motorists – but who gives a damn about them! In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails. [...] Without getting into politics, I think Bush II just did his biking on scrubby desert trails, the kind that nobody ever walks. Even so, it sets a bad example. Bush I is dumb enough to want to jump out of airplanes (skydive). It must run in the family. Ah, avoiding the point again. Bush rides a mountainbike ... so you consider yourself superior to him. I suspect that most would not ... what have you done Ed to suggest that your opinions are worth more than others ? When it comes to a recreation, I am indeed superior to him just as I am superior to you and to all mountain bikers. Very odd that you unable to follow my simplest thought without me having to spell it out for you. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
What an unpleasant person you're showing yourself to be
Ed. Is that really your aim. So, now, what you're saying is because you regard yourself as above everyone else you should get what you want at everyone else's expense. I have already told you twice now that I know a superior class of people when I see it. You don't. That is why you can associate yourself with thuggish mountain bikers. Ah, ducking the key point again I see. You DO think that your wishes trump those of others as you are 'superior'. I certainly know to whom I would ascribe the moniker 'superior' and it assuredly wouldn't be you who, despite your poor understanding of physics, statistics and logic, consider yourself a cut above others. The English know all about superior classes and inferior classes. Hell Bells, they even speak different languages. See "My Fair Lady". We do ... and, trust me, you would not be classified as superior. You don't have to know any physics, statistics or logic to know what is what. You are the proof of that! Actually, yes, you do ... or you just make yourself look foolish if you then try and argue with someone who does. Superior people, whilst they may not be of the people, are definitely for the good of the people. You're aligning yourself with tyrants and dictators who care nothing for others ... or, to put it another way, you're not even of the common herd as you so perjoratively put it, you're an inferior; morally and intellectually. Superior types, like Mr. Vandeman and Myself, know what trails are good for - and you don't. You are indeed of the masses - inferior, immoral and stupid. No, Ed, you know very little because you are completely closed to any external input, erroneously believing that what you think is somehow, axiomatically, true. Nope, I once thought biking on trails was a good idea - until I learned otherwise. You didn't learn anything Ed, you just decided you didn't like it. That's a completely different matter. You prove with your every post that you are unable to carry the conversation forward. All you do is cover old ground. That is because you are stuck in your ways and unable to appreciate an opposite point of view. Ed, I understand your position but, since you cannot, despite multiple requests to do so, back it up objectively or logically it's hard to make progress and I am reduced to simply pointing out the flaws in your logic or data. We might move forward if we could agree that 0.00123 fatalities per million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures make mountainbiking, when compared with other activities, relatively safe. But, since you don't want to rely on facts and instead prefer anecdote and prejudice I am just going to keep metaphorically kicking you into touch. Your statistic has nothing to do with the dangers of biking on alpine trails in the US. But even if it did, I would be against mountain biking for multiple other reasons - mainly those having to do with the irreconcilable conflicts of means and purpose. Yes, Ed, it does since it includes ALL fatalities globally that your pal vandeman could come up with ... set against all the rides. And, again, you demonstrate your intractability .. even if I'm proven correct on the numbers you're just going to go somewhere else. You are completely closed to any other point of view and will keep metaphorically flailing around forever. Mr. Vandeman is opposed to biking on trails for his own very excellent reasons. And I should care about this ? Why ? Vandeman is a criminal and sociopath ... his reasons and opinion matter now one whit to me. There is nothing to be said for what you advocate since the world is full of zillions of miles of roads of all descriptions which are ideal for cycling. There is plenty to be said for allowing people to choose ... I would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature. Unlike the honorable and civilized Mr. Vandeman, I am an expert at ad hominem attacks. You have now entered MY territory! A perfect example of your inferiority ... superior people don't need profanity and ad hominem to win arguments. Perhaps that's why you keep losing ... you simply don't have the right skills. You can call names and I will figure out how to call even better (worse) names. You can't win because I have decades of bile stored up to use on the likes of you. No, Ed, you can't win because your facts and logic are incorrect. You can call me what you like, water off a duck's back, but it won't change that so you will still lose. Your facts and logic are easily disposed of. But bile goes on forever. I will make sure I win any name calling