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.