CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   Social Issues (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=243190)

EdwardDolan June 21st 14 07:26 AM

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



Blackblade[_2_] June 23rd 14 03:49 PM

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.


EdwardDolan June 25th 14 06:25 AM

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



Blackblade[_2_] June 25th 14 05:53 PM

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.

EdwardDolan June 26th 14 07:17 AM

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



Blackblade[_2_] June 26th 14 04:04 PM

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.


EdwardDolan July 11th 14 12:21 AM

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



Blackblade[_2_] July 14th 14 01:59 PM

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.


EdwardDolan July 16th 14 05:18 PM

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


Blackblade[_2_] July 21st 14 11:45 AM

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.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com