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.