contest. If they're so easily disposed of then do so. You've never refuted 0.00123 fatalities per million miles travelled nor 1.54 injuries per exposure. Go on ... don't just talk about refuting things ... do it ! As to your childish name calling, no, I'm not entering any such stupid contest. I just ignore your profanity as the railing of a frustrated intellectual infant. Mountain bikers as a class of people are the scum of the earth, and that is what you are too. There is no class of mountain bikers ... mountain bikers come from all walks and classes ... it's a wonderfully egalitarian activity. It is a sporting life style that they all have in common. None of them have a clue what trails are for. As a class, they are all woefully ignorant, risk takers, and dumb jackasses - just like you. They may, indeed, have a predisposition towards a sporting lifestyle .. which most would say is a very good thing indeed in this age of sedentary lifestyles resulting in premature death. However, to try and characterise 50 million people as all being alike is clear and obvious prejudice and stupidity. A sporting life style is not for the trails. Find some kind of arena for that! Of course a sporting, healthy lifestyle is for the outdoors and the trails. You want to build arenas all over the natural world so you can then go for a run ???? You encourage biking on trails designed and meant for hikers, thereby causing many injuries and deaths. Deaths from inactivity far outweigh the tiny numbers suffering death from mountainbiking accicents. 0.00123 per million miles travelled. If everyone rode a mountainbike then, yes, more would die from it but there would be a massively greater number who would not die prematurely from coronary diseases. Reports from the field in the media say otherwise. Biking on trails is dangerous. No, Ed, they don't. If you don't believe my figures then come up with data and logic to produce your own figure and we can discuss it. Simply reposting media reports of occasional incidents proves absolutely nothing. In fact, the paucity of the reports actually suggests that mountainbiking is quite safe. What paucity is that? It is your figures that prove absolutely nothing. Then why can't you refute them ? It's certainly safer than road cycling ... an activity in which you participate. So, who's the risk taker now ? Road cycling is indeed not entirely safe due to motorists. It is why I never like to see kids riding their bikes on highways. But at least road cycling is not interfering with what anyone else is doing, except maybe motorists - but who gives a damn about them! In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails. Ah, so now I can relax ... I might get hit by a car ... but at least I won't hit a hazard in the roadway ! Overall, of course, I'm far more likely to get injured or killed but at least not from hitting a hazard in the roadway. That comment really reached an apogee of inanity. Do you actually bother to read what you write before you post it ?? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: You don't have to know any physics, statistics or logic to know what is what. You are the proof of that! Actually, yes, you do ... or you just make yourself look foolish if you then try and argue with someone who does. What you think you know argues strongly for it being a waste of time since you are unable to think clearly about the simplest things. [...] No, Ed, you know very little because you are completely closed to any external input, erroneously believing that what you think is somehow, axiomatically, true. Nope, I once thought biking on trails was a good idea - until I learned otherwise. You didn't learn anything Ed, you just decided you didn't like it. That's a completely different matter. Nope, I tried it once, didn’t like it and decided it was stupid. I then stumbled upon Mr. Vandeman’s posts on Usenet many decades later and was confirmed in my thinking. You on the other hand have a stupidity that is unconquerable. [...] There is nothing to be said for what you advocate since the world is full of zillions of miles of roads of all descriptions which are ideal for cycling. There is plenty to be said for allowing people to choose ... I would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature. The above statement is proof positive that you are steeped in idiocy. It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain biking. [...] Christ! When are you going to learn how to edit a post? Road cycling is indeed not entirely safe due to motorists. It is why I never like to see kids riding their bikes on highways. But at least road cycling is not interfering with what anyone else is doing, except maybe motorists - but who gives a damn about them! In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails. Ah, so now I can relax ... I might get hit by a car ... but at least I won't hit a hazard in the roadway ! Overall, of course, I'm far more likely to get injured or killed but at least not from hitting a hazard in the roadway. That comment really reached an apogee of inanity. Do you actually bother to read what you write before you post it ?? You are absolutely the greatest idiot it has ever been my displeasure to encounter on Usenet. Here it is again, you dumb jackass: “In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails.” - Ed Dolan Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
You don't have to know any physics, statistics or logic to
