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 ??