View Single Post
  #20  
Old August 8th 13, 09:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

You've gone from stating that there are incidents every day at a
specific location then, when called to provide facts to back that assertion, you
have reverted to generalities.* You will forgive me if I therefore consider
your assertion, at least for the moment, disproved (or unproven).

Glean you own reports. They are there for the gleaning. I
NEVER do anyone else’s work for them!


It's YOUR work Ed ... you're making the assertion, you back it up. Looks to me like you can't so now we get bluster.

I am calling you a moral bankrupt for what you do to trails
with your bike.


Now I'm really laughing. Riding a bicycle is a sign of moral bankruptcy ?

I don't do any more to trails on my bike than you do on your feet.

You are the transgressor. The only force I am advocating is
authorized force. However, hikers would be well advised to enter wilderness
areas with a concealed weapon on their person since so many bikers are
thugs.


What am I transgressing Ed ? I'm doing something you don't like. So what ? You don't, fortunately, get to make the law.

There are loads of hiker/biker accidents so it's too dangerous :

REFUTED
It's more environmentally damaging than hiking : REFUTED
It's aesthetically unappealing to you : INVALID REASONS TO ALLOCATE PUBLIC
RESOURCE
It's an 'incorrect' use of a public resource : NO FACTS TO BACKUP
ASSERTION

Nothing has been refuted. Whoever heard of anyone who takes
the “refutations” of mountain bikers seriously. You are nothing but a hot air
windbag who wouldn’t know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on your ass. And
your logic is as screwy as your facts.


Well, I'm not the one who asserted that there were loads of interactions in a location and then couldn't back it up. Hot air maybe ? :-)

Face it, you don't have anything; you simply don't like mountainbikes on trails, it's that simple. You have nothing to back that up as a logical conclusion ... it's just your personal prejudice.

Your logic is as twisted as your morality ... self serving to
the core. Have you no shame!


I do believe I'm winning ... the level of ad-hominem is usually in direct proportion to your failure to justify your premises.

The only assertions that are being demolished are yours.
Let’s leave it to the readers of this thread to draw their
own conclusions.


More than happy to do so.

The fact is that I just plain don’t like mountain bikers doing their thing on
hiking trails. And I don’t like those who defend what it is they do.


I get that ... that's my point ... you don't have any valid, objective reasons for this prejudice ... you just feel this way. What you don't get is that there is no moral imperative on me, or others, to pander to your prejudice.

You are
wrongheaded about everything having to do with this subject. And yes, you are
indeed selfish ... and morally corrupt to boot. Purgatory awaits you in the
next world.


So, I'm selfish because I won't conform to your desires for exclusivity ? Try arguing that one logically.

Let's end this ... we're both happy to let others judge the 'winner' of the debate and, in the end, that's all that matters since I doubt we're going to move each other very far.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home