know what is what. You are the proof of that! Actually, yes, you do ... or you just make yourself look foolish if you then try and argue with someone who does. What you think you know argues strongly for it being a waste of time since you are unable to think clearly about the simplest things. I don't make any great claims to erudition ... but I do know the basics whereas you clearly don't. No one with an ounce of statistical knowledge would ever try citing instances of a particular outcome without reference to the frequency in the population. No, Ed, you know very little because you are completely closed to any external input, erroneously believing that what you think is somehow, axiomatically, true. Nope, I once thought biking on trails was a good idea - until I learned otherwise. You didn't learn anything Ed, you just decided you didn't like it. That's a completely different matter. Nope, I tried it once, didn't like it and decided it was stupid. I then stumbled upon Mr. Vandeman's posts on Usenet many decades later and was confirmed in my thinking. You on the other hand have a stupidity that is unconquerable. I rest my case. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's stupid, just that you don't like it. There is nothing to be said for what you advocate since the world is full of zillions of miles of roads of all descriptions which are ideal for cycling. There is plenty to be said for allowing people to choose ... I would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature. The above statement is proof positive that you are steeped in idiocy. It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain biking. No, Ed, you're the one showing idiocy here. The statistics for cyclist deaths on the road are orders of magnitude greater than for mountainbiking. You are advocating a much more dangerous activity simply because you don't want people to mountainbike. At the same time, you pretend that you're concerned about injuries and deaths to mountainbikers ... what hypocrisy. Road cycling is indeed not entirely safe due to motorists. It is why I never like to see kids riding their bikes on highways. But at least road cycling is not interfering with what anyone else is doing, except maybe motorists - but who gives a damn about them! In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails. Ah, so now I can relax ... I might get hit by a car ... but at least I won't hit a hazard in the roadway ! Overall, of course, I'm far more likely to get injured or killed but at least not from hitting a hazard in the roadway. That comment really reached an apogee of inanity. Do you actually bother to read what you write before you post it ?? You are absolutely the greatest idiot it has ever been my displeasure to encounter on Usenet. Here it is again, you dumb jackass: "In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails." - Ed Dolan You aren't showing a lot of greatness, or even comprehension Ed. Do you really not understand that the precise mechanism for injury or death is completely irrelevant ? Road cyclists are, mostly, getting killed or injured by being hit by other traffic, rather than hitting obstacles. However, they are being killed and injured at a massively higher rate than mountainbikers.. Do I have to spell everything out for you in words of one syllable ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: What you think you know argues strongly for it being a waste of time since you are unable to think clearly about the simplest things. I don't make any great claims to erudition ... but I do know the basics whereas you clearly don't. No one with an ounce of statistical knowledge would ever try citing instances of a particular outcome without reference to the frequency in the population. I only do that sort of thing if I take a number seriously, which I have never been able to do with any of your numbers. Common sense reigns supreme with me ... and your statistics be damned! [...] Nope, I tried it once, didn't like it and decided it was stupid. I then stumbled upon Mr. Vandeman's posts on Usenet many decades later and was confirmed in my thinking. You on the other hand have a stupidity that is unconquerable. I rest my case. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's stupid, just that you don't like it. It means I am capable of changing my mind based on personal experience and the judgment of my betters. Too bad no one could ever say the same about you! There is nothing to be said for what you advocate since the world is full of zillions of miles of roads of all descriptions which are ideal for cycling. There is plenty to be said for allowing people to choose ... I would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature. The above statement is proof positive that you are steeped in idiocy. It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain biking. No, Ed, you're the one showing idiocy here. The statistics for cyclist deaths on the road are orders of magnitude greater than for mountainbiking. You are advocating a much more dangerous activity simply because you don't want people to mountainbike. At the same time, you pretend that you're concerned about injuries and deaths to mountainbikers ... what hypocrisy. Road cycling is indeed dangerous which is why I am a great advocate of bicycle paths. The only mountain bikers I am concerned about are the innocent lambs who do it thinking it is safe. They think it is safe because of scoundrels like you who advocate for it. [...] You are absolutely the greatest idiot it has ever been my displeasure to encounter on Usenet. Here it is again, you dumb jackass: "In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails." - Ed Dolan You aren't showing a lot of greatness, or even comprehension Ed. Do you really not understand that the precise mechanism for injury or death is completely irrelevant ? Road cyclists are, mostly, getting killed or injured by being hit by other traffic, rather than hitting obstacles. However, they are being killed and injured at a massively higher rate than mountainbikers. Road cycling has been around from the beginning. It is not something anyone can do much about. The solution is to separate cyclists from motorists. Bike paths are the answer, although they can sometimes create other kinds of difficulties. My argument is all about the precise mechanism of injury and death. I am not arguing that road cycling is safer than mountain biking. Nice try though! However, I am arguing that hiking is about a thousand times safer than mountain biking. Do I have to spell everything out for you in words of one syllable ? When I have to look up a word like “otiose” in the dictionary, I know I am dealing with a jerk. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
What you think you know argues strongly for it being a waste
of time since you are unable to think clearly about the simplest things. I don't make any great claims to erudition ... but I do know the basics whereas you clearly don't.* No one with an ounce of statistical knowledge would ever try citing instances of a particular outcome without reference to the frequency in the population. I only do that sort of thing if I take a number seriously, which I have never been able to do with any of your numbers. Common sense reigns supreme with me ... and your statistics be damned! I didn't ask you to take my numbers ... I asked YOU to provide some in order to justify your position. You appear to be unable to do so. I reiterate my key point; bereft a reference to the number of exposures to a given activity simply providing cases of untoward occurrences tell you nothing about the risk level. Nope, I tried it once, didn't like it and decided it was stupid.* I then stumbled upon Mr. Vandeman's posts on Usenet many decades later and was confirmed in my thinking. You on the other hand have a stupidity that is unconquerable. I rest my case.* Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's stupid, just that you don't like it. It means I am capable of changing my mind based on personal experience and the judgment of my betters. Too bad no one could ever say the same about you! Well, I've bettered you logically on all your major points but I don't see you changing your mind ... so clearly you are rather more intransigent than you opine. There is plenty to be said for allowing people to choose ... I would far rather ride a trail than a road.* It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature. The above statement is proof positive that you are steeped in idiocy. It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain biking. * No, Ed, you're the one showing idiocy here.* The statistics for cyclist deaths on the road are orders of magnitude greater than for mountainbiking.* You are advocating a much more dangerous activity simply because you don't want people to mountainbike.* At the same time, you pretend that you're concerned about injuries and deaths to mountainbikers ... what hypocrisy. Road cycling is indeed dangerous which is why I am a great advocate of bicycle paths. The only mountain bikers I am concerned about are the innocent lambs who do it thinking it is safe. They think it is safe because of scoundrels like you who advocate for it. [...] * You are absolutely the greatest idiot it has ever been my displeasure to encounter on Usenet. Here it is again, you dumb jackass: "In any event, road cyclists are not being seriously injured and dying from hitting hazards in the roadway, unlike cyclists who ride trails." -* Ed Dolan * You aren't showing a lot of greatness, or even comprehension Ed.* Do you really not understand that the precise mechanism for injury or death is completely irrelevant ?* Road cyclists are, mostly, getting killed or injured by being hit by other traffic, rather than hitting obstacles.* However, they are being killed and injured at a massively higher rate than mountainbikers. Road cycling has been around from the beginning. It is not something anyone can do much about. The solution is to separate cyclists from motorists. Bike paths are the answer, although they can sometimes create other kinds of difficulties. My argument is all about the precise mechanism of injury and death.* I am not arguing that road cycling is safer than mountain biking. Nice try though! However, I am arguing that hiking is about a thousand times safer than mountain biking. Ed, you seem incapable of following a coherent train of thought. In response to my statement ... "I would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature." you wrote "It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain biking." So, yes, you most certainly DID try and claim that road cycling was safer than mountainbiking a trail. Which, as you well know, is NOT the case. Do you want to just debate yourself with your various contrary positions ? